Just a thought...

[Javaman]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV either. So I will be talking mostly out of my ass here.

That said...

Suppose SS is cut. Is it at all feasible to for the citizens of the U.S. to launch a class action lawsuit against the cutting SS?

:shrug:

[HereSince1628]

1. I'm just speaking out of my ass too, but I'd say No.

I don't think a change in policy will be seen as a breech of promise.

[Goldstein1984]

2. I believe anyone who paid into SS would have

both standing and a cause for action.

I'm currently reading "The Anti-American Manifesto" by Ted Rall, and it makes me think cutting SS might be cause for another kind of action.

The corrupt, undemocratic system in which we now find ourselves can never be changed from within. We need another Shays' Rebellion, and I'm confident we're on that path.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

3. Well, consider this . . .

. . . from the Social Security Administration's website:

"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

"In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right."

[Javaman]

4. That gives me some relief. :) thanks

Why then isn't anyone from the Dems stating this?

Don't answer that. LOL I already know the answer. LOL

Cheers!