On 2/17/2015 12:35 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in


We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but
all you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with
it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money from
somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him more cash,
and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some sort of sucker
who would give the contractor more money, but in the Real World, real
people call their lawyers.

Again your ignorance of the facts, and the actual law, is showing.

As I clearly stated earlier: by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in
'Flemming v. Nestor', SCOTUS clearly states, among other things with
regard to SS, that ***there is no contractual agreement between taxpayer
and government***.

You're wrong ... keep digging your hole.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)