fratermus

There is no claim or language that indicates it’s anything else.

Agreed, the SSA itself is not making claims that mislead the public.

Police however are prompted up by things like “protect and serve”

I agree that’s a problem.

a lot of other language/guidance/media to be portrayed as protectors, when that’s not necessarily the case.

I don’t want to beat the dead horse, but IMO the public language/guidance/media discourse regarding the SSA is as misleading as “to protect and to serve”.

If I were pushed I might say that the security part of social security is an implied guarantee that it will provide security of some kind. It does bolster financial security for many at the moment, but there is no guarantee it will do in the future.

Yet they demand our obedience and cooperation.

And people willingly bootlick these brave heroes who “f34r for muh life!!!” and start blasting when an acorn falls. Or when they step in front of a moving vehicle.

Police are not required to help you under any circumstances.

When I want to see heads explode I mention

• Warren v District of Columbia (the basis for the situation you mention); and
• that Social Security doesn’t work the way people think
  • there is no personal account that holds your contributions
  • you have no right to get any of your contributions back in your old age – the benefit is defined by Congress and they could make it whatever they want (including nothing)

In both cases one are required by law to pay but the recipient is not required to perform. As they say, “it’s good to the the king”.