Adrian Gonzales was one of the first to respond to the May 24, 2022, attack and one of two officers charged in connection with the law enforcement response.
Police are not required to help you under any circumstances. Period. They can literally watch you being stabbed to death and just decide they want to sit this one out. I’m surprised you’re just now finding this out.
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”.
Social security is a very different case, it’s designed to be a safety net, even in its inception. There is no claim or language that indicates it’s anything else.
Police however are prompted up by things like “protect and serve” and a lot of other language/guidance/media to be portrayed as protectors, when that’s not necessarily the case.
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.
Police are not required to help you under any circumstances. Period. They can literally watch you being stabbed to death and just decide they want to sit this one out. I’m surprised you’re just now finding this out.
When I want to see heads explode I mention
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”.
Social security is a very different case, it’s designed to be a safety net, even in its inception. There is no claim or language that indicates it’s anything else.
Police however are prompted up by things like “protect and serve” and a lot of other language/guidance/media to be portrayed as protectors, when that’s not necessarily the case.
Agreed, the SSA itself is not making claims that mislead the public.
I agree that’s a problem.
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.