They should not be called entitlements.. they are earned benefits!!

[samrock]

Every time I hear some one from our side use the term entitlements I just want to slap them aside of their head and say.. NO!!! I PAY SS tax.. I PAY into medicare.. These are earned benefits.. Do no use the other-sides language.. Sheesh..When we will learn words have meanings..

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Entitlements also refer to benefits that are not 'earned' such as medicaid

[pnwmom]

5. self-delete

[upaloopa]

2. And cutting benefits is only giving into conservative

ideology. We purpose something that is good for the economy and they offer right wing ideology in return. If we agree to the compromise we further their agenda and use their lying talking points to do it.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. An entitlement is a thing to which you are entitled by exchange or by contractual agreement

Nothing wrong with the word, just with how you perceive that word. That which is yours because you earned it is an entitlement you hold. It means it is promised to you, that it belongs to you.

[Gormy Cuss]

37. +1

[pnwmom]

4. They are called entitlements because we are ENTITLED to them because we earned them.

This was our word from the beginning. Don't accept the way the other side twists language.

[liberal_economist]

6. my thoughts...

I disagree, its not earned benefits. How do you define 'earned'? If i work all of my life to earn my own income does that mean that when i retire or get injured or unemployed that i now have earned the right to a portion of someone elses income?

its easy to define' earned' as the individual working to earn their own income and property. Its much more difficult to define 'earned' as the individual retiring to earn someone elses income and property. Everyone agrees with the first definition, the second everyone doesnt agree with.

By definition they are entitlements, because the government uses force to entitle you to another individuals property. I say government uses force because its true. Suppose i disagree and i say 'no, i dont want to give you or the government my income or property', they will send agents to come and take it, to use violence if i resist, to use jail if i resist, and ultimately kill me if i continue to resist, all to take my property against my will, to give it to you, or someone else who feels they have earned whats mine.

this is purely a philosophical point. full disclosure so nobody accuses me of being some crazy libertarian randian. i fully support SS, i make 34k a year, and without it, id have no retirement at all.

but it is a complicated issue morally, do i have the moral right to use government force and violence to take other peoples property for my own benefit. i dont know.

[OldDem2012]

19. Okay, following your line of reasoning, do you have the right to drive on that portion....

....of the highway paid for by other taxpayers? Of course you do.

Additionally, the money taken out of your paycheck is paying for other people's current retirement. The money you use to retire will come from people still working.

You seem a bit paranoid...you might want to work on that.

[liberal_economist]

26. yes

i have the right to drive on it because i am forced to pay for it. i could always choose not to drive, but i chose to by a car and gasoline, which is what funds the highways, so its more of a userfee.

SS is a different thing entirely. i know that the money taken out of my paycheck goes to other people, thats the basis of my argument.

do these older people have the right to my income? do i have the right to other peoples income when i retire? if i do, its important to note that these rights are based entirely on the use of government force and violence, do i have the morally right to someones income and to kill them or lock them in jail if they resist surrendering it to me?

if you say yes, then you say we have no property rights at all, only a right to the property that the government allows to us. if you say yes, then you are in favor of the government using violence against other individuals that refuse to give up their property right to you.

whats the moral arguement, its complicated to me.

[OldDem2012]

49. I'm in favor of a Government that has a constitution that begins with the words,.....

...."We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I'll leave it at that.

Somehow, I think you may have stumbled on the wrong board. Read the terms of service:

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

[liberal_economist]

52. i'm a very liberal minded person.

I cant say im progressive, not at all, but i'm very liberal.

And the general welfare in the consitution doesnt mean what you think it means...

Read any constitutional historian, its not a debatable issue

[OldDem2012]

54. Your words....

SS is a different thing entirely. i know that the money taken out of my paycheck goes to other people, thats the basis of my argument.

do these older people have the right to my income? do i have the right to other peoples income when i retire? if i do, its important to note that these rights are based entirely on the use of government force and violence, do i have the morally right to someones income and to kill them or lock them in jail if they resist surrendering it to me?

if you say yes, then you say we have no property rights at all, only a right to the property that the government allows to us. if you say yes, then you are in favor of the government using violence against other individuals that refuse to give up their property right to you.

Sorry, but that's fringe political thinking, and doesn't fall under the definition of "liberal".

[liberal_economist]

57. it actually does fall under the definition of liberal

Almost all liberal political philosophers have agreed with this basic premise.

And the idea that its somehow fringe or unliberal to be against violence is insaine and scary to me.

Like i said, i'm not progressive, but i am infact very liberal, and very antiviolence.

[liberal_economist]

58. infact

If its my antiviolence position that rights come from our humanity, and therefor any rights that require violence is no right at all.

And you believe that rights come from government, and government uses violence to force people to give up heir rights to give them to you, then its your position that rights come from violence, which to me is entirely an antiliberal position.

Rights dont come from violence, but thats my opinion.

[magical thyme]

90. and if you choose not to drive -- which many city-dwellers do choose --

then you are forced to pay for the roads other people drive on.

It's called a social contract. You live in a society and you gain overall by contributing to that society. You may never choose visit a library, but your taxes pay for somebody else to use it. You may never choose to attend a community college, but your taxes help fund it.

You may not directly benefit from every program, but you directly benefit from some and indirectly benefit from others. For example, education levels (and therefore employability) rise, roads exist for those who drive goods to your city or town, or deliver packages to your door, base research (which private corporations can not do since it takes years before profitable) gets done, allowing corporations to subsequently turn the research results into treatments for disease or renewable energy, etc. The community college program enables people to study nursing, pre-med and other needed skills. You therefore indirectly benefit in that there is somebody available to care for you should you land in a hospital.

On the other hand, there are benefits from being part of society that you do directly gain, which somebody else who does not use helps to pay for. If you went to public grammar and high school, that was paid for in part by people who sent their children to private school.

The system of taxation enables us, as a group of people and as individuals, to accomplish and benefit far more than if we all refused to participate because 100% of the benefits didn't go to each of us individually. For example, the mortgage modification program didn't benefit me directly because I saved and bought my house cash. However, if they it puts a floor under the housing market, then I will benefit indirectly in that I'll be able to sell my home and downsize for retirement. Therefore, I support the program and I don't mind that my tax dollars support it. And there is another program right now that I do directly benefit from -- the income-based student loan repayment program -- and that is saving me from being forced to sell my home at half its market value in bankruptcy.

Social Security is part of that social contract. You pay social security taxes to help support the elderly today, so that you in turn will be supported when you are elderly. You may believe you will be one of the lucky ones that is able to save enough to support yourself when you are no longer able to, but as someone who had saved quite a bit and then was repeatedly defrauded and robbed, you can do everything "right" and still have things come out "wrong."

You individually may prefer that the elderly be left in the street to die, but our society as a whole does not want to function in that way for any number of reasons. You may prefer that I be thrown out into the street to die, but I can be a fighter and I suspect you wouldn't want me robbing you to feed my furfamily.

If you don't like the way our society works, you always have the option to move. You could go live off the land in the wilds of Alaska and never pay a dime in taxes. Or you could go to another country without a government and never pay taxes to that government . Somalia comes to mind.

[treestar]

88. Ever heard of FICA?

It is not someone else's income.

[DemocratsForProgress]

7. So you DON'T feel you're entitled to these benefits?

Is that what you're saying?

[liberal_economist]

10. philosophy

thats like saying youre entitled to the use of government force and ultimately violenceand death against other individuals to take their property for your own personal benefit?

[spanone]

25. bwahahahahahaaa

[liberal_economist]

30. ok

is my statement innacurate?

explain yourself...

[Gormy Cuss]

42. As an economist, you should enjoy reading this paper

http://darp.lse.ac.uk/papersdb/Fong_(JPubE_01).pdf

[samrock]

12. of course not...

We are fighting a war of words with the republicans.. Words are our weapons.. You can not drive the argument using their words.. Entitlement comes off as a weak word.. the republicans use to say look.. those guys want the government to give them stuff.. well earned benefits say we earned these..

[liberal_economist]

18. thats not a good arguement

it just begs the question, how could you earn something belonging to someone who youve never even met?

if youre only entitled to what youve personally earned, then whats the point of the SS tax at all? it just gives you whats already yours, its a wash.

so what you really mean is youve somehow earned someone elses property and are entitled to it by the use of government force.

atleast thats the other sides arguement it, and i dont have the philosophical answer to it because i'm not sure there is one.

[samrock]

20. No I earned the money that I pay as SS tax and medicare tax..

the government invests it.. so when I retire I get to use those funds.. same for medicare taxes.. by investing my funds I have earned the right to get them back when I retire.. or need them for medical expenses ( from medicare taxes)..

[liberal_economist]

29. youre right (kindof)

you did earn the money that 'you' payed into he SS tax but have you earned the right to others money?

do i have a right to a portion of your income? if you resist and say no do i have a right to send a government agent to your home to beat you, take you to jail, or to kill you if you resist, do i have a right to take your property whether you like or not just because the government made some law giving me the authority to do so? is such a law even just?

you are right that you earned the money that you payed as the SS tax, but thats it.

[stevenleser]

47. No, thats not it. He is entitled to the returns on 40-50 years of investments. That is a lot of

money. Its not just the raw amount he paid in.

And the analyses I have seen say that the average amount one pays into Social Security and Medicare combined plus the earned interest and investment proceeds is pretty close to the average amount one takes out of the two combined over their lifetime. The amounts are not far off.

[DiverDave]

89. So you are saying that 45 years

of paying in I dont deserve any of it?
Cue the looney tunes music.

Your crazy if you think I dont want, or DESERVE that money.

Think about the time frame... 45 YEARS, and counting...other peoples money my hairy ass
It's MY MONEY.

[Gormy Cuss]

39. Entitlement comes off as weak only if you let conservatives sell it that way.

Entitlement is a strong concept in terms of government programs. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Common Sense Party]

8. Wrong.

They're entitlements.

Nothing incorrect or wrong about calling them what they are. The recipients are ENTITLED to receive them.

You may want to take a relaxer...

[liberal_economist]

13. philosophy

sayig youre entitled to them is like saying youre entitled to the use of government force and ultimately violence and even death against other individuals to take their property for your own personal benefit?

it sounds so evil when its said like that.

[Common Sense Party]

31. It is not like saying that at all.

Honestly, I think you are WAY off target here. And perhaps on the wrong website.

[liberal_economist]

36. no

i already said i support SS, without it id be screwed when i retire, so i willingly pay into it.

still doesnt change the basis of the philosophic arguement over the issue.

what i'm curious about is what is the answer to what i said above, thats what i want to know. how was my statement wrong? because i dont have that answer. what i said seems valid...

[timdog44]

32. You are correct, they are entitlements

the way you describe them. Problem is the right wing has turned it into a dirty word, like they did to the word liberal.

And I am a liberal, proudly.

And I collect my entitlements, as promised, because I paid for them.

And I am a proud, patriotic American, and proudly pay my taxes, which is more than most of the right wing can say.

[liberal_economist]

9. another thought

on who is entitled to this.

the government claims that it is first entitled to SS money, not us. i think this is easy to point out with two simple facts. first, SS taxes are not earmarked specifically for SS, they come as regular tax dollars. second, they government spends our SS money at its own will, issues itself bonds to 'repay' what its taken, then taxes us a second time to pay the bonds its issued itself.

its actually pretty Fked up, i'm not blaming either party for it because theyre both at fault, but its a simple fact that SS money is property of the federal government, and not us, and they claim they have the primary entitlement to our income, and we're left with whatever they decide to leave us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. That's such a ridiculous distortion of reality that I can't take you seriously

You are just spouting crap, hoping someone falls for it.

"the government claims that it is first entitled to SS money, not us."

No. The government does not claim that.

"SS taxes are not earmarked specifically for SS, they come as regular tax dollars"

No, they (a) pay for current social security expenditure (b) go into a specific SS fund for future SS payments. The are earmarked.

"they government spends our SS money at its own will"

No, the fund lends money to the government, and will get it back, with interest. It has to lend it to someone to get interest; the US government is the safest entity to lend to.

"issues itself bonds to 'repay' what its taken"

This is just made-up crap; no-one who is an 'economist' would ever write that.

"then taxes us a second time to pay the bonds its issued itself"

No economist would write that either. You cannot even explain your own conspiracy theory in an understandable way.

"its actually pretty Fked up, i'm not blaming either party for it because theyre both at fault, but its a simple fact that SS money is property of the federal government, and not us, and they claim they have the primary entitlement to our income, and we're left with whatever they decide to leave us. "

Take this libertarian nonsense elsewhere. You don't even understand the normal libertarian argument well enough to express it. You are neither liberal, nor an economist.

[timdog44]

73. I am glad you put this person in place.

I exchanged a few words with him/her and got the same impression. Not a liberal and not an economist. But a selfish "I got mine and
FU" attitude. Sorry about the implied f bomb. I will remember the "liberal_economist" moniker.

[liberal_economist]

80. none of thats true

SS funds are not earmarked, the supremecourt has determined this in an investigation regarding a case against SS decades ago. SS funds are collected as general tax revenue that is not earmarked. This is a fact. Look it up.

As for everythig else you said. I challenge you to answer this question. How will the government get the money to pay back the SS funds it 'borrowed'?

the only answer is to retax us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. This is what marks you out as a right wing libertarian with no idea about economics

They will not 'retax' 'us' (to use the quotes you seem to love - the government does borrow, it doesn't 'borrow'). They will tax the taxpayers of the time. That is not 'retaxing'. But an ignorant right winger might think that it is.

"SS funds are collected as general tax revenue that is not earmarked."

Fine; give us a link, and a summary. And explain how the SS fund is built up, if the payroll tax is not earmarked for it (and for paying current SS.)

[cthulu2016]

11. Perhaps rather than slapping strangers you could learn what the word means

[RebelOne]

14. I am retired now and receiving my Social Security ENTITLEMENT.

I have worked for over 50 years and paid into the Social Security system and I am ENTITLED to those benefits. It really ticks me off to hear that the Social Security benefits are not entitlements. Has anyone ever checked the dictionary for the definition of entitlement?

Definition of ENTITLEMENT from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

[PoliticAverse]

15. They're entitlements...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement

1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

Don't you think the recipients have a legal right to their benefits ?

[Downwinder]

16. Social Security is a MANDATED insurance program.

[liberal_economist]

21. hmm

1, do we have a 'right' to other peoples property.everyone already agrees we are entitled to our own property and therefor we have a right to our property, which i think is what the webster definition is refering to. wether we have a property right and are therefor entitle to other individuals property is the real philosophical debate here.

2. 'a right to benefits specified by law or contact', first, this says by contact, i dont think anyone has officially signed a contract giving the government or anyone else the right to their incomes, so by contract its an assumed 'social contract, which is debatable. if i go over to my neighbors house and take his money, and tries to stop me, i say to him, 'no i am entitled to this because you are my neighbor' and therefor there is some implied assumed contract thathe never consented to that gives me a right to his property, is this legal? or is it technically theft?

the second says by law, which means by government force (violence, prison, death) if you do not surrender your property rights to the government simply because they have made some law declaring that you do so, is this tyrannical? is it morally acceptable that governments take away peoples rights and use violece against them, throw them in prison, or kill them if they resist? if this is the case, it implies that we have no rights under a government, only temporary privileges that can be removed at any time, our property taken at any time and our life taken at any time, do we live in such a tyranny? are we really all that free? do we have any rights at all? are laws thatr emove the rights of individuals just laws? do rights come from government or from our humanity?

as you can see, this is all more of a philosphy issue for me.

[Recursion]

40. Do we have a right to other people's property? Sure, in a lot of situations

I'd suggest reading Kant, Locke, and Hobbes for the basic arguments on this. Most of the western world decided the answer was "yes" several centuries ago.

[liberal_economist]

44. thats just question begging.

if most of the people decide for themselves they have a right to my property but i never gave them this right, and they then proceeding to take my property on a right that they have taken from me and given to themselves, is this not technically the definition of theft? the taking of another persons property without consent.

is it moral to do this? can some people vote to taken away the property rights of others?

i am roughly familiar with the lockean arguement, but i am not familiar with hobbes or kant on property right and political philosophy. i will look into it thanks for the recommendation.

[Recursion]

45. Of course some people can vote to take away the property rights of others

You're being naively doctrinaire if you pretend you don't know that.

Taking property from some people and giving it to others is the main things governments do, and this has always been the case. Your model of a society that takes the sanctity of property as its basis is, to my knowledge, not realistic anywhere or at any time in history.

[liberal_economist]

48. i understand that that is what government do.

my point though, is how is it technically not theft? how is it morally acceptable because its the government doing it, and not a band of robbers? the action is the same.

taking property from some people and giving it to others is the main thing governmenst do is 100% correct. but they way that they do it is by using force against otherwise peaceful people, locking them in prison, or killing them, for no other reason than that they chose to protect their property and not forfeit their rights.

do we then have any rights at all? or only the rights that the majority, or the government, allows us to have. And at that point, they can no longer even be considered a right, its a privilege.

So do i have a right to my income? Or do i have a privilege to whats left for my to keep by the government?

Some people wish to keep their property rights, some people wish to take others property rights, thats the main battle within politics.

I guess my theory is, if a right means you have to force someone else to give it to you, then its not a right, because no one has the right to use violence against anyone else, am i wrong?

[timdog44]

63. do you know

what insurance is?

[liberal_economist]

65. yes

Insurance is a program to access risk that people enter into voluntarily if they chose to do so!

Whats wrong with people acting voluntarily? Is it really morally right to use force and violence in society?

[timdog44]

69. Like when I buy a house

and can't get the loan unless I buy insurance.

[timdog44]

70. And you address 2 things.

You can still voluntarily contribute to a retirement fund.

And no, I do not think it morally right to use force and violence in society. Your point?

[Purplehazed]

78. Why taxation is not theft

You can't call it theft if one party is taking what is rightfully theirs and the other party had no right to it in the first place.

Taxation as theft is an idea espoused by Ayn Rand. It supports her theme that any collective activities are bad.

Government itself is a collective activity. It is apparent to most, that for certain types of activities, the best way to address them is as a community rather than individually. We generally recognize schools, roads, fire protection, defense as best performed as a group.
The framers of the constitution, probably without debate, recognized that they needed to do things as a group. So in writing the constitution which guaranties individuals rights, they also spell out the limited rights of the community. One of the rights of the community is to tax and spend money.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

So taxation is a limited right guaranteed to the Government that ultimately guarantees your rights as an individual. You don't have a right not to pay taxes. You are obligated to pay them. By not paying your taxes you are violating the rights of the community and that is what you are penalized for.

[Common Sense Party]

79. You say you are a "liberal economist," yet you believe that redistribution is theft.

That hardly fits with your moniker.

There are many here who would question whether you are liberal OR an economist.

Perhaps you could clear things up a bit: Please detail for us YOUR liberal economic philosophy.

We anxiously await your thesis.

[Progressive dog]

60. So what you are saying is that property rights trump everything

What kind of "philosophy" is that? How did you acquire your property? Did it come from or through others?
This sounds to me very much like "objectivism".

[liberal_economist]

64. basically, yes.

i came to acquire my property through ways that didnt require the use of violence. Either i purchased something, or made it.

Most property does come or through others. And as long as i obtain it with through consent then its ok, either they give it to me or i buy it , either way it doesnt matter.

But if i use force against them to take it from them against their will, that is technically theft, government doing it or a thug doing jt, its the same act with the same definition, and its criminal..

[Progressive dog]

66. You realize that this makes you on the RW side of the Repuplicans

at a minimum and that this is a Democratic web site. By using it's band width for this crap, after agreeing to it's terms of service, you are in effect stealing and by your own definition a criminal.

[timdog44]

72. Thank you for saying that.

It was as I suspected, a RW person, and not understanding what a society is and the responsibilities inherent in that society. I would suggest this person go elsewhere.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Your property is defined by government laws, and you obtained it with government help

This is what being a human being is about - we collect in groups, and agree on rules on how we live with each other. If you are a US citizen over 18, you get to vote on the maintenance of the laws.

The laws provide a framework for recognising what is your property, as opposed to someone else's. If you didn't have a government for that, you'd be defending it with your fists and stones, and you'd lose to someone bigger than you. The government also protects that property for you, both from outside and inside the country. It also maintains institutions like public schools; most Americans benefited from them, and they, in turn, keep the society going. These people who run society also pay into, and benefit from, social security, Medicare, etc.

Human life cannot exist in a vacuum; you need someone else to have children with, for instance. You cannot pretend that you can live completely outside society. You certainly can't pretend that while using a computer.

[spanone]

17. yes, and we're entitled to those earned benefits.

[NCTraveler]

22. Entitlement is the correct word. nt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Entitlements s the term used in the legislation

RW'ers have twisted the meaning.

[liberal N proud]

27. The right has done another fine job of framing things to their favor

We never stand up to these frame jobs and so they stick.

[riqster]

28. They are insurance products for which we have been paying premiums.

Simple as that.

[HiPointDem]

35. not really, since insurance is only claimed when you 'need' it. social security, at least, is not.

and medicare, ditto, as the claim is the right to see a doctor, even when you don't 'need' medical care, strictly speaking (e.g. for things like a regular check)

those two are universal benefit programs, not insurance programs, though there are some similarities.

[riqster]

46. That's a bit broad IMHO

Both may or may not be needed, depending on the individual.

On edit: I currently have health insurance, but I don't use it every day.

[HiPointDem]

51. they may, but need is not the criterion for benefits. an important point since so many on the

right *and* left want to reduce both to need-based welfare programs.

[riqster]

53. I'm not seeing how your two posts preclude the insurance designation

Please amplify

[HiPointDem]

59. I think it's clear.

[riqster]

62. No doubt you do.

[stevenleser]

50. That's not true. Insurance is also used as an investment vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_insurance#Investment_policies

[HiPointDem]

33. and the meaning of "entitlement" = something one is entitled to.

from the concept of 'having title' (i.e. some kind of deed or contract)

entitled past participle, past tense of en·ti·tle (Verb)
Verb

Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

[dawg]

34. Let's just call them "Social Security and Medicare".

The people know what that means, and they are on our side. (Even rank and file Republicans)

[bike man]

38. The fourth Wednesday of each month an amount to which I am 'entitled' is deposited into my

checking account. I am 'entitled' to this because I paid into the system beginning at age 17 (my first job), and had the good sense not to die prior to becoming old enough to receive this entitlement.

[Recursion]

41. That second bit is the one a lot of people screw up on

Good call.

[bike man]

43. Many years ago Johnny Carson asked a very elderly guest what was the secret

to her longevity.

She answered sweetly, "Don't die, Johnny."

[WinkyDink]

55. When you have a Pres. nominee stating that FOOD AND HOUSING are entitlements, well, yay, U.S.

[BlueStreak]

56. They aren't "earned" benfits. They are PURCHASED benefits

We all paid real money to fund these programs. We bought it. We expect to get what we paid for.

[duffyduff]

61. Entitlements ARE "earned benefits"

You paid for them, you are entitled to them. They are not welfare because they are not means-tested.

I wish people would stop with the semantic nonsense.

[99Forever]

71. We are entitled to these benefits...

.. because we earned them. You need to stop letting rightwing schlock redefine the actual meaning of words, instead of buying into their horseshit. Grow a backbone and push back, not knuckle under.

[ananda]

74. Agree!

I just found out that I qualify for both SS benefits (not that much) and complete Medicare. This came as a surprise to me because I worked for 31 years in a school district that did not pay into SS or Medicare, only into the state's teacher retirement system.

What happened is that the district I've been subbing for the past few years has been paying into SS without my knowing it. I knew I was paying into Medicare because they deducted for it, but not for SS. This is such good news!

I really hope that the government doesn't jump the shark on SS and Medicare. These earned benefits are important to old geezers and geezerettes like me.

[union_maid]

75. It has a legal definition

"An individual's right to receive a value or benefit provided by law."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entitlement

Some government programs are not really entitlement by that definition and some are. Section 8, for example is something that you might not get even if you meet the financial qualifications. There are only so many vouchers available at given time and some get them and others have to wait a long, long time. That's just one example. Social Security, OTOH, is a defined benefit that you are absolutely entitled to when arrive at a certain age. And that's why they're called entitlements.

[alc]

76. nobody is entitled to receive SS - earned or not

From a 1962 supreme court ruling described here www.ssa.gov
entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

Congress can decrease or even deny payments any time they want. They may face political grief, but not legal grief (i.e. we are not entitled to them base on what we paid in).

The great trust fund everyone talks about will run out about when I should start to get SS. I expect to receive no benefits unless congress has the guts to make changes very soon (raise taxes or cut benefits or something). 2034 (or 37,35?) sounds like a long time away but the changes need to change in the next couple of years or the trust fund is not going to last.

[Zax2me]

77. Many of those benefiting pay little to no taxes.

That is why President Obama has used the term entitlements in the past and present.
He uses it as an assumed general statement and certainly does not mean to infer it is all of those receiving govt assistance.

[Loup Garou]

82. liberal_economist is being claimed by FReepers as one of their own

Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2013, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

DUmmie FUnnies 03-02-13 (Lousy Freeper Troll speaks truth to DUmmies!)

Posted on 3/2/2013 6:02:30 PM by Charles Henrickson





edited to correct spelling

[MineralMan]

84. Thanks for bringing us a reference to that website. :sarcasm:

One of your favorites, I assume...

[Loup Garou]

86. Why would you assume that?

I check it out a couple of times a week. It's good for opposition research.

[MineralMan]

87. OK. As you say.

[aptal]

85. What a bunch of idiots.

[Yo_Mama]

83. "Entitled" means that you have a right to it

I don't think your quibble with the language is appropriate.

Maybe to you "entitlement" has come to connote "something you don't have a right to have", but that's your understanding, and not what the word means.

The law in the US (SC) is that none of us have a right to these benefits, but the language used to describe them is different, because under current law (until the trust funds run out), we do. Of course that can legally be changed at any time, and it will be within a decade.

But the language is not a problem. The budget deficit is the problem.