It's earned benefits, not "entitlements". It's investment in America, not "deficit spending".

[alberg]

[anonymous171]

1. Correct. nt

[tonysam]

5. Wrong. "Entitlements" aren't the same as "welfare."

You paid into it, you're "entitled" to it. You pay into Social Security and Medicare, you are entitled to them.

That's all it is.

We don't need to play semantic games.

[anonymous171]

6. Yes we do. Reality is a social construct. You define the terms, you define reality.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. Absolutely. George Lakoff and I agree with you.

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml


This article is from SEVEN years ago!! One might have hoped that something might have been learned by now!!

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Sadly, we do.

[alberg]

16. But "semantic games' are how a large percentage of Americans have been tricked

into voting against their best interest. Words like "homeland security" and "War on Terror" and "Freedom" are continually used to mask activities that actually do not make us "secure", defeat "terror" or protect our "freedom".

Right now in everyday conversation among Americans, the word "entitlement" has come to mean paying money that the government can't afford to people who don't deserve it. This is the reason for the support in certain groups for "reforming" (i.e. cutting) Social Security.

We need to get in the habit of using words that have not been re-framed by the opposition and that accurately communicate what it is that we are actually saying. This is not just "semantics", it is the basis of successful political action.

[laughingliberal]

34. Whereas you may be technically correct, the RW here has been very successful in associating

the word 'entitilements' with welfare in people's minds. Semantics or not one of the reasons the left has been losing the debate through these past 3 decades if our failure to message properly.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Ask George Lakoff about this. No one in DC seems to pay any attention to his advice.

We MUST frame the debate and stop allowing the repukes to do it every single f**king time!!

[alberg]

3. Why is our leadership so reluctant to learn this simple lesson?

[Marr]

7. Because they don't want to win the argument.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. It would sure appear that way!!!!!

[glitch]

12. b i n g o nt

[glitch]

13. b i n g o nt

[Quantess]

22. It certainly does appear that way.

[lunatica]

25. That's because it's infinitely easier to dumb down than to smarten up

They frame the issue with easy sound bites that don't have anything to do with the truth or with facts. Anyone who follows them loses IQ points. Do you really want us to do that? If the Democratic party did that it would just be a branch of the Republican party.

[anonymous171]

30. No it wouldn't. Don't be ridiculous

Our policies would still be the same. We would just be using different means to deliver them to the populace. Oh and we could ditch the elitists who think that being a liberal is some kind of status symbol rather than a school of political thought.

[sandnsea]

4. It is, by law, entitlements

http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=143

"The ‘Lectric Law Library defines them as “A federal program that guarantees a certain level of benefits to persons or other entities who meet requirements set by law, such as Social Security, farm price supports or unemployment benefits. It thus leaves no discretion with Congress on how much money to appropriate, and some entitlements carry permanent appropriations.”

In other words, these are programs that any person can apply for and the criteria does not change from state to state. The Federal Government protects all people, no matter where they live. The people are legally entitled to the benefits enacted by federal law. According to the Brookings Institute, “First, entitlements are available on demand to those who qualify for them.” The most important examples of entitlement programs include Social Security, Medicare, Veterans’ Administration programs, military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, and food stamps."

[alberg]

14. By law, your "entitled" because you earned it. But the word "entitled" has been twisted around by

the right wing elite and the complicit media to mean "getting something you don't deserve" - like a handout.

Because this is now the popular meaning of the word (regardless of what the law says) we need to start using an alternate word that actually communicates the truth - which is that Social Security and Medicare are benefits that we worked our whole life for, payed for and cannot be denied simply because a politician or somebody in the power elite decides to twist the language around.

Businesses borrow and deficit spend all the time to finance growth - they call it investing in the future. Our governments can invest in the future by spending money on programs that create jobs for Americans that can't be outsourced thereby rebuilding consumer demand and improving our economy which will increase spending and tax revenues. It's demand side economics versus supply side economics and it helps the majority of citizens versus just the elite 5%.

[sandnsea]

17. No, you're entitled because we the people say so

We say there are certain things that are not at the whim of a politician. They MUST be funded because the people are entitled. Social Security and Medicare for the disabled, for instance, whether they "earned" it or not. Medicaid and Food Stamps, whether "earned" or not. Entitlements are the very core basis in which our values are expressed, these are the safety net. A benefit is something that can be taken away, they take employment benefits away all the time. These are not benefits. They ARE entitlements and we need to stop shying away from the word.

The only way to get around any of this is with a campaign in some of these red areas to start changing these perceptions.

[alberg]

19. Right now there are political winds blowing against "entitlements"

- but when I talk to folks about earned benefits they agree with me. We need to create political support for the programs we believe in. If we can more effectively use language to do that, I believe we should.

[sandnsea]

21. Some of them are never earned

They're human needs. Not extra benefits.

And they have been playing this "entitlement" game since the 80s. It's the reason we ended up with welfare reform. We either fight back with the explanation of the word "entitlement" or forget it, especially anything with the word "earned" in it because that's exactly what Republicans are saying, people are getting money that they didn't earn and that can be true with any of these entitlements.

[alberg]

24. Anything you paid for, you've earned. That's what makes it an earned benefit.

That's why it's important to distinguish with our language and choice of words between things that come to us as a result of a humanitarian policy, or charity etc. and those things that we have actually created out of our own labor. This is not to say that charity, and humanitarian efforts are not important and desirable. They are esssential in any humane society. But your charitable gift to me is just that, a gift,and you can decide tomorrow that you are no longer able or willing to extend it. And if you do I have no legitimate claim to it even though I may still have and unsatisfied human need. But something I've earned belongs to me. It cannot be denied to me. It cannot be taken away unless by an illegal act. Social Security amd Medicare fall in this category.

[sandnsea]

26. And these aren't all earned, they're not all earned

Did you read what I wrote? These entitlements have absolutely nothing to do with being earned. That isn't why they're entitlements.

They're Entitlements because we the people say that everybody with a disability is entitled to disability income, regardless of whether they worked. They're entitled to Medicare. They're entitled to food. If they meet a list of requirements that are standard across the country, THEY'RE ENTITLED. They DON'T have to earn them. That's the entire point.

I don't pay in my social security and then stop getting it after my "earned" portion has been paid out. I'm entitled to it until I die. Same with Medicare. And food stamps.

ENTITLEMENTS.

You have got to step back and shake your head and look at this from a new perspective. Remove the word "earned" from your head because it is specifically NOT necessary to EARN any of it.

[alberg]

27. If you don't pay into Social Security you can't collect. It's the payments that you make that

qualify you to collect. Some folks have not paid in enough to qualify so they have not "earned" the right to collect - in your preferred terminology - they are not entitled. There are other options for them to receive income assistance, food, shelter - but those things are not the same as something that has been payed for and earned. The fact that you can continue to collect even after the amount you paid is due to the design of the system - some people will die before what they paid in is all used up. the interest your money earned before you started to collect also extends the time. But you earned the right to collect anything at all by paying in a certain minimal amount.

It's like insurance on your house - if it burns down right after you make the first payment the insurance company will still pay you the full amount even though you only paid them a small fraction of what the house is worth. But if you didn't make any payments on the policy you would get nothing because you had not yet earned the right (by payment) to collect on that policy.

The people that are trying to do away with Social Security and Medicare are making exactly your point - which is that "entitlements" have nothing to do with being earned, that they are essentially charity from the Federal Government that the Federal Government cannot afford anymore and that therefore they should be cut back significantly or abolished. This is the reason why it is so important to remind those people that these benefits were taken out of the paychecks of folks their entire working lives and that payment due to them is not optional - it has to be honored when folks reach the age when they are able to collect.

[sandnsea]

28. No, that is not true

You don't have to work a day in your life to be entitled to SSD or a minimal amount of a benefit at your retirement age. EVERYBODY is entitled. As everybody under a certain income level is entitled to food stamps - whether they ever worked a day in their life. And Medicaid. The amount paid in has absolutely NOTHING to do with being ENTITLED to the basic needs of life.

In fact, the reason you think these are "earned" benefits is because you've listened to Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats tell you that you're whole life. "Earned Benefits" would be a Republican construct that they would use to eventually end any assistance a person hadn't previously paid for. That's what privatized retirement accounts would be, "earned benefits". You get what you earn and other people get what they earn, and if you don't earn anything, fuck off.

Entitlement means everybody is entitled to this basic level of assistance, although Republicans are pushing more and more limits as the idea of needing to "earn", no matter what your circumstances are, is pushed through society. "Earned Benefit" is actually counter-productive.

[sandnsea]

35. See #33

That's exactly where your frame takes us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7554582&mesg_id=7557551

[alberg]

37. I checked #33. It proves my point.

#33 mis-read the post, probably because I didn't put enough detail behind what I was saying in the original posting. #33's response indicates to me that he thinks I'm advocating doing away with "entitlements" which he interprets as meaning "leeches". And that is exaclty how many Amercians interpret that word after 30 years of right wing brain washing.

Here's my answer to #33:

I'm not trying to point to "leeches" or other abuses of the system. I'm trying to say that social programs and benefits that Americans have worked their entire lives to support (Social Security and Medicare) are being threatened by a language frame that seeks to portray them as "government charity for the undeserving". When my right wing neighbors talk about scaling back "government entitlement programs) I counter by saying: "Are you talking about my earned benefits, you know, the ones I've paid into for the last 40 years? Well, my governments not going to cut any of those. That's a contract between me and my government and it's not optional. It wasn't optional for me not to pay in. It's not optional for the government to pay me when I'm old enough to collect.

In the same way, right wingers will use the phrase "deficit spending" to stop any movement to use government money to improve the lives of Americans by creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, improving health care, improving education. But I refer to money spent on those things as "investments in America" and like any good investment these expenditures will, over time, create more wealth for the country, improve the quality of life for all Americans and, yes, even reduce the Federal deficit once increasing tax revenues kick in from a rejuvenated economy.

[truedelphi]

15. Good point. I had always ascribed a more sinister reason for this

Phrase being used. good to know the reason for it is more benign.

[alberg]

18. The original meaning of the word "entitlement" is benign, but it has been twisted around

by folks with sinister intent so that it is now understood by a lot of folks to mean "getting something that you don't deserve". If it's true that it was generally understood that "entitled" means that you have a valid and unchallengeable claim to something, then how can some people be so matter of fact in suggesting that it be taken away from you?

[BrklynLiberal]

10. George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

[madrchsod]

20. i think that`s in the first chapter of my econ 101 textbook

[fascisthunter]

23. Great Point...

kick

[blues90]

29. All I know is this . I paid into SS and disability and each year I got

The amount I was paid and what my benefits are. I paid in for 45 years, they take it right out of your check and you have no choice in the matter.

Yes I am entitled to that money and that promise. If any freak wants to try to take that away from me then that freak will have a problem.

Look , I did not run up the national debt , I did not start the wars or support them and I did not decide to hand out money to bail out other countries or banks or fucking wall street.

If they want to cut back on spending they better find a way to do it out of their own pockets and fine the ones who dug into this insane spending spree.

Take away the tax cut on the wealthy , they are not creating fucking jobs they are holding onto and gambling on wall street with that money.

On top of this I paid my taxes every single year and did not take all the add on deductions like charity and such and I paid my state taxes and everyone pays sales tax.

If the people in charge blew it on their own insane projects which I had absolutely no say in and in fact railed against that is not my problem. Let them sit their high paid asses down and find another way for they are the guilty ones not me or anyone else who paid into a SS fund that is for us not them.

Really, what the hell did I get for my fed income tax money taken out of my checks , some damn illegal war I did not start or support or money sent to some other country I have never been or signed onto support or to fund the military industrial complex and their weapons manufacturers or to pay the salery of some freak in the government who in fact give themselves raises without asking you of me .


Well , fuck that crap. Enough is fucking ENOUGH!

There is a constitution all of these freaks swore to up hold if they can't do that then get the hell out now. If they want a war then we the people will vote on it and those that do can pay for it.

How about this . It IS the peoples white house not GW's or Obamas and we want it back and you will do the peoples will or here is your damn pink slip , and there goes your healthcare.

If the people of the US are going to sit back and take this up the ass then we are fools and let me tell you I am no fool.

Every single one of their names who co-sponsor this damn commission is right within reach , toss the freaks out. Find out where ever dime they got came from and how, anything illegal toss them in jail and fine them to pay for their mistakes , make their lives a living hell since that's what they want to do to ours.
You pay for auto ins and it's an agreement and it's a law , once the payment is made and you have no claim it's in their profit bank , same thing with health ins yet they are allowed to cut you out at will just because they can, well the hell with that.

Now if you drive like an ass and cost them yes you should pay more but with health ins who are the ones who pump all the crap into the food and water and air that creates most of the cancers , the fucking corporations that's who. Did you or I create the damn auto, no , corporations did and they decided to use gas to power it, did we decide that there should be millions of cars on the road , no , they did this to continue on with what they determine and call progress , we had better transport decades ago and who took it away , well the freaks like GM who removed the rail systems in Los Angeles and then the same freaks built the smog pumping buses. Now people are supposed to build their damn cars for less than half of what they used to get and we are to pay 20 to 30,000 dollars for some pile of crap that lasts 5 years and then go out and get another when the parts become planned obsolete .

It is ENOUGH , more than enough. They got you by the short hairs until you decide to say enough is fucking enough.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strelnikov_]

32. "elected money grubbing whores of the highest order (except in latest Mass. election)"

Brown is one of the most despicable pieces of shit I have ever had the misfortune to observe.

He is even lower that the typical right-wing cockroach.

Hell, he was pimping his daughters out on election night. What a world class sack of right-wing shit.

[browntyphoon]

33. I agree

You pay into it, you get it back. Only equal to what you've put in.

A helping hand is good, a suckling teat is not.


We all need help from time to time but we need to weed out the leeches.

[alberg]

36. Thanks for the agreement but I believe you missed what I'm driving at.

I'm not trying to point to "leeches" or other abuses of the system. I'm trying to say that social programs and benefits that Americans have worked their entire lives to support (Social Security and Medicare) are being threatened by a language frame that seeks to portray them as "government charity for the undeserving". When my right wing neighbors talk about scaling back "government entitlement programs) I counter by saying: "Are you talking about my earned benefits, you know, the ones I've paid into for the last 40 years? Well, my governments not going to cut any of those. That's a contract between me and my government and it's not optional. It wasn't optional for me not to pay in. It's not optional for the government to pay me when I'm old enough to collect.

In the same way, right wingers will use the phrase "deficit spending" to stop any movement to use government money to improve the lives of Americans by creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, improving health care, improving education. But I refer to money spent on those things as "investments in America" and like any good investment these expenditures will, over time, create more wealth for the country, improve the quality of life for all Americans and, yes, even reduce the Federal deficit once increasing tax revenues kick in from a rejuvenated economy.