Social Security is not an Entitlement!

[MannyGoldstein]

I'm sick of hearing that Social Security is an "entitlement", as if it's some sort of second-class government obligation.

Social Security is a fucking pension plan, that we paid into. If a private pension plan changed the rules after folks were paid in, the people running the plan would go to jail. I suggest that any motherfuckers who attack Social Security enjoy the same treatment.

[Cleita]

1. K&R

[rucky]

2. That's an entitlement.

It's not a bad word in this context - it's just what it is. Something we've paid into and are entitled to receive.

There are few actual entitlements in life, I say we dig in and defend it.

[unblock]

8. agreed. it's just one of those many good words republicans say with a sneer so often

all part of their brainwashing.

[AtheistCrusader]

104. They are misusing the word, not you.

[NorthCarolina]

40. Unfortunately the money in Social Security has been replaced by IOU's

that the government has no desire to make good on.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Those IOUs are also known as "Treasury Bills"

The Chinese and many other folks will be very interested to hear that we intend to default on Treasury Bills.

[customerserviceguy]

155. The Chinese own T-bills and notes

that can be traded on the open market, the Social Security Trust Fund does not have those kinds of securities.

[TxVietVet]

161. It was be disasterous to the economy

if the government were to default on those bills. The conservanazis keep screaming that SS is broke. It's not.
WE need to counter this vicious attack on SS and call for adjustments for the rich folks to pay on ALL their income not just to the limit set by law right now.

[PoliticAverse]

166. "Special Issue Securities" not T-Bills

The "IOUs" in the Social Security Trust fund are not T-bills or Treasury Notes or Treasury Bonds or any oher type of security that are sold to the general public but are a type of security that was created just for the trust fund that they call "Special Issue Securities". They earn interest for the trust fund and the trust fund can redeem them at any time if the fund needs money (since the govt budget runs at a deficit if the securities are redeemed the govt would have to borrow money to come up with the funds).

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

[eShirl]

52. Well it's not optional. n/t

[Enthusiast]

80. Read post # 43. nt

[Enthusiast]

79. But like the word 'liberal', entitlement

has been demonized and dragged through the mud by the Reich Wing media.

[femrap]

115. Isn't SS really

a type of 'Insurance' program? If one becomes disabled or loses a parent? And it's insurance for one's old age. Isn't that how it was originally 'framed' by FDR?

I do agree with you about the smear of the 2 words, liberal and entitlement.

The rich think they are ENTITLED to pay little to no taxes...that's how I like to use the word!

[Enthusiast]

172. Whatever it is called,

it will be characterized as 'government gone wild' by the Reich Wingers. They are ideologically opposed to anything that helps working class people. Even if the working class people pay for it!

The GOP would take us back to the days of the Grapes of Wrath. And that is a fact.

[femrap]

173. I have no doubt of

that. I already feel it personally.

[Enthusiast]

174. Yes, it is tangible...nt

[JDPriestly]

131. "Entitlement" is a Republican frame.

I have been horrified to hear Obama and other Democrats use the term.

Social Security benefits are a government debt. Working people paid money to the government, which the government must pay back like it pays back any other debt. (It's required by the Constitution.) Some of the money that we paid into Social Security was used to pay current recipients; some was placed, as I understand it, into government bonds.

The US government must pay the promised Social Security benefits just like it pays other debts. Can you imagine the US government hiring Halliburton to provide services and then not paying for those services?

Can you imagine people buying government bonds and then being told, "Sorry, those bonds are just "entitlements." We are not paying you back."

The Republican framing on this is just disgusting.

We paid in. We receive benefits. If you put money in a bank, you are supposed to get interest (although you really don't get much if any these days). Over the years, the value of the money we put into Social Security in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc. has increased.

When I first put money into Social Security, a decent house cost $13,000. A Coke cost either five cents or a dime.

We as individuals do not get back exactly to the penny what we put in plus interest. In fact, many among us who died before reaching 65 will never receive anything back. That is the contract that we entered into with our government when we started paying into Social Security.

"Entitlement" is a word thought up by Republicans who want our government to default on debts -- who want to breach the contract that our government entered into with working people long, long ago.

I strongly object to the use of the word "entitlement." As a generation, we earned the money we put into Social Security. It's a good, fair system. It actually relieves the burden from the government of having to pay for the needs of the elderly, disabled and orphaned from the general funds.

Social Security is a debt -- just like government bonds. Don't forget it.

[TxVietVet]

163. The conservanazis like to use the word "entitlements" to define

any and all government pensions or handout. Now, diehard conservanazi rethugs will even say that VA benefits and medical disability payments are 'entitlements' and should be done away with. They are against any and all government entitlements unless it benefits the richest or it's paid to corporations for stealing us, the people, blind.

[TBF]

3. Agreed. nt

[Mimosa]

4. It's a pension plan WE pay for!

Good reminder, Manny. :)

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Holy moley! Even this gets un-reced

I guess we know by who.

I'll bet not a single un-recer of this thread will post.

[kenfrequed]

71. Don't worry I recced it back up.

I have parents and grandparents that aren't millionaires and billionaires and I actually love and care for them. Anyone that would support privatizing or cutting social security either has no monetary worries, hates old people, or is a friggin idiot.

[pnwmom]

6. "Entitlement" isn't a bad word, IMHO. We ARE entitled to it because

we pay for it.

It's not a social welfare program -- which I support as well, however.

[PeaceNikki]

7. Many who are alive today will collect 2-3 times what they put in

So it kind of is.

[ProSense]

17. Most people don't get that.

A person collecting $1,200 or $1,800 per month likely never put more than $300 or $400 into it monthly.

[JuniperLea]

23. Some people die before they collect anything at all...

Some people put money into it knowing full well they won't collect a dime... undocumented workers using fake SS numbers, or the SS number of someone who is already dead, for example.

[BigD_95]

126. thats the price they pay being undocumented workers

[Fearless]

35. You don't contribute to pay for yourself. You pay for those collecting now...

In theory. And the next generation pays for you. The numbers work that way financially. Otherwise, inflation will always be your downfall.

[ProSense]

37. That's true, but

the simple fact is that the program is more complex than claiming "I paid into it."

The fact that there are people who will pay into it over varying periods of time, some who pay into a short period of time and survivor benefits involving kid up to 18 years old, means that the program cannot be compared to a traditional pension.

[JDPriestly]

134. It is a government debt based on a contract the government made

with working Americans.

I make a similar contract with my insurance company. If my house burns or is destroyed in an earthquake, they pay me to replace my house.

I have been living in the same house for many years and paid my insurance premiums regularly the whole time. My house has never burned. I have never received a single cent in benefits from my insurance company. My neighbor's house burned (quite recently). She will receive benefits, possibly from the money I paid to the insurer.

That's the contract. That's the agreement.

And yes, young people pay for their parents' support when the parents are elderly. It's been that way since the beginning of time. It's the mirror image of the way that parents care for those same children when the children are young. That's part of the human condition. Get with the program. Your parents did not create this system. Either God or nature did.

Don't resist the inevitable. Social Security is a sensible, practical way to make sure the elderly, the disabled, the orphaned don't die from hunger, cold and heat.

And if you think that saving your money will provide for your dotage, look around you. Nobody is saying much about it, but those seniors who saved and pinched pennies and did without so that they would have a nest egg for retirement either lost all their money in the bankers' robbery of ordinary folks in 2008 or are now getting no interest and actually losing their nest eggs. The savings of your parents have been converted into the bonuses of the Wall Street thieves.

If you want to see "entitlements," you need to look at the fat bonus checks of the greedy brokers and hedge funders on Wall Street. That's where the money is.

[PoliticAverse]

165. Fleming vs Nestor, SS is not an enforceable contract

Although your contract with your insurance company is likely enforcable in a court of law, your "contract" with Social
Security is not. You have no legal right to any specific benefits no matter how much you may have paid into the system.
This was affirmed/codified in the Flemming vs Nestor supreme court decision in 1960:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

[JDPriestly]

170. Not the first time the Supreme Court was wrong.

We pay the money into a specific fund and are assured it is for a specific purpose. The government should be estopped from claiming that it does not have to provide benefits.

In the end, it will be a political issue. And any party, any candidate who actually votes significantly to reduce Social Security benefits now or in the future will not fare well in elections. It is a politically untenable thing to do.

[exboyfil]

62. Unfortunately since 1983 that is not how the plan has been

run. In 1983 evaluating the actuarial health of the program, Congress did a wise thing (or did they?) to make Social Security solvent for the foreseeable future by upping the contributions. This changed S.S. from a pay as you go system to a hybrid (a portion still pay as you go with the difference covered by the extra contributions). The intent was to have this extra, invested in Treasuries, be drawn down over time. The Social Security system becomes another government debt holder.

The "Catfood Commission" is now saying, wait a minute you actually want to cash in your Treauries to pay promised benefits? This means we have to raise additional general revenue, reduce our general revenue spending, and/or borrow from other folks besides the Social Security Trust Fund. We don't want to do any of the three. Unfortunately, you are not like the other bond holders and we don't plan to treat you like the other bond holders. Bull!!!! The $2T+ in the S.S. Trust Fund represents the blood and sweat of millions of Americans. We will get that money. I can't even imagine such a commission is going on under a Democratic president. Given the larger issues with the Federal budget, S.S. which still has many years before the Trust Fund is to be drawn down is the least pressing issue.

[Enthusiast]

83. Right on! nt

[Toots]

72. Sure they do...It is a part of their income they don't see, their employer puts it in for them..

Every dime that one pays to SS and Medicare is matched by the employer...One could say the exact same thing for employer provided Health insurance..It is a part of your salary that you never see.

[freedom fighter jh]

85. But the money's worth a whole lot less by the time they get it.

Once you account for inflation, they are not getting as much as it seems in proportion to what they put in.

And for most people the retirement years are a much shorter time than the working years. If your retirement is only one-third as long as your working years and you are getting three times as much per month as you put in, then you are coming out even.

[hfojvt]

96. that's not a fair comparison

If you work from when you are 20 until you are 60 that is 40 years of tax payments. Most people are not gonna collect benefits for 40 years. They will pay in for more months than they collect.

Here's what I figured. Back in 2006 I made $22,924. According to my benefit statement for that year if I kept working until age 62 I could collect $656 a month. At age 67 I could collect $993 a month (but I think retiring at age 62 is a better deal). So then I projected forward and back on how much I would have paid in (including what my employer paid) and figured a 5% return on my investment. Using those figures I got a nest egg of $175,170.51 by 2024. 5% of that is $8758 a year but my benefits only pay $7872 a year. Put another way, my investment only pays 4.5% and the government gets to keep the $175,000 that I paid in.

That does not seem like a good investment for me as a $20,000 a year worker, but perhaps the benefits would go way up too over $656 a month after 18 years of COLAs. The other part is that lately a 5% return is not that easy to get, not with a safe investment. I am gonna recalculate things though, using actual t-bill rates.

The other part is age 67 and the higher payments. Taking it to age 67, the nest egg becomes $239,972.92 and 5% of that is $11,963 a year and the benefits only pay $11,916. So less than a 5% return and I never get my $200,000 back.

[JDPriestly]

135. hojvt, your post is shortsighted.

Social Security was created during the Depression at a time when jobs were scarce and many people who had owned property had been foreclosed and lost their businesses.

The banks had taken everything these people had.

For those who could get jobs as the economy recovered, the solution was simple. Work and save and get another nest egg.

For those who were elderly, working to save another nest egg was not an alternative.

So, Roosevelt started Social Security.

The value of Social Security is that it is independent of the banking/saving system. If you lose your home, your business and go into bankruptcy, all your assets are taken by your creditors -- except your right to Social Security or money you may have put in trust in other such pension funds. Most of us do not have the means to set up the types of pension funds that cannot be reached by creditors. So, Social Security is, as the name suggests, our last, secure source of a small (and it is very small) livelihood in our final years.

It has worked very well all these years. It is working well now as seniors are being thrust from the job market by the lack of work.

[dixiegrrrrl]

140. Your figuring leaves out a few things

1. For the first time, we got no COLAs for 2010, and I doubt there ever will be COLAs again.
They have changed the figures they use to generate Colas ( we ALL know prices are and have been increasing).
Gov't wins, we lose.

2. Out of that admittedly small Soc. Sec. check you will get,
there will be deductions for Medicare if you sign up for Part B, or Part D.
Part B monthly premiums NOW are 102.00, so subtract that from your anticipated check.
And those premiums WILL increase.
As will co-pays and deductibles from any of your Medicare coverage.

The fact is, the people who made enough money to get a decent monthly check from Soc. Sec. will most likely have
enough money coming in from other retirement sources.
The average check is 800.00, I read.
That does not go far these days.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. put 300-400 in monthly for 40 years, collect 1200 monthly for 12 years.

You have a problem with that?

[awoke_in_2003]

152. yes he does...

and he will be the first to cheer when the retirement age is raised. He will hail it as another Obama victory.

[flyarm]

132. you sure as fuck don't get what SS is about ..or you don't give a damn about fucking anyone as long

as you get your posting pay!

[JDPriestly]

133. A Coke used to cost a nickel.

We get back our money -- in today's dollars plus interest. There is nothing unfair about it. The average Social Security benefit is less than $1200 per month. If you get $1,800 per month, you earned a lot of money and paid a lot in.

The Social Security benefit is, on average, just enough to keep an elderly person above the poverty level -- by a few dollars. In fact, many people on Social Security receive far less than the poverty level -- a bare subsistence. Check your facts, ProSense.

Try living in Los Angeles or San Francisco on $1,200 per month. Ain't easy.

[juajen]

157. Really? You aren't leaving much room for inflation are you?

When I first began working, I only made $200 a month. So, percentage wise, my money then is worth much more in todays dollars.

[JuniperLea]

22. And many will die before collecting one red cent...

It all comes out in the wash... it was planned that way.

[ProSense]

26. So how do you avoid that?

End the program? Let people do what they want with their money? Pay benefits earlier? What about the people who die even younger than the new age minimum?

[JuniperLea]

28. It's a risk, no question...

Under no circumstances would I support letting people do what they want with the money... that would mean investing it in the stock market horse races... and that action seems shady as all hell. There's no guarantee in life, but you pay your bills anyway, right? It's all based on average life expectancy, etc. One plan of action isn't one size fits all. I think the program should stay in place.

[PeaceNikki]

27. I get that.

But the discussion started about whether it's an entitlement. The textbook definition of entitlement is: "A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group."

[JuniperLea]

29. But that's not the same thing...

A government program would be tax funded. This program is self-funded by those who plan to eventually take the monthly payments.

[truedelphi]

39. Thank you for your common sense answer.

The statistics on people dying before they retire keep getting more and more encouraging as far as Social Security solvency goes.

Both my ninety year old mom and myself have lost our two best friends.

Mine died at ages fifty three and fifty nine.

Hers at eighty five and eighty seven.

Cancer is really thinning the ranks of the Baby Boomers.

But the experts never mention that.

[JDPriestly]

137. One of my parents died in his early 60s. The other is still

living in her 90s. That averages out to about 75. They both paid in. Only one has every received benefits, and her benefits are very small.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. After accounting for interest?

You have data to back that up?

[JuniperLea]

30. Good call...

I didn't even think of that.

[ProSense]

34. Most definitely

If someone pays in for 40 years and collect for 15 years, they're likely collecting twice as much.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Link please?

Thanks!

[ProSense]

41. Social Security

looks nothing like a traditional pension.

more

[MannyGoldstein]

56. I don't get your point

Those pages have to do with "quarter credits" - what do they prove? Perhaps you can just post why SS is so different.

Thanks.

[W_HAMILTON]

67. Not even close to the truth.

You have to factor in the time value of money, which, yes, includes interest. We could haggle over what interest rate to use, but I chose a moderate rate (5%) using a well-known example of a person close to me, and they certainly did not come close to collecting twice as much as they put in given your time frame.

[Radical Activist]

55. True. It isn't a pension plan.

Many people are emotionally invested in making sure they aren't taking anything that can be called anything close to welfare.

[JDPriestly]

138. If you pay into a property insurance policy, you may receive far more

than you have paid in, or far, far less. Most people receive nothing in insurance benefits and pay in every month.

[Hannah Bell]

59. and many will not. perhaps the problem is you don't get it.

[PeaceNikki]

60. I get it. Don't act like I am some right-wing asshole, ok?

It is an entitlement and I have a problem with the demoralizing of that word. Entitlements are not bad.

[Hannah Bell]

61. my error, then.

[Greyhound]

64. Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

It is true that the earliest recipients did get more than they paid, but that has not been the case in any of our lifetimes.

Your SS benefit is based on your contributions and almost everybody is going to work far longer than they are going to live after retirement. The surplus (those 'worthless' interest bearing IOU's) was created in order to accommodate the size and projected longevity of the Boomers and was intended to be paid down from the beginning.

[harun]

70. So if you invest in stocks and get 2-3 times the return someday is that an entitlement too?

How did DU get this dumb?

[flyarm]

130. bullcrap..many generations we paid for that never paid into it or paid very little into it

the baby boomers have paid into it more than any generation!

Now we are about to get fucked out of the money we paid for our pension/security that we had no choice of funding!

[JDPriestly]

141. True. Baby boomers paid in more because it is believed that

the burden on the next generation to cover the benefits of the big population bulge that the baby boomers formed would be too great.

In fact, the economy has fallen apart anyway.

The bankers hovered like vultures over the savings of the baby boomers and swooped just as the first baby boomers were about to dig into their retirement funds.

Without Social Security, the baby boomers waste away in misery.

That money that was lost by the stock market -- that was the retirement funds of the baby boomers and seniors. I wish I could tell you how many of my baby boomer friends have lost their jobs, businesses, savings, credit ratings, homes, everything.

This depression has devastated the baby boomers. But most of them are too proud to scream about it. I hope there is a special place in Hell for the Wall Street thieves and the bankers.

[flyarm]

168. And please do not forget those elected in our government that were equally responsible,In Both

Parties.

Some more responsible than others..but equally to blame for looking the other way, while we the people are robbed blind!

And the robbers roam freely!

[stray cat]

9. I am entitled to my wages and that includes social security - politicians don't call their pensions

Entitlements

[stray cat]

12. The pensions and health insurance of politicians are government and tax funded entitlements

That is one place to make cuts

[JuniperLea]

31. Exactly...

Tax funded would be entitlements... self funded is not.

[glitch]

10. Don't accept their definition of entitlement.

K & R anyway :)

[RKP5637]

11. Exactly!!! I paid into it for over 50 F'en years. One half century!!! I am so so so pissed with

with people trying to say we're robbing the system of something. Screw it, may they age 50 years in one day and then go F'en deal with their ignorant remarks.

[pa28]

63. I'm afraid I'm going to end up just where you are now.

Paying for 50 years into the system and then have my mandatory savings declared "worthless IOU's". I don't think I'll have to wait though as it seems to be happening now.

Banks exploring the theoretical boundaries of leverage and then losing get bailed out by the full faith and credit of the government. Unfortunately it looks like SS savers are expected to take a haircut to subsidize those poor guys and maintain them in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed.

[RKP5637]

92. I had one R tell me "what would we do if the really wealthy took their money

and left the country..." I told them we would all be better off and a better country for it... that in no way should we lavish these greedy grifters with more and more money. One clear failure of the system is that the lending rate is held at zero.

[JDPriestly]

142. The banks just don't want your generation to have a secure

source of income in their elderly years.

Your generation will have Social Security benefits if you don't fall for the propaganda being repeated over and over to you.

There really isn't any alternative to Social Security. It has to exist.

What other investment can you count on? Look at what happened to the money people invested in their homes, in the stock market, etc? It evaporated.

Social Security will be there for your generation if you keep cool and stop watching so much TV and listening to so much talk radio. The Koch brothers and their ilk are paying to brainwash you to fear Social Security. It will be there for you, unless you let the people on the right get a hold of it and on your mind.

Resist the brainwashing of the right.

[ProSense]

13. It's an entitlement program

because it also covers children (under 18) of disabled, retired and deceased workers.

[stray cat]

14. Like the estate tax that the GOP calls so evil? I pay into disability

[ProSense]

19. You also pay into unemployment

but that isn't likely to cover the unemployment benefits you would recieve.

[W_HAMILTON]

68. Employers pay for unemployment insurance, not employees.

n/t

[eggman67]

84. That varies by state n/t

[W_HAMILTON]

86. Please explain...

...which states require an employee to pay FUTA?

[MikeMc]

94. Excerpt from ProSense's Social Security (and Unemployment )Link

TITLE VIII- TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT

INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES

SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
(1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 « per centum.
(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.
(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 « per centum.
(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.

DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM WAGES

SEC. 802. (a) The tax imposed by section 801 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid. Every employer required so to deduct the tax is hereby made liable for the payment of such tax, and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any such payment made by such employer.
(b) If more or less than the correct amount of tax imposed by section 801 is paid with respect to any wage payment, then, under regulations made under this title, proper adjustments, with respect both to the tax and the amount to be deducted, shall be made, without interest, in connection with subsequent wage payments to the same individual by the same employer.


PS's full link to Social Security (and unemployment)is post # 82 on this thread, but here it is again:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html

It's ironic that I'm citing ProSense, because I'm headed down there to disagree with him. Manny G. rules.

[ProSense]

119. What point are you making exactly?

That there are payroll taxes?

[MikeMc]

158. Sorry Pro, didn't try to be disagreeable.

I appreciated your SSA link, so I recommended it twice in posts. I was just telling Ham that the link in your post (#82) showed how employees (all American citizen employees) pay Federal Unemployment Insurance tax. It seemed a big find for me, since I've been saying this in posts on this site, about 6 times. I was telling him that Title VIII, on the SSA link you posted, defined the fact that American workers pay for the 6 following programs with payroll deductions:

"The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935)
An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws"


I only had a minor disagreement with your post 82, because I felt semantically that Manny G. was right with 'pension' more than you were with 'entitlement'. My post 95:

" 'Entitled to receive' in section 202 makes it seem like a Frank Luntz style 'entitlement', but it is an 'old age benefit payment' that Title VIII makes clear is paid for by all employees, then paid to an employee after 'the age of 65' (upon retirement). Which sounds suspiciously like a pension."

So I liked Manny's OP, and disagreed with your 'entitlement'. I swear I didn't mean to be disagreeable with you, I undertake to never praise Manny's viewpoint, through words, on any more of his original posts, in order to apologize further for my disagreeability.

[eggman67]

127. Pennsylvania, for one

Has an employee contribution component to unemployment insurance. IIRC, NJ and CA do as well.

[JDPriestly]

143. You have a strangely egotistical view of the world, ProSense.

People do things together. It's called society.

Social Security is a cooperative way to provide for each other, to provide for those among us who are elderly.

There are just some things you can't do for yourself. One of them, in most cases, is earn your living when you are old.

Something like 50% of people over 65 have a disability.

Your view of the world is warped. Get a life. Reach out to other people. Find out what it is like to love, live and work with others. Sorry to get so personal, but your posts indicate that you must be a rather isolated person.

The fun in life is loving and being with others. No man is an island. That is the truth for each of us. Get off your island. I say that to all who think Social Security is unnecessary or a scam.

Social Security is like a pot luck dinner -- the best kind of social event. It's like Thanksgiving dinner in a big family. Everyone brings a little something and everybody eats from what everyone else has brought. We don't run our whole economy that way. It's something very special that makes a society, a family -- the sharing.

It's no different than paying insurance or anything else in which chances are you may bring more than you take away. Good heavens, how could anyone grow up with this basically antisocial view of life?

[MannyGoldstein]

25. That's a tiny bit of it.

It's basically a pension program.

[juajen]

162. If you're retired and drawing ss, you get no money from ss for a child

unless such child is disabled and then, if the child has never paid into ss, then the child would receive ssi, not ss. When my husband became disabled I had to stay home to care for him. I had small children and received ssi until they were 18 yrs. old. Before changes were made to ss in the seventies, if a husband died, his children were educated by ss, and his wife started receiving his benefits then also. A lot of changes since then, and, frankly, I believe all of the changes are detrimental to what ss was always supposed to be. My husband paid the maximum into ss for many years, and when he became disabled, I could stay at home with him because hiring a nurse for him and a nanny for the children would have been prohibitive. The ssi for my children still saved medicare a lot of money. We had to live very frugally, and my children could only go to college with financial aid. SS is quite simply the only thing that saves this country from thousands of situations like mine. If not for ss we would have been on the street. We need to improve it, not cut it. The ideas given for doubling ss because of how much money it would put into economy are very wise.

[MichiganVote]

15. Oh come on now. Hannity pretty much told me its welfare for old people you know.

:puke:

[catrose]

156. As a self-employed person

for 90% of my working life, I've payed both halves of SS, and I WANT IT BACK LIKE WAS PROMISED.

[TheWraith]

16. No, it is NOT.

Let's not perpetuate that myth, shall we? You do NOT pay into Social Security, then get your money back. Current workers pay for current retirees. New workers pay for new retirees. It is NOT the same as a pension plan.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Same as many other pension plans.

People pay in under certain rules, they get paid under those rules. Few pensions have an individual lock box for each employee.

[JuniperLea]

32. Sorry... that's how pension plans work too...

Why do you think there's all this talk about walking so many of those pensions back?

[TheWraith]

57. Not quite.

Pension plans typically pool contributions and invest them, paying out to workers at a later date. They don't bundle the contributions together and ship them straight off to retirees.

[JDPriestly]

146. Actually, it depends on the type of pension -- TheWraith.

Defined benefit pensions used to be rather common.

[JDPriestly]

144. Think of a pot luck supper. Everybody puts something on the

table and then gets a meal. Of course, with Social Security, you bring not a dish, but a specific, agreed percentage of your income.

Fair enough. And when the bank comes and takes your house and puts a lien on all your assets including your bank accounts, you will still be eligible for Social Security (although it is not entirely safe from creditors).

[Crazy Dave]

18. And we will eventually be entitled to it....when we're 70

But I have heard recently that there is a very strong possibility of it going up to age 72 by 2024.

[ProSense]

20. The idea that all FDR created was a huge saving account is

what Republicans want people to think. That's why they want to cut benefits and allow that money to be diverted to private accounts. After all, it's each person's money and each person should be able to decide where to put their own money for retirement.

[JuniperLea]

33. Right... so Goldman Sachs can manage your money...

We all know how well that worked out.

[ProSense]

42. You are comparing Social Security to

traditional pensions, which are mostly invested in the markets.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

[Ozymanithrax]

38. By definition it is an entitlement...

Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights or by agreement through law.

[spanone]

44. i get an accounting of MY input. it's bought and paid for.

[eridani]

45. Why can't we take back the effing WORD??

If you pay into Social Security, you are fucking well ENTITLED to get paid out of it.

[CountAllVotes]

46. same goes for Social Security Disability INSURANCE

it is not welfare, it is SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE. If you don't pay into this and have enough quarters in it you do not get anything. You must then look to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) which is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes). You can't have much of anything if you end up receiving SSI.

Same goes for Social Security - if you don't pay into you don't get anything out of it unless you are trying to draw off of a dead spouse and have children or are a widow/widower.

This issue me too and yes, you are right. These programs I mention are not entitlements! That goes for Medicare too! If you haven't paid enough in to it and worked, you don't get it!

:kick:

[pa28]

47. SS hawks love to use that term because it implies welfare.

In reality the money we've put into the trust fund is savings and we should never pass up the chance to make that correction.

[PeaceNikki]

48. It *IS* an entitlement by definition. Denying it implies that "entitlements" are bad.

[pa28]

53. I'm not sure I want to embrace the idea of having entitlements and "entitlements".

The people who populate this board are thinkers and readers for the most part who are capable of digesting the nuance. Unfortunately the Republicans are very good using words as tools and applying them for a visceral effect despite what the dictionary might say.

Frank Luntz has made a career of finding words with maximum emotional impact and if you check in on his work as a pundit he has a special fondness for the word "entitlements".

I have nearly 20 years of principle in the SS system and calling it anything less than savings is opening the door to have that equity stripped IMO.

[ProSense]

54. "calling it anything less than savings"

Again, the notion that FDR created a savings program, labeling the Social Security net a mere savings program, to me lends itself to the GOP's claim that it's that simple. This is one of the reasons they insist that people should have more say in how they want to save.

[JDPriestly]

147. Many companies have 401(K)s.

That's how employees can save.

During the child-rearing years, I think it is very difficult for families to save enough for retirement. The best years for saving are after your children are grown. And right now, people in their 50s (based on my friends and family) are either unemployed or earning far less than they did a few years ago.

The baby boomers have lost whatever savings they thought they had in the value of their homes. Social Security will be more important than ever for aging baby boomers.

Wall Street wants your money. The folks on Wall Street are greedy vultures. They are masters of sales talk and propaganda. Don't fall for their sweet talk. It's all lies.

Keep Social Security. You should also try to save -- but remember, it is not possible for everyone to save. Bad luck, medical bills, sick family members, a business gone awry through no fault of your own -- there are so many reasons that people, no matter how frugally they live, no matter how well they manage their money -- cannot save successfully.

Social Security is absolutely the first priority for this country. We can defend our borders without keeping troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. But many Americans will not be able to eat or have a place to live unless we keep Social Security for them. Social Security should be our first national priority. And of course, there is no Social Security without jobs, so jobs are equal only to Social Security.

[ProSense]

49. The hawks want to

demonize the word entitlement and they demonize welfare. They demonized unemployment benefits and food stamps.

It's what the RW does.

[PeaceNikki]

51. Yes. This.

[unkachuck]

50. K&R....n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

88. LOL

I love you photo!

[Obamanaut]

58. Yes it is, but that's ok. nt

[spinbaby]

65. Private pension plans change the rules all the time

My husband had a pension from working for a company for over twenty years. They folded and he got $30,000 for his IRA.

[tomp]

66. ss was designed to avoid that.

then the gov't borrowed money from the ss trust to pay for war, and gave us t-bills. now they don't want to honor those t-bills. that's illegal. that's financial fraud. where's elizabeth warren?

[harun]

69. Bernanke always says that and Obama should fire anyone he can fire who says that.

[Hubert Flottz]

73. I'm with you Manny!

Even talking about fucking with our retirement, that WE PAID FOR, is a fucking outrage. Even in the fucking Army they take money out of your check. They even tax our other pensions and SS.

If Obama is crazy enough to touch Social Security, his political career is OVER. Stop the war and tax the wealthy, but leave OUR fucking retirement alone.

How about taxing the oil companies on the money they've been stealing from us? How about letting EXXON and BP fight their own fucking wars?

[mntleo2]

74. SS IS an Entitlement and is a legal term ...

Social Security is indeed an "entitlement" in the legislative sense because it means that they HAVE to allocate the funding out of its funds for certain things depending on what the law says they have to do with it.

When something is not an "entitlement" it is "discretionary" meaning that the legislators can merely decided what they want to do with it.

More to say but in essence US citizens are "entitled" to whatever this money is meant for, such as retirement, disability, and adoption moneys. Discretionary funds on the other hand, such as welfare and food stamps (which was once in the Social Security budget until 1996) is now solely dependent on whatever way the wind blows in the legislature.

The Rethugs are right but big warning: IN THE CONTRACT ON AMERICA IN 1996, RETHUGS TOOK WELFARE OUT OF SS, WHICH SET THE PRECEDENT FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO NOW.

Thank Newt, his hypocritical cronies and Bill Clinton for beginning the avalanche. Also LEARN FROM IT. The poor are the canary in the mine for the rest of us when it come to passing laws. Whatever flies with the poor, YOU are next. Because this was ignored in 1996 it is now to our detriment since these greedheads feel ENTITLED (yes pun intended) to do it to the rest of us.

Just sayin' ...

Cat in Seattle ~ long time advocate for the poor and always fighting legislation that is ignored and then watch the inevitable cycle of upper income people getting all amazed when it comes to bite THEM in the ass

[PeaceNikki]

76. Why are we so afraid of this word?

We need to stop it and stop letting them.

[mntleo2]

77. We shouldn't be afraid of that word

...it is used all the time and we should take hold of it for our own as an argument to show that Social Security is an "entitlement" meaning it is for WE THE PEOPLE and *not* for "WE THE CORPORATIONS, WE THE RETHUGS, or WE THE LEGISLATORS.

Here is the legal definition taken from Findlaw:

Entitlement: An individual's right to receive a value or benefit provided by law (emphasis mine).

Cat in Seattle

[PeaceNikki]

97. Agreed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. +1 n/t

[Overseas]

75. K&R! //nt

[Enthusiast]

78. Absolutely fucking right on.

Now, we need our side's talking heads to disrupt every TV social security discussion to rudely proclaim, "Social Security is not an entitlement!"

[mntleo2]

81. But it IS an entitlement ...

as I show right above you, SS is an entitlement. What is so bad about that?

AGAIN here is the legal definition of an entitlement:

Entitlement: An individual's right to receive a value or benefit provided by law. (emphasis mine)


We need to take that word back for our own. In essence Rethugs are in a war against We The People by denigrating that word, and it is a word to be used where there is nothing to be ashamed about

Cat in Seattle

[JDPriestly]

148. What's wrong with "entitlement?"

It's a big word that people don't really understand. It sounds "intellectual." The Republicans have attached connotations to it that suggest that an "entitlement" is something that is not really earned but rather a gift.

It is a Republican frame, and Democrats should not use it.

[ProSense]

82. If anyone is interested in the facts

here they are.

Social Security began as an entitlement program and remains one to this day.

[MikeMc]

95. I see section 202, Manny is still right.

I was just using your useful link, up-post, to show how unemployment is paid for by the employee (Title VIII in your link). So thank you.

'Entitled to receive' in section 202 makes it seem like a Frank Luntz style 'entitlement', but it is an 'old age benefit payment' that Title VIII makes clear is paid for by all employees, then paid to an employee after 'the age of 65' (upon retirement). Which sounds suspiciously like a pension.

[ProSense]

120. It's an entitlement program,

and it does not only cover retirees.

[MikeMc]

159. Sorry again, Pro. Post # 158 contains my apologies to you. NT.

[Lucky Luciano]

87. Your statement is 100% accurate. nt

[MikeMc]

89. +1. Ike E. & Manny G.

On the repugs who attack social security:

Ike E. -- "...tiny splinter group...H.L. Hunt...negligble...stupid."

Manny G. --"...motherfuckers..."

Just combine the quotes for the complete description.

[Lyric]

90. Please don't validate the Republican redefinition of "entitlement" as a bad thing.

An entitlement is simply money that the government is required by law to pay to people who qualify for it. Social Security IS an entitlement, because the government is required by law to pay out those checks every month.

AFDC used to be an entitlement--it was a program for poor families with children that guaranteed anyone under a certain income level of a basic monthly income. When we stripped away the entitlement status in 1996 and turned AFDC into TANF, we basically told the poor "You are no longer guaranteed help if you need it and qualify for it. Even if your income is ZERO and you have kids to feed, you STILL are not guaranteed to get help." The reforms let each individual state decide who was "worthy" of help and what the restrictions and rules would be, thus enabling the federal funding of state-level social engineering.

I don't know if the plight of people who need welfare is interesting to you, but if it is, I'd like to share an academic article that I wrote on the subject as a college freshman.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/6/899478/-A-National-Disaster:-Examining-a-Welfare-System-Broken-by-Reform

[JDPriestly]

149. Social Security is a debt the government owes to seniors.

Keep that in mind.

Entitlement is a word that Republicans use to show their scorn for Social Security.

Keep that in mind.

Entitlement does not simply have a technical meaning.

Republicans have used in such a way as to make it sound like something despicable, like something lazy, useless people demand.

Don't use the word "entitlement."

Sometimes words that are at one period of time perfectly acceptable become insults at a later time (and vice versa).

One of those words is, for example "handicapped." When I was a child, I knew someone who worked for a charity with a name that included the words "handicapped children." Today, "handicapped" is considered to be derogatory.

Certain terms that were used to refer to racial groups because at the time they were considered to be very polite and respectful are now considered to be racial slurs.

Whatever the original meaning of entitlement, it has become a slur against the elderly, the disabled and orphans. Don't use it.

[MikeMc]

175. Al Franken on SS:

"The Greatest Generation beat the Nazis. If we broke the social contract and stopped paying into Social Security, imagine what they'd do to us. Let's face it. We're kind of soft." -- "The Truth", page 217.

[alberg]

91. Like it or not, the word “entitlement” has been co-opted by the greed monkeys.

In the minds of a large percentage of the population "entitlement" no longer means what the dictionary says it means. The “street meaning” is now “getting something that you don’t deserve”.

The right wing has spent the last 50 years working to redefine this word in the public consciousness. We can make this language issue our battle and try to redefine the word “entitlement” back to it’s original (and correct) meaning – or we can focus on what the real battle is: the protection of Social Security from those who are hell bent on trying to destroy it.

My approach is the following:

I never use the word “entitlement”.

I refer to Social Security as “earned retirement benefits that I paid for”.

I don’t’ fall into the trap of trying to argue the “deficit” issue. I tell people:

- it’s an insurance program. Just like the insurance on your house, some people never collect, some people collect much more than they put in. The money that the insurance company uses to “Pay Your Claim” does not come from the money you put in, that money was used to pay other peoples claims. If you make a claim it is paid for by the premiums of the other policy holders of that year. If the Insurance Company temporarily “borrows” some money from the policy premiums for its’ own business operations –it is required to pay it back. This payback is not an option – it is a requirement.

Manny, you’ve got it right.

Social Security – it’s an earned benefit retirement insurance program – the most successful government social program ever enacted. Let’s fight to keep the greed monkeys from destroying it!

[Lyric]

93. I believe that the language argument is important

It's not a "street term", it's a LEGAL term, and it will continue to appear as such whenever there are government documents referencing it. Trying to pretend that the word "entitlement" isn't there when any Freeper with Google can see that it IS is pointless. The only way to truly protect Social Security from those who want to see it dismantled is to reclaim the word "entitlement" and educate people about what it truly means. Otherwise, you lose the argument every time a right-winger Googles it, finds the government calling it an "entitlement" on official documents, and proceeds to ignore everything you tried to tell them.

It really IS that important to win the language battle. Frankly, the right-wing alone is not solely responsible for this problem. Too many Democrats sat there and let the right-wing redefine welfare as an evil, ugly thing, and said nary a word in opposition because they cared more about re-election than about doing the right thing. Well that poor decision is now coming back to bite everyone in the ass. Trying to save Social Security's reputation without winning the language battle is like trying to win the evolution v. creationism in schools battle without first explaining that the scientific definition of "theory" is NOT the same thing as the "common definition".

It just doesn't work.

[alberg]

100. I believe the language battle is a lost cause. There isn't enough time to reframe using "their" word

You are correct from an academic and legal perspective, but you'll lose the argument and the war because we live in an age where words mean what the majority of people think they mean. Look what they did to the word "liberal".

Change the frame. If "entitlement" really means "you've earned it, it's yours and denying it to you is theft" - then say that. Say what you mean and don't get trapped by language that has been corrupted by the other side.

Make them argue your words and meaning.

Keep using the insurance example.

Don't let them off the hook for the 2 trillion $ they've "borrowed" (stolen).

Get righteously angry - this is attempted theft of the biggest asset the American People have.

And 70% of the country is united around this issue - ask your over 60 Republican or Tea Bagger friends if they want their Social Security checks cut - the answer I always get it: "Over my dead body".

[ProSense]

102. It's not a lost cause,

and when Republicans flip and accept the redefinition of Social Security as a glorified pension, personal savings, they will use this to convince people that they have a right to save their money anyway they choose to.

Entitlement, social net, common good, that is what Social Security is all about.

[MikeMc]

105. + 1 on your link in post # 90, thanks.

The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935)
An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

-- From ProSense's SSA link (posted above at #82). Title VIII in the same link shows that it is paid for by all working employees.

We're still getting taxed for all of these things, and the repugs are trying to eliminate the programs (not the taxes), one by one. So they're kicking up dust about whether Americans are 'entitled' to the 'entitlement' benefits they have paid for.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. It IS an entitlement - what you mean, it is not welfare.

We have paid into the program our entire working lives, and are entitled to the promised payout.

The right has been equating SS and welfare as being 'entitlements' for decades, changing the definition in the mind of the public of what 'entitlement' means.

[alberg]

103. So our choice is this: take decades to try to change the meaning of the word

back to it's "real" meaning - or fight the real battle that is going to be fought and won over the next few MONTHS - the battle to stop a small minority from stealing the Social Security Program and the 2.2 Trillion Dollar surplus from the American People.

Let's focus on the money, who it belongs to and who is trying to take it away.

[OnlinePoker]

101. Forgive this vacuous Canadian, but I have a question regarding SS payments

If the plan is supposed to be a pay as you go system,how is there any money at the end of the month for the government to borrow against T-Bills? If it's not pay as you go and money is being put aside via T-Bills for future outflow, are you not paying twice for the same pension, once on payday via S.S. taxes and then in the future from income taxes when the T-Bills come due?

If there was one thing Jean Chretien did right as Prime Minister in Canada, it was putting the Canada Pension Plan out of the reach of politicians to invest in real assets like stocks and real estate (for instance, they just bought a mall here in town for $113 million), as well as some government bonds. The CPPIB has done a good job managing the money to insure there will be pensions for all contributors down the road. Harper has said there is nothing stopping the government from going to the fund if needed, but he would have a real fight on his hands if he tried it.

[harun]

107. Unfortunately everyone just lies about SS here on both sides, so it is tough

to get any real (BS free) info on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund maintained by the U.S. Treasury (technically, the "Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund", as established by 42 U.S.C. § 401(a)). Current year expenses are paid from current Social Security tax revenues. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government's general purpose deficit spending. In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion.<74> The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting trick which holds no economic significance. Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt.

The Social Security Administration's authority to make benefit payments as granted by Congress extends only to its current revenues and existing Trust Fund balance, i.e., redemption of its holdings of Treasury securities. Therefore, Social Security's ability to make full payments once annual benefits exceed revenues depends in part on the federal government's ability to make good on the bonds that it has issued to the Social Security trust funds. As with any other federal obligation, the federal government's ability to repay Social Security is based on the power to tax and the commitment of the Congress to meet its obligations.

[PoliticAverse]

160. How the system works

Since the last major Social Security reform in 1983 until just recently Social Security has taken in more in payroll taxes than
it pays out each year. The excess goes into the US Treasury's "General Fund", mixed in with other revenue the govt receives.
In exchange for the excess the Social Security Trust Fund receives "Special Issue Securities" of the US Government (a form of interest
earning bond). Since the government runs a deficit all monies in the general fund are spent and the government borrows additional
funds to pay for expenditures. The Social Security Trust Fund can redeem the bonds at any time if they need the money but this would
require the US govt to borrow money to fund the redemption.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

[florida08]

106. I would agree

Technically from the government's point of view it's an 'entitlement' which simply means by law they are required to pay out to retired workers since they paid into the system long enough to collect their points for eligibility. It is not welfare that is state paid through taxes.

But the gopstoppers have made it sound as though it were welfare. The only difference I see it from a pension is that upon retirement you can recover all you have paid in..where as ss you receive payments. Congress is huge entitlement program since they produce nothing nor bring any money to the country itself. Individually they make lots of it. Close to 200,000/year and the perks..well you know

Where my husband works they were passing around this email. Think you might like it

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.


If you agree with the above, pass it on to all in your address list. If not, just delete..

[JDPriestly]

150. We have term limits in California.

They have not helped. In fact they have made things worse.

Term limits just put more people into the corruption mill. It's not the solution.

[littlewolf]

108. some issues I have with Soc Security

1. you pay into but it isn't yours ... and can not will it to your kids ...

2. Flemming vs Nestor SCOTUS ruled no one has a legal right to collect any benefits.

Let me keep my money and invest it and take the risks and collect the benefits
which I can then give to my heirs ....
the gov can even restrict what I can buy .... as long as it is mine ...
(Ie T-bills and bonds ...) but it is my property and I can
pass it along if I don't live long enough to collect ...

[JDPriestly]

151. You can save in addition to Social Security.

But let me clue you in on the facts of life right now.

If you had "investments" in 2008, there is a very high chance that you don't have most of those "investments" any more.

If you invested in a house, chances are you have lost a lot of that equity nest egg you thought you had built up. Too bad if you are over 55.

If you put cash in a bank, you get virtually not interest income, so if you spend a penny of it, you are spending down your savings.

The amount that an average family can save or set aside during the earning life of the parents after paying for insurance, the children's medical care and educations, etc., is not much.

If you stay single all your life -- or manage to win the lottery -- or get a really good career going that doesn't get outsourced, you may be able to save enough money to leave something to your kids.

Take it from one who has led a very frugal existence all her life. The average person cannot save enough money to provide for his or her retirement. Can't be done. The bankers, the Wall Street vultures will find a way to wrest your savings from you. That's the way the system works.

[PoliticAverse]

164. Flemming vs Nestor - no right to SS benefits.

Flemming vs Nestor is very important, as it codified the principle that no one has a right to any specific Social
Security benefits no matter how much they paid into the system.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

[Orsino]

109. It's the entitlement that's supposed to be there...

...after all those rich, entitled assholes finish stealing your money. It's the entitlement that's supposed to catch you when they drop yur drained, lifeless corpse from their talons.

[DirkGently]

110. Perhaps true, but then "entitlement" was never a dirty word until conservatives got hold of it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. It is an entitlement. If you meet the terms, you're entitled to the benefit.

"entitlement" isn't a dirty word.

Social Security is insurance, not a pension plan.

[Spazito]

113. Very strange OP if the intent is to be supportive of Social Security...

Here is the definition of entitlement:


Definition of ENTITLEMENT
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

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

By stating Social Security is NOT an entitlement, your post would seemingly support the republican point of view which is that Americans are NOT entitled to SS, that it can be taken away which is NOT the case.

[PeaceNikki]

116. Ayup.

And that "entitlements" imply an unearned "hand-out".

They don't

[Rex]

118. Repukes use the word 'entitlement' as to mean 'hand out' where have you been?

:eyes:

[Spazito]

121. So what if the repukes are too stupid to know what the word means....

I believe Dems are not stupid. If your post is saying, gosh, the repukes are trying to tell a lie so we need to let them because we don't know how to explain what "entitlement" means, well, I don't agree.

[PeaceNikki]

122. uh huh

I'm 100% with you.

[demi moore]

114. All your social security are belong to us

pay social security.. or pay someone to remove the elderly dead corpse from their home..

sounds like a GOP job creating strategy. maybe they should run on it.

[Rex]

117. If I could rec this thread a million times I would!

The next person who tells me it is an entitlement program BETTER NOT BE ON IT! Is all I gotta say.

[DesertFlower]

123. i agree. it pisses me off

when they call it an entitlement.

[Uncle Joe]

124. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, MannyGoldstein.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

125. K & R ++++ n/t

[bobburgster]

128. OH YES!!!!!!

You said that so well! I love it! I'm sending it to the white house and my congressmen. Well, I'll be nice and change two words. :-)

[flyarm]

129. Damn Right! Thank you for always telling the truth of the matter Manny!!!

I paid for a lifetime SS as did my husband..it is no damn entitlement! It is mine , I paid dearly for it!

[PeaceNikki]

136. Entitlement does NOT equal hand-out. Stop buying into the right-wing bullshit

and completely changing the meaning of a word.

[flyarm]

153. What????????? did you read what i wrote????????? seems not. eom

[PeaceNikki]

154. Sure did. You are saying it's not an entitlement because you paid into it.

That's not true. An entitlement is "a right granted by law or contract (especially a right to benefits)". It has nothing to do with who is funding the program. Social Security is, in fact, an entitlement.

[flyarm]

167. Social Security is an Insurance all workers paid into..it is not an entitlement!

many of us have paid into it since childhood!

I began working at age 14 and paid into Social Security Insurance since then..I am 58 now. It is an insurance policy I was forced into, not by choice, but by employment.

It is an Insurance policy. A Forced one. With a due date of payout.

[PeaceNikki]

176. Yes, it is. In fact it's a TEXTBOOK example of an entitlement.

What it's NOT is the right-wing's definition of "entitlement" to imply unearned.

[KamaAina]

139. Private pension plans change the rules all the time

often under cover of bankruptcy (also quite useful for union-busting :grr: ). Google "defined benefit plan". And as yet no one has gone to jail. :eyes:

[WinkyDink]

145. No, the private-industry people would NOT go to jail. Ask the retirees of Bethlehem Steel.

[EstimatedProphet]

169. Of course it's an entitlement. BUT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ENTITLEMENTS

Idiot teabillies think that SS is a tax. They think this because they are stupid. People pay into SS, and it is no different than a 401K - with 1 exception: it's safer. However, it's far from an entitlement the way they think of an entitlement, as money that gets taken from them and given to those dirty neegras and messicans. But, as I said before, they think that because they are stupid.

[PeaceNikki]

171. Stop it! We need to cower and run and hide because the right-wing has made this a dirty word.

Never mind what the definition of the word is.

:banghead: