Repeat after me - benefit. Ben-e-fit. Benefit. Social Security is a BENEFIT.

[jillan]

It is not an entitlement program, as the talking heads want us to believe.

It is a BENEFIT!

Looky here :
From the Social Security Government website:
Apply Online For Retirement Benefits
What is the best age to start receiving retirement benefits?
Social Security Announces 1.7 Percent Benefit Increase for 2013

http://www.ssa.gov/

And guess what? Medicare is also a benefit!!
http://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10116.pdf

How about that?!!
I've been paying into the system for 41 years, so when I retire, I can get MY BENEFITS!

It's time, past time, to start calling Social Security what it is - a benefit that we contribute to all of our working life.
So the next time someone calls it an entitlement program, it wouldn't hurt to correct them.

Balance the budget some other way politicos - but keep your sleazy hands off of my benefits!

[JaneyVee]

1. Seriously!

[brush]

30. PAID BENEFIT, DAMMIT

It's something we paid for all our working lives. And medicare is paid for out of your Social Security check when you get to that age. Paid Benefits both.

[customerserviceguy]

82. The only problem is

you weren't paying for your own future benefits, you were paying for your grandparents' and then your parents' benefits. Yours have to come from future generations that trust the system. There's not a lot of faith right now in those younger folks about continuing Social Security. They know that by the time they get there, even that "fund" full of IOU's (which we will just simply refinance with the Chinese) will be gone.

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

83. that's solvable JUST raise the cap on taxable income...

Fixing the "problem" of getting the Baby Boom generation through their golden years has long been avoided--but it's been a known problem. It's just math, and it's fixable.

[Blanks]

85. That's exactly right. Capital gains too. eom

[brush]

84. Yeah, yeah

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Social Security is solvent until 2037. A raise of the income cap as was done a couple of decades ago will fund it for 75 more years. Don't fall for the repug talking point that this relatively small part of the federal government is about to go broke and is unfixable.

[jeff47]

109. You should really stop listening to Republicans about debt

They're extremely wrong on the subject. Even down to the Chinese line.

[customerserviceguy]

114. Bernie Sanders

called the specialized Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund IOU's.

It's a very real problem, and with nothing but weak recoveries on the horizon, with McJobs replacing good paying careers, I don't see where we ever get back to a time when inflows exceed outflows, especially since the baby boomers have already started their waves of retirements.

[jeff47]

115. So you claim it's impossible to get back to the economy of 1999 or 2000?

So incredibly long ago that our society has radically changed?

Oh please.

The trust fund is invested in government securities. They were already bought. They aren't IOUs. They are already paying interest, and have been since the 1980s. Reneging on those bonds is the same as reneging on the bonds we sell on the private market - both are backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States". So declaring those bonds worthless would have the same effect on the bond market of declaring all our public debt worthless. Might be nice in the very short run, but nobody's going to buy any future debt.

So no, those bonds will be paid. Not paying them is the dream of stupid Republicans and their enablers...or people deliberately misinterpreting statements as you do with Sanders.

Further. your Chinese line indicates you buy into the fallacy that other governments must buy US Debt. Apparently you're unaware that the vast majority of US debt is owed to US Citizens, companies and institutions. And that while the Chinese bought a lot of debt to prop up the Dollar vs. the Yuan, and massively cut back years ago when that became unsustainable. But the Chinese are fantastic boogeymen to the poorly informed.

Stop trying to steal money from old people to give it to rich people.

[customerserviceguy]

126. I think it's highly unlikely

that we will ever return to the boom times seen between recessions in the post WWII era. Frankly, I think it was the baby boom that caused that robust economy to arrive, as US society geared up first to build for the boom, then the boom itself sustained the economy as a large cohort of people entered their productive years and began consuming things.

Now that they're expecting to be on the receiving end of Social Security and Medicare, rather than on the paying end of those programs, we're going to see the real crunch coming. If the boomers had reproduced at the rate their parents had, we might have put this off for another generation, but eventually we'd have to see a slowdown in births as the ability of the nation to keep growing would run in to natural limits.

I never called for giving money to rich people. In fact, I believe that ALL the Bush tax cuts should expire for everyone. Continuing them as long as we have is just giving credence to the Bushite voodoo economics that created them. It's time to start paying the bills. And I really am not all that comforted that US one percenters hold the debt rather than foreigners. Neither group has the interests of the average American at the top of their agenda.

[jeff47]

127. You're either a boomer with the largest ego I've ever seen, or you're a really poorly informed

younger guy.

While the boomers are a large cohort, everyone else combined is a much larger cohort. Also, "millennials" outnumber baby boomers and the following generation appears it will be even larger. So if that big generation was so wonderful, Good news! The next one's bigger!

Now that they're expecting to be on the receiving end of Social Security and Medicare, rather than on the paying end of those programs, we're going to see the real crunch coming. If the boomers had reproduced at the rate their parents had, we might have put this off for another generation, but eventually we'd have to see a slowdown in births as the ability of the nation to keep growing would run in to natural limits.

Anti-medicare and anti-social-security people have spent a long time lying with scary sounding numbers. What they're desperate to have you do is not learn about, oh, every other first-world nation.

Somehow, every other first world nation can manage to have retirement programs and universal health care despite the fact that their last few generations have been about the same size.

If you were remotely correct, that would be impossible. Yet it's happening. Will you reject reality, or your erroneous position?

I never called for giving money to rich people.

Actually, you did. You just haven't done enough thinking to realize it.

And I really am not all that comforted that US one percenters hold the debt rather than foreigners. Neither group has the interests of the average American at the top of their agenda.

I'm having trouble believing you are so stupid as to think owning a treasury bond gives you any power over the US government.

Are you going to now claim people are going to "cash in" their bonds? You should probably bother to know enough that there is no mechanism to cash in a T-bill. The government already got the money, and they are only paying back when the bond matures.

[customerserviceguy]

143. Why do my statements about the sheer volume of the numbers sound egotistical?

For the record, I'm a boomer, born in 1955, and today I turned 57. Even I don't have a lot of faith that Social Security is going to be there for me in my present form, by the time I'm supposedly able to collect "full" benefits in nearly ten years.

As for the other generations totalling more than the boomers, you're right. But the generation older than the boomers aren't throwing anything into Social Security, they're withdrawing money from it. The generations after the boomers are either children not making any income, or the X'ers and millennials who have McJobs that don't collectively pay anywhere near what the boomers and their parents were able to make in either manufacturing or high-level service jobs.

I used to be a tax accountant, and I know that there are a thousand ways to make numbers lie. I find the projections of the Social Security Trustees to be as wild-ass a set of guesses as anyone in the financial industry has ever made. They assume that we're going to pop out of the Great Recession with as much force as we did from previous post-WWII recessions. I disagree. In fact, we're probably on the verge of a double dip recession right now, and only if the US Congress and the President can come to an agreement that nobody on any side is going to like can that possibly be avoided.

Comparing to other first world nations is a fallacy. They don't spend nearly as much on military costs as we do. Also, their legal systems are different, you don't have armies of lawyers advertising every possible place to sue the asses off of the state-run healthcare systems like you do here. We've evolved our own kind of economy here, much different from all the rest, and those differences are finally coming to bite us in the butt. In fact, you can see how the first world economies of Germany and France are starting to be affected by the experiment called the Euro Zone.


I still say that you haven't shown any statement of mine that indicates I want money to go to rich people. Simply acknowledging that Social Security and Medicare simply cannot continue on their present trajectories without changes doesn't mean I favor Republicon "solutions" to those problems. I'd be happy if we removed the employer wage base, so that the next time a megabank wants to pay some idiot $10 million to run the institution into the ground, they can pay 6.15% on all ten million as FICA tax, without increasing the CEO's maximum Social Security benefit. It won't raise a lot of money, but it would be one of many ways to alter the system for both fairness and sustainability.

At some point, inflation will set in, then we will see the kind of problems that millennials have never experienced. I'm old enough to remember the inflationary surges of the 60's and 70's, and what they did to the economy. We really haven't had severe inflation since the government linked tax brackets, personal exemptions and standard deductions to an inflation index, keeping the government from profiting from inflation. With the staggering size of the national debt, something's got to break soon. When bondholders simply won't take the interest rates being offered on Treasury securities, we'll be in a severe problem. Interest on the debt will dwarf military and social program spending, and will make the Federal government powerless to run any basic functions.

[Honeycombe8]

128. I saw a documentary that said just that, guy. The baby boomers caused an economy boon.

After the war...Mad Men....men were making big money...consumerism...people buying houses, cars, toys, bikes, clothes. Lots and lots of people bursting forth with more little people, and buying more and more stuff.

Now they're retiring. And it's gonna take a LOT of money to pay their retirement benefits. Even though the boomers paid into SS for many years, the boomers will live longer than was anticipated. It's gonna take a LOT of money to pay those benefits.

But it can be fixed somehow. People will scream, no matter what is done. Including me.

Then waaaaay down the road, after all the boomers die, the next generation will be retiring, and SS won't have the same trouble. Because probably by then, the generation AFTEr them will have increased in size, so that once again there are more people paying in than are retiring. Which was the model that the current SS system was built around.

[customerserviceguy]

140. Thanks

Some here think it's ego, but because the baby boom lasted so long (1946-1964, by most demographers reckoning) and involves people who will mostly live for about seven or eight decades, it will have a most profound effect on American history in the life of a country that's only about three centuries long (including some of the most prosperous colonial era). Wars usually have a much smaller effect, in terms of timespan.

The only reason that we COULD have a Social Security System with Medicare added along the way is that there was such a large generation existing to be able to pay the benefits for a small Depression-era generation. That's over with now, and we're seeing the results. Yes, actuaries claim to have figured the whole thing out, but I have as much faith in them as I have in the captains of banking that managed to trash the whole financial system just a few years ago. When the herd starts to believe its own BS, no one dares to think outside that box, and the experts all go over the cliff together.

The only thing that will increase future generations is immigration. As time goes by and living gets more expensive, children become an expensive luxury in a manufacturing society, and especially in a service-oriented economy. "Be fruitful and multiply" was from a guidebook to adapt humans from a hunter-gatherer existence to an agricultural one, it's no longer feasible to practice that philosophy.

[Honeycombe8]

141. It doesn't take immigration to save SS.

That might help.

But the generation after boomers - let's call them Gen. X. There are fewer of them than boomers.

The generation after Gen. X - let's call them Gen. Y.

Well, the boomers were so large in number, that the number of Gen. X people is smaller. This hurts SS. SS was built on the model that the NEXT generation pays for the CURRENT retirees. When the NEXT generation is lower in number, that doesn't work well, obviously.

But there will naturally be more Gen. Y than Gen. X. So SS should be back to being solvent during those years. Once again, there will be more workers paying for SS (Gen Y) than there are retirees (Gen X). W/o immigration.

[customerserviceguy]

144. Your analysis is correct

but only if Gen Y'ers can get decent jobs to pay enough into Social Security. I'm afraid that a far larger proportion of them will be stuck in jobs that barely allow them to survive than of any generation before them in the previous 100 years. With the demise of union jobs, and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, all we've got left is service jobs for growth in the job market. Most of them don't pay terribly well.

It may take a small increase in the FICA tax rate to part of what helps save the system. The boomers were called on to do that several times. In 1968 (when the leading edge of the boomer generation turned 22) the total combined rate of payroll taxes was 4.4%, by 1990, it had risen to it's present 7.65%. I picked that time period to match the number of years that have passed since there was a rate increase.

I also think it would be a good idea to stagger the ages for full Social Security benefits based on job difficulty, which can be ascertained from worker's comp records. 67 is too old for someone doing backbreaking labor, but 70 is not too old for a pencil-pusher like me who is able to sit at a desk all day. As we move into a service economy that involves less bodily stress, the average age for full retirement benefits would rise. If we divided the known jobs into quintiles, we could give full benefits to the hardest jobs at 65, with the age for full benefits for the least body-stressing jobs at 70. I feel this is more fair than just leaving it at 67 for everybody.

[sabrina 1]

133. You're wrong. People who have been working over the past several

decades, since the Reagan years, were paying for their own benefits as well as those of their grandparents. And young people today are much better informed about the BIG LIE being told about SS. They no longer have to depend on the MSM to get their news, in fact most young people get their news from independent sources.

And you are wrong about the fund being gone. Why are you perpetuating that falsehood here?

SS is solvent and can pay all of its obligations without anyone doing anything at all for the next 25 years at least, and that is based on the current bad economy and high unemployment. After that if NOTHING is done, it can still pay at least 75% of its obligations, assuming the economy never recovers.

SS has three sources of income and even over the past several years with less tax revenue, it STILL had a surplus and when the economy improves that 25 year figure will change for the better.

To ensure that it can continue to pay full benefits for the next 75 years all that is needed is to raise the cap and of course, reduce unemployment.

SS is NOT in trouble, SS has zero to do with the deficit, SS is a separate fund, SS has a surplus of over two trillion dollars, and don't bother telling me that it has been borrowed and is all gone. That is pure BS.

The SS fund is a creditor of the Fed Gov just like China yet we do not hear anyone say that the Fed Gov will default on China, and they will not default on SS either, for all the reasons they will not default on any of its other creditors. If it ever did that, we would way more to worry about than benefits. So please refrain from trying to sell this nonsense here. People are far more informed today than they ever were and are not going to buy these false statements. Ask George Bush what happened when he tried to sell the same nonsense 7 years ago.

[customerserviceguy]

145. Good to hear from you again, it's been awhile

We last went at it into debate when the Simpson Commission was first appointed and while it was meeting. While it's conclusions were shelved for the expediency of an election, I suspect we're about to revisit the issue. All of the things I asserted then are still true now. Excess FICA taxes (when they existed) were a nice little slush fund for extra government spending. Since the arrival of the Great Recession and the baby boom retirement, those surpluses have dried up, and Congress desperately needs them back again.

I'm glad to see you acknowledging the 75% figure, all we have left to dispute is the number of years that full benefits can supposedly be paid. Your statement says 25 years, but even the Social Security Trustees give a figure of only about 20 years, to 2033:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

I'm not that optimistic. Why? Well, using tables from the Social Security Administration itself (not some reich wing BS stuff) linked on this page:

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

some interesting facts can be obtained merely by a copy operation and a posting into Excel. The SSA doesn't perform percentage difference calculations on the numbers, but you and I can. It's all about inflow and outflow.

Using the table for numbers of people paying into Social Security, we see a steady rise of 3 to 5 percent per year during the "good" years, but those years really don't start until 1965, when the leading edge of the baby boom graduated from high school and started hitting the workforce. There were declines in the number of paying workers during the recessions of 1975 (1.12%) 1982 (1.06%) 1991 (0.45%) and 2002-03 (0.34% and 0.20%, respectively). In the current Great Recession, 2008 already showed a decline of 0.35%, but the really big drop is 2009 of 3.98%. That's well over three times the worst yearly drop since 1955.

I'd sure like to see figures for 2010 and 2011.

Performing similar calculations on the table of number of persons collecting Social Security benefits, we can see that the percentages increased rapidly from 1940 to 1960, as very large numbers of people first qualified for payments. Percentages were in double digits throughout that period, from a high of 95.79% from the 1940-45 period down to 11.13% in the 1957-60 period on an annual basis. That was to be expected, especially as the categories of people receiving benefits was greatly expanded when the system was flush with money, and the first payers started becoming eligible to be payees.

However, by 1980, the annual percentage in the increase of persons receiving benefits slowed from 8.11% in the 1960-65 period to a more normal (from then on) percentage of 2.18% in 1980. In the intervening years from 1981 to 2007, the annual percentage increase in number of persons receiving benefits stayed between about 1 and 1.5% (1997, probably the best of the Clinton years had a low of 0.54%, and 1992, one of the worst of Bush, Sr. years saw 2.25%) which was to be expected as the early 80's recession melted away but was replaced by the 1983 "grand bargain" taking Social Security benefits from people who had previously been eligible to receive them, such as over-18 year old college students.

Then, when we started to hit the Great Recession, 2008 showed an increase of 2.07%, that's also the year the leading edge of the baby boomers turned 62 and were first eligible for early retirement benefits. The next year, 2009 showed an increase of 3.19%. I'd sure like to see numbers for 2010 and 2011, wouldn't you?

Also, the sheer numbers have been growing, the last time the number of recipients grew in the 3-4 percent range was the late 1960's and early 1970's, with roughly half as many people collecting then as did by 2009. I'm absolutely certain that the numbers have risen since, as more and more folks hit either early or regular retirement age, and laid off sixty-somethings finally exhausted their unemployment benefits. The peak year of the baby boom was 1957, those people are still seven years away from early benefits. Unless the job market improves for older middle aged folks, we can expect more boomers to take early retirement than any group that went before them.

It really doesn't make much difference how many accounting entries there are in some big fat book of how much the Federal Government owes the Social Security Trust Fund, the only way those monies are going to be paid is by Federal budget surpluses, new borrowing, or running the printing press and creating new devalued money. The last two are disasters, with either rising interest rates or rising inflation (probably both) and the first option is politically impossible.

You can stamp your feet and say that it just isn't right or fair all you want, you can make all the statements about the sanctity of US obligations all you want, and you can complain to Congress and the President all you want. But it's not going to change the realities that are coming our way. All we can hope to do is shape the changes more to our liking while we still have some power, or we can wait until the Repukes control the White House and both houses of Congress some day.

[hfojvt]

131. so you think you are entitled to those benefits?

entitled?

[brush]

134. Not sure what you mean?

I paid into SS for many, many years. I also know that Medicare payments are deducted from SS checks so that's paid for too. So yeah, I'm entitled to what I paid for.

[hfojvt]

135. seems to me that if someboyd is entitled to something

that it would be logical to call those things entitlements

That entitle-ment is a much stronger word than benefit. That benefits can be given, but they can also be taken away, since a person is not necessarily entitled to a benefit. But logically they are entitled to an entitlement.

This whole "people on the left freaking out over the word entitlement" has always seemed to me like the dumbest and the strangest thing to get worked up about. Like entitlement is somehow another word for "welfare". That somehow the word entitlement lumps social security in with SNAP, TANF, HUD, LIHEAP, etc. If anything, I would consider it strange to call SNAP an entitlement, because people are not entitled to food stamps. Society CHOOSES to provide such benefits, nobody is entitled to them.

[brush]

136. Entitlement v paid benefit

We know what the real meaning of the word "entitlement" is, but we also know that the repug meaning for "entitlement" is something "unearned", something that people expect to be given to them like the so called "gifts" Romney just said that President Obama promised to people to get them to vote for him. That's why we prefer to call SS, and Medicare paid benefits to remind people that they are paid for and they are not "gifts."

[hfojvt]

137. a paid benefit sounds like it has already been paid

Plus the Repugs are not Humpty-Dumpty. They cannot give words the meanings that they want to give them. There are limits to ehir eggy power. They may feel that the word "entitlement" means "something unearned" but they are just spitting into the wind if they try to argue that. Because the word has "ENTITLE" right in it and most people know what entitled means.

Of course people expect to get their entitlements - they are fugging entitled to them. They don't have to be reminded that entitlements are not gifts. Nobody is entitled to a gift. Nobody demands a gift (okay except for kids at Christmas, and Halloween, and Easter, and at every parade - okay those little mooches think they are entitled to gifts, but most adults know better.)

I would almost suspect that it is the rightwing that is playing us - pretending to be liberals urging other liberals to abandon and reject the word entitlement. Once it is no longer called an entitlement then people will stop thinking they are entitled to those benefits.

[FogerRox]

103. Entitled is in the 1935 SS law 9 times

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/ssa-1935-act.html

[Live and Learn]

2. Actually there is nothing wrong with the word entitlement just means

you are entitled to it whether it is because you paid for it, paid in to it or just because you meet the requirements to receive it. I hate to give in to their abuse of the word.

[jillan]

3. Except when the GOP wants the President to cut "entitlement" spending before they will agree to

any revenue increases.

No no no!!

[Angry Dragon]

9. So you really do hate the word

So we need to use different words ............ Insurance Policy for Retirement

[Live and Learn]

12. Not sure how you got that out of what I said. No, I don't

hate the word entitlement. It is a perfectly good word. I do dislike "them" quite a bit. And that does not mean I dislike the word 'them'.

[Angry Dragon]

19. I misread your last sentence

You will never change their slur of the word so you have to reframe the debate by changing the words.

[meti57b]

80. Unfortunately or otherwise ... you are right, we need to change the word.....

"Entitlement" is the correct word for something you paid for and are entitled to get, however, ....they have co-opted that word and given it a different meaning

[Delmette]

100. How about "refund" or "distribution" or "dividend"

These are all words the 1% understand.

[Angry Dragon]

101. I think they are more open to interpertation than 'insurance'

[FogerRox]

107. What is the title of SS?

and when you pay for insurance, you are LEGALLY entitled to benefits.

In fact the 1935 law has the word entitled in the law 9 times.

Of course the GOP would love folks to call it benefits, rhymes with welfare benefits.

[Art_from_Ark]

130. "Insurance" usually implies that you'll only get paid

if something bad happens.

[Skittles]

25. to repukes, entitlement means "FREE STUFF"

[Live and Learn]

27. Unless they are the ones getting it.

Then they really do feel entitled to it.

[Skittles]

31. CORRECT

"free stuff" only applies to, you know, THOSE people

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

37. Just what I was about to say. The Rs need to get a freakin' dictionary. But, face it,

they've already won this one. Evil genius Frank Luntz has been invaluable to the GOP. I don't believe we have his liberal equivalent working for us and I don't understand why not. It's not like he's the only one who can do what he does.

[Live and Learn]

39. I think you hit the nail on the head when you added "evil" to "genius"

We have the genius but we sorely lack in the evil department.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

43. But I only consider him evil because what he sells is evil, but not the way he sells it.

Read "All Marketers are Liars" and see what you think.

[Live and Learn]

46. Not sure I need to read that since I already know that.

It is a given. One of the real problems I have is buying progressive books but not being able to get through them because I already knew pretty much most of what they were saying.

And I do get what you are saying. We do need to be able to frame our positions in a way the masses will get it.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

54. Maybe not, but it's not a progressive book. It is a marketing book based on the idea of the power of

stories in marketing. This book lists it as a reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=dFGxmufiBVAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'd bet money that David Plouffe read both of these and more like it. I hope he's not the only one on the team who did.

[Live and Learn]

59. I'll look in to it based on your recommendation. nt

[Sherman A1]

58. Agreed

I have paid in and therefore I am entitled to a return. Seems simple to me.

[PeaceNikki]

139. I agree and I'm sick of the left running away from the word.

We are entitled to it.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

4. Here Here!

We should be diligent in changing the language. I don't dislike entitlement but the way the word is used it is made to sound like we laid around all our lives and are 'entitled' to Social Security and Medicare. Except I've been paying into it since I had a job in high school (in the 60's)....................

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

44. I agree we need to re-brand, but only because that word has been demonized. If you paid for a pair

or shoes on line you are absolutely entitled to that pair of shoes. We are entitled to get what we were promised and paid into in terms of benefits.

There was nothing negative about the word, except that the Rs have done to it what they did to Liberal. We've got to stop letting them get away with that.

[Angry Dragon]

5. It is an INSURANCE POLICY

[jillan]

7. Too many syllables for the right wing.

[world wide wally]

41. Exactly! Not sure what it says now because I am on a state retirement program in Colorado, but when

I was having SS taken out of my paychecks before, it listed it as Social Security Ins.

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. Fuck "austerity"! No socialization of government debt! Don't pay for Bush's wars and the bailouts!

[HiPointDem]

8. we paid for it in good faith & we're entitled to it. i don't see how saying 'benefit' makes

more sense. welfare benefits, etc.

[Live and Learn]

13. +1 nt

[reformist2]

10. I never miss a chance to tell people that SS has close to $3 trillion in bonds, and...

And, that those bonds are just as guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government as any US Treasuries held in some rich billionaire's portfolio. Don't let anyone tell you it's just a pile of IOUs, or that someone "stole" the money.

[PoliticAverse]

34. Intragovernmental debt is not the same as external debt. n/t

[HiPointDem]

52. both are public debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

[Maplegrass]

11. I would even better if we admitted it is a WELFARE benefit and got rid of the "insurance" meme

Why? Because then we could get rid of the cap, and also means-test it. Instant permanent fix.

But we are trained to be afraid of that deadly word, "WELFARE." When are we going to wise up?

[Live and Learn]

15. Nothing wrong with the word welfare.

In fact, it is in the Constitution.

[Maplegrass]

18. Absolutely right.

Time we took it back. If we just admitted that Social Security is welfare program (which of course it is), we could kill the cap and means-test it, making it sustainable indefinitely.

[Live and Learn]

29. You really do have a point. We all do pay (by way of taxes)

into welfare programs too and we are entitled to receive the benefits if we meet the requirements.

[HiPointDem]

51. no, we don't all pay for welfare. welfare, food stamps etc. are paid through the income tax,

and 'all' don't pay it.

social security isn't welfare. turning it into welfare isn't an answer to anything, let alone the phoney social security 'crisis' -- which isn't a crisis.

[Live and Learn]

53. Willing to bet there are relatively few that don't pay income tax ever in their lifetime. nt

[HiPointDem]

57. paying it 'ever in their lifetime' isn't paying for it. and yeah, there's a significant fraction of

the population who never pays income tax, whereas nearly every worker gets SS taken out of every check they get.

I'm not sure why so many people are determined to turn SS into welfare, so they can be demonized as leeches in their old age and beholden to the whims of the 1%. Why would you think you would be treated any differently than any other "welfare leech"?

[Live and Learn]

60. Maybe, your problem is really with thinking people are leeches just because they

get welfare. Don't throw the poor under the bus just to elevate yourself.

[HiPointDem]

63. it ain't me throwing the poor under the bus, it's our own ruling class. No, my problem is with

people who think turning social security into welfare and themselves into dependents on the largesse of the ruling class will somehow result in better outcomes.

social security & medicare are popular programs because they are *not* welfare. turn them into welfare and the top 20% will mostly not support them and the bottom 80% can't fund them alone.

[Live and Learn]

66. Seems to me you are throwing them under the bus to protect

your own "entitlements" by saying they aren't entitled to the little they are getting even though the social contract says they are. You can't change definitions just to suit yourself,

[HiPointDem]

69. seems to me you are very confused. there is no fucking social contract, seems you don't get it.

you can look at what's been happening for the last 30 years, what just happened during the mortgage bubble, and what's happening now throughout the developed world (& the underdeveloped world, for that matter) -- the finance guys want more, and they are perfectly willing that you should die so they can have it.

there's the golden rule, which is the rule of power: he who pays the piper calls the tune, he who pays the gold makes the rules.

you're proposing that workers throw out the one point of leverage they have: we fucking paid for it.

please, mr rich man, i'm old and need some welfare, please be kind to poor me, i will kiss your shoes & pee in a jar for you and visit my social worker every week.

fuck that.

[Live and Learn]

70. Nope, I am suggesting that you stick up for not only what yourself but those

even the less fortunate than you have been promised by the social contract that you just called non-existent. It does exist and when it really becomes non-existent all Hell will break lose. And rightfully so.

[HiPointDem]

72. there is no worker 'less fortunate than me' where social security is concerned. the social contract

you imagine exists is bullshit. there is only power, & you propose to toss yours in the trash.

[Live and Learn]

75. Wow, really? You imagine yourself to be the least fortunate person in existence?

Far be it from me to tarnish your imaginary uniqueness but don't you think that others might have felt pain, if not as great as yours, at least in the same realm?

I am truly sorry that you feel so scared and alone but you are not alone. There are plenty standing beside you, you just refuse to acknowledge them.

[HiPointDem]

76. no, i mean all workers are on an equal footing where SS is concerned. you pay into the system

& you're guaranteed at least the minimum benefit and you can't get more than the maximum, and there's not a big gap between the two.

91% of workers are covered by social security, so if you're for some reason ineligible, you're in a small minority.

[democrattotheend]

105. Absolutely right

Look at how unpopular welfare spending is. If you turn Social Security into welfare it will lose popular support and be a lot easier politically to mess with.

[truedelphi]

93. I confess the first 2 years of my son's life

I was on welfare.

But in the four years before his birth, I paid more in Federal Income tax than Pres Richard Nixon did, who was Pres. at the time.

I've never been a high earner, but I have more than made up for the AFDC bennies received.

I'm rather indifferent as to what Social Security is called. All I know is I that I have been paying into it since I was 19, and not only that, the Fund has a surplus.

It would be great if every Talking Head that ever referred to it called it an Insurance Program, but I am not holding my breath.

[democrattotheend]

104. Social Security is not a welfare program

And it wasn't designed to be. It was designed to be like a retirement annuity or a defined benefit pension plan, where everyone pays in and everyone gets back. Turning it into a welfare program is the fastest way to ensure that it loses popular support and gets cut.

[FogerRox]

122. Your comment is excellent.

Did you know the word entitled is in the 1935 SS law 9 times?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

45. I think the Rs have redacted that.

[Live and Learn]

47. I think they would love to except that it also pertains to the military

and they don't want to let that aspect of it go.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

50. According the them. Their attempts to narrowly define the General Welfare Clause as constrained by

the enumerated powers has not been entirely successful and can be fought back.

You'll find plenty of RW sites that claim to disprove any alternate interpretation, but RW crap usually fills up the first few pages of many hot-button politics-related search results these days. A well-funded "grassroots" pollution of the internet. Doesn't make them correct. I have a great article defending a more common sense, humane interpretation bookmarked on my home computer and will try to post it at some point soon.

[HiPointDem]

17. absolute hogwash. it's not a welfare benefit and it's survived 75 years intact because it's *not.*

whereas 'welfare' did not.

[Maplegrass]

22. Yeah, because Clinton threw it under the bus due to right-wing pressure.

You can live in any universe you want (that is your right), but Social Security is a welfare program paid for by incoming receipts which are directly distributed to existing beneficiaries. It is a tax. There are no "individual accounts" and it is not any kind of "insurance program." No insurance plan in the private sector works similarly - and we should be proud of that fact, instead of trying to hide it. American Social Security is the single most effective social welfare program in the history of the world - why are we ashamed to say so?

The only reason is fear of right-wing demonization, which we have to get over. It is time to stand up for what we believe, or Social Security will be bargained away in the same manner AFDC was under Clinton.

[HiPointDem]

23. and he was able to do so because the recipients hadn't paid for it, so no one cared.

i never said there were 'individual accounts' or any of the rest of that crap. that has nothing to do with whether SS is a welfare program. which it's not.

and whether you're arguing in good faith or not, that line of argument leads to the destruction of the program.

[Live and Learn]

56. How do you know they never paid for it? "Welfare" is a safety net program.

I damn well pay for it and expect that it will be there if I ever need it. We have got to quit letting them frame things for us.

[HiPointDem]

61. Welfare is funded through income taxes. Most workers pay little if any income tax: top 10% of

tax filers (>$110K) pay 70% of income taxes, and a lot of that income is *capital* income. Bottom 50% of filers mostly pay nothing.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

It doesn't matter how you "frame" anything, it matters what the *law* is. Welfare won't be there for you unless you have dependent children (unless your state is generous & has its own add-ons), and only for 5 years in any case -- thanks to that great democrat, bill clinton, who 'reformed' welfare during boom times when nobody cared about those 'lazy welfare cheats'.

Your other option is declaring yourself disabled and trying to survive on Supplemental Security Income (SSI, funded through the income tax), maximum payment = $771. and be prepared to be surveilled within an inch of your life for the privilege and in some cases to be forced to take psych drugs or lose your benefits. if you don't have a physical disability you will have to have a mental one, & if you have a mental one you are assumed to be in need of drugs. it's a scam to channel tax money to pharma, but what the hell, you get your miserly 'welfare' so who cares, right?

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSIamts.html


and should you ever wish to reenter normal life without the stigma of 'disability,' fergitaboutit. the label will follow you forever and affect your job prospects, rental prospects, etc.

and more cuts, and more surveillance, are coming (drug tests to collect benefits, anyone?)

with social security you collect your check & no one asks you to pee in a jar, they don't ask you if you're taking your psych drugs, they don't tell you to check in with a social worker, they don't spy on you to make sure you're living as they say you should.

that's the different between a "benefit" that someone gives you because you're a *dependent* and a social security check that you *earned* by paying into the system during your work life.

[Live and Learn]

65. Give me a friggen break. I pay quite a bit in income tax and I

do so willingly in order to fund a lot of things including safety nets. I hope never to need to collect on my investment in to the safety net at all but I have definitely paid in. I don't see that as any less of an investment that any insurance payment I make but hope not to collect on. It's also a necessary part of the social contract to ensure a peaceful civilization.

The bottom 10% may not pay income tax but they pay some sort of tax on pretty much 100% of their income. I don't begrudge them a thing. Why do you?

[HiPointDem]

67. maybe you do. most people don't. i *expect* to collect on my social security payments, that's

the difference. 2/3 of the population, not just the bottom 10%, *has to* collect on their SS, or live in poverty, that's the difference.

most of us would be at the mercy of the bastards in our old age if not for social security, that's the difference. that *includes* the bottom 10%, but rather than the dignity of SS, you want to turn us all into welfare clients dependent on the top 10%. personally, i'd rather go in the woods & die.

[Live and Learn]

68. Most of us will be at their mercy no matter what if we don't come together

and stick up for one another.I have paid income taxes even as a child making minimum wage. I didn't have any deductions, so yes I paid in. And every single person I know generally pays something. I really doubt your statistics.

[HiPointDem]

71. no, you didn't pay in as a child making minimum wage. jesus christ. you got a full refund.

because if you were a 'child' you weren't a full-time worker.

social security exists and creates a community of interest that is perfectly aware it has paid SS all during its working life and is willing to fight to keep what it has *paid for*. it's a community that can't be shamed by the rhetoric of the right ('welfare bum' 'leech' 'useless eater') because it has worked and *paid its way* and because everyone who pays in gets something and the benefits to high earners and low earners are (still) not so disproportionate to what they paid in, keeping a unity between high and low earners.

you propose to eliminate that community for some airy-fairy bullshit about people 'coming together' when there is no united community that can't be divided through shame and income.

your proposal is a wet dream for the wingers and fascists. it's been done before, and it failed. as it will always fail.

[Live and Learn]

73. Nope, I paid income tax and payroll taxes as a part time worker.

Sure did and had only myself as an exemption. In fact, I paid SS for a few years and will never be eligible to receive a penny from it or medicare. Don't expect you to believe me but it is true. So I guess, in effect, I contributed to your payments. Happy to do so.

All I ask in return is that you quit letting the right shame anyone by calling them ridiculous names and refrain from it yourself. Just asking, you don't have to oblige.

[HiPointDem]

74. you paid payroll taxes, including social security tax, and didn't get them back. no one gets them

back until they retire.

you paid income taxes and got a full refund because as a "child" you weren't a full-time worker and wouldn't have made enough after the exemption you get *for yourself* + the standard deduction to pay anything.

you didn't contribute anything to me because i'm not retired.

if you paid SS & medicare taxes 'for a few years' you will get SS unless you're in some special group (certain schoolteachers or government employees) who have their own pension setup. and you'll get medicare no matter what.

in reply to the response you deleted:

in 2011 full-time minimum wage of $7.25 = $15,080.

the filing threshold was $9500, meaning if you worked less than 62% of full-time, you owed nothing (because of standard deduction + personal exemption).

i doubt you were working anymore than half time or less as a "child".

[BlueMan Votes]

89. why will you 'never be eligble to recieve a penny from it or medicare'...?

[jeff47]

110. Means-testing is the first step to eliminating it.

Social Security and Medicare are extremely popular because they aren't means-tested.

Means-test it and it will go away in two generations or so.

[FogerRox]

117. Ladies and Gentlemen, Jeff47 has made the most cogent comment in this thread. This is an example

of thinking an issue deeper thru the decision tree than is typical at DU.

there is a legal basis for what Jeef has written.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021812531

[DCKit]

14. No, it's an investment we all make. nt

[democrattotheend]

106. Why not use the word investment for it?

Republicans like that word. Say that people are entitled to recoup the investment they made in retirement security by paying into Social Security and Medicare. How can free market Republicans argue with that?

You might be onto something...best way to take back the narrative is to frame our ideas in their language.

[TorchTheWitch]

16. Sorry, but I think of it as the opposite

Benefits are commonly known as those things you get with a job that you don't have to entirely pay for (and we didn't used to have to pay anything for) like health care, disability, death benefits, etc. Personally, I dislike having these things called benefits as if they're given out of the kindness of the employers' hearts and were never forced to give by law and which employers found it reasonable to charge us for anyway through making us outright pay for a portion of them and through not giving higher salaries or raises so they could make up the difference in having to provide employees with them so they could continue the same or even better profits.

Entitlements are what is commonly known as those things we are entitled to because we paid for them, like Social Security, Medicare, etc. I only disagree with how Repubs sneeringly call them entitlements as if we DON'T pay for them and AREN'T entitled to them when we DO and ARE.

[FogerRox]

120. Did you know the word entitled is in the 1935 SS law 9 times?

[TorchTheWitch]

124. doesn't surprise me

We paid for it - we're entitled to it. That's why they're called entitlements - that which we are ENTITLED to. I truly don't get the hysteria over calling entitlements what they are.

[WillyT]

20. Or... I Am ENTITLED To The Investment I Made Into The Social Security Program

No ???





& Rec !!!

[Live and Learn]

40. If not, why is Romney entitled to his investment returns? nt

[Major Nikon]

21. It's both

[Overseas]

24. NO CUTS to Social Security INSURANCE and Medicare and Medicaid. Until AFTER

the military has been de-privatized to reduce the millions in wasteful war profiteering;

there is a tiny transaction tax placed on Wall Street trades which will also reduce the wild speculation with robot programs at millions of trades per minute;

we try raising taxes on multimillionaires to a bit more than the Clinton rates.

MAYBE after all that, if we still need revenue, we can look to twisting the already tough lives of the middle class and poor for yet more cuts.

[daleanime]

35. Also capital gains tax rates need to be fixed,

after 30 years of destroying the working/middle class its time to reinvest in 'our' future.

[Cha]

26. Schumer was on tv saying CuTTING SS was "OFF THE TABLE' Harry Reid, THIS WEEK..

'Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate are saying this week that they won't push changes to Social Security as part of a deal to reduce the federal budget deficit.

"We are not going to mess with Social Security," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters as he left a news conference Wednesday, according to Reuters.

During the conference, Reid invited Republicans to "dance" rather than fight over the so-called "fiscal cliff" -- the nickname given a looming expiration of tax cuts and spending cuts that will take effect at the end of the year."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/social-security-harry-reid_n_2093482.html

I already knew this.

[Scruffy Rumbler]

28. Damn Skippy!

This benefit my mother paid for her entire working life is doing just what it was meant to... keeping her from being destitute and allowing her to stay in a home of her own as opposed to being institutionalized! They really do have it in for the least of us. Go after the ones that can afford it! Not the elderly, the disabled, the retired, the poor!

Thanks jilan for the space to vent on this topic!

[Canuckistanian]

32. It's an entitlement

Meaning you're ENTITLED to it, because you've paid into it and you're eligible.

I'm sick of conservatives trying to make "entitlement" sound like "handout"

They're not the same.

[jillan]

86. Unfortunately the pigs did to the word entitlement the same thing they did to liberal. And for that

reason alone, we need to reframe the debate.

[sheshe2]

33. Go Jillan

I scream every time I hear them call it an entitlement!

The only I entitled people around are the F***ing 1%!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

49. But that's only if you accept their demonizing of the word. Something IS an entitlement because we

are fair and square entitled to it, going by the actual definition of the word. If you are entitled to something it is because you earned it or payed for it or have a right to it for any other accepted reason.

But. as I said somewhere else in this thread, we've lost that battle. Even Dems now use the word in the new, negative way.

[Live and Learn]

62. Dems can on occasion be wrong too. nt

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

96. No, really?

Duh. What's that got to do with the Rs distorting the actual definition of a word?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. Actually, you got it wrong.

What you need to say is, "It's one of the benefits of being a citizen of this (add superlative here) land".

Then say, "I want do do like my grandfather did. Pack up the fishing polls in the back of the car,...find a nice shady spot,...








.....but not too far from the stage at the strip club..."

[SoapBox]

38. Kicked

[harmonicon]

42. The semantics don't matter so long as people understand how the program works.

I remember, years ago, a Maria B-something-or-other on a cable news channel didn't know what medicare was. Before people argue about what they're called, people should know what they are.

There's a guy I work with who's in his late 60's and gets medicare. He votes Republican or Libertarian, but I actually like the guy. He gets social security, and some of us rib him about us paying for his social security while he's still working. He argues that he's paid into it his entire life, but we - correctly - point out to him that he's only ever paid for others, while we pay for him. People just need to get that straight.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

48. I think you're dead wrong about that. There really are such things as magic words.

Frank Luntz has has played a major role in the success of Rs selling not just specific policies, but ideology in general.

Luntz' talking points are widely adopted by media, politicians and AstroTurf groups almost as soon as they're written. Consider his 2005 immigration memo (PDF), framing the entire issue and demonizing immigrants as a scourge and drain on the country. Or his 2009 memo (PDF) characterizing the Affordable Care Act as a "government takeover of health care."

And I think our guys are catching on. The tactic of defining Romney way early in the race is straight out of the book All Marketers Are Liars. The problem is, it takes money. And our wealthy donors don't like to give money to sell ideology. And if they're like me, most of the rest already gave all they could in the campaign and then some to Sandy relief. Our big money guys will support a candidate or maybe a certain policy that's immediate, but the R big donors have been donating huge sums for decades to fuel an ongoing stealth campaign to sell the general idea of "Liberal evil, Conservative=Good."

And they have been extremely successful. How do we explain the fact that progressive policies, when presented as such, poll far lower than when they are presented as Conservative or with no label? How did End of Life Planning become Death Panels? Hint: a guy named Frank, party and pundit leaders willing to stay not just on message, but on script. It works. And we need to do more of it.

[harmonicon]

92. I get that that works, but I'm against doing it.

Instead of selling people on something, I'd rather just educate them. Simply explain what laws and programs are, how they work, etc. I even hate the naming of bills, like the affordable care act. The Patriot Act wouldn't have been so successful if it had been called "Treat all Americans as Criminals Act", but it also wouldn't have been successful if people had just known what the bill contained.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

97. I'd be against it if I thought the education thing would work. Too many people just don't want a

"professorial" "lecture." It's maddening, but I think it's been proven to be true. I'd love to be proven wrong.

If it turns out I'm not wrong, would you rather lose than use marketing to win? I wouldn't.

[harmonicon]

98. Honestly, yes, I would rather lose than sacrifice my principles. (nt)

[HiPointDem]

55. paying for others is how you pay for yourself, and a significant percent of retirees continue to

pay for others even as retirees. SS benefits have been taxed since reagan, & those taxes go to SS.

[Fearless]

64. Social Security is a retirement plan

The Republican Party wants to cut your retirement plan. The plan which you paid into your entire life and were guaranteed would be there to support you someday. You've PAID for it. It is YOURS. They do not have any right to restrict, remit, restructure, or refuse it to anyone. It is not theirs. IT IS YOURS.

[stlsaxman]

78. "ben-e-fit"... kick n rec! nt

[FogerRox]

121. Did you know the word entitled is in the 1935 SS law 9 times?

[stlsaxman]

138. Yes- i would suppose it is. because we are "entitled" to the benefits.

- "... and your point is?"

[Warren Stupidity]

79. I'm entitled to my social security and Medicare benefits.

Just because the word is said with a sneer doesn't change it's actual meaning. I am entitled to social security and Medicare because I paid for those programs

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation.

[unblock]

81. EARNED benefit.

[Ganja Ninja]

87. It's a benefit that we are entitled to.

[sammytko]

88. Isn't Entitlement in the name of the law when it was first passed back in the 30s?

[FogerRox]

118. Entitled is in the 1935 law 9 times

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021812531

[1-Old-Man]

90. It is an "Earned Entitlement". I bought it, I paid for it, I dam sure am entitled to it.

[libodem]

91. Rich people are entitled

Right wing think tanks rename ideas for manipulation and propagandizing the general population. It's like a big advertising and marketing blitz to confuse and distort reality rather than to educate or enlighten.

[dionysus]

94. i think you might want to look up what entitlement means...

[FogerRox]

119. You infer the author has a lack of understanding when it comes to the definition of the word

entitlement.

And you would be quite right.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

95. To which you are ENTITLED.

You do not "contribute" to Social Security in the same sense you contribute to a retirement plan or 401K Your money is used to pay for the benefits of those who are already retired....At one time you were paying for your grandparents, then your parents.... Your children and grandchildren will foot the bill for your Social Security benefits. That's how the progrm was designed nd that's the way it has always been.

[hrmjustin]

99. Here here!

[FogerRox]

102. SO the fact that entitled is in the 1935 law 9 times doersnt stop you from not thinking?

Please delete this POS fantasy thread.

[democrattotheend]

108. How about calling it an investment?

Often the best way to beat someone is to frame your argument in their language. So we should be talking about how seniors are entitled to recoup the investment that they made in their retirement security by paying into Social Security. How can any free market conservative argue with that?

[HiPointDem]

111. How about if democrats loudly make the case that it *is* a workers' entitlement, because workers

fund it through their payroll taxes and are thus *entitled* to the benefits they've funded.

Warren buffett and bill gates don't pay for social security, workers do, directly out of their checks.

Why this constantly shifting language, and why do democrats allow republicans to twist the language in such an orwellian fashion? They should be on that every time, calling the republicans on their shit.

Instead, they largely accept the redefinition of an "entitlement" as some kind of welfare workers don't deserve. I say "accept" because they don't challenge repigs when they use the word that way.

Why?

[Recursion]

113. Except it's not an investment.

You are paying for current retirees; you're not investing in a retirement account. The first wave of retirees paid in nothing and still were entitled to the benefits. You're paying now as part of an intergenerational social compact; if we don't all lose our minds between now and then that same compact will be there for us.

[democrattotheend]

123. I'm in my late 20's and not holding my breath on that

My mom has taught me since I was 10 to save for retirement and not count on receiving one penny from Social Security. Given that nobody, not even the most optimistic projectors, has said anything about the system being solvent when I'm 65, I think that's pretty good advice.

[Recursion]

125. Actually if you're in you're 20s, it will be in great shape for you

I'm in my thirties, and the problem is there aren't enough of us to pay for people currently in their 60s. Once the millenials start stepping up the career ladder, the system looks great again.

But, yeah, it's not supposed to be your sole source of retirement income.

[Recursion]

112. I think you have misunderstood what "entitlement" means

Social Security is definitely an entitlement program.

[FogerRox]

116. Such logic and clarity, and a souind legal foundation too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021812531

[AntiFascist]

129. Didn't Lawrence O'Donnell just call it Socialism?

WTF, we pay into the program!

[RB TexLa]

132. Wait, I pay for it????? Everytime a childfree conversation comes up on DU I'm told

by breeders that their children will have to pay for my social security.

[dionysus]

142. i don't collect entitlements with you. n/t