Please don't call them "Entitlements"

[rurallib]

"entitlements" is a Frank Luntz, republican word with negative connotations meant to create a negative response from the public. It implies that those of us who get SS or Medicare somehow have done nothing to earn such benefits and it is yet another government boondoggle moving money from the rich to the poor.

I paid in all my life. Damn near 50 working years. I started working at about the time Medicare started. So the government helped me save for my older years. Now that I am near receiving SS and Medicare the rich are trying like hell to take it away.

They are not entitlements. And tell Dick Durbin the same!

[whathehell]

1. You're right!

I'm close to your age, and Durbin is my senator, so I will tell him -- I heard he was in favor of the chained CPI, by the way.

He'll never get another vote from me if he goes that route.

[global1]

9. Durbin Is Up For Re-Election In 2014.....

I'm with you. If he supports chained CPI - I won't vote for him again. Here's his office number in D.C.: 1-202-224-2152. I plan to call the office today.

I'm in support of Lifting The Cap on SS.

Check out this link. Sen. Bernie Sanders has been supporting this. He's on the committee to work on the budget.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023871310

[whathehell]

19. Thanks for the information..I'll definitely be using it.

I completely agree regarding lifting the cap, though I hear the repukes are nixing

that option as a "tax".....Screw their bullshit.

[Art_from_Ark]

2. They are officially called "entitlements"

by the Social Security Administration.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ssi/text-entitle-ussi.htm

[SharonAnn]

78. To me, they are "Earned Benefits". I think that describes them. They're not a "gift".

They are part of our wages for working, set aside for future retirement.

After all, would they call my IRA and 401-K and company retirement as "entitlements" meaning something negative? Well, I guess they will.

Anytime we, the middle class, accumulate some money for the future, the banksters want to get their hands on it.

[Art_from_Ark]

119. "Entitlement" does NOT mean "gift" in this case

In this case it means, according to Merriam-Webster, "a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract".

[octoberlib]

129. Even so, the word entitlement has a negative connotation to most people

and the Republicans know that. Democratic politicians have never been good at messaging.

You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. "Entitlement" has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is "entitled" selfishly claims something he doesn't really deserve. Why not call them "earned benefits," which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them?

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult

[pangaia]

3. They change the meaning of words tobenefit their agendas;

entitlements, liberal, democrat(ic), etc.

[socialist_n_TN]

4. Why not? I paid into them, I'm entitled to them.......

AND being a baby boomer, I paid EXTRA into them (50% than previous) to pay for my own generation's size. In addition, I had my retirement age raised which ALSO meant I paid extra. I AM fucking entitled to what was promised.

[Dawgs]

11. Exactly. Entitlement literally means guaranteed earned benefit, based on rights or legislation.

Plus, The SSA calls it entitlement.

[whathehell]

22. I know exactly what you're saying..I think the OP's point is,

that The Right has been using it as a negative -- like "Oh she's so 'entitled", if you know what I mean.

I'm also a Boomer and share your indignation regarding the fact that we paid TWICE as

much as other generations, because the Social Security supposed "short-fall" was anticipated

back in 1983 by Reagan, Moynihan and Greenspan and we had DOUBLE the money taken

out of our paychecks.

I wish more people realized this -- It needs to be mentioned more in the media.

[Bunnahabhain]

28. If Boomers think they paid TWICE

imagine how us Gen X'ers feel. Imagine that as you argue to have the contribution cap lifted too so we not only get to pay longer than the Boomers we get to pay more than the Boomers...and we all know our SS will not be there for us so shafted yet again in our time of need.

[hfojvt]

52. the contribution cap is always going up - automatically

and as far as "we get to pay more" that is only true for the approximately 5% of wage earners who are lucky enough to have a job making over $110,000 a year. MOST members of generation X, or any other generation, are simply NOT gonna make that much money. And those who make over $110,000 can surely afford to pay the same 7.65% of their salary in taxes as the rest of us who make much, much less do.

[Bunnahabhain]

61. Two things here

1) The contribution cap goes up - automatically but so does the benefit cap. They align. Get it?

2) My income is not "luck." I mean, I did not wake up one morning in the poverty stricken rural podunk town I grew up in, and have the salary I currently have. It did indeed actually take a couple decades worth of intensive effort on my part. It is insulting to me to call this "lucky."

As to telling me what I can and cannot afford...can I get that same input on you? The fact is the cap will be removed and I will pay more than Boomers and get less back as the Boomers are going to bankrupt the system if it's left at the status quo. I also cannot contribute to a ROTH and my IRA contributions are with post tax dollars. Is this "fair?". I am very happy to pay the taxes I do, as I think taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society and I rather like civilization, but I also tire of some of the holier than thou "you can afford this" type comments.

Okay, flame away. When you do though I'll just keep pointing out I have no problems with paying taxes and paying more than those that make less than me. It's all the other baggage that can get ejected.

[hfojvt]

77. "a couple of decades of intensive effort on my part"

meanwhile the rest of us were just playing tiddly-winks, and that is why we have jobs that pay $30,000 a year - if we are lucky. Yes, I apply for jobs, and other people decide whether to hire me or not. I have absolutely NO control over that. Although once a person gets on the good job train, often that allows him/her to move up. Meanwhile the rest of us cannot even get on the first STEP of this escalator to riches.

Can you get that same input on what I can afford? Sure, why not have a $150,000 a year person tell a $13,000 a year person what he can afford. That makes perfect sense. Especially since a $13,000 a year person is ALREADY paying that 7.65% that you apparently do not want to pay.

And as for Boomers being the ones who "bankrupt" the system. My understanding is that Generation-X (which I call myself a member of) is actually bigger than the Boomer generation.

[Bunnahabhain]

84. My statement said nothing about what you were doing in that time.

That is a straw man argument. My efforts do not belittle yours and I am of the firm belief your efforts should not belittle mine. My point was you played this out as me being "lucky" as if I was playing tiddly-winks and someone walked up to me one day and said, "Hey! How would like this here job that pays some real good coin?" I spent the first 25 years of my life living well below the federal poverty line, so while I understand your issues, I do not think your ongoing issues should give you license for begrudging me.

As to your logic here in the input...if you feel it makes no sense for the 150k year a guy to give input to the 13k a year guy...how in the hell do you figure it makes sense for the 13k a year guy to get input on the 150k year guy? And you also framed the issue wrong. The 150k a year guy IS ALREADY paying 7.65% on the first 113k (this year). It's not about not wanting to pay it's about not wanting to pay on the portion of my income that will not count towards my SS benefit. This is the reason there is a wage cap: it aligns with the benefit cap. Fair is fair. Have me pay more I should be able to get more.

Lastly, as to the size of Gen X vs. the Boomers, here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Birth_Rates.svg You tell me which generation is bigger.

[hfojvt]

90. no, it is not a straw man, just another perspective

some people work hard and get good-paying jobs
other people work hard and do NOT get good-paying jobs.

The people with the good-paying jobs attribute the result to "effort". Yet, if the effort is the same, how is that a valid argument?

"Better" decisions? Well, isn't that just another name for "luck"? You picked a horse that won.

I figure it makes sense for a $13,000 a year guy to have input on a $150,000 year guy, because I kinda think, for some reason, that the $150,000 a year guy can afford much, much more than the $13,000 a year guy.

I am willing to test my theory out on my head too. Simply collect enough money to pay me $150,000 a year for a couple years and if it turns out I am wrong, I will happily admit it.

As for which generation is bigger, do you really think you can tell that from birth RATES? The size of the group keeps going. And since I was born in 1962, I do not consider 1965 to be part of the baby boom. The baby boom generation goes from 1941-1960 in my book and generation X goes from 1961-1980.

[Bunnahabhain]

91. So now the ability to afford things means

the guy that can afford less should be calling the shots for the guy that earns more? That makes perfect sense...in Bizzaro World.

All the rest is a strawman as it has nothing to do with anything I've said. You're just making shit up and trying to apply it to something I've said. Btw, where did you come up with this 150k number? Again, from nothing I've said.

[hfojvt]

101. well, in the real world, it is the $150,000 people who call the shots

because they can buy the Congress.

Nobody is calling any shots? I said that somebody making $150,000 can afford to pay 7.65% on their WHOLE paycheck just as easily as somebody making $13,000 can.

Sure the $150,000 number is made up, for the sake of discussion, so I don't have to keep talking about "more than $113,000" which is wordier and also more vague. Maybe you make $113,001 and are complaining about having to pay a whole 8 cents more in taxes. (Oh, the humanity) Maybe you make $113,100 and are upset about $7.65 a year. Maybe you make MORE than $150,000 and so I should have even more sympathy for somebody in your precarious situation.

I mean, just because somebody making $13,000 can live on 92.35% of their income. How dare I assume that somebody making $500,000 (for example) could do the same thing? Clearly I have no idea how hard it is to live on a mere $500,000.

[Bunnahabhain]

104. Funniest thing I've read all month

The thought of someone earning 150k buying Congress is great.

[Zoonart]

54. All the more reason

All the more reason for Gen X'ers to fight for the Boomers to retain their entitled benefits. if we Boomers do not get our SS and Medicare we will suck up all of our savings to keep the wolves from the door and die absolutely broke. That means NO INHERITANCE for the Gen X'ers. No inheritance means the death of the middle class and nothing less. Lets not make this about intergenerational warfare. We are all in this together. If we go down so do you and your young families. This is not what I want for my children and grandchildren

[Bunnahabhain]

62. Inheritance?

First, I think that's a pretty damn selfish reason for a Gen X'er (or any generation) to do anything. Second, my father died penniless when I was 10 and I send my mother money every month. That's probably not an argument that's going to work well on anyone that came from poverty. Not all of us have parents that made so much money they can actually leave some to their kids.

[Zoonart]

67. Sorry for your loss

I meant to highlight the larger implications that lead to the destruction of the middle-class. It's a downward spiral for everyone, even those among us with the least to loose.

[Bunnahabhain]

70. Thank you

for the kind words but it was 30 years ago so I've bounced back.

You mentioned intergenerational warfare and I agree that's not what we should indulge in. My post was in reply to a Boomer moaning how they paid TWICE and I wanted to put that in perspective for them. I think we should not engage in any societal warfare be it generational, socio-economic, gender, class, etc. The SES warfare I often see prompted my other reply and I wish people would realize EVERYONE is in this together so let's stop treating any hard working person like crap. It's the old adage about catching more flies with honey than vinegar.

[Zoonart]

82. So true

I could not agree more.

[whathehell]

68. We don't think it, we KNOW it..

Please check the Social security tax hike of 1983.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Reagan%2C+Moynihan%2C+Greenspan+tax+social+security&sitesearch=


Beyond that, I have no idea what your argument is or how you "know" that Social Security won't be there

for the Gen X'ers

[Bunnahabhain]

71. I am well aware of what happened in 1983

and since you are you should know what I said about Gen X'ers having it worse is also true. You at least got part of your working life prior to the changes. My entire work life is after the changes, and as I said, we all know that cap is going away so it will be on formerly untaxed income.

[whathehell]

74. Really?...I wonder why you posted it as an opinion, then, rather than a fact.

As for the rest, if you're now making (or expect to soon make) more than $110, 000 a year,

you're already in the top five percent of the economy, so it seems a tad small of you to

be complaining about the little bit more you'll be paying if and when the cap is raised.

I am not NEARLY as sure as you, by the way, that the cap WILL be raised,

as the repukes, like yourself, are whining about the "tax hike".


You haven't yet told us, by the way, how you "know" you won't be collecting Social Security.

[Bunnahabhain]

76. There's this thing called math...

and it would indicate that the status quo + demographics = no SS by 2035'ish in its current form. Boomers will drain the system in its current incarnation. From there the corollary will be a) revenues collected must go up b) benefits must be reduced c) retirement age must be raised. If none of those things are changed the result is inevitable. So I can reasonably (okay, reasonably...this is where I'm losing you, right?) conclude I will a) pay more b) collect less c) pay longer.

Can I say this with 100% certitude? No. Can I reasonably predict this? Yes. For Boomers to whine about paying TWICE is very self serving from where I'm standing.

[hfojvt]

83. another set of numbers would show

that your income over the last three years is more than my income over the last 27 years.

But by all means, let's cut my benefits so that you don't have to pay more in taxes.

[Bunnahabhain]

85. Did I say to cut your benefits?

Of course not. Strawman is the specialty of the day here I guess.

And like I predicted I'd have to say again I'm happy to pay taxes. Just make it fair. Take away the wage cap, take away the benefit cap.

[hfojvt]

95. again, this was the outline YOU used

two choices
1. tax increases
2. benefit cuts

I am in favor of the tax increases. Is that fair? To make the top 5% pay for the benefits of the bottom 95%?

Well, to me, it is more fair than making the bottom, poorer 95% take the hit.

And taking away the wage cap AND the benefit cap would seem to put us right back at square one in the long run.

But I can see that is tough for you to take the hit, and I feel bad. So bad, that I am willing to trade places with you and take that hit in your stead.

[Bunnahabhain]

102. If you traded places with me

you would get fired. Sorry but that's the truth.

Now, as to my "outline," could you at least even get the number of choices I listed correct? Increasing the retirement age was something else I mentioned.

Now, let's look at your question here: Is it fair to make the top 5% pay for the benefits of the bottom 95%?

No, it is not fair. Luckily that is not the situation we have. Everyone is taxed to pay for the SS benefit. So your framing does not reflect current reality. The question is, "Should the top 5% pay even more yet receive no congruent benefit? Is that fair?" I believe being taxed in a manner that does not give one equal access to the congruent benefit is unfair. You might not and that's fine but it's not like I do not hold a very reasonable position here. If one is taxed one should be allowed equal benefit as anyone else for a congruent benefit.

Lastly, as SS is currently constructed that those that pay the least gain the most in return relative to contributions, and those that contribute the most gain the least relative to contribution, it would be reasonable to assume this scaling will continue. If it continues then eliminating the cap would yield a net positive. Math. It's a great thing.

[whathehell]

110. There's this thing called Bullshit...

and you appear to have swallowed a lot of it....Where do you get your news, Fox?

Social Security is SOLVENT for forty years...In case you haven't grasped it, the reason

the Reagan Administration RAISED our contribution back then was to cover the anticipated shortfall.

Why would it be "drained" by 2035?...Could it be some rich fucks/and or their toadies in DC "borrowed"

it and now don't want to pay it back?...If so, it's up to US, yeah, you too, since you're so "concerned"

to put PRESSURE on them to give it back....For Gen'xers in your salary range to be whining about

paying a FEW MORE BUCKS in taxes, when you, unlike us, have so many more income producing

years ahead of you sounds VERY self-serving and selfish from where I stand...Talk to some people.

here who never HAVE and never WILL make a salary like yours, because frankly,

you don't sound like a democrat, you sound like a selfish repuke.

[hfojvt]

79. Repukes? Hell, "Democrats" like Clinton and Richardson

were happy to whine about it in 2008 http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869

and now Obama cannot seem to remember that as any sort of solution (although the infamous 'catfood commission' did include an increase in the cap as part of their 'solution' and Obama just loves to praise his catfood commission)

[whathehell]

111. Thanks for the vid. I got ya...There's a number of supposed "democrats" who seem to be

colluding with the Repukes to an unacceptable extent. They're called Blue Dogs, and yes,

I think Obama is one of them -- It's why, though I'll always vote for a D over an R,

I only give to and support PROGRESSIVE Democrats and why I'm NOT thrilled

about Hillary as a candidate in 2016.

[jeff47]

86. Um....You vastly overestimate our salaries.

We Gen X'ers are not paid particularly better than previous generations. Unless you happen to be in a very small set of fields.

If you happen to be in the grossly overpaid management track that has been shitting on the rest of us for all of our lives, well then my response to your rant is "fuck you".

If you happen to have a "normal" job, then the cap has no effect, or has a very slight effect - if you make $120k, raising the cap isn't going to do much to your income because you're only slightly over the cap.

And you really should pick one side or the other - if the cap goes up, Social Security will be there. That's the point of raising the cap. If you want to stay with the Republican efforts to claim Social Security is going away, well then there's no reason to raise the cap.

[Bunnahabhain]

88. Fuck you too

Could be my reply but that would be fruitless.

There are far more possibilities for earning money than what you have created here and "shitting" on people is not the sole way to earn a high income. Does a guy that says he's happy to pay taxes and happy to pay more than people earning less than him sound like a guy that makes a habit of "shitting" on people? The only one here that I can see coming close to shitting on someone is the guy who says his reply is "fuck you."

And as for picking "one side or the other..." I do not believe there are only two sides. Maybe my ability to discern multiple scenarios is part of why you're response to me is "fuck you?"

[jeff47]

92. So you're not part of management, but you are also part of management.

See, my "fuck you" was reserved for management, as my original post said. Yet here you are claiming that it was directed at you, but that your high income doesn't come from being in management.

You really need to pick one "truth" or the other. When you spout two contradictory statements, it's really easy to tell you are lying.

I do not believe there are only two sides. Maybe my ability to discern multiple scenarios is part of why you're response to me is "fuck you?"

Then enlighten us, oh great one. How, exactly, does raising the cap so Social Security can continue mean that Social Security will not continue?

Or is this like you being in management but not in management? Remove your "Sense, Common" as in that old video game?

[Bunnahabhain]

94. Thinking

something we should do here...

You created a scenario where only management can earn big money. Anyone with a "normal" job did not earn that type of money according to you. When you create a false dichotomy (logic lesson here) you only give the responder two choices. Do we see why this is a logical fallacy now?

The rest is babble so I'm not going to respond to it.

[jeff47]

97. You need to work on reading first.

You created a scenario where only management can earn big money.

Nope.

First I stated there's a small subset of fields where Gen X'ers can make a lot of money.

Then I started talking about one field, management. Now, basic reading would indicate that if I mention many fields and then talk about one field, then there might be other fields that were not mentioned. The "s" key doesn't press itself.

Now that we've covered basic reading, could you describe how raising the cap to make Social Security last will cause Social Security to end?

[Bunnahabhain]

99. Getting loonier I see

I never proposed raising the cap would end SS. Ah well about that basic reading. I mean, nothing I said remotely supports this assertion you are attributing to me.

And your initial post can easily be read as saying there are a small subset and that subset is in management as there are many types of managers. So do you believe all management are "fuck you" type jobs or just some management?

[jeff47]

100. Apparently you need me to quote your own post.

imagine how us Gen X'ers feel. Imagine that as you argue to have the contribution cap lifted too so we not only get to pay longer than the Boomers we get to pay more than the Boomers...and we all know our SS will not be there for us so shafted yet again in our time of need.

So, you're claiming we will pay more, meaning the cap is lifted. Yet "SS will not be there for us".

I'll ask again: How, specifically, will that work?

And your initial post can easily be read as saying there are a small subset and that subset is in management

Only if you're looking very hard to be insulted. Others will understand the concept of "plural".

[Bunnahabhain]

103. Or if the other guy is looking very hard to insult.

I think we can see what the case is here.

As to my earlier claim, yes, I believe the cap will be lifted (with no congruent benefit attached) and we already have seen the retirement age increased so we will pay more through dint of paying longer.

[jeff47]

105. Ok, you're halfway to explaining your original point.

Now, how will Social Security "not be there" for us?

[Bunnahabhain]

106. All indications are SS as we know it will not be there

It's not like I'm the only person saying this and the actuarial tables support this. Benefits at 75% or less level for Gen X is predicted under most likely scenarios and at least one more round of increasing retirement age for full benefit. So pay more, pay longer, SS will not be there for us as it was for our parents.

Do not get me wrong here as I would be happy to be incorrect on this. I just do not think I am.

[jeff47]

107. So now you're back to contradicting yourself.

Benefits at 75% or less level for Gen X is predicted under most likely scenarios

If they don't raise the cap.

If they raise the cap, Social Security is solvent for as long as they are willing to run the numbers - it's not like they've got a good handle on the economy 500 years from now. But it's solvent well beyond 50 years from now if they raise the cap.

So now you've just contradicted your first point, that Gen-X will have to pay more. In order to get your benefit cuts, you had to leave the cap alone, so Gen-X won't pay more.

Once again, how do they both raise the cap and make Social Security "not be there"?

[grahamhgreen]

122. You are wrong. We will simply raise the cap, hopefully with your help.

[socialist_n_TN]

127. I am empathetic and I didn't mean to denigrate the situation........

of generations that came AFTER the boomers because, yep, y'all paid the same percentage as we did after the law was changed AND are under the same retirement age strictures. HOWEVER, the boomers are the ones who are on the leading edge of this fight right now. If we don't get what was promised, it's guaranteed that nobody else will either.

And if we want to complain by generations, then the Millennials have even MORE to complain about than either one of us do. My daughter is also under the same strictures and faces a LONG time of this.

As I said though, we're the point of the spear at this time. As to your last sentence, with that attitude it's guaranteed that you will be "...shafted yet again in our time of need." I've fought this bullshit for 40+ years now and it's often felt like tilting at windmills. But what else are you going to do? Give up? Then it's guaranteed you will get "shafted yet again".

[ellenfl]

130. so let's call it 'earned entitlements', because i am absolutely entitled to them. eom

[whathehell]

131. Sounds good to me, LOL!

[hfojvt]

55. thank you

dang, I am so tired of this silly argument over a word. I suppose this argument will never die though. Some people are just latched on to it.

[Blue_Tires]

75. True, but rightly or wrongly

the GOP has morphed the word to the point where to the average person on the street, "entitlement" means "getting something I don't deserve"

[spanone]

5. you pay in and you're entitled to take it out.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. Absolutely...

The dictionary definition is "the fact of having a right to something." I'm entitled to my pension, just as I'm entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[DURHAM D]

6. I have no problem with the word... I am entitled.

jftr - For many decades they were referred to as "Middle-Class Entitlements"

[JoePhilly]

8. You are entitled to them. They are yours.

[Hoyt]

10. While we are "entitled" to it, the funds have to be available, the economy has to cooperate, the

Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2013, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

jobs have to be available to preserve the integrity of program, etc. In those respects, there are issues that won't be resolved easily.

[grahamhgreen]

29. Simply making people who make over $110,000 pay into SS Will fix it.

[Hoyt]

44. Not really, it only resolves part of the problem as this DUer clearly demonstrates--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3890822


The fact is, such simple solutions won't cut it.

[grahamhgreen]

87. Really!!! Senate Bill 1558 guarantees SS for 75 years! :) check it out :)

S. 1558 will:

Guarantee Social Security can pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 75 years. Currently, with no action, Social Security will have sufficient income and assets to pay all monthly benefits in full and on time until 2036. S. 1558 extends that through 2085, as estimated by the Social Security Administration.

Preserve currently scheduled benefits. Many proposals claiming to “strengthen” Social Security either undermine the program’s universal values, or the adequacy of its benefits. S. 1558 closes Social Security’s funding gap without doing either.

Ensure everyone pays their fair share to Social Security. While nearly all Americans must make Social Security tax contributions on all of their wages, the wealthiest only do so on the first $106,800 of their annual earnings. S. 1558 rights this wrong. Social Security payroll tax contributions are only paid on wages up to $106,800 in 2011. S. 1558 gradually lifts the cap on taxable wages so that all workers contribute on all of their wages. It applies the Social Security payroll tax to covered earnings of $250,000 or more right away, but maintains the current-law benefit base. Importantly, it leaves the current cap temporarily in place, creating a donut hole so that a person’s earnings between $106,800 and $250,000 are not subject to a precipitous one-year increase in their payroll tax contributions. The donut hole would close over time, since the $106,800 cap rises with average wage increases. Once the cap reaches $250,000, in approximately 25 years, all wages would be subject to the Social Security payroll tax contribution. Benefits would continue to be calculated on the basis of capped wages, as they are under current law.

Affect a small number of Americans. Few Americans would be affected by this change to the Social Security payroll tax cap. Just 1.2% of workers had earnings over $250,000 in 2009, including 0.4% of women, 0.3% of African American workers and 0.3% of Latino workers.

Follow the will of the public. Seven out of ten (71%) voters support enacting Social Security payroll tax contributions on wages above $106,800, according to a bipartisan poll by Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint.

http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/media/blog/2011/sanders’-bill-s-1558-guarantees-social-security-for-75-years

[Hoyt]

96. Based on questionable economic projections, we can make it APPEAR viable for 1000 years.

You can look at the CBO chart above.

I love Bernie Sanders, but that is a big tax increase. While the rich can afford tax increases and I am certainly not opposed to tax increases (in fact, support them), I think such increases should also go to jobs programs for the young, education, healthcare, unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc., just as much as SS. Tax increases alone, aren't gonna solve the issue. (Cut military too is fine with me.)

In any event, small changes to SS, with protections for those on low end, help for the young getting jobs, and the like, will make us all better off. Point is, I'm not opposed to putting some things on the table that might get effective legislation through the log jam.

[grahamhgreen]

108. Not a tax increase. Social security and taxes are two seperate pools of money. SS is insurance we

All pay into for a stable and decent society that protects us all from the ravages of poverty, and the blight that comes with it.

Taxes, otoh, pay for war, and government subsidies for the hoarding class..... OK, and roads and some good stuff too, lol

[Hoyt]

109. Sorry. If we take another 6% out of your income, that is 6% that we can't use for other purposes.

Call it whatever you like, but it's essentially a "tax."

[grahamhgreen]

121. It's insurance against disaster and old age. Heck, I'd pay more for more benefits if I could.

[Hoyt]

123. I agree. But, that is one reason raising the cap only partially helps.

You pay higher benefits to those paying more. Point is, it is not the total solution, and it takes money needed elsewhere.

[seveneyes]

12. What should the disabled or otherwise non-working people call them?

Entitlements are not just for those able and willing to work and pay into the system.

[Common Sense Party]

114. Exactly.

The whole "I paid in" line gets old.

"You paid in? Good for you. Not everybody can, but everybody deserves the benefits."

Here I thought this was a progressive site.

[pipi_k]

13. I'm sorry but...

to me, they ARE entitlements.

I paid into them.

I am entitled to get them.

And that, IMO, is exactly why Republicans want to give the word a negative connotation.

They don't want people to figure out that if we paid into the system, we are entitled to benefit from what we put in.

Fuck them. I'll call it what I want.

[cali]

14. no I won't. I'll continue calling them entitlements.

[jeff47]

15. We really should stop fleeing from language

"Liberal" was said with a sneer for decades. Eventually, some liberals decided to call themselves "progressive" to get away from it.

Doing such things is giving up. It's letting the opponents control the debate because we're busy running away from the words they demonize.

We should stop that. We should respond with "Damn right I'm a liberal. And that's not a bad thing.". And "Damn right they're entitlements. And that's not a bad thing."

[SomeGuyInEagan]

33. Proud to be a LIBERAL. Mother Jones was pushing this point ten years ago.

Quit running from the word - embrace it.

[raging moderate]

58. Actually, the word "Progressive" is MORE than 50 years old.

Fifty years ago, my grandfather, an old flaming liberal bohemian artist, was still subscribing to a publication called "The Progressive." He told me that he had been subscribing for a pretty long time.

[jeff47]

60. The word is thousands of years old.

The widespread use of it as an alternative to "liberal" is a relatively recent phenomenon.

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. +1 n/t

[grahamhgreen]

98. Using their framing is losing the argument before it starts. Words have meaning and are important

Look at the difference of these two frames:

Free trade agreement

Vs

Costly trade agreement


Free trade sounds great, even though there is nothing free about it, whereas costly trade sounds bad - you win the argument with the framing.

Check out George lakoffs book, "don't think of an elephant"

http://m.

&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dn4UfGZOPJjE

[tillikum]

16. you doidn't "pay in" or "save", you were paying for your parents

just as the generations working now are paying for current retirees. And what we all get back is significantly higher than what we will ever contribute.

who cares what you call it, it's a good deal for the average person. we should be so lucky as to get such lopsided and favorable returns on ALL our retirement savings.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

[ashling]

53. exactly

you are, however, "entitled" to this benefit.

[tillikum]

56. absolutely. its the best ROI for mere existance possible. well except maybe the Swiss

[Xyzse]

17. I call the tax cut on the top 10% entitlements.

Taking away the estate tax is an entitlement spending.

Medicare, SS, and those things, they are items we paid for, much like we pay for insurance.
It is not a damn entitlement.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. You aren't entitled to the benefits you paid for? nt

[Xyzse]

57. We expect to get what we paid for.

"Entitled" has become pejorative, changing a legitimate claim to becoming illegitimate through the way it has been stated.
When it was added to the connotation of "Sense of Entitlement" it became synonymous with selfishness.

We should be entitled to the benefits we pay for, but we are not entitled to it through the fact that we are who we are, rather to the fact that we paid in to it.

It would be nice to get that word back to the actual meaning of things, but I have to admit that it has become more of an epithet.

So, perhaps to make things clearer, there are quite a few examples of entitlement then:

1 - Things we paid for, we are entitled to the benefits given that contract.
2 - Rich people lessening their tax burden and not paying in to the system that provided the infrastructure that allowed them to succeed to begin with(citing their supposed superiority).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

59. So many people who don't like the word don't suggest good alternatives even after ample opportunity.

"Entitlements" are less cuttable, less sacrificeable than most other terms.

[Xyzse]

64. Hrm... As for another word for Medicare and SS

I'd call them social contracts, and probably drop the word "Social".

Although people definitely don't like the word "Contract" since it makes them feel like it is something thrusted upon them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

65. Also "contract" reminds of the Contract on America that Gingrich took out in the last shutdown. nt

[Xyzse]

66. What would you suggest?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

69. "Social Insurance" or "entitlements".

[TBF]

18. I agree. K&R nt

[starroute]

20. Before there were entitlements, people were dependent on private charity

That meant they had to grovel. To prove how needy they were. To prove they had fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Or else to admit how unworthy they were and how absolutely dependent on the generosity of the charitable.

If you go back to the original arguments for establishing Social Security and unemployment compensation and the other "entitlements" we enjoy today, you'll find that a main talking point was that they would lift the crippling burden of shame from the poor and disadvantaged.

That should still be the argument today. Saying "I'm entitled because I paid into the system" perpetuates the right-wing mindset. The real argument is that everybody is entitled to food, shelter, medical care, and education simply by virtue of being human. It's that whole "unalienable rights" thing. Anything more than that, you can go out and earn -- but no one should ever be deprived of the basics.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Nope. I remember when "Obamacare" had negative connotations.

Don't run away from it. Embrace it.

[alc]

23. supreme court said they are not entitlements

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

No matter how much you paid in, you have no right to the benefits. Congress can get rid of or reduce them at any time.

I don't think it's so bad that people feel they are entitled to the money they put in and keep pressure on congress. Unfortunately I won't be eligible until the 2030's and I've already given up hope that anything will be left for me. I get pissed when people say we don't need to worry since the trust fund is ok until 2037. I want some changes so they can tell me I'm entitled to benefits and that the benefits will be there.

[Hoyt]

25. I really think that's an important issue, and one that needs to be addressed now.

The fact is, younger folks are paying for current retirees. That is just the way it is.

To say SS/Medicare changes are off-limits -- in this economy, and what we can expect in the future -- is setting us up for real problems down the road.

[grahamhgreen]

35. All we have to do is raise the cap and that fight is now.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

38. Not worried. SSA is in fine shape and just needs some tweaking ...

... as it does every generation.

Most of the cries of the end of it are from the rabid Tea folk or someone trying to make a buck. It is THE MOST SUCCESSFUL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OF ALL TIME, which is why Republicans hate it.

Raise the cap (or lift it entirely) and SSA is funded forever (speaking as someone who would get hit by lifting/raising the cap and who will perhaps have benefits reduced if there is a means test, I am fine with that - SSA was never meant to be the sole source of retirement income and for those who really need it because something else didn't go was they planned, I am glad it is there).

But is it truly the third rail of politics, as the Republicans re-learn every few years.

[onethatcares]

24. what we need to do

is have each one of us, me, you, & you and all the other people, stand on a street corner, not in one place, and hold a sign that says,

Social Security is not an entitlement


It would be seen by a lot more people and it definitely would be grassroots.

I'm ready.

[backscatter712]

26. Earned benefits. We paid in out of every paycheck we ever got.

Which means every time our earned benefits get cut, we're being robbed.

[Common Sense Party]

115. Yeah, what about those who don't or can't pay in?

To hell with them? You only get the benefits if you, personally, "earned" them?

[grahamhgreen]

27. Earned Benefits. Payments is good, that's what the banks call it when they get paid what they are

due.

They certainly don't call them mortgage entitlement checks.

[KansDem]

30. I got into an argument with a TeaBagger's use of "welfare" to describe these programs.

I was demonstrating outside my Rep's office (KS-3rd District) an couple of years ago. There were about 30 of us and 3 of them. Well, one fellow said SS was "welfare," and I replied, "No, it's an insurance policy." He said, "No, it's welfare," and I said, "Look, it's like your home-owner's insurance policy, you auto-insurance policy, your life-insurance policy and you health-insurance policy. You pay premiums and it's there for when you need it." He said, "No, it's welfare."



How do you argue with this kind of ignorance?

Incidentally, this fellow was wearing bib-jean overalls; the only one at the rally to do so. I thought later he might have been a ringer, brought in to look like a "Real 'Murikan" in this suburban Kansas City district.

Here's a video of the rally!

(I'm in the background! )

[oldhippie]

31. I will continue to use the term as defined. nt

[Nine]

32. I agree.

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/12/stop-calling-them-entitlements-for-christs-sake/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/12/1119304/-They-re-earned-benefits-not-entitlements

[rock]

34. Entitlements may be earned or unearned

I prefer to seek clarification when someone (like a repiggie) uses the term. Ask, "Do you mean the unearned entitlements or do you mean the earned entitlements?"

[KittyWampus]

36. As other DU'ers have pointed out already you are wrong. Completely wrong. Please read this thread

and learn.

They are entitlements.

[TalkingDog]

51. Yes, indeed. Thank you.

n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

37. Please DO call them entitlements

and explain to others what the word means and why it's the CORRECT term to use, how it PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO THE BENEFIT.

[freedom fighter jh]

39. An entitlement is something that you have earned, or otherwise have a right to.

The word has picked up a bad connotation because it's often said with a sneer.

But entitlements they are: They have been earned.

[Common Sense Party]

116. That's a better definition. We MUST include "or otherwise have a right to."

Simply saying "I paid in" is not correct. Some people can't pay in, yet they're still entitled.

[MADem]

40. I think anytime anyone snarks with that word it should be pointed out that people are "entitled"

to their benefits because they PAID FOR THEM. Take the fucking word back, grasp it firmly, and use it to beat the living shit out of anyone who tries to get shirty.

You can take the word "benefit" and make it sound just as nasty with the right "tone."

I say get back in their faces and give 'em what-for.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. Non-Entitlements are more Cuttable, Sacrificeable, Discretionary

I suppose you might feel you aren't entitled to receive SS and Medicare, but most other working / retired adults feel they are.

If you want to shoot something down, like the word "entitlements", then it really would be best to have an alternative or two to suggest in its place.

[Zorra]

43. I agree. I never heard them called entitlements until conservatives who wanted to put an end

to them started calling them that, and they planted the word as a general negative in the the collect American consciousness.

They poisoned the word, just like the poisoned the word liberal, IMO.

[Plucketeer]

45. Word games

From NaturalNews.com

Call it what it is, Right?

Olive oil comes from olive, grapeseed oil comes from grape seeds, peanut oil comes from peanuts and canola oil comes from... rapeseed. The plant known as "rape," from a Latin word for "turnip," is a domesticated crop in the widely cultivated Brassicaceae family (also known as the mustard family, the cabbage family, or the cruciferous vegetables). Although the word has disturbing connotations today, during World War II people thought nothing of referring to "rapeseed," and the oil from those seeds was used for industrial purposes.

The real problem with the name "rapeseed oil" is that the oil was so toxic that the FDA banned it for human consumption in 1956. So when Canadian growers bred a new variety of rapeseed in the 1970s with a lower content of the toxic erucic acid, they decided they needed a new name for it.

The term canola was coined from "Canadian oil, low acid" to convince consumers that this oil was safe to eat. And while "canola" was originally a registered trademark, the term became so widely known that the trademark was eventually abandoned, and "canola" became the default term in many countries for any low-erucic rapeseed oil.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034733_canola_oil_rapeseed_food_labels.html#ixzz2iN3kSIEb

I posted this to show you CAN take an innocent, innocuous word and make it toxic. While the term "Entitlements" is tame enough, it's the mental image of it that the Right has successfully crafted that's the problem. While we may all be on the money to cling steadfastly to "entitlements" - turning it back to where it wears a halo is going to be a Herculean task. So - yeah - go sit in a truckstop diner and chat loudly about how you just turned of age to start collecting your entitlements. See what sorta looks you get. Of course, if alot of the patrons come over and start congratulating you, then dismiss me as full of s*it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. They call them "entitlements" to make it sound like they're talking about "welfare"....

There are still people in this country who believe you can just wake up one morning and say, "I don't FEEL like working anymore." and then go down to the "welfare office" and the government will cut them a check that's higher than what you get in a minimum wage job.

You will find these idiots all over YouTube. They are out there in force defending the concept of working for a living as if Obama is a threat to that. It's base racism at it's ugliest and it has it's roots in the deep South. Republicans have been telling poor whites for generations that the ONLY reason they are poor is because their boss can't AFFORD to pay them more because the government is taking away all of HIS money to support lazy black people in the big cities. There are bosses that will lie and back that up.

These idiots really believe it was Obama that crashed the economy by increasing welfare. They're the types that confront someone for parking in the handicapped area if they aren't in a wheelchair and get in their face about how they look like they could be working. They're the ones that scream about "Obamaphones" because they believe Obama used THEIR TAX MONEY to give away free cell phones to black people.

They're also often the ones on Social Security and flat don't BELIEVE the Republicans are talking about THAT. They consider the Republicans to be their heroes. They're going to "strengthen" Social Security. It's those "Demoncrats" that want to rob from the whites to give to the blacks. That's why they're so quick to believe Obama stole from white folks Medicare to pay for black folks Obamacare.

And, yes, a significant number of these Morans STILL believe they can forget about seeing any benefit from "Obamacare" because their skin is the wrong color.

[Paper Roses]

47. Since when do we call things we paid for "entitlements"?

WE paid for SS and medicare. The only thing we are entitled to is payment for same.

[ybbor]

48. Hear, hear

As John Houseman said in the 1970's Smith Barney commercial: "We earned it!"

[TalkingDog]

49. Yes, they are entitlements.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/11/990940/-Yes-They-Are-Entitlements

[question everything]

50. Certainly not after "60 Minutes" of last night, showing members of Congress

using campaign donations as their entitlements for the good life.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157523n

(this is a video. I hope that I can find the transcript...)

[lostincalifornia]

63. They are entitlements. WE ARE ENTITLED TO THEM, because we have paid into them

If they are redefining the terms, it is our responsibility to correct them, and not let it go

[Vashta Nerada]

72. I prefer "earned benefits."

[MadrasT]

73. You say that like it's a bad thing.

They *are* entitlements and there is nothing wrong with that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. Christ on a cracker.

"They're trying to take away that which is rightly mine! But don't call them entitlements."

Entitlement is what they are. Social Security is insurance, you are entitled to a benefit if you experience the loss for which you are indemnified, in this case, old age or disability.

[Ganja Ninja]

89. They are what they are.

You're entitled to the money therefore it's an entitlement. Don't let them redefine the word. Entitled means just that entitled as in yours, meant for you. If any thing it should be called an "earned entitlement".

[ctsnowman]

93. I agree

it's rebranding because cutting social security has never polled well.

[Common Sense Party]

112. It seems like this conversation comes up every couple months on DU.

I feel there's nothing wrong with the word, "entitlements." I'm entitled to them. Period.

Also, your comment that you "Paid in all my life," is irrelevant.

My son receives SSDI disability. He has never paid a dime into the system. I sure have, but he has never worked a day in his life and never will. He's severely autistic and cannot speak or fend for himself, much less hold down a job. But he is entitled to the benefit.

Others may not have paid much into Social Security or Medicare, but they are still entitled to receive benefits from it.

Entitlement means that the payments must be made to the beneficiaries, and that Congress cannot just say, "Oops! We shut the government down. You won't get your benefit payment this month. Too bad."

[johnp3907]

113. This again?

They're entitlements. And I'm a socialist. I'm not going to change these words because republicans say they're dirty.

[yodermon]

117. DO NOT LET FRANK FUCKING LUNTZ CONTROL YOUR USE OF THE ENGLIGH LANGUAGE!!!

Reclaim the word. Don't accept his framing of the issue.

Stop thinking of the goddamn elephant. That is all

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

125. Oh, my. I posted practically this same thing before reading the thread. Yes!

[KaryninMiami]

118. Thank you- I say this all the time

This is how the GOP is so masterful at themes and constancy with positioning. Words like "entitlements" and phrases like "pro-life" stick in people's brains. We need to get smarter and better with our communications...

[TorchTheWitch]

120. that's like asking people to stop using the word "liberal" because the Repubs

have painted a bad patina on it. Sorry, they're entitlements because we are ENTITLED to them, and I don't care that Repubs try to paint it to mean something different and bad anymore than I care that they've tried to hijack the word "liberal" and done the same.

I'm not going to stop using certain correct words just because the Repubs have tried to hijack and change their meaning and neither should you. Why are you insisting we give in to Repub false changes of our vocabulary?

[Paladin]

128. Well said. (nt)

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

124. No. An entitlement is something one is entitled to. Reclaim the word. Don't let Luntz and the RW

make it dirty like they did with liberal.

You are entitled to the benefits because you worked for them!

[B Calm]

126. but, I am entitled to them.