Entitlements???

[kpete]

Last edited Sun Oct 18, 2015, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/your-money/retirees-futures-hinge-on-candidates-plans-for-social-security.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1

[newfie11]

1. If Bernie doesn't win

We can kiss them all goodbye!

[BlueStateLib]

5. quickest way to destroy social security is to turn it into a welfare program

[newfie11]

6. What welfare program

It's paid for by workers

[Ed Suspicious]

9. If they get their way to make it a means tested program . . . If those who don't "need" it

don't get to share in it, it is over. That's path forward for republicans and neoliberals. Divide the country on who gets it and who doesn't. The beginning of the end is tied in a bow around that one precious idea.

[SusanCalvin]

23. ^THIS^ nt

[Enthusiast]

10. The truth doesn't matter when they control the entire media.

[newfie11]

12. I really hate what's happening to my country

Meanwhile idiots don't bother to vote.
Things have gone so far down hill since Reagan. His legacy of destruction goes on.

[SoapBox]

18. AND they don't know how Social Security works.

You put in a percentage and your employer matches that percentage each paycheck...that is if you are employed by some one (independant business owners can contribute on their own).

There is a maximum each year, based on earnings...and then the contributions (yours and the employer stop).

What makes me absolutely crazy, is that there is no law saying that the employer's portion must show on your pay stub...same with Medicare. That should change so that people can see exactly what is being saved in their name.

[newfie11]

30. Great idea

Wonder why this isn't done.

[Yupster]

31. I'm sure you know this already, but

just to be clear, it's a pay as you go system. There is no money being saved in your name.

Your contributions and your employer's contributions are paid out to current retirees.

What workers will get when they retire is whatever the law says they'll get based on whatever formula congress decides to payout once we retire. The money will come from the money paid in by those working while we're retired.

[Gothmog]

2. Great meme

[Hortensis]

3. DAMN RIGHT my SS is an entitlement! Evil GOP operatives made "entitled" a SLUR.

It's a plot. A genuine conspiracy to persuade idiot Americans to give up the rights we gave ourselves and paid for ourselves, to not fight to keep them.

This is ultimately not just about destroying other safety net programs we created for ourselves, but about DESTROYING SOCIAL SECURITY.

Refuse the Kool-Aid! Be ENTITLED! We earned it.

Proud entitled liberal American, Hortensis.

[1monster]

20. GTMA... See below. I didn't read the thread until after I posted.

[Hortensis]

27. So it continues, decade after decade, after decade...

[ThoughtCriminal]

25. It works because people have had to endure "Self-entitled" jerks

The ones who cut to the front of the line, take up two parking spaces, don't tip, are always rude to staff and "hired help", drive alone on the HOV lane, demand immediate service ahead of everyone else...

And every single one that I've known is proudly, loudly, Republican.

So they have manged to make "Entitlements" a slur with their own obnoxious behavior. Unlike Social Security and Medicare, self entitled behavior is not an earned benefit - it's usually a product of inherited wealth.

[pinboy3niner]

4. Entitlelments attacked by Republicans also include veterans' benefits

Because we didn't pay for them except with our service and sometimes our blood, which obviously doesn't count.

[Recursion]

7. This again

It is an "entitlement" because you are legally "entitled" to receive a payment defined by formula. Other entitlements include veterans' benefits, Medicare, SNAP, TANF, and farm subsidies.

[meaculpa2011]

8. Correct. It's a legal term...

for a government expenditure that does need not to be appropriated.

They make educated guesses at what next year's expenditures will be, then the computers spit out checks every month.

Fewer people die that year, there could be a shortfall. More people die and they may run a surplus.

But... you qualify for it, you get.

It makes no sense to get crazy about the word.

[Igel]

11. This is my observation.

I've watched over 600 people with this problem in the last few years, so it's not like it's without some empirical support.

It ain't what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know that ain't true.

Before you can learn something that's true, you must unlearn what's occupying that little niche in your brain that keeps the true "something" from moving in. It's like a squatter. A squatter honeybadger. Unlearning is hard.


They firmly know what they think "entitlement" means. It doesn't matter what 250 million other English-speakers think it means, how the legal code defines it, or what it's meant for a couple hundred years. All that matters is the honeybadger in their mind. The honeybadger don't care.

[Gormy Cuss]

15. Yep. Government entitlements are good things.

Entitled behavior by wealthy people, not so much.

[SoapBox]

19. ^^^This!!!^^^

[isitreal]

13. have to change word use

have to change the word use from entitlements to RESPONSIBILITIES every time this is talked about. Always insist it is a RESPONSIBILITY..!!! people understand and identify with that word better. Demand that it is called what it really is.

[Hortensis]

24. We do that, enemies of government programs we set up for ourselves WIN.

They will refuse to use that word and just keep attacking "entitlements."

Look what they did to "earmarks." That used to be a way to make sure money allocated to orphans actually went to orphans instead of building golf courses. First they corrupted its use, then they pointed to the corruption to convince people earmarks were bad. Then they canceled the ability to earmark money.

SOP for them. They do all they can to MAKE a program fail by under-funding and appointing bad managers instructed to hurry failure along, they sic right-wing media to obscure any continued achievement in spite of all this with lies, and, importantly, they go after the vocabulary.

They wouldn't bother with changing definitions of words if it wasn't a powerful tool for their destruction.

No! I suggest instead we defend and use the word entitled a LOT. "I'm entitled to a piece of my cake. I baked it for myself as well as others." "I'm entitled to my paycheck. I earned it."

[Faux pas]

14. Thanks!

Posted it on FB

[Fritz Walter]

16. Let's keep things in perspective

Several weeks ago, I sat through a presentation about the need to invest in our country's infrastructure. Sounded like a good idea, except the presenter was a CEO of a heavy equipment manufacturer and it was obvious that he was looking to snag some juicy contracts/orders with almost any infrastructure re/construction project.

Towards the end of the presentation, he threw a slide onto the screen with a line-graph showing recent years' infrastructure expenditures compared to "entitlements." As you might guess, the trend for entitlements was headed upwards while the infrastructure expenditures were relatively flat. Conspicuously absent from that graph were some HUGE parts of federal spending: defense and international security assistance. Not to mention interest on the national debt. His distortion of facts and figures was so blatant that I walked out of the meeting.

Before I baled out, I listened to this overpaid gasbag go to great lengths to talk about the multiplier effect that infrastructure spending has in the economy: workers' paychecks go into groceries, mortgage/rent, gasoline and all sorts of discretionary spending. As if that multiplier effect is true only to his employees and the people who do the actual shovel-work. There was no mention of the fact that money paid out through Social Insurance programs -- including Medicare and the Affordable Care Act -- multiplies just as easily. Most of it doesn't disappears down a rat hole, never to be seen again. True, the outrageous costs of medical care here is a major problem (don't get me started on Big Pharma, please), but health care providers spend money in our communities just as do construction workers, teachers, veterans, retirees and yes, even government workers.

If we as a nation are going to compare apples to apples, we should examine ALL facts and figures, keep an objective, informed perspective, and not just cherry-pick data elements that suit your argument or political campaign.

[raccoon]

33. Wish you'd said something to the overpaid gasbag. Of course I realize you may not

have been in a position to do so.

Thanks for posting.

[1monster]

17. Well, it IS an entitlement, because we are ENTITLED to what we paid for.

The problem isn't in the word "entitlement" itself. It is in the way neocons redefined entitlement to mean something that is a handout or give away and not something that one is entitled to. Just like Reagan and his ilk re-branded the word "liberal." It was once a noun that people were proud to own. Now, having been so vilified (remember "lieberal'?) by the right, many liberals are ashamed to wear it and call themselves "progressives" (all progressive means is making progress, but one can make progress in any direction.

Instead of being outraged by the right wing use of the word "entitlement" we should take it back and shove it directly in their faces.

[bYou bet your bippy We are ENTITLED to Social Security and Medicare! We PAID for those entitlements with over forty plus years, each, for those entitlements on the installment plan. Those entitlements belong to US! And don't you freakin' forget it!!

[SoapBox]

21. Bernie should incorporate this into his speeches.

I think jaws would drop, when Americans begin to understand how "entitlements" has been manipulated.

[JHB]

22. Just remember RW spin tanks used SocSec and Medicare to demonize "entitlements"

Back in the 80s I remember conservative politicians throwing out large scare'em numbers about how much of the Federal budget went to entitlements... and then they launched into their standard welfare-bashing.

Never mentioned was the fact that by far the lion's share of the big scary number was Social Security and Medicare, not food stamps or other assistance for the poor.

And the reason that was never mentioned is because they weren't interested any sort of rational argument about funding priorities or structure, it was because they wanted to wanted their audience to draw a particular conclusion: that the government is wasting a fortune of "your hard-earned money" on mooching layabouts (and mostly of "those people, you know who I mean&quot to drum up support for "cutting waste" and generally pumping the "government is the enemy" meme.

So no, I'm not inclined to repost something that just feeds back into the same loop.

[Hortensis]

26. Yes. I remember within literally minutes "Maybe we'll repeal Social Security"

being expressed by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole after the GOP won control of both houses of Congress during Bill Clinton's presidency. This was during their initial, jubilant statements to the press immediately upon getting the election results.

That was when I realized just how committed most of the GOP is to destroying these programs, even though by the vast majority of Americans want them. BTW, they backed off fast from those public statements then, but today's GOP is even more committed to destroying Social Security and Medicare.

[Babel_17]

28. Our Social Security accounts enabled spending, enabled growth

We put our full faith in the soundness of America and it paid off. Now when it's time to honor our investment, government should pay us back with a smile and a thank you.

[Babel_17]

29. Another way to look at things

If the cushion of our payments hadn't been there, taxes on the wealthy would have had to go up, or government spending on essentials like our infrastructure would have had to go down. Needless to say, the war lobby wouldn't permit meaningful cuts.

Much of the great wealth of today exists because government had Social Security funds to help keep at bay inordinate borrowing and higher taxes.

And the Republicans keep insisting our accounts aren't truly guaranteed, apparently we were gambling on the economy and our government. By their logic we are owed a $@#& ton of cash. Our economy has had amazing growth, and government has shown its OK to run up trillions in debt if it's for a good thing, and will spur the economy.

More money to retirees, like more money to the poor, is one of the best ways to properly stimulate the economy, to see that money gets spent on "the right things".

But I'm not arguing the above points. I'm just saying let's stick to doing the right thing. Boomers approved and voted on raising taxes on themselves so as to take care of earlier generations, and to ensure their future benefits. Let's not stab them in the back. And if Republicans want to have it both ways, well, OK, let's have that discussion.

[1939]

32. To some degree it is "our fault"

Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate established the "unified budget" to cover up the deficit. This allowed the trusts funds like Social Security and the Highway Trust Fund (which were both generating a surplus) to be rolled into the overall budget. This brought them into competition with all other government spending. Before that, they were isolated as FDR intended.