Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are paying for or contributing to something, doesn't that remove the "entitlement aspect?
One of the spending areas the White House continuously maintains the need to reduce, are "entitlements". Contained in that description is Social Security benefits. Now for the purpose of argument I wish to provide here the definition of entitlement.
entitlement: (1) thinking you are owed something, or should receive something "because of who you are". (2) belief that one is deserving of or "entitled" to certain priveledges because of who they are. (3) the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program.
In my humble opinion, Social Security should not be lumped into that category, BECAUSE we pay into it our entire working lives. If we are paying into it, and the amount that is dedcucted continues to increase based on the economy, why is it considered an "entitlement" when it is paid back to us? For all intents and purposes, SS is forced retirement savings, controlled by the government. It should be earning a fair market rate of interest that, if the funds are properly managed, would provide a stable retirement income for all who collect at the time of retirement.
Because the government has plundered and mismanaged those funds for decades, they now choose to label it "entitlement" and claim that WE are the ones responsible for the exhorbitant costs to the budget.
The word entitlement suggests receiving something for nothing. That being the case, why would the bonuses and "golden umbrellas" that have been provided to CEO's for far too long now, not be considered "entitlements"? It is THEIR perception that it is OWED to them, NOT that they have earned OR deserve it. It is definately not justified income. If you or I performed our jobs in the manner in which these Wall Street thieves have done, we not only would have been fired, but most likely prosecuted as well. In the warped view of Corporate America and our government officials, rather these people NEED to be paid these bonuses etc. in order to KEEP them! Now if that isn't "entitlement", then what is?
Even our representatives are provided with benefits that can be categorized as "entitlements", but you don't see any cuts being suggested for those. In fact they are still trying to find ways to increase their benefits, while the rest of the nation absorbs the costs AND are forced to accept the cuts these representatives, who are so far out of touch with reality, deem to be "entitlements".
Why is the retirement we work and pay for all our lives, considered "entitlement" when we retire? Why ISN'T the "retirement" and benefits that ALL government officials collect upon leaving office, NOT "entitlement"?
Add to the current financial problems Social Security is facing, the fact that many of our representatives, in their infinate wisdom, wish to legalize 12 to 20 MILLION illegals, and provide them with retroactive Social Security benefits. Where is the logic in this? Doing just that would indeed convert Social Security to an "entitlement", but NOT for the American tax payers who have already been footing the bill for not only the Social Security benefits that will be paid to these illegals, but all the other tax payer subsidized benefits that these illegals HAVE and will continue to collect!
I guess it's only entitlement if it is paid to the tax payers who have actually paid for it!
Perhaps we should request that the definition of "entitlement" be corrected to read:
entitlement: That which is paid for by those with the least amount of voice, who have the nerve to expect it to be paid back to them at the legally determined time of retirement.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 50
How are you doing? Is everybody feeling better? How did the thing go with the storage unit nazi?
Social Security and Medicaid are then Entitlements because you paid for it and are entitled to get the benefits.
Social Security tax has not always been a tax. It was changed at some point I guess but when I started working a couple of years ago (read eons), it was Federal Old Age Insurance. That is what it was called when it was set up under Roosevelt and it was voluntary.
Have A Great & Powerful Day W/J
Regarding bonuses and goldern parachutes, no one should be getting this kind of reward in the current economy. There is no need for companies to worry about losing good employees. There are far more job seekers than jobs. Let the employees work harder to stay employed.
Democracy.. which should read "Our Republic" is not easy to balance, making things fair for everyone. But, the fairness has really never existed here. Looking back into history, many of our "old" rich families, screwed the daylights out of the public, to gain their wealth.
OH... and one commenter mentioned rich republicans, in a derogatory manner. Let me remind you sir, that there are many very rich democrats too. And most of them never donate a dime to any charity. Some do, to make themselves more famous, as being such a "wonderful, charitable" person.
Horsepuckey!
But we all know that the great BO is gonna save us all... so what's all the fuss, eh?
rofl
Entitlements should not be allowed in America because their is not supposed to be any "who you are." My American constitution lists all Americans as equal so why should one be worth more than the other?
Public servents are paid very well for the jobs they do even though they do not do very much of their jobs and spend most of their time campaigning so what reward should they be given for this? It seens to me they should be getting pay cuts not rewards for doing nothing.
It has also never been administered as people thought it was going to be. When it was started, people thought that it would be put into a fund all by itself and would gather interest waiting for you to retire and take the money back. It doesn't do that. It goes to the general fund and the government has borrowed from it over the years.
But even if it had been put somewhere and invested, most people use up everything they put into it in less than 3 years.
I did the math for my father when he was moaning and groaning about this years ago. Taking what he put into SS, and allowing for investments that yeilded 10%, the money he put into it would have been exhausted in 3 years. He retired at 62 because his job of 40+ years was physically exhausting. So, by the time he was 65, whatever money he put into the fund would have been gone...had they really put it somewhere where the money would grow.
That does make it an entitlement, doesn't it?
I read that today it takes 3 working people to pay for every retired person and by the time all baby boomers are retired, it will take 7 working people to pay each one's SS.
It didn't help that health care kept going up by double digits every year. Health care specialists saw an opportunity to earn as much as a CEO, and they took it.
You clarified the point I was making in your second post.
As to your human rights aspect, many of those things would not even be a factor, if the "entitlement" actions of those in Washington and on Wall Street were removed in the way THEY want to reduce the "entitlement" of SS. Isn't it rather an instance of the pot calling the kettle black? They define the SS WE PAY FOR, as an entitlement, but the perks and priveledges they TAKE for their "service" to our country, are not by them defined in the same vein.
I agree with your comments on the bonuses and golden parachutes, with the exception of one thing, "losing good employees". How do they even consider claiming them as good employees, when those "good employees" are the very people responsible for the economic situation we find ourselves in now. If you or I take out a mortgage, then enter into other financial transactions that place us in a precarious situation, resulting in our inability to pay our debts, we are NOT going to be able to demand that Washington and ultimately the tax payers bail us out. We will, as so many already are, lose EVERYTHING we have worked for. Our credit reputations will be destroyed, and we can expect to have to work a long time to restore financial faith in our decisions. Wall Street on the other hand, has done just the opposite. Because of the financial choices they have made, they have created a situation where people who once had the ability to pay the debt they have undertaken, now do not have the jobs to make their payments. Payments I might add, that have in some cases tripled because of the actions of these banking firms and hedge funds. THEY caused the problems, reaped the benefits, forced the tax payers to prop them up, then repaid those tax payers by taking their homes and destroying THEIR financial credibility, all the while continuing to collect their UNDESERVED pay, and just recently BILLIONS in bonuses that should never have been paid.
For others, SS was to be in addition to pensions they had EARNED from the companies they had devoted their working careers to, only to find that Wall Street, Washington, and often times greedy owners and or share holders, had plundered those as well. So is it the fault of the employee who had been contributing to his own retirement, that when the day finally came, all he was left with was the SS he ALSO paid into?
My mother is 68, still working full time, and the retirement account she had through her employer is pretty much gone. Not because she borrowed from it, not because her employer mishandled it, but because of what Wall Street and Washington have done.
I have read the same statistics that you have read regarding the number of people it takes to contribute to each baby boomer who retires. Inflation has much to do with that, and inflation is one of the direct results of the current financial situation we find ourselves in. The prices we pay for certain items are driven NOT by supply and demand, but the greedy "entitlement" attitude of the CEO's. The cost of goods is most definately affected by the financial portfolios of the heads of the companies providing them.
No, I do not agree that it makes it an entitlement. We pay into it, at a high rate, and the actions of Washington and Wall Street have reduced its value, AND stolen the retirement funds of many of those people. If your father worked 40+ years for a company, we would expect that SS would not have been his only source of retirement income. Unless of course his retirement had been plundered the way so many others have.
Those of us who have already worked over 30 years, and are still at least 20 years away from retirement, most likely will never see a penny of what we have paid into it. So where will our "entitlement" be? What return can we expect for the huge sums of money we have paid into the system, and watched being squandered, plundered, and mismanaged?
Our children are grown, so there would be no payout to them.
If the government cannot be more fiscally responsible, and we cannot assure that the money we paid into the system will be paid back to us or our heirs, then we should have the option of taking what is ours and putting it into our own investment or savings plan with inheritance rights. If we have this option, then those who do not collect from what they have paid in, are providing for their families, including those with small children.
One of the worst aspects financially is that the programs DO NOT pay for themselves with pay in dues except for social security. All of these others are programs requiring substantial general budget payins to remain solvent year to year. Given increasingly large budget deficits and a Congress that does not factor in contractual future debts such these, this burden will not be able to borne all that much longer.
The other programs ARE entitlement, and many of the people who have paid into those programs ALL of their lives through their taxes, are never qualified to make use of them, while many who have NEVER contributed, find ways to bleed the system constantly.
Truth be known, I've never expected to get any of the money I've paid in to SS back. People have been saying since I was young that Social Security will crumble before I reach retirement age, which is now just twelve years in my future, yet I'm still paying into it.
With all this slandering of SS, I think it's time we set our sights on the "entitlement capitalist" attitude, which justified a $35 Billion dollar government payout for a company that paid $18 Billion in bonuses to its managers in the year that it was going down the tubes.
Something is really wrong here. Bonuses are usually NOT paid to workers and managers when a company is going bankrupt.
if you didn't put anything in, you don't get anything!
Click here to send a Love Out Loud ping.
Also instead of lowering the SS payments to an older U.S. citizen when they make 2 cents over the limit on their second or first job, quit giving (or stop considering the idea of giving) SS etc to those who are not even U.S. citizens. It may not fix everything wrong with the program, but it would be a really good start.
SS does indeed become an entitlement when someone who has never paid into it, and does not have the right to be here, will be allowed to draw from it.
Anne G., Feb 2, 2009, 1:56pm EST