Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights or by agreement through law. It also refers, in a more casual sense, to someone's belief that one is deserving of some particular reward or benefit.

At what point is “entitlement” over stepping the boundaries of hard working Americans from enjoy the fruits of their labor?

In a free society, one person's "need" does not, and cannot, create an "entitlement" to another person's labor, wealth, or liberty.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/on_takings_taxes_and_entitleme.html

Social Security does suck. I can save money on my own thanks.

Who should be entitled and who should not? why?
Those that are productive citizen get more of the entitlement than those that don't put into the system...but that not how the system work less get more and more get less but give more and recieves less is that fair?

iclfan2 wrote: Social Security does suck. I can save money on my own thanks.

Yes it does but for the sake of discussion, if the public wasn't "forced" to save, a lot wouldn't, and end up with nothing and have to be taken care of anyway. IMO, a lot, if given the money from SS, would spend it and not put it away.

Captain Cavalier wrote:

iclfan2 wrote: Social Security does suck. I can save money on my own thanks.

Yes it does but for the sake of discussion, if the public wasn't "forced" to save, a lot wouldn't, and end up with nothing and have to be taken care of anyway. IMO, a lot, if given the money from SS, would spend it and not put it away.

That shouldn't be our problem. If people are too stupid to save for retirement, that's not my concern.

Everybody should be entitled to a basic standard of living. Not just the people that Belly deems have worked hard enough.

Social Security should have an opt-out system. If you don't pay into it, you won't receive it. Let's the people who want out, out, and the people who can't save to stay in the program.

What a suprise.....


Republicans not in favor of Social Security

Captain Cavalier wrote: Yes it does but for the sake of discussion, if the public wasn't "forced" to save, a lot wouldn't, and end up with nothing and have to be taken care of anyway. IMO, a lot, if given the money from SS, would spend it and not put it away.

You are correct if the public were not forced to save some would not and we would take care of some anyway. But let me ask you a question. Has the federal government acted any differently than those who would not have saved their money?

They forced you to to save and then took that money and said they were going to save it on your behalf. Have they? No. They took that money and just as irresponsibly as those individuals you feared would not save, they spent it. They spent for their own benefit in the here and now with total disreguard for the future. Instead of a few being screwed, many will now be screwed.

gibby08 wrote: What a suprise.....


Republicans not in favor of Social Security

What is good about it ? Nice addition to the thread.

gibby08 wrote: What a suprise.....


Republicans not in favor of Social Security

As a democrat, I'm curious as to why you are in favor of s.s.??

The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or even political parties may have similar special "entitlements" under certain programs. The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicade make up 42 % of the budget and will be growing.

Suggest reading: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2114.cfm

CenterBHSFan wrote:

gibby08 wrote: What a suprise.....


Republicans not in favor of Social Security

As a democrat, I'm curious as to why you are in favor of s.s.??

In theory, if handled correctly I would be in favor of it simply because of the fact as others pointed out most people wouldn't save, and the cost to care for them later would be > than the cost to save for them now. However, that assumes the gov't can guarantee the $ is going to be there and that every cent you put in you can get back along with some interest...that's a big assumption.

derek bomar wrote:
In theory, if handled correctly

That's all I need to say. Like communism, in theory things are always great. Not so in reality though.

gibby08 wrote: What a suprise.....


Republicans not in favor of Social Security

This. Imagine not liking a system where they take a dollar from you in your 20's, and when you're in your 70's, give you (in real terms) ninety-some cents. :rolleyes:

bigmanbt wrote:

derek bomar wrote:
In theory, if handled correctly

That's all I need to say. Like communism, in theory things are always great. Not so in reality though.

I personally don't think communism sounds great in theory

majorspark wrote:You are correct if the public were not forced to save some would not and we would take care of some anyway. But let me ask you a question. Has the federal government acted any differently than those who would not have saved their money?

They forced you to to save and then took that money and said they were going to save it on your behalf. Have they? No. They took that money and just as irresponsibly as those individuals you feared would not save, they spent it. They spent for their own benefit in the here and now with total disreguard for the future. Instead of a few being screwed, many will now be screwed.

Agreed. The feds have dealt with it poorly as you stated. Yet if the government would let us opt out, they'll raise taxes or cut a lot of programs to make up the loss. Sure I trust myself more than the government, so I would like the opt out but I would hope it wouldn't be offset by the higher taxes somewhere else.

Besides, it ain't gonna happen anyway.

iclfan2 wrote: Social Security does suck. I can save money on my own thanks.

Kinda wish I'd continued pursuing my initial goal of being a pastor. Pastors are allowed to opt out of it as "conscientious objectors."

Captain Cavalier wrote: Yes it does but for the sake of discussion, if the public wasn't "forced" to save, a lot wouldn't, and end up with nothing and have to be taken care of anyway. IMO, a lot, if given the money from SS, would spend it and not put it away.

Technically they wouldn't have to be taken care of [sic]. They could just be allowed (NOTE: different from "caused") to lie in the beds they've made.

Personally, I know I could do a better job with my money. As an unemployed person in the last two-and-a-half months, I've somehow managed to invest what little money and time I had into an Internet marketing project that has made me about $3500 in that span of time. Not enough to live on, but over 1000% ROI. Can any governing body in the US guarantee such an ROI? I doubt it.

There needs to be an opportunity to opt-out. I understand that some people feel the need for the government to hold their hand throughout life. I'm not inherently opposed to it being an option. In that sense, I'm not entirely against SS. I AM opposed to being subjected to it against my own will.

I Wear Pants wrote: Everybody should be entitled to a basic standard of living. Not just the people that Belly deems have worked hard enough.

I see a couple problems with this.

1) Who gets to determine what a "basic standard of living" is, and to what authority do we appeal that gives said party that right?

2) When you say "everybody," do you really mean that? There are plenty of people out there who do need assistance and who are doing what they can to make ends meet. There are ALSO those out there who are completely apathetic about being a contributing member of their own household, let alone society. I think THIS is the embodiment of that which people like Belly are so upset.

bigmanbt wrote: Social Security should have an opt-out system. If you don't pay into it, you won't receive it. Let's the people who want out, out, and the people who can't save to stay in the program.

I agree.

gibby08 wrote: What a suprise.....


Republicans not in favor of Social Security

What a suprise ... you can't spell "surprise."

derek bomar wrote: I personally don't think communism sounds great in theory

What about it doesn't sound good, in theory?

Captain Cavalier wrote: Agreed. The feds have dealt with it poorly as you stated. Yet if the government would let us opt out, they'll raise taxes or cut a lot of programs to make up the loss. Sure I trust myself more than the government, so I would like the opt out but I would hope it wouldn't be offset by the higher taxes somewhere else.

Besides, it ain't gonna happen anyway.

Unfortunately, I think you're right.

I didn't define a basic standard of living because I don't know what it should be. I have no operational definition (thank you Psych class) for it but I believe that it exists.

To answer your second point, yes. I don't believe like Belly and some of the others on here that most or even a large portion of people receiving aid and assistance are lazy pieces of crap who are happy to just live off of it. Those people do exist and they suck really badly at being humans but I don't think a small percentage of douchebags should get in the way of helping people. Not to say that the current systems help people, they're simply not good but I think part of it is the way they're done.

I'm probably wrong since I don't know anything about it but there isn't much dialogue going on between people receiving this help be it SS, Welfare, whatever, and the agencies handing it out. It's "here's your SS/Welfare/whatever check for the month" with no input on what or how they spend it. Basically I'm saying that to qualify for some of the programs that exist you should have to be enrolled in career counseling services or something like that. So there is someone there to say "hey, you really should do x instead of y so that you can start to not need us".

I've seen a lot of folks on here wishing they could opt out of SS. A couple months back on the old huddle I posed a question..."what would have happened if SS would have successfully been privatized" in regards to the current recession we're facing. The first reply was "They would have gone down like everything else. Can you really be that stupid, Boat?"

And, so, my question is...the concept of social security is to provide some kind of income security to the masses that isn't subject to the risks of a free market...you're willing to give up this secure source of income and possibly be left with nothing? Considering the way many of you talk about the impending financial collapse of the U.S.A., it seems it would be nice in theory to have something that is supposedly backed by the full, faith and credit of the USA. Point is, wouldn't you be concerned about your social security taking the kinds of hits that 401k's etc. did?

BoatShoes wrote:
And, so, my question is...the concept of social security is to provide some kind of income security to the masses that isn't subject to the risks of a free market...you're willing to give up this secure source of income and possibly be left with nothing?

What income? If you're very, very lucky, they return your money to you with a "return" that matches inflation. Often, it doesn't even do that.

Considering the way many of you talk about the impending financial collapse of the U.S.A., it seems it would be nice in theory to have something that is supposedly backed by the full, faith and credit of the USA.

First, "Full faith" investment vehicles are available outside the social security system. Second, if the U.S. economy were actually to collapse, how much value does "full faith and credit" really have? Invest in toilet paper and ammo.

Point is, wouldn't you be concerned about your social security taking the kinds of hits that 401k's etc. did?

Like any other investment, it depends on my time horizon, and my tolerance for risk.

If the only people that received SS were those that actually paid into it, it would be a better idea. Also, you should be able to take out, all at once, what you actually put into it during your life on the day you decide to retire. Then take your lump sum and do with it as you please.

I don't see why nobody has ever challenged this though and taken it to court. I don't see how it can be legal to be forced into something like the SS program.

BoatShoes wrote: I've seen a lot of folks on here wishing they could opt out of SS. A couple months back on the old huddle I posed a question..."what would have happened if SS would have successfully been privatized" in regards to the current recession we're facing. The first reply was "They would have gone down like everything else. Can you really be that stupid, Boat?"

And, so, my question is...the concept of social security is to provide some kind of income security to the masses that isn't subject to the risks of a free market...you're willing to give up this secure source of income and possibly be left with nothing? Considering the way many of you talk about the impending financial collapse of the U.S.A., it seems it would be nice in theory to have something that is supposedly backed by the full, faith and credit of the USA. Point is, wouldn't you be concerned about your social security taking the kinds of hits that 401k's etc. did?

I think that the social security system, when originally crafted, was a good idea. Unfortunately, the funds collected were not annuitized the way they were supposed to be.

I think it was such....not because people were inca[pable of saving/investing on their own, but that most of them wouldn't have saved shit. At least with social security (FICA withholdings), the recipient kicked into a general fund.

So, to answer your question, the Social Security gig is just another brick in the wall regarding our collapsing system. If our system is so sound as you ascribe, then where is the 55 trillion going to come from as it relates to unfunded liabilities?

I remember as a 15 year old kid. Playing my best friend 8 ball for 5 bucks. I won. He said double or nothing. I said OK. After lucking out and beating him 12 times in a row, did I actually expect him to pay me $5 to the 12th power?

I Wear Pants wrote: I didn't define a basic standard of living because I don't know what it should be. I have no operational definition (thank you Psych class) for it but I believe that it exists.

To answer your second point, yes. I don't believe like Belly and some of the others on here that most or even a large portion of people receiving aid and assistance are lazy pieces of crap who are happy to just live off of it. Those people do exist and they suck really badly at being humans but I don't think a small percentage of douchebags should get in the way of helping people. Not to say that the current systems help people, they're simply not good but I think part of it is the way they're done.

I'm probably wrong since I don't know anything about it but there isn't much dialogue going on between people receiving this help be it SS, Welfare, whatever, and the agencies handing it out. It's "here's your SS/Welfare/whatever check for the month" with no input on what or how they spend it. Basically I'm saying that to qualify for some of the programs that exist you should have to be enrolled in career counseling services or something like that. So there is someone there to say "hey, you really should do x instead of y so that you can start to not need us".

My dad was/is a hard core Republican. My mom was a moderate Republican. They live in their paid off $250,000 home, watch carefully over their portfolios, and happily collect their social security checks each and every month.

They both say that the SS security was/is one of the best programs ever implemented..