Social Security Isn't An Entitlement

[74novaman]

You are absolutely correct! There are those of us of a certain age who have paid long and much into what we were promised would be there for us to supplement our savings upon retirement. It is my money and I expect it back with interest.

Maybe expecting the .gov to fulfill a promise wasn't the best retirement plan?

I am fully expecting any money I "pay into social security" may as well be going into a fireplace. I plan for my own retirement. Not going to trust the govt to keep their promises.

Maybe instead of students rioting in the streets like london has, if we ever do what needs to be done and get rid of SS we'll have a senior citizen riot.

[OCD]

Maybe expecting the .gov to fulfill a promise wasn't the best retirement plan?

I am fully expecting any money I "pay into social security" may as well be going into a fireplace. I plan for my own retirement. Not going to trust the govt to keep their promises.

When it first came into being, the people getting the checks had never paid paid anything in. Those payments were funded by concurrent government taxes. The same thing is happening now. The current Social Security payments are funded by current federal taxes. The money the current recipients paid 30 years ago was spent 30 years ago. The money their parents or grandparents paid 60 years ago was spent 60 years ago. The "insurance" lie has been repeated for so long people believe it, but Social Security works the same as any other government wealth distribution. The people working now pay taxes to support people who aren't working now.

You're also right about believing government promises, as shown by the quote on the first page where the government promised the Social Security tax rate would never exceed 3% and they would only apply the 3% tax to our first $3000 of annual income. They promised that was the most we would ever pay.

[gigag04]

Social Security is an entitlement when people claim disability to get paid out of SS coffers. I have had individuals I deal with on the streets tell me they quit their jobs because they got more from SS due to a "disability." I ask them if they ever worked and they say yeah but I quit.

Me: "why did you quit?"
Them: "Because when I worked, they turned my check off..."
Me: "Who's they...what check?"
Them: "My disability check...I'm disabled..."
Me: "Really??? You seem totally fine, what could be that matter"

And I've heard some marvelous disabilities...I have a bad back (this person weighed 280 lbs...)
I'm a slow learner....
I have bad knees....
I get dizzy if I stand for too long...


Sure there are definitely some legitimately disabled people that need to be taken care off. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, but I it so hard for me to not be disgusted with the whole program.

[4copas]

.Sure there are definitely some legitimately disabled people that need to be taken care off. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, but I it so hard for me to not be disgusted with the whole program.

You are right Bro. It's sad we turn and shake our heads and ask, what the heck happened, can this be fixed? I wish I knew a good answer.

[connectme3504]

They can get rid of it. Just give me back what I put in.

[pbwalker]

Do away with it today. Let those who are on it keep getting it, and today's workers are refunded for what they put in.



/one can dream that SS was front loaded. lol

[puma guy]

Social Security was changed from an idependent fund and allowed to be put in general funds by LBJ and a Democrat controlled congress. The "lockbox" for lack of a better term went away. Democrats also voted in taxing the benefit and Al Gore cast the decciding vote to increase that tax. Both parties have continued to raid the fund with outrageous spending. Hey, they're all politicians. The ultimate oxymoron is "Political Ethics".

[HD76]

I have very little faith, that I waill ever see anything from Social Security. I am in my mid 30's, and I've been working since I was 18. Currently, I work in IT, and earn a decent living. I would rather be able to keep that money, since I do not think the goverment can keep up with SS.

I also agree with what someone about a senior citizen revolt, if they do away with Socail Security. This program has been poorly run, and is now poised to either ruin us financially as a country, or give people who paid in for years and years the short end of the stick.

Personally, I think they need to set a cut off date, and start phasing out (lowering) the benefits paid out to younger people. Let them know this is not their retirement account, and tell them to start saving on their own. Next drop the whole pretence of a SS tax, and just fund the remainder from the general budget, so people don't feel like they are paying into anything. Yes some people will take more of a hit that others, but its a screwed up mess we are in. Kicking the can down the road, will only make this worse as time is our enemy when we are on the wrong side of compond interest.

Only reason to keep kicking this down the road, is because it is uncomfortable to deal with. In all likely hood, someone is not going to get re-elected after making a thogh decision like this. A true public servent would be ok with this, because the good of the country should out weigh his personal gain while in office. Saddly there are not enough elected officials who feel this way.

Many politicians also have an entitlement mentality as well...

[2crazy2carry]

What is wrong with entitlements in the first place?

Republicans talk all about the "lazy bums" getting free money from Uncle Sam but never raise an eye brow to all the companies that take free money from uncle sam.

What is a small business loan? Its FREEEEEE money. Yet many republicans are small business owners who have taking FREEEE money.

Rather than attack entitlements maybe we should attack the gapping hole in our economic laws like the deletion of the Glass-Stegal law, or stock trade laws that allow thousands and thousands of trades to be made in micro seconds of the same stock items.

Its so easy to look at ppl on hard times who need some individual help and financial assistance. But it takes a strong person to challenge their views and to EDUCATE themselves to the idea that its not the guy on unemployment thats the problem; its the way our publicly traded corporations, major banks, and governement have been conducting themselves in a way that is not in the best the interest of the ppl of this country.

We are the richest country in the world and can easily help ppl struggling without a job, but no economy can withstand the literal "legalized" extraction of its monetary assests and nothing is circulated into the system to replace that which was taken out. Printing new money has been the answer but that is a fraudulent replacement of monetary value and it is killing us with inflation.

I wish ppl who are going to speak about economics and complain about entiltements and how they hurt our economy, would get an education and learn that there is a list of things hurting our economy right now. Entitlements is not even in the top 10 of what is reducing the money supply in this country. Entitlements is a talking point, a punch line, and a distraction from whats really hurting us and what reforms are really needed to get this country going back in the right direction.

To add, I dont want to hear anything about wealth redistribution. The core value of democracy is that power is equally DISTRIBUTED to all citizens. Money in our country is power. We should all have some sort of access to enough money to atleast have power over our own lives. If corporations of banks rig the playing field and it is no longer fair, then the government has the duty to re-level the field so all can have a chance at power over their own lives.

Secondly, wealth redistribution has taken place for about the last 30 years. Its all ran uphill with the promise that it would run back down hill. Problem is if you give a company money, the ceo is going to give the extra money to the share holders and themselves if you dont make it law that they cannot do that. Yes governement can serve a positive role in preventing greed on such massive scales it can cause schools, fire departments, and police stations to go broke, and ppls 401k's to be robbed. Regulating greeed is part of our countries history that seems lost these days. That what the monopoly laws were about. Same for the laws passed after the great depression. For the last 20-30 years now the laws have seemed to change and undo most of those laws. It seems to encourage greed. Its time for that to change.

So when we hear the government tryng to take steps to "spread the wealth" ppl need to stop pretending they are wealthy and that it is going to effect them. Fact is most ppl are not wealthy enough to actually help the economy if their "wealth" was redistributed in some manner. The governement needs to protect our right to have power over our own lives. Protecting the monetary system that disperses the money in our system to ensure there is enough to go around for atleast these basic powers is their job.

Lastly...what the heck do these anti redistribution ppl think the purpose on an economy is?...To distribut the wealth of a nation out to its citizens.........so if the money is distributed in an unblanced way due to an imblanaced economy what action should a govenrnment take on behalf of the ppl? Well i would sumbit some sort of REDISTIBUTION is necessary as well as changes to the economic system to prevent the imbalance from distorting the dispersment from happening again.

Ok...rant over...flame away...hope just maybe one person might have actually jumped off the entitlements bandwagon after reading this.

[Oldgringo]

What is wrong with entitlements in the first place?

Republicans talk all about the "lazy bums" getting free money from Uncle Sam but never raise an eye brow to all the companies that take free money from uncle sam.

What is a small business loan? Its FREEEEEE money. Yet many republicans are small business owners who have taking FREEEE money.

Rather than attack entitlements maybe we should attack the gapping hole in our economic laws like the deletion of the Glass-Stegal law, or stock trade laws that allow thousands and thousands of trades to be made in micro seconds of the same stock items.

Its so easy to look at ppl on hard times who need some individual help and financial assistance. But it takes a strong person to challenge their views and to EDUCATE themselves to the idea that its not the guy on unemployment thats the problem; its the way our publicly traded corporations, major banks, and governement have been conducting themselves in a way that is not in the best the interest of the ppl of this country.

We are the richest country in the world and can easily help ppl struggling without a job, but no economy can withstand the literal "legalized" extraction of its monetary assests and nothing is circulated into the system to replace that which was taken out. Printing new money has been the answer but that is a fraudulent replacement of monetary value and it is killing us with inflation.

I wish ppl who are going to speak about economics and complain about entiltements and how they hurt our economy, would get an education and learn that there is a list of things hurting our economy right now. Entitlements is not even in the top 10 of what is reducing the money supply in this country. Entitlements is a talking point, a punch line, and a distraction from whats really hurting us and what reforms are really needed to get this country going back in the right direction.

To add, I dont want to hear anything about wealth redistribution. The core value of democracy is that power is equally DISTRIBUTED to all citizens. Money in our country is power. We should all have some sort of access to enough money to atleast have power over our own lives. If corporations of banks rig the playing field and it is no longer fair, then the government has the duty to re-level the field so all can have a chance at power over their own lives.

Secondly, wealth redistribution has taken place for about the last 30 years. Its all ran uphill with the promise that it would run back down hill. Problem is if you give a company money, the ceo is going to give the extra money to the share holders and themselves if you dont make it law that they cannot do that. Yes governement can serve a positive role in preventing greed on such massive scales it can cause schools, fire departments, and police stations to go broke, and ppls 401k's to be robbed. Regulating greeed is part of our countries history that seems lost these days. That what the monopoly laws were about. Same for the laws passed after the great depression. For the last 20-30 years now the laws have seemed to change and undo most of those laws. It seems to encourage greed. Its time for that to change.

So when we hear the government tryng to take steps to "spread the wealth" ppl need to stop pretending they are wealthy and that it is going to effect them. Fact is most ppl are not wealthy enough to actually help the economy if their "wealth" was redistributed in some manner. The governement needs to protect our right to have power over our own lives. Protecting the monetary system that disperses the money in our system to ensure there is enough to go around for atleast these basic powers is their job.

Lastly...what the heck do these anti redistribution ppl think the purpose on an economy is?...To distribut the wealth of a nation out to its citizens.........so if the money is distributed in an unblanced way due to an imblanaced economy what action should a govenrnment take on behalf of the ppl? Well i would sumbit some sort of REDISTIBUTION is necessary as well as changes to the economic system to prevent the imbalance from distorting the dispersment from happening again.

Ok...rant over...flame away...hope just maybe one person might have actually jumped off the entitlements bandwagon after reading this.

Well said ! (from a guy who has voted for every Repub Presidential candidate since starting with Goldwater)

[Crossfire]

What is a small business loan? Its FREEEEEE money. Yet many republicans are small business owners who have taking FREEEE money.

Really? "FREEEE money"?

Then why do they keep wanting those monthly payments? And what about all that interest?

Dang! I got rooked again!

[sjfcontrol]

And inflation? Really? 2009 was slightly DEFLATIONARY. (-0.34% inflation)

Small Business loans are not "free", as they are repaid with interest. How many government handouts ever get repaid?
Also, they enable those businesses not only to make money for their owners, but to employ people who in turn support their families. This is the concept of the free-enterprise system, and is good for a freedom-based economy.

You may not want "to hear about it", but wealth redistribution takes money from those working to support themselves and the economy, and gives it to those who don't.

[74novaman]

What is a small business loan? Its FREEEEEE money. Yet many republicans are small business owners who have taking FREEEE money.
Loans have to be paid back, with interest. Hardly FREEEE.
Rather than attack entitlements maybe we should attack the gapping hole in our economic laws like the deletion of the Glass-Stegal law, or stock trade laws that allow thousands and thousands of trades to be made in micro seconds of the same stock items.
I actually agree that repealing Glass-Stegal was a bad idea
Its so easy to look at ppl on hard times who need some individual help and financial assistance. But it takes a strong person to challenge their views and to EDUCATE themselves to the idea that its not the guy on unemployment thats the problem; its the way our publicly traded corporations, major banks, and governement have been conducting themselves in a way that is not in the best the interest of the ppl of this country.
I'm not really sure that extending unemployment benefits to over a year can really be considered assistance anymore. Unemployment benefits are meant to be a crutch until you can walk again, not a wheelchair you ride around in for as long as possible. I've spoken to people who are not looking for work because unemployment benefits are good enough for them. How is that helping the economy? The whole "corporations and banks" canard is an old one. Guess who makes up the owners and stock holders of those corporations and banks? Private citizens, teachers unions, etc. You cannot separate the businesses from the people. They are one and the same.
We are the richest country in the world and can easily help ppl struggling without a job, but no economy can withstand the literal "legalized" extraction of its monetary assests and nothing is circulated into the system to replace that which was taken out. Printing new money has been the answer but that is a fraudulent replacement of monetary value and it is killing us with inflation.
Perhaps if we had sane tax laws and allowed companies to bring back money earned overseas without massive tax burdens, more assets would be introduced to this country.
I wish ppl who are going to speak about economics and complain about entiltements and how they hurt our economy, would get an education and learn that there is a list of things hurting our economy right now. Entitlements is not even in the top 10 of what is reducing the money supply in this country. Entitlements is a talking point, a punch line, and a distraction from whats really hurting us and what reforms are really needed to get this country going back in the right direction.
So which Ivy League school is your economics degree from? If you're going to insult the rest of us based on our lack of knowledge and education, at least tell us what ivory tower you come from, oh enlightened one!
To add, I dont want to hear anything about wealth redistribution. The core value of democracy is that power is equally DISTRIBUTED to all citizens. Money in our country is power. We should all have some sort of access to enough money to atleast have power over our own lives. If corporations of banks rig the playing field and it is no longer fair, then the government has the duty to re-level the field so all can have a chance at power over their own lives.
Everyone in this country has the same opportunities for education and progression. Even an inner city kid with a terrible school can go to a public library and learn on his own....if he WANTS to. To add to it, we are not a DEMOCRACY. The founding fathers abhorred democracy as mob rule. We are a REPUBLIC. Everyone should have equal OPPORTUNITIES, yes. But by saying that everyone should have the same amount of money and power, what you're wanting is equal OUTCOMES. That is not a free system.

Ok...rant over...flame away...hope just maybe one person might have actually jumped off the entitlements bandwagon after reading this.

My comments in red and bold. You certainly didn't win me over. But maybe you'll understand why I think you're wrong, at least.

[OldCurlyWolf]

By definition, it's an entitlement.
The FICA that comes out of your paycheck all those years is just a tax, just like the other federal withholding. The money goes into the general fund, not some "trust fund". And the government gives you a stipend that has no real correlation with what you have paid in.

And yes, I'm counting on it to be there as an important secondary income source in about 8 years.
Sure hope it's there, but I don't have all my eggs in that basket. I sure feel for those that do.

No, it is NOT an entitlement.

There was a trust fund, it is full of IOU's from the Feds. In the Sixties, the feds STOLE the trust fund and replaced it with IOU's. Originally SS was set up that it was not supposed to be touched, then Congress(Large Democrat Majorities in both houses and Johnson as President) decided that they just couldn't stand to see all that money drawing interest for the future of people who put it there. So they "changed the law" and STOLE it just like the thieves Democrat politicians have always been. Every congressman, senator and any other federal employee who is still alive and who had anything to do with that enormous theft should be put in the pen and left to rot.

[puma guy]

Social Security was changed from an idependent fund and allowed to be put in general funds by LBJ and a Democrat controlled congress. The "lockbox" for lack of a better term went away. Democrats also voted in taxing the benefit and Al Gore cast the decciding vote to increase that tax. Both parties have continued to raid the fund with outrageous spending. Hey, they're all politicians. The ultimate oxymoron is "Political Ethics".

By definition, it's an entitlement.
The FICA that comes out of your paycheck all those years is just a tax, just like the other federal withholding. The money goes into the general fund, not some "trust fund". And the government gives you a stipend that has no real correlation with what you have paid in.

And yes, I'm counting on it to be there as an important secondary income source in about 8 years.
Sure hope it's there, but I don't have all my eggs in that basket. I sure feel for those that do.

No, it is NOT an entitlement.

There was a trust fund, it is full of IOU's from the Feds. In the Sixties, the feds STOLE the trust fund and replaced it with IOU's. Originally SS was set up that it was not supposed to be touched, then Congress(Large Democrat Majorities in both houses and Johnson as President) decided that they just couldn't stand to see all that money drawing interest for the future of people who put it there. So they "changed the law" and STOLE it just like the thieves Democrat politicians have always been. Every congressman, senator and any other federal employee who is still alive and who had anything to do with that enormous theft should be put in the pen and left to rot.

As I stated in my earlier post the politicians have raided the trust fund under a Democrat controlled Congress and Democrat President, also taxed the benefit. The funds from gasoline excise taxes that are supposed to be for highways have also been robbed and Bill Clinton tried to raid the funds under Pittman-Roberston even though the authors of that bill stipulated they can never be used for anything other than the original intent. Fortunantely Clinton failed. Both parties are happy to spend the money but the Dems have a proclivity for robbing Peter to pay Paul and then create new taxes. We should have voted them all out (both parties) for new players, but failed to do so.