• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When did welfare become n entitlement?

Rosie1 said:
I pretty much agreed with Maggie on those programs, until the ponzi scheme part. I hate those programs being called "entitlements". In recent years that term has become a derogatory buzz word. The night of the last debate, my republican hubby said, "Social Security isn't an entitlement it's a contract/insurance program".
Click to expand...

Your republican hubby should probably check on what a contract is. The government does not care what you think of it or if you desire to be part of it.
 
Why not one unified Tax rate instead of one Unified Government?

how much are we really paying in taxes. should we have an audit for that, instead of the Fed?
 
danielpalos said:
Due to an alleged, moral of goodwill toward men?
Click to expand...

I can't see how forcing people into a program is moral behavior.

True disciples of the teachings of Jesus the Christ, don't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

Jesus wanted people to decide for themselves who they wanted to help.

Why does the fantastical, right wing?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they?
 
danielpalos said:
Why not one unified Tax rate instead of one Unified Government?

how much are we really paying in taxes. should we have an audit for that, instead of the Fed?
Click to expand...

I should start working three months a year, so the government doesn't take as many months from me in taxes. I'm not a huge fan of working for nothing, you see.
 
Henrin said:
I can't see how forcing people into a program is moral behavior.

Jesus wanted people to decide for themselves who they wanted to help.

Why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

Jesus the Christ paid for your social sins, not your capital sins. Only the fantastical, right wing, never gets it.
 
danielpalos said:
Why not one unified Tax rate instead of one Unified Government?

how much are we really paying in taxes. should we have an audit for that, instead of the Fed?
Click to expand...

Tends to disproportionately impact the poor.
 
radcen said:
The purposes are different. The functionality and/or potential benefit/downsides are similar, if not the same.
Click to expand...
The function is very different from insurance - again, payouts are not tied to catastrophic or individually unpredictable events. Turning 62 is neither.

Nor is it functionally an investment - you have zero ownership over or rights to any value. You do not have an account with SS that you pay into that accrues value by adding in your money plus returns. That is a fiction. All that happens is that your money is taken and given to others, and later money may be taken from others and given to you. The only "investment" that this system functions similarly to is a Ponzi Fraud scheme.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
MaggieD said:
In your eagerness to show that SS is not a contract with the American people, you overlook the spirit of it and other benefits we pay for. We gotta stop DOING that ****. I'm sorry you look down at those people who need and thus receive rent subsidies, food stamps and the like. You should probably work on that.

Employees pay 6.2% of their income towards their SS benefit. Their employers pay the same as part of their employees' compensation package. The self-employed pay 12.4%. Call it what you will. A contract...a promise...a Ponzi Scheme. Those who pay into the system at the rate the gvmt calls for are "entitled" to the promised benefits. "Entitled" in the purest definition of the word...not the politically correct smoke and mirrors bull**** definition that our politicians use to confuse us.
Click to expand...

It worries me when I hear people talk about contracts and what they are owed. When we contribute payroll taxes, the terms are clear. We contribute and a future generation might contribute to cover your retirement. Today some want to hold generations of workers responsible for a promise that we got from the people we voted for. They had no vote. There is no contract with them. It is simply taxation without representation.

Today, Social Security expects to have $2 of broken promises for every $1 that it has collected since inception. While we type the problem gets worse, in large part because we think this is someone else's problem, and we are pissed when anyone suggests that we are the ones over whom so many hands have been wrung.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
Promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... Can you explain how taking money from people who are in poverty, and giving it to Bernie Sanders and his wife promotes or provides 'for the general welfare'.
 
cpwill said:
No, they do not. They pay that towards someone else's benefits. I proposed such a system in Polls where we each pay towards our own benefit, and it was widely rejected by those eager to get from others, fearful of change, or ideologically dedicated to the notion of individual dependence on government as a means of "security".
Click to expand...

so you would decline a payment on an auto insurance because your dollars aren't the ones that pay your benefit.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
so you would decline a payment on an auto insurance because your dollars aren't the ones that pay your benefit.
Click to expand...
Nope. You are deliberately misunderstanding. I wouldn't claim to have been building wealth through premium payments.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
In my mind, entitlements are . . .

Social Security
Medicare
Veteran Benefits
Unemployment Compensation
Federal Pensions
Others

IOW, these things have either been earned through service or have been paid for.

Food stamps
Rent subsidies
Aid to Dependent Children
Medicaid
Others

Aren't entitlements. They are given as support by a society who intends to give people a hand up.

I hear people say they're insulted that SS is called an entitlement. I guess they don't know the definition of the word. You are ENTITLED to SS. You paid for it. It's yours.

You are NOT entitled to a rent subsidy or food stamps. People get this because society has determined they need help and is willing to help them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Good evening Maggie,

I'm in Canada, so I may see things differently, but I've always considered an "entitlement" to be anything that is provided for by law. As an example, for you in the US, you are "entitled" to claim mortgage interest deductions on your tax return - here in Canada, we're not. Likewise, each of those programs you've listed, such as welfare, are governed by legislation with specific requirements that make a person "entitled" to a certain form of support.

As a result, I never object to those who access what they're "entitled" to access. I do, however, strongly object to those who legislate some entitlements, or the level of those entitlements, and actively work to try to defeat them personally or their governing party.

As for your list of "entitlements", I'd be more inclined to call them guaranteed programs with eligibility requirements. You're not "entitled" to collect Social Security, Medicare, Federal Pensions, unless you're alive to access them - in effect, even though you contribute specifically for those purposes through payroll taxes, unlike an IRA or other retirement savings account, you aren't entitled to any of the money you or your employer put in unless you live long enough to become eligible to collect. Likewise, with Unemployment Insurance, you can pay into that program for 40 or 50 years if you work that long and if you're never unemployed you get nothing - programmed leaves like maternity leave, being the exception. Veterans' Benefits is a little tricky because I don't think a person actually pays into a fund later accessed - it's more of a hand up program for those who volunteered to serve your country in a very special and important way.
 
cpwill said:
No, you are not. Fleming v Nestor established that. You are no more entitled to Social Security or Medicare than you are to TANF, SNAP, EITC, or any of the other portions of the Social Safety Net. We just want there to be a difference so that we can justify looking down on those who demand access to some parts while demanding access to our own.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a benefit that one pays into compared to those that one does not pay into. That fact remains true with complete disregard for your opinion.

cpwill said:
You are incorrect - firstly, out feelings are irrelevant when it comes to whether we are entitled to the property of our fellow citizens, and secondly, I don't look down on those whom we choose to help - in fact, if you will wander into the Loft, you will see that I've put some serious thought and attention into how we can help them better.
Click to expand...

This is rhetorical nonsense. Government expenditures are not "the property of our fellow citizens."

cpwill said:
No, they do not. They pay that towards someone else's benefits. I proposed such a system in Polls where we each pay towards our own benefit, and it was widely rejected by those eager to get from others, fearful of change, or ideologically dedicated to the notion of individual dependence on government as a means of "security".
Click to expand...

Your plan doesn't magically create dollars out of thin air, it has tradeoffs. You neglected to appreciate any criticism, seeking instead to plan a retirement alternative that favors you personally and falsely claiming that it benefits others as well.

cpwill said:
Again, that is incorrect - retirees are no more "entitled" to OASI than the poor are "entitled" to TANF, SNAP, et al. We are "entitled", in the purest definition of the word, to nothing. We may recieve public largess, and we may believe that we should get public largess, but while that creates a sense of entitlement, it does not create the actual thing.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how society works. You are obligated to pay taxes. Did you somehow not know that ?

cpwill said:
On the contrary, that is a rather major distinction, especially in the context of what we are entitled to. You don't have any money built up in the system, any more than you have any money built up in TANF or DOD that you are entitled to. Because it is socialized and spent, you have no rights to it. This myth that we have a right to "our" social security that we have "paid into" is, to paraphrase another poster, a pile of BS smoke that politicians have (successfully) blown up our collective asses for years.


Everyone's attitude is generally the same: What I get is an entitlement and I deserve it - what others get isn't.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Investment in a nation through taxes is still an investment.

cpwill said:
It is neither of those things. Insurance is what you pay to transfer risk of catastrophic and individually unforeseeable events. Turning 62 is neither catastrophic nor individually unforeseeable - you can literally predict it six decades in advance. Investments are places where you choose to invest your wealth for a return, and you have property rights to that investment. FICA is not a choice, and you have zero rights to it, property or otherwise.

It's a wealth transfer program, from those who are younger, poorer, and working to those who are older, wealthier, and don't anymore.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Literally no definition of "insurance" i can find mentions "catastrophe" of any kind.

In fact, "a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality" perfectly describes "turning 62." That is an absolutely perfect definition. Has no one ever told you what the word "insurance" means ?

It is an INCOME transfer program. Yes, that is true. The government transfers income, all governments do. Have you ever seen a successful society without a government ?
 
cpwill said:
The function is very different from insurance - again, payouts are not tied to catastrophic or individually unpredictable events. Turning 62 is neither.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be "catastrophic" in any sense of the word.

cpwill said:
Nor is it functionally an investment - you have zero ownership over or rights to any value. You do not have an account with SS that you pay into that accrues value by adding in your money plus returns. That is a fiction. All that happens is that your money is taken and given to others, and later money may be taken from others and given to you. The only "investment" that this system functions similarly to is a Ponzi Fraud scheme.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what investment means, either.

Investment : the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.

There is no sense in which social security represents fraud of any sort, that is an egregious lie.
 
danielpalos said:
isn't that just lousy management?
Click to expand...

Um, no? Someone making minimum wage needs all of that, and more, just to feed and house themselves. They can't afford to have 20% of their income taken away. Someone making six figures doesn't have that same problem.
 
Deuce said:
Um, no? Someone making minimum wage needs all of that, and more, just to feed and house themselves. They can't afford to have 20% of their income taken away. Someone making six figures doesn't have that same problem.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that our tax system could be simpler. And, from one perspective and in that alternative, why is there any tax at all, on a historical work ethic from the Age of Iron?

Shouldn't the "work tax" and the capital gains tax, be the opposite, for the purposes of engendering, full employment of a historical work ethic, from the Age of Iron.
 
danielpalos said:
I agree with you that our tax system could be simpler. And, from one perspective and in that alternative, why is there any tax at all, on a historical work ethic from the Age of Iron?

Shouldn't the "work tax" and the capital gains tax, be the opposite, for the purposes of engendering, full employment of a historical work ethic, from the Age of Iron.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate here.
 
danielpalos said:
you simply misunderstand Madison; like the fantastical right wing, usually does.

It says, that not anything and everything is delegated under that authority, but only that which promotes and provides for the general welfare, and the common defense.
Click to expand...

Hard to misunderstand him when he explained it thoroughly. Read the federalist papers.
 
Deuce said:
Um, no? Someone making minimum wage needs all of that, and more, just to feed and house themselves. They can't afford to have 20% of their income taken away. Someone making six figures doesn't have that same problem.
Click to expand...

Would it matter as much to labor, at fifteen dollars an hour for a minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed?
 
jonny5 said:
Hard to misunderstand him when he explained it thoroughly. Read the federalist papers.
Click to expand...

It says, that not anything and everything is delegated under that authority, but only that which promotes and provides for the general welfare, and the common defense.
 
danielpalos said:
Would it matter as much to labor, at fifteen dollars an hour for a minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed?
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with a flat tax proposal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom