• 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?

Hawkeye10 said:
Actually not even close. I am not going to research this but years ago I did and I try to remember things that are important....during my lifetime year groups of citizens have paid for (and here I am using constant dollars) often only 1/5 of what they get back. This is a pay as you go program, this has been up till now a massive wealth transfer from the younger to the older.

One that the younger can stop any time they have the votes.
Click to expand...

by then, they will be older.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Employees pay 6.2% of their income towards their SS benefit.
Click to expand...

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".

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.



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".



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.
Click to expand...
You are correct that the dollar we send in (figuratively, not literally send in) is not the exact same dollar we get back at a later date, but that level of hair-splitting is so absurd that it muddies the debate and doesn't contribute anything of substance.
 
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".
 
radcen said:
You are correct that the dollar we send in (figuratively, not literally send in) is not the exact same dollar we get back at a later date, but that level of hair-splitting is so absurd that it muddies the debate and doesn't contribute anything of substance.
Click to expand...
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
 
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...

just lousy social management.

we are paying for a War on Poverty that can never be won through our current regime.

It is why we should be lowering our tax burden by improving the efficiency of our economy.

The concept of employment at will already exists in our republic. We should be solving for the simple poverty induced by Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment; through unemployment compensation.
 
danielpalos said:
just lousy social management.

we are paying for a War on Poverty that can never be won through our current regime.

It is why we should be lowering our tax burden by improving the efficiency of our economy.

The concept of employment at will already exists in our republic. We should be solving for the simple poverty induced by Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment; through unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but Bernie is 70 years. We need more young people to get involved and start solving these issues, to start running for office. It will be up to the Millenials.
 
danielpalos said:
Due to an alleged, moral of goodwill toward men?

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

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

Jesus believed in forcing people to do charity?
 
Rosie1 said:
Agreed, but Bernie is 70 years. We need more young people to get involved and start solving these issues, to start running for office. It will be up to the Millenials.
Click to expand...

Only the fantastical right wing ignores the concept of natural rights, when it is not about guns.

Political power is inherent in the People, not the Government or its functionaries.
 
danielpalos said:
Promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.
Click to expand...

Only the powers listed. Food stamps, pensions, healthcare are not listed.
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

-Madison

He was trying to convince the states to support the constitution on the basis that the 'general welfare clause' DIDNT grant such broad power.
 
jonny5 said:
Jesus believed in forcing people to do charity?
Click to expand...

no, but Only because He was holy and moral enough for a god to help Him out; through manna from a God.

We have a secular and temporal, Constitution. Promoting and providing for the general welfare with manna from a public sector whenever we are not holy and moral enough to receive assistance from Any God, is a civil obligation and responsibility in our Republic, for the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States.
 
jonny5 said:
Only the powers listed. Food stamps, pensions, healthcare are not listed.


-Madison
Click to expand...

You have to convince us, those programs don't promote the general welfare.

Where is a War on Drugs to be found in the Republican Doctrine? Not enough care to go around since not enough guns are involved.
 
danielpalos said:
no, but Only because He was holy and moral enough for a god to help Him out; through manna from a God.

We have a secular and temporal, Constitution. Promoting and providing for the general welfare with manna from a public sector whenever we are not holy and moral enough to receive assistance from Any God, is a civil obligation and responsibility in our Republic, for the security and domestic Tranquility of our free States.
Click to expand...

Thats up for the debate. Which is resolved in the laws we make. No such law requires such obligation or responsibility from citizens.
 
danielpalos said:
You have to convince us, those programs don't promote the general welfare.

Where is a War on Drugs to be found in the Republican Doctrine? Not enough care to go around since not enough guns are involved.
Click to expand...

I dont have to convince you. Just the other way around. All powers not listed are reserved to the people. You have to convince 3/4 of the states if you want additional power. Like banning organic substances.
 
jonny5 said:
I dont have to convince you. Just the other way around. All powers not listed are reserved to the people. You have to convince 3/4 of the states if you want additional power. Like banning organic substances.
Click to expand...

That is not what it says; 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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I don't see it being any different from insurance, or even investments. You pay in, with the promise of a payout (or, in the case of insurance, only if necessary), but something could still happen and the system defaults and you get nothing.
 
danielpalos said:
That is not what it says; 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...

Thats what Madison said it said. And he wrote it.
 
jonny5 said:
Thats what Madison said it said. And he wrote it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jonny5 said:
No, thats a power. Not a duty. To tax in order to pay debts, provide defense and promote welfare.
Click to expand...

the socialism of the law makes it a legal obligation. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. (except for the fantastical right wing, when it is not about guns).
 
radcen said:
I don't see it being any different from insurance, or even investments. You pay in, with the promise of a payout (or, in the case of insurance, only if necessary), but something could still happen and the system defaults and you get nothing.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
a fifteen dollar and hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed, could make this a moot point, since we could be privatizing those costs, and letting market participants vote with their dollars, to make best use of capitalism, from a consumer perspective.
 
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.
Click to expand...
The purposes are different. The functionality and/or potential benefit/downsides are similar, if not the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom