Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

Ockham said:

Yes and let the federal government take over private businesses while their at it, and private banks too. Then install a Czar perhaps and devolve into a totalitarian regime for the betterment of all mankind. :roll:


The last think we need is more federal government ****ing things up in this country. The last thing they need to do is take over anything... abolish the federal reserve bank, it shouldn't exist to begin with.

Click to expand...

I've really never been able to follow the path that leads from public works and universal healthcare to gulags and secret police. You guys seem to be absolutely convinced it's there, though.

atrasicarius said:

I've really never been able to follow the path that leads from public works and universal healthcare to gulags and secret police. You guys seem to be absolutely convinced it's there, though.

Click to expand...

I'm not 100% convinced it's there.

I just see how completely and totally the government has screwed up seemingly 99% of the things it's ever tried to do in these areas, and thus have no trust whatsoever that they could possibly get it right on the...what, 20th try?

An "entitlement program" within American ideological lexicon is pretty much anything you haven't put money into and yet feel you have a right to use. So SS is an "entitlement program" depending on who is receiving it. I am entitled to it because I've worked and supported it. Others feel they're entitled to it even though they've made no effort to become supportive members of society. So yes, it's an entitlement program, but entitlement is defined by referencing the individual in question.

It is an entitlement in the sense that it is money, taken from my checks by the government, with guarantees that I will get it back when I retire. As such, I am entitled to it, regardless.

Personally, I'd rather just keep the money and invest it myself, I can do a much better job than the government can any day of the week.

If left alone SS should have a pretty big surplus, it was pretty well designed from the get go. The problem is we overspend while cutting revenues in many other areas which made the SS fund a prime target for some of the idiots we elected. Cutting massive amounts of revenue through tax breaks for the wealthiest people and corporations while simultaneously trying to fund two or three wars, massive bailouts of banks and other private businesses (corporate welfare), and doing nothing realistic about rising medical costs and insurance premiums while trying to fund medicare are three of our biggest issues. I don't see why cutting social security should be on the table without seriously addressing those problems first. Also, I'm not sure that whoever made this poll actually knows what an entitlement is, so I didn't answer.

I regard it as a ponzi scheme I am forced to participate in that will collapse long before my time comes to be repaid. I regard it as the fool's retirement account, and I am disgusted that my step mother receives my father's checks although he has passed. If only I could opt out...

It's a bit more like a loan to the government that you may or may not get repaid on.

I'm <30 years old, and I don't expect to see anything back from SS; this is why I'm saving and planning for my retirement on my own.

So for me, it's just another tax which I may never benefit from.

SypherAL said:

Just curious as to how people view Social Security. I myself do NOT view it as an entitlement, considering its MY money I have been putting in the program for years and years. I dont believe Social Security should even be on the table for negotations leverage in debt debates. Curious to see how everyone else thinks.

Click to expand...

SS is a ponzi scheme not to mention politicians have spent every dollar contributed to it. I would be happy just to get back what I have paid in over the course of my life. I'm not holding my breath.

SypherAL said:

Just curious as to how people view Social Security. I myself do NOT view it as an entitlement, considering its MY money I have been putting in the program for years and years. I dont believe Social Security should even be on the table for negotations leverage in debt debates. Curious to see how everyone else thinks.

Click to expand...

I absolutely see it as an entitlement. IE, people believe they're "entitled" to that money. In theory you may be right in regards to your money. You'd be correct if the money you paid in was actually being set aside for you. However, it's not. Your money has been paying for OTHER peoples things. Its a percieved "promise" at best that you'd get "your money" back, but its in no way a guarantee. Social Security is absolutely an entitlement and the money you've been giving the government is no longer "yours". You're giving it with the hope that others later will be giving money that you'll end up getting.

Psychoclown said:

65 is not old. Most 65 year olds are perfectly capable of continuing to work for a living. We've just created a culture where 65 is "retirement age" and people expect the government to help take care of them for the rest of their lives. I could live with social security as it was originally intended - as old age insurance for those who beat the odds and lived past the average life expectancy. The problem we have is people who believe they are entitled to a 10, 15, or 20 year retirement where they do nothing but collect a check every month from the government, even if they never saved or invested a penny in their entire lives.


I wonder how old you are ? are you 65 ? Just because someones alive doesnt mean they are capable of working...life expectancy is 76 that doesnt mean he can work at 76...I submit very few can still maintain a living wage job at 70....the full retirement age now is not 65...it is 67 right now to recieve full benefits....you can retire at 62 and you take a penalty.



The eligibility age for SS (and its cousin, Medicare) needs to be raised north of 70 and it should be done quickly. Saving on five years (or more) worth's of payments to millions of seniors would help return the program to fiscal solvency. And the sooner we do it, the better.

Click to expand...

The problem with Social Security are compounded by disability social security that has 20 yr olds on up on it.....
If a man dies and has 4 young kids..his wife collects his SS and his kids get SS till of age....if a man is married 10 times for over 2 yrs...ALL TEN <10> of his wives gets his social security. The fund has been robbed by democrats and republicans alike.....dont blame the seniors that were forced to pay into the system their entire lives....blame all the people that get disablity SS that work under the table and play tennis and dance all night..and the politicians that passed laws that screwed up SS and robbed it

Social Security is just a giant slush fund for Washington. End it.

Pay off the people who paid in, and hang a giant "CLOSED" sign outside the SSA building.

Raise the elligable age to start receiving it to 67 for everyone over the age of 55 currently and 70 for everyone under the age of 55. Allow it to maintain as it currently does in regards to SS taxes for those older than 45 years of age. For those between 30 and 45 they have a choice to opt out of SS or stay as it normally is. Everyone under 30 years old is opted out automatically.

The Employee and Business owners contribution to the SS tax for people who are Opted Out is half of whatever the normal rates is. So using current rates an "opted out" person would pay 2.1% with the employer paying 3.1%. Raise the cap from $106k to $200k.

Those who have opted out are given the option of having a portion of their pay checks placed into a government backed savings account and that money is pretax. Money from that account can not be drawn upon until certain requirements are met regarding age, etc (similar to SS now). All money pulled from the account after that point is tax free.

At such point that the last person that is drawing from SS dies the taxes upon those who have opted out are revoked and SS is gone.

This would not harm seniors who are close to retirement now and who planned on SS. It gives those who have paid in for a significant amount of time a choice between keeping the entitlement benefits or getting out and keeping more of their own money. It also creates a situation will SS will eventually end. It also creates a way for the government to encourage people to invest in retirement without forcing them to do so. I would even be fine I think with 2% of a paycheck going into the savings account automatically and anything more being a choice by the individual.

Choosing to view it as an entitlement or not is irrelevant; it -is- an entitlement.

SocSec outlays are just that - outlays. As such, they are on the table for deficit reduction.

Henrin said:

The money you put in is already gone and used by people by the time your time comes around for it. The service like any other entitlement is expected by everyone using it. Almost everyone gets by far more than they put in. The people with more money get less from it than they pay for it. The fact is it does everything every entitlement does. It was created for helping a group of people in hard times and not to fund the government or to protect rights or liberties. So yes, it is an entitlement.

Click to expand...

SS is not a hand out, you can label it any way you want to, under Reagan SS deductions were doubled to ensure that it would be there. It is not a program designed for hard times it is a retirement plan paid into like any other pension program. Monies may have been taken out of SS but treasurey notes were left. The governemnt "borrowed" from SS

SypherAL said:

Just curious as to how people view Social Security. I myself do NOT view it as an entitlement, considering its MY money I have been putting in the program for years and years. I dont believe Social Security should even be on the table for negotations leverage in debt debates. Curious to see how everyone else thinks.

Click to expand...

SS is an "earned benefit".

SS is an "earned benefit".

Click to expand...

So is caviar and a Porsche, but progressive tax liberals would like to see me never have these things.

EarlzP said:

SS is not a hand out, you can label it any way you want to, under Reagan SS deductions were doubled to ensure that it would be there. It is not a program designed for hard times it is a retirement plan paid into like any other pension program. Monies may have been taken out of SS but treasurey notes were left. The governemnt "borrowed" from SS

Click to expand...

I imagine you think pension plans are brilliant? Yes? Don't answer that it really doesn't matter.

You can view it anyway you please but its a forced retirement plan on millions of people to the benefit of the people that need it.

EarlzP said:

SS is not a hand out, you can label it any way you want to, under Reagan SS deductions were doubled to ensure that it would be there. It is not a program designed for hard times it is a retirement plan paid into like any other pension program

Click to expand...

It is a -supplemental- retirement benefit. It was never intended to be the SOLE source of retirement income.
If you pay into SS, you are entitled to receive -a- benefit.
Note that there is no guarantee of the amount of that benefit, and so 'we paid into it' is not an argument against a benefit reduction.

I view it as a not-for-profit insurance program for seniors

PzKfW IVe said:

Note that there is no guarantee of the amount of that benefit, and so 'we paid into it' is not an argument against a benefit reduction.

Click to expand...

Thank you god for that arbitrary ruling. Are there any other line of reasoning we should all cross off the list while you are at it?

haymarket said:

Thank you god for that arbitrary ruling. Are there any other line of reasoning we should all cross off the list while you are at it?

Click to expand...

You have a long and storied history of -refusing- to accept reality.
Good to see you'vre remianed consistent.

Catawba said:

I view it as a not-for-profit insurance program for seniors

Click to expand...

We have that. It's called MediCare.

PzKfW IVe said:

You have a long and storied history of -refusing- to accept reality.
Good to see you'vre remianed consistent.

Click to expand...

Your opinion is not reality. It is your opinion.

The Constitution does not state that the federal government has the right to operate a pension system. Yes it is an entitlement and the system is no longer sustainable

Cold Highway said:

The Constitution does not state that the federal government has the right to operate a pension system. Yes it is an entitlement and the system is no longer sustainable

Click to expand...

Do you think the US Supreme Court has heard that one?

Why is it not sustainable?