Skip to comments."Entitlement" is just a fancy word for dependency
Posted on 05/24/2011 2:03:32 PM PDT by libertycause13
Those who regard government "entitlement" programs as sacrosanct, and regard those who want to cut them back as calloused or cruel, picture a world very different from the world of reality.
To listen to some of the defenders of entitlement programs, which are at the heart of the present financial crisis, you might think that anything the government fails to provide is something that people will be deprived of.
In other words, if you cut spending on school lunches, children will go hungry. If you fail to subsidize housing, people will be homeless. If you fail to subsidize prescription drugs, old people will have to eat dog food in order to be able to afford their meds.
This is the vision promoted by many politicians and much of the media. But, in the world of reality, it is not even true for most people who are living below the official poverty line....
(Excerpt) Read more at freedompolitics.com ...
There is no democRATic party anymore. Just a bunch of snot-nosed incompetents hell-bent on exploiting the poverty they create.
Entitlements are when you get money you aren’t really entitled to get.
Thomas Sowell always worth reading. If he would just run for President!
An entitlement is slop fed to chattel. When I see people fighting for entitlements, I see pigs held prisoner in pens squealing for more slop, ignorant of their certain fate.
Republicans need to stop using the term “entitlements” and start saying “welfare”.
“Republicans need to stop using the term entitlements and start saying welfare.”
Well, if you search real hard and find them some STONES, maybe they will.
When you pay into Social Security and Medicare for all of your working life, expecting to get some of your money back is not an entitlement. These idiots need to understand the difference.
If you think about it, “welfare” isn’t an accurate term, either. Money or the equivalent that’s given to people just for existing is a handout or a dole.
Programs such as Social Security and Medicare, in which participants were given the impression they were investing in their own future support, could be described as “massive boondoggles.”
No, it is exactly an "entitlement." You are saying that, because you (or others) were forced to have payments for these programs deducted during your working life, you are *entitled* to benefits at retirement age. That's what the word means.
The details are a matter of debate, both philosophical and economic. To what, exactly, are contributors to SS and Medicare entitled? A return of their contributions? A return of their contributions plus interest? All the medical care they want for the rest of their lives? The medical care an insurance policy would provide if the present value of contributions were available as premium?
And then, there's the question of what can be delivered (assuming the best of intentions, although we know that's a false assumption when government is involved) under economic and demographic conditions that are very different from the assumptions when the programs originated.
“If you think about it, welfare isnt an accurate term, either. Money or the equivalent thats given to people just for existing is a handout or a dole.”
You have a point. My parents and grandparents called it the dole but my ‘Great Society’ (I spit on LBJ’s memory) generation called it welfare.
Thank you for making the point. Some conservatives need to learn that the government programs they like are still government programs.
Also in addition to Medicare and SS, Unemployment Benefits are also an entitlement. We pay for Unemployment Benefits and just like SS and Medicare, they are put into a fictitious government account that people are “entitled” to when they become unemployed.
I like the term “My representatives told me it was saved in a special account just for me with my name on it and instead spent it long ago”-ogle.
It doesn’t have the same effect as your idea though.
I got the notices from SSA about “my” projected benefits, too. They like unto being zilch, since I haven’t held a job for however long you’re supposed to ... but other people’s may end up being zilch, too.
Unemployment compensation is a different area because, at the state level, it’s supposed to be funded by contributions of that state’s workers. However, the influx of Federal government funding for long periods has made job-hunting, or job-finding, less appealing to some.
Unemployment is first funded by the employer (in some states a tiny percentage comes from workers), which is why one has to hold a job for x weeks before being eligible. But benefits are limited and any extension of unemployment benefits is funded by the government’s money tree (the taxpayer).
I consider “funded by the employer” the equivalent of “funded by the worker,” since anything the employer pays the government *doesn’t* go to the employee.
That is to say, you’re right, but I’m quibbling ;-).
I always want to laugh when they talk about dog food and cat food for people. Human food is far cheaper than pet food. Just like the pathetic commercial about poor kids being forced to eat “ketchup soup”. They need to start teaching Home Ec in school again (of course, that implies one attends class and pays attention).
Lol. When I was a sophmore in high school....1991 I wrote a 15 minute speech on how I thought Affirmative Action was bad. I gave this speech to a complete auditorium of Black Business men on Martin Luther King Jrs. birthday. After the speech most said I was just a little naive black kid. But one told me that I was thinking the right way.
LOL. As a kid I was further along in my thinking than some of the blacks are now...lol
The ones with stones never seem to make it to the top of the ticket. We keep getting RINOs like McCain
lol you are right. Unfortunately the government seems to think the taxpayer is some nameless faceless entity who gives them money when they want it. Like a spoiled child.
Ketchup soup and mayonnaise sandwiches. Who are these people, anyway?
Public money for deadbeats and the unemployable.
Trouble is, the very same government imposed Medicare and SS "taxes" under a false implied promise that the money would be returned to those it was taken from. Over the course of decades, this has developed into a reliance on the part of many.
People pretty naturally think they are entitled to recover what was taken from them at gunpoint.
True, but how realistic is that perspective? If someone points a gun at me and steals my car, I don't figure there's much likelihood he's going to give it back out of a sense of justice.
If more people realized government is in the business of stealing, they'd look at politics differently.
I don't know that "realism" necessarily enters the calculus of wanting back what the government took. Might as well "vote for whoever promises me more," and go from there.
-- If more people realized government is in the business of stealing, they'd look at politics differently. --
I'm not sure of that, either. What people support is government stealing from others. I think a majority of the public is at the point of taking the government for a ride; of course, at the expense of those who are still willing to or are forced to produce.
Politics in the US, now, is like politics in the communist USSR. Both parties are corrupt, and the voters choose which side of the corruption is more likely to benefit them. The welfare class votes DEM; also the unions. The capital class (companies, mostly) vote GOP, sometimes as a function of rent seeking.
Both the GOP and DEM parties are parties of big government. I just hope the disgraced and corrupt federal arm of our government collapses while I'm still living.