Let's Talk About The Entitlement System

Hi ATS

So I did create a thread in Social Issues about social policy in response to the ATS dem straw poll

But this thread is about any straw poll and is about entitlements specifically and only
Please understand this is not a partisan thread

Though there may be one side of the partisan fence that is almost officially pro-entitlements it's not like there's many that support the right and don't wish to continue down the entitlement path in fear of a drastic change

So now that I got that out of the way
Firstly let me say that all major changes can't be done with the flip of a switch
Transition periods are required

The entitlement system does on very dangerous thing, it makes too many things seem as free or close to free
It basically devalues the "entitled" service

You go to hospitals I would assume that almost everyone in management wouldn't even know how much medical equipments cost, while management in a private clinic definitely would know
That's a major issue right there

Too many use the term "free healthcare"
Since money doesn't grow on trees this term is a lie, there is no such thing as free healhcare
If such a path was noble why would it's very label be a lie?
That's basically treating money like water, or even worse, like dust

Two things happen here
Either taxes are increase or inflation occurs, and inflation itself is a tax
But when people say I pay this% much tax they are not keeping inflation in mind now are they?
So nobody really know what the cost of it is do they?
How can this be a sustainable path?

Now look at the debt ceiling debate
Entitlements were use a a major fear tactic in getting the increase passed
But how?

Well they argued that if the debt ceiling isn't increase it would affect entitlements and people agreed with this but how many who were pro-increase even thought: "Hey how come they are only screaming increase it but nobody is announcing a plan to ensure that we aren't at this same spot next year but with a bigger debt?

Insane!

I would like to know what my fellow ATSers think

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Entitlements is an ugly word and a misnomer. The people who toss it around glibly ignore the true welfare cases and entitlements that are called the US Military and any corporation with a politician in its pocket.

The fact that people think that universal health care is something that would "break" us is startling to me. Why even consider blaming something that actually does good when the bigger elephant is actually KILLING people?

Just because Ignorant Joe can't see past an arm's length beyond the single mom using food stamps in the grocery store doesn't mean he has an excuse to be ignorant and not look for a bigger picture.

We have EVERYTHING we need to be a society that doesn't have to run off of scrambling for resources. It is pure selfishness, greed, and evil that is disguised as "freedom" that keeps us from doing it. We can feed, clothe, and shelter the entire world if it weren't all about having more than the next guy. When I think of entitlements, I think of banks. I think of investors. I think of the rich. THEY are what is keeping our world from evolving.

We are waking up. It's a new and ethical epoch and we can't even see the change clearly but the era of the capitalist and the communist is dead. People are going to have to get over themselves and denounce evil before long and, when they do, it will be proven that humanity can do it right.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Well to be sure, the term "entitlement" is a catchphrase currently used for political deviance.
Systems such as Social Security/Medicare were put into place after the Great Depression.
They were created as a safety net for American Society.The absolute need for a system such as this in modern American society was realized due to the intelligence gained from The Great Depression experience. The equal trade off was that By Law,
all earning Americans were required to pay into the fund. Over the years, except for fraud and political
parties "borrowing" from this system, S.S./Med. itself has had a surplus. The term "entitlement" is misleading
as many have paid THERE WHOLE WORKING LIVES into the system. In fact, I myself have put over $100,000
U.S. into this system. Properly invested, and with compund interest, your talking some serious money.
Now consider the Millions of Americans who have done the same. Get the picture?

In other words, the deal is, both political parties have borrowed from the sacred chest,in the amount of trillions.
Now they don't want to pay it back. So, they use propaganda such as "entitlements" to try to disinform you
even furthur. Let me state this plainly, not only do they not want to pay back the I.O.U.'s that they have left
in the Sacred Chest, they want to take the rest of it too, and eliminate the system to cover their tracks.

The true solution, ethically,morally, and logically would to put a lock box on these programs, require all I.O.U.s
to be paid in full by a specific date, and eliminate fraudulent practices/redundant bureaucracy as best as technology allows possible.

In fact, thousands of jobs could be created just to implement the housecleaning,at least temporarily.

Don't be fooled, you've been ripped off, and now that they have had an easy meal, they want to come back
for the big dessert. "Entitlements" my ass. Hee Haw

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Your language use is so jerky and meandering that I have some serious trouble trying to figure out exactly WHAT you're saying.

Yes, "entitlement programs" cost money. This is indeed paid for through taxes. Thing is, each taxpayer contributes, so the fiscal burden of any given individual is not onerous. Further, all are eligible for the service, within the parameters (age for social security, for instance). These services go towards keeping people who could not otherwise afford it healthy, fed, off the street.

Beyond the moral reasons for this - and sorry, yes, keeping people well because it's the right thing to do damn sure IS a factor in this world - these programs actually bolster economic prosperity. Who do you think is the better worker, the guy off the street with no reliable home or transportation, or the guy who is in public housing and has a bus pass? The single mother who can't afford to feed both her kids, or the single mother who can? Which kid will grow up to contribute more, the one who got public education and a guaranteed meal while in school, or the kid whose school cut the lunch budget to make way for the football team? Who's less likely to turn to crime, the guy who thanks to state entitlements can pay his bills and fill his fridge, or the guy who can't?

Now perhaps your position is "screw 'em, let them die. Decisions made when you're 16 should majorly impact your life at 85!" If so, well, short of psychotherapy and antipsychotic meds, there's not much I can recommend to you. People have a right to live, they have a right to health and shelter. These are human rights, possessed by every man, woman, and child around the world. Denying this because it might end up costong you a few bucks is rather sick, I think.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Entitlement programs are actually paid for through debt, except social security which would be completely solvent on it's own if it could earn a decent rate on the loans it gave Uncle Sam. The fact is that you pay no extra tax to fund the entitlement programs. We do go further into into debt because of that spending, but that is a result of being forced forced to operate in a debt based money system. Ideally the government could just print the money needed to replace the money the elite take out of the system, which is why we need these entitlement programs to begin with. When you accept that all money is debt, then you see that there is a limited amount of availble wealth in the nation. Since the elite already have more than is actually available, that leaves "the people" to fight over the negative net worth that remains. The "people" of this country have so little money that it is a wonder that we don't have massive defaltion. just print the damn money and tax wealth instead of income and half our problems will be solved.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Your language use is so jerky and meandering that I have some serious trouble trying to figure out exactly WHAT you're saying.

My apologies, i'm sure others are having issues understanding what i'm saying as well
So perhaps you can demonize my every statement so people can understand what you read instead of what I wrote

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Thing is, each taxpayer contributes

Here's the definition link for contribute
dictionary.reference.com...

I don't see force anywhere in those examples do you?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
so the fiscal burden of any given individual is not onerous. Further, all are eligible for the service, within the parameters (age for social security, for instance). These services go towards keeping people who could not otherwise afford it healthy, fed, off the street.

Everyone "Contributes", even those who cannot afford to

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Beyond the moral reasons for this

There is no positive morality through force
The only way to portray a positive morality is to demonize not forcing, which you will do below

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Who do you think is the better worker, the guy off the street with no reliable home or transportation, or the guy who is in public housing and has a bus pass?

I'm sorry but money doesn't grow on trees
Secondly right now, as in today, there are plenty of people with no reliable home or transportation
And under a no entitlement system there may be even more people with a home and transportation
Thirdly there could be many competing transportation services, which could result in good services at low costs.

Right now transportation prices are increasing while service is decreasing, under your beloved system.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The single mother who can't afford to feed both her kids, or the single mother who can?

Maybe if there weren't so many entitlements there would be less inflation and therefore less mothers who couldn't afford to feed her kids
And right now under your system, you have plenty of such mothers

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Which kid will grow up to contribute more, the one who got public education and a guaranteed meal while in school, or the kid whose school cut the lunch budget to make way for the football team?

Neither
Get rid of public education with poor curriculums that stem from a massive dept. of education that just gobbles up money but still has America in poor worldwide educational rankings
This is under your current system

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Who's less likely to turn to crime, the guy who thanks to state entitlements can pay his bills and fill his fridge, or the guy who can't?

In a free market economy without over-regulations this guy could go to a bank, take a loan and start his own business.
If not then since there are so many opportunities for new businesses since the market is decentralized there would be plenty of companies hiring.
Less taxes and less inflation means more buying power from the people and therefore high demands.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Now perhaps your position is "screw 'em, let them die.

Why demonize my opinion like that?
Do you think you win points for this?

This isn't "screw em or let them die"
It's just that it's not "I have good intentions to help people but in the worst possible way"

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
People have a right to live, they have a right to health and shelter. These are human rights, possessed by every man, woman, and child around the world. Denying this because it might end up costong you a few bucks is rather sick, I think.

People have the right to live and should have the right to keep the fruits of their labour
And those fruits will give them food and shelter

I had to go on food stamps once... I felt horrible about it. Like I was a total loser. But when I talked to my agent, she said, "How much taxes do you think you've paid in over your lifetime?"

"Umm, I dunno. Over 100 grand probably..."

She says "Well if you've paid in that much, and fall on hard times, why on earth would you feel bad for a few months taking a hundred or two, even a thousand back to help you out while you get back on your feet?"



Changed my entire perspective on it in a flash. She was right. My anxiety stopped, I felt MUCH better, and subsequently got a job some weeks later. I wasn't "entitled" to anything. I still am not. But I for one appreciate that I could get help- but only when I really needed it.

Now these people that just abuse the system like perpetual parasites- that's another story.

yeah this is the country we live in where the word entitlement is a dirty word and the derogatory word for teaparty is thrown about with glee.

entitlement is just exactly what it means people think they are ENTITLED to things they themselves arent paying for

and by forcing people with a gun to their head to take their cash and pay for others who "cant"

the modern welfare system and they are all welfare just they just sugar coat what it is.

social security medicaid and medicaid let break it down for those who cant admit what it is.

free money free medicine all footed by people who dont use the system to pay for those who are.

lets then take social security for what it is a ripoff and for those who think they have paid all their lives into something and they want their free pension at the government expense which means taxpayer expense.

so everyone knows how social security works a person working pays their 6% and then pass the cost off to their employer who matches it at another 6 % and then that gets passed off to the federal governemnt who decides who gets it and who doesnt and then hey guess what the government spends that cash and then goes looking for new victims.

then we take medicare for those who are already drawing that government check and then turn around and fork over a percentage of that government check back to the government for their free healthcare.

and then enters the "lets make the rich" pay more in taxes crowd too foot the bill for what the government has already spent and couldnt pay for to begin with.

oh and then there that other government program of welfare for a person who has never worked a day in their life and hey guess what? they get social security a lifetime of government footing the bill for them which really means people who have worked all their life paid for it and here agian no money left looking for more victims.

so yeah lets talk about the corruption of the federal government and the corruption of that crowds soul that pushing something on to others that most will never live on well that is until they run out of people to steal from;.

so yeah lets talk about the entitlement system if that is a dirty word i am not sitting here wondering why

i know why.

meh

The thing that is being overlooked here with entitlements is that the system is deliberately crashed in order to create the need for more dependence on the State. In that way, the Socialists can force more people into the welfare system.

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Well to be sure, the term "entitlement" is a catchphrase currently used for political deviance.
Systems such as Social Security/Medicare were put into place after the Great Depression.
They were created as a safety net for American Society.The absolute need for a system such as this in modern American society was realized due to the intelligence gained from The Great Depression experience. The equal trade off was that By Law,
all earning Americans were required to pay into the fund. Over the years, except for fraud and political
parties "borrowing" from this system, S.S./Med. itself has had a surplus. The term "entitlement" is misleading
as many have paid THERE WHOLE WORKING LIVES into the system. In fact, I myself have put over $100,000
U.S. into this system. Properly invested, and with compund interest, your talking some serious money.
Now consider the Billions of Americans who have done the same. Get the picture?

In other words, the deal is, both political parties have borrowed from the sacred chest,in the amount of trillions.
Now they don't want to pay it back. So, they use propaganda such as "entitlements" to try to disinform you
even furthur. Let me state this plainly, not only do they not want to pay back the I.O.U.'s that they have left
in the Sacred Chest, they want to take the rest of it too, and eliminate the system to cover their tracks.

The true solution, ethically,morally, and logically would to put a lock box on these programs, require all I.O.U.s
to be paid in full by a specific date, and eliminate fraudulent practices/redundant bureaucracy as best as technology allows possible.

In fact, thousands of jobs could be created just to implement the housecleaning,at least temporarily.

Don't be fooled, you've been ripped off, and now that they have had an easy meal, they want to come back
for the big dessert. "Entitlements" my ass. Hee Haw

edit on 22-8-2011 by Wildmanimal because: typo

Yes. "Entitlement" has lately become the type of political "dirty word" that "Liberal" has become as well...repeatedly and constantly vilified by certain politcial elements whose purpose it is to influence the perception of those who can be programmed and carefully manipulated.
There is no thought-process required, only an instant revulsion felt towards what has relentlessly been presented as threatening to an individual's survival and personal well-being.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Absolutely right there True American. Your representative was accurate as well.

Just think of the mental implications...you felt guilty to receive something that you already paid for.

That in itself should be an eye opener. Certainly, there is a social stigma for those who take pride

in the fact that they are self sufficient earners. But it isn't people like you who should be embarassed.

It it those who knowfully and willingly make it a lifelong career to defraud the system.

Just remember, it can happen to anybody. Remember Madoff? He is living off taxpayer dollars in jail.

We pay his Electricity,heat,food,medicine,legal counciling,clothing,Air conditioning, and then some.

The joke is on us, as long as we believe it. Cheers

reply to post by neo96


Well Neo, if you see it that way, you and your crew can cut me a check for ALL of the money I have paid without recourse,plus compound interest. I would be happy to take a tax exempt lump sum(no double taxation).
Then from here on out, your crew can no longer automatically deduct SS/MED./FICA/ETC. from any further paycheck that I earn for the rest of my life.

As far as welfare, well, I'll tell them to all move into your house. Regards.

reply to post by Wildmanimal


me and my crew? what the hell is that suppose to mean?

i got a newsflash i want social securty abolished never was my idea for people to pay the government for their retirement accounts,,.,

and my post was a clear indication of how agianst of that taxation.

why dont you take it up with your congressman or your potus both proponents of those welfare programs.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I had to go on food stamps once... I felt horrible about it. Like I was a total loser. But when I talked to my agent, she said, "How much taxes do you think you've paid in over your lifetime?"

"Umm, I dunno. Over 100 grand probably..."

If you didn't give that much you probably wouldn't have been in that situation
is that an accurate assumption?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Lets at least be honest about what "entitlements" have become. No more are they limited to a safety net meant to provide assistance to those who were unable to provide for themselves. The government has expanded the safety net to include things that were in no way intended nor required of a safety net, which was food and shelter and basic health care.

The reason? The reason is that the government has replaced the basic notion of a safety net with this egalitarian notion that the government needs to implement programs to reduce the gap between those who act responsibly and those who choose not to.

Nobody is entitled to the same medical care as everyone. The government pays for braces (which I can't afford for my own kids who need them, but I don't qualify), boob jobs and other plastic surgerys under the bs notion of self esteem, sex changes, even for folks in prison, weight loss surgerys, all kinds of things that are not required for basic health.

Subsidized internet, phones are not requirements for a healthy life, yet the government has elevated the definition of what is "healthy" to include things that are absolutely not a requirement to be healthy.

Free meals in school, in some cities all three of them were never intended as an entitlement. If you can not afford to feed your kids, they should be taken away from you. Having children you can not afford to care for is the very definition of irresponsible and should not be rewarded. No child who has in their familys life a cell phone, cable tv and internet access should be given free food, period.

A huge challenge with entitlements is that there are folks who are on public assistance who have things paid for by the tax payers that the tax payers can not afford. Stand in line in a grocery store and have some person buying higher quality food than you are with foodstamps who has their kids with $200 sneakers on playing on his iphone. How does that work? Take a look at the criminals involved in these racist flash mobs. They are wearing designer clothes, communicating with their smart phones. Every one of them should be locked up and their parents investigated for child abuse.

A safety net is critical to a functioning society. We need to redefine what a safety net is and fund that accordingly, not continue to create expectations that being on assistance is only marginally worse than actually working.

Able bodied people should not receive assistance, period. That includes women with young children who can should be required to take advantage of free day care to go get a job, even if that job is provided by the government and if it is, it should be 40 hours of work. There is work to be done. Parks and roadways cleaned, graffiti painted over, subways and buses cleaned, schools painted. There is a ton of work that should be done by those on public assistance.

People who commit fraud, both the recipients of the tax payer largess and those who facilitate that fraud should be placed in prison. The government does nothing seriously about ridding the systems of fraud and waste. Why? Because there are too many folks in the government that are invested with the expansion of these programs and how ever they expand is immaterial - it is the expansion that matters.

Taking an honest look at what is included in public assistance, it is impossible to think anything other than that they government seeks to increase the dependant class to create a larger voting block. Everything from the entitlements themselves, to lax pursuit of illegals, to not prosecuting crimes related to fraud, to refusing to fight extreme cases of pushing the entitlement spending for things like a sex change up to the Supreme Court. All of it. The government wants you dependant upon it.

Lets have a safety net. Lets make absolutely certain that the elderly, disabled and those who are in a period of transition are not destitute and can receive basic healthcare. Lets eliminate everything else.

Lets model entitlement programs that actually provide an incentive to not be on them. If someone wants a TV, internet, cell phone, $200 sneakers, they should need to get a job.

reply to post by neo96


Hey Neo, by "Crew" I meant people of similar mindset as you. The welfare system is a necessary evil.
Think of what would happen if those folks didn't get their govrnment checks. There would be massive
crime chaos, destruction,and murder. So we would have to hire more law enforcement in the hundreds
of thousands,build more massive prisons to the tune of billions, and then on top of it, pay the upkeep
and legal council for these people. Either way, we would have to pay. S a v v y ?

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
The welfare system is a necessary evil.
Think of what would happen if those folks didn't get their govrnment checks. There would be massive
crime chaos, destruction,and murder.

If people didn't get their Govt. checks they would go out and find jobs

If they keep getting govt. checks then the people would suffer because entitlements are not sustainable.
It just doesn't work, money doesn't grow on trees.

Imagine if the U.S. economy crashes, the people who rely on entitlements will be the first ones to suffer the most
They would suffer the most because they got used to govt. assistance, then people who haven't had jobs for so long will look for jobs during a depression.

Ya good luck
I'm sure your heart is in the right place but your brain is not

Since I am forced to pay into Social security and unemployment compensation, I believe I am Entitled to both. Let's start with how much has been raided by our legislators from SS? The link is Wiki but it proves enough that our government is a bunch of thieves. According to this one link, they will have to raise taxes to cover what is already stolen? Seems like everyone in Washington should be put on trial.

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

Wiki

I have some questions for those that are against what are called "entitlements"

1. Is it an entitlement if you pay for it? If you go to a store, and purchase items, is it wrong for you to accept the items that you purchase?

2. If you invest into a mutual fund, (that is, a fund that a lot of people invest into) and you gain dividends on that investment, is it wrong for you to take those dividends? After all, you didn't put ALL the money into that mutual fund yourself, and it's because of the investments of a lot of people that the companies were able to do well and therefore the stock in those companies went up.

So again, is it an entitlement if you pay for it?

reply to post by Obamas2ndTerm
No one compels me to do what you have listed. I still have the choice as to which TP brand I buy, which company I want I choose to invest with to further their success.I also invest in a Church which directs my contributions to what they feel is the best. If I do not agree with any of it, I look elsewhere.
There is a big difference between contributions and confiscation. Also, most organizations I donate too, most off the money goes directly to what is needed. You can not even come close to that with the U.S. government.
I'll take the United way, Red Cross, and Salvation Army over our government any day.