Let's Talk About The Entitlement System

So happy you started this discussion ,because there are several threads attacking social entitlement programs today
So lets start with the definition of "entitlement".

Definition of ENTITLEMENT

1. a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2. : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3. : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

If there is any group in our society that truly believes it is entitled it is the wealthy.
The wealthy believe that because they pay into social security, medicare and unemployment they are entitled to the benefits regardless of how much money they already have,how much land or property they own or how many investments they have.
Can't wait to see the anti- entitlement fools defend this .

If you are required to pay into the system, then it is unreasonable to expect that you can't benefit from the system except under certain conditions that can't be met without even a voluntary decrease in quality of life.

I could be considered poor, or at the very least lower middle class, since my income is $41,200 as head of household (3 in family). Yet I'm not poor enough for the programs I'm paying into even though I and my family could certainly benefit from them.

True, those programs are there for me if my situation gets dire enough, but as I'm 45 and have been working and paying into the system for almost 30 years, the amount I would get compared to what I've paid in before I improved my situation would not be equitable.

/TOA

So many believe only the poor and middle class abuse the system and constantly preach that lie.
America is bankrupt yet big corporations report record profits.
Americas wealthy can afford lawyers to abuse the system with loopholes, not the poor or middle class.
Americas wealthy can buy influence with law makers at the city, county, state and federal level , not the poor or middle class.
Abuse at any level in entitlement programs is wrong and so is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Cleaning up entitlement programs is the answer not killing the programs.There are those who abuse every program
and there are those who no fault of their own do need entitlement programs
I know there are many here that lack sympath and compassion and see it as a sign of weakness, so I expect the attacks.

Let us continue our talk of government give aways and entitlement programs.

"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."

Shall we look at just a few ?

Walt Disney Corp., whose profits in 1995 exceeded $1 billion, received $300,000 in federal assistance last year to perfect fireworks displays. (1996)

$1.4 billion annually in price supports for large sugar farming interests.

$2 million to help McDonald's market Chicken McNuggets in the Third World.

$20,000 for golf balls that defense manufacturer Lockheed Martin billed the federal government as an ``entertainment'' expense.

$200 million a year Market Promotion Program which over the last two years gave Massachusetts-based Ocean Spray some $700,000 and California-based Gallo about $4 million to market ``Cranapple'' juice and wine all over the world. Hundreds of thousands of dollars more were given to Concord-based Welch's and a Lynn-based company that makes marshmallow Fluff.

www.corporations.org...


(Where oh where have the corporate boot lickers gone ?)
Tell us more about how bad entitlement programs for those in real need are and how they bleed the working class.

reply to post by dolphinfan

...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. ...

Very well said.

I have only one thing to add. Not only does the government push people onto "entitlement" the government does everything possible to make sure you can not get off.

From the worlds highest incarceration rate - one in four adults now have criminal records - to idiotic bureaucrats making it impossible for small businesses to open, the push is towards complete bankruptcy of the country. At that point the IMF steps in and wipes out ALL entitlement programs in exchange for MORE loans. It is better for us to do it first.

...the Institute for Justice released a series of studies documenting government-imposed barriers to entrepreneurship in eight cities. In every city studied, overwhelming regulations destroyed or crippled would-be businesses at a time when they are most needed.....


Along the way, the dreams of individuals are repeatedly crushed:

•In Chicago, Esmeralda Rodriguez tried to open a children's play center, paying rent month after month while she waited in vain for the government permits she needed to open her business. After a full year of bureaucratic red tape, she finally exhausted her life savings and closed down for good....

•In Washington, D.C., hundreds of people have waited more than a year to take the required class and test to become a taxi driver. Rather than encourage these individuals to create jobs for themselves, the city has simply stopped offering the class and test.

When governments actually get rid of barriers to entrepreneurship, new businesses open almost immediately. Indeed, removing even a single law can unleash entrepreneurial energy and create hundreds of jobs. Mississippi finally got rid of its requirement that African hair braiders get government-issued cosmetology licenses to practice or teach. The result? A single entrepreneur — Melony Armstrong — trained dozens of women to braid hair and open their own businesses.... www.usatoday.com...

Instead of encouraging entrepreneurship the government started two whole new job classifications, UNWED MOTHER AND SPERM DONOR. I know one guy who has 52 illegitimate children and he extorts money from each of their mothers.

I rather see my tax dollar go into interest free small business loans. I rather see the legistatures, state local and federal take a long hard look at the laws crippling small business and start repealing them by the truck load. I rather see the petty little Hitlers in city hall kicked out on their bums if they keep pulling the shenanigans that keep businesses from opening.

American can no longer afford to kill off her small business potential. We can not have 25% of the work force in government intent on killing business, 22% on unemployment and another 20% to 25% of working age not working at all, many of whom are collecting "entitlements"

Figuring it another way, there are 83,941,000 of working age not in the labor force. Out of 199,124,000 possible (age 16 to 65) and of those who are working about 25% are working for state local or federal government.

That means only 25 to 39% of the work force is "Producing wealth" unfortunately most are store clerks and burger flippers. Less than 9% are in manufacturing. This is a sure recipe of disaster.

I HATE the mega-corporations but if we, as a country, do not start producing salable good again we are in deep doo doo!


STAS from www.bls.gov...

reply to post by dolphinfan


Right on I could not have said it any better. Least not forget that those on welfare also get earned income credit on their income tax at the end of the year for every kid they have and get thousands of dollars back and never paid a damn dime of income tax.
I saw this happen in my old neighborhood with some that were on welfare. You know what they did with that money bought those nice shiny rims for their car. They were gettting section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps and she had 4 kids and was pregnant with the fifth.

Originally posted by Iamherefornow
reply to post by dolphinfan

 

Right on I could not have said it any better. Least not forget that those on welfare also get earned income credit on their income tax at the end of the year for every kid they have and get thousands of dollars back and never paid a damn dime of income tax.
I saw this happen in my old neighborhood with some that were on welfare. You know what they did with that money bought those nice shiny rims for their car. They were gettting section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps and she had 4 kids and was pregnant with the fifth.

edit on 23-8-2011 by Iamherefornow because: spelling

edit on 23-8-2011 by Iamherefornow because: spelling

I am convinced that part of this is to promote resentment between those who work and pay taxes and those who have been lead to believe they are "OWED a living" for various reasons.

I think Linclon covered it well.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
... Abraham Lincoln

If I lose my job and don't find employment in 4-6 months I will have to accept government help. BUT if I had not been paying the federal government $30k a year for the last 12 years I'd have an additional 360,000 plus interest/investment returns to help me survive during the tough times. Or even I'd been paying them half at $15k per year I'd have $180,000. This does not include state taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, school taxes, etc. All those wonderful infrastructure amenities I enjoy.

I do agree there are some things it is necessary to pay the federal govt for, but when they take so much of my money that once unemployed I have to seek their assistance so quickly they are perpetuating the problem of dependency.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Some would find jobs, if there were jobs to be found. The rest would go wild. I'm in no way supporting
lazy people who want to defraud and milk the system. I'm just trying to be a realist.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

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

I dont see that lack of force is necessary written there either.

Everyone "Contributes", even those who cannot afford to

When you dont have income you dont contribute.
And everyone who can SHOULD contribute. That way the cost per person is minimal.

There is no positive morality through force

Of course there can be. Force is just a tool. It can be used to do both bad and good.

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

As long as their number is non-zero, its preferable to have social safety net in place.

And right now under your system, you have plenty of such mothers

And they get taken care of.

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

The problem with american education system is not "entitlements" or the fact that its payed from taxes, since these things are also present in countries with better rankings.

In a free market economy without over-regulations this guy could go to a bank, take a loan and start his own business.

Talk about idealism.
Also, dont lump together over-regulations and social programs. Scandinavian economies have very high economic freedom and minimum regulations, but high taxation levels and great social programs.
social programs =/= over-regulations

This isn't "screw em or let them die"

Then what would happen to someone who will be unable to succeed under your paradigm? You never mention that, you just assume there would somehow be no failures, but thats unfouned, since failure is inherent part of capitalism (not all investments are successfull, ever).

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
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

I don't actually need to "Demonize" your statement. I simply point out that it's factually wrong, intellectually void, and morally bankrupt. it's really not my fault you cling desperately to a philosophy made of pure garbage, so don't start whining when I call you out for the crap you believe, kay? Kay.

Now, one giant flaw in your "thinking" is that taxes are some onerous sort of violence committed against you for absolutely no good reason at all. In fact, taxes are a membership fee. Do you like living in this country, with its many varied benefits? Do you enjoy being part of a civilized society? A community managed by the leaders and officials elected regularly by the citizenry, supported by a robust infrastructure? It ain't free, and as you said, "money doesn't grow on trees." If you dislike paying this fee, well, the door is that way. You're not allowed to be a freeloader - that is, a thief. You don't get the benefits of our society if you do not want to pay your part into it. Piss off to Barbados or somewhere.

Second, if you're having problems making ends meet... it's not because of taxes, it's because you're crap at managing money. See, we have a progressive taxation system; the less you can afford, the less you haveto pay (though these days, thanks to you and others who have not a single lick of sense in their heads, the more you have also entitles you to lower taxes.Weird, huh?) Might I suggest trimming some of the fat from your own budget? 'Cause if I can live comfortably off my paychecks in a high-tax state, with union dues and still have plenty left to have fun after bills, I don't doubt that you could do the same with a little more budgetary planning.

Another problem you have is that you buy into the notion that privatization makes things cheaper and higher-quality. This is a myth, and it is easily countered simply by pulling your head out of Milton Friedman's butt and having a look around. See, I don't know if you noticed, but the goal of a business is to make profit, not provide a service. Profit motive urges corner-cutting - that is, lower quality. It also urges more income - that is, raises prices. While competition might mean an equilibrium is reached, the prices of the service will still be substantially higher than what it cost the public sector - remember, profit. And you might want to remember that competition only exists when business is regulated; monopoly is the natural state of capitalism.

What state programs such as for transportation does, is sort of "set the bar." Cost-wise, they're the cheapest. obviously barring some radical innovations (or abuses) no private enterprise is going to beat the prices offered by the public option. So the best way to compete against it, then, is to offer higher quality at the lowest managable price; that is, the presence of public services actually makes competition healthier.

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

I love this argument. People like you love to apply it to schools as well. Prices are increasing and quality is decreasing because of active efforts to destroy these institutions. Again, try paying attention to the world around you, the real world, if you would. See, here's how it goes.
Politician vows to cut taxes.
Blithering moron herd cheers him into office
Lowered taxes mandate a reduced budget; schools, transportation, postal, and other so-called "fluff" is cut.
Cut programs suffer for lack of funding
Politician says that since they are doing so poorly, we should cut their funding even more to punish them!
Blithering moron herd agrees.
Programs do even worse
programs get harder cuts to punish them for doing poorly
Moron herd experiences orgasm
Politician advocates selling off public property far below cost, pockets the difference, and retires to write a book. Moron herd remains morons.

Now I suppose "cause and effect" can be a difficult notion to understand when your brain is set to "magic!" but I assure you, the problems you cite do have a real cause... which I have just outlined for you.

Are you able to understand this? I have crayons.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


So its okay for one group to collect on the entitlements that they paid into but not another group?

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid would be entitlements. It's social program you pay into and have an expectation of a benefit. Even if I become a bajillionaire, when I reach a certain age I have an expectation that I will receive the benefits of those programs (provided they are solvent). Benefits can only be denied under special circumstances, and denial of benefits is rare.That's why they are entitlements.

Welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing programs, etc., aren't entitlements as they are only available when one meets certain unusual criteria (for example, unemployed and homeless). We pay into those systems, but we do not have an expectation of a benefit from them, benefits can be denied us for a variety of reasons, and denial of benefits is fairly common.

/TOA