I remain confused as to why Medicare and Social Security are referred to as 'entitlements'. They are 'a return on investment', something I hope the so-called conservatives can understand. Entitlements makes it sound like they are handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare and using that term when referring to Medicare and Social Sec…
I remain confused as to why Medicare and Social Security are referred to as 'entitlements'. They are 'a return on investment', something I hope the so-called conservatives can understand. Entitlements makes it sound like they are handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare and using that term when referring to Medicare and Social Security seems to confuse the so-called conservatives as to what they really are. Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson saw the American people as a whole weren't doing very well preparing themselves for retirement, both medically and financially and the two programs were enacted. It was not a grab at individual freedom that led to their enactment. It was a need well demonstrated by the American people who had shown they weren't doing it voluntarily..
Hear, hear!!! I’m 70, using both. I’ve paid into them all my working life, every job I’ve had since age eighteen, as have my employers. That is money set aside for me, and I need it to live on in retirement. I’m glad President Biden is keeping a spotlight on it. And I do not understand why my senator, Scott, keeps thinking he’ll get re-elected by threatening it. Even dt and McConnell are calling on him to desist. Don’t these people know anyone like me, living on Social Security, a small teacher’s pension, and limited savings??? Stop scaring seniors!!!
Truth. I envy your escape - living in the land of King Ron is very wearying. The Florida Democratic Party was disorganized in 2022 and seemingly received little support from the national party; I think they’ve given up on us.
Speaking of that - the AG is paying 3.3 million to his former employees for blowing the whistle on his corrupt activities...... But he is still in office, he was still re elected and taxpayers will probably pay the 3.3. million
A situation that absolutely boggles my mind. Your "attorney" general, usually the chief law enforcement official of the state, under indictment and yet he's still there.
Corruption, at least widespread corruption can be defeated with public effort, commitment, and solidarity, and we've pushed back on it before with at least partial success. Beloved Reagan conned us into inviting it roaring back.
We have that same problem here in Ohio. The national Democratic party puts very little $$ into our state leaving the Rs controlling both branches of our state legislature and the Governor's job to boot.. We had a very good candidate for the Senate, Tim Ryan, but the DNC virtually abandoned him leaving us with the very red, very radical JD Vance.
Tim Ryan was great and would have been a wonderful Senator! I don’t even live in Ohio but I still donated to his campaign. I was so disappointed when he didn’t win. JD Vance is awful.
I'm from Ohio and moved to that northern state M. Been here most of my life now and I am a reformed republican (thank God) Better late then never. I liked Tim Ryan also and found it hard that the people of the great state of Ohio would let the Republican's win anything. Hopefully, in 2024 we can get things right. Too much corruption in so much of our government with senators and representatives representing themselves instead of representing all the people in there respective area.
Our state Supreme Court ruled twice against our unfair maps but our legislators ignored the ruling and proceeded with our November election using the same old illegal maps.Our state government is very corrupt.
Believe me we are trying!!! ....70+%. Ohioans voted in 2015 and 2018 for "Fair Districts". but the formula didn't include an independent committee to reform the gerrymandered districts - so even though the plans put together by the majority Republican Committee (5 Repubs - 2Dems)
was declared "unconstitutional". 5 times by the OH Supreme Court - they got away with it....and here we are.
The fact that the DNC abandons states where Democratic candidates & people who will vote democratic makes me very unhappy with "The Party". There are so many of us struggling in minimally support states so that people like Zinke get elected in part bc of $$$$$$$$$.
There are some really interesting grass roots groups operating inOhio that I’m learning about through Senior Taking Action. You might want to check them out. It will give you hope and make you proud 😊
I live in Florida, too, Suzanne. I agree. We had a nonexistent dem organization and no messaging. We need something to change
dramatically to get rid of Desantis, Rubio, Scott, Gaetz, and the overwhelming GOP control of our state legislature. Fla is not a true part of the USA. King Ron is a perfect description-we are a part of his fiefdom.
We need to message about the salary cap for Social Security ! $160,200 for 2023. So many who pay in throughout the year have no idea a cap exists.
So Rick Scott, and other millionaires/ billionaires, pay the Social Security tax for only a couple weeks ( or days ) while you pay throughout the year. Do you think that ‘s fair ??
I know why there’s a salary cap...to give the illusion that the wealthy aren’t directly supporting the poor, etc., etc., etc. I wonder what would happen if no SSA funds were withheld on, say, the first $10k people earn in a year but then remove the cap totally. The howls we would hear would be deafening.
Hmmmm....that kinda makes sense. Thinking about students working after school and weekends; folks entering the job market for the first time. Those first few paychecks have to go a long way.
Why this push from business and the GOP? Your second line has the key "as have my employers". They want to pay you as little as possible. A number of years back I had a John Deere high level executive tell me "remember 80% of expenses wear shoes". From that view point they are not people and here lies the problem.
Reality to many sitting in the “sun” is that they resist madly paying their fair share. Blather about Patriotism.... bull -hockey. No policies, no thinking, just terrible fear that they might be asked to pay their fair share.
If they use “entitlement “ one more time I would think the Dems would put out the truth on big billboards.
Then show the real entitlements.... loop-holes-,yachts, airplanes, free ride on the back of the working class.
Ah, you have unlocked the cause! "As have my employers." Those business-capitalists types do not want to pay into their employees future! Not even a little bit.
Once upon a time a business of a certain size also offered pensions. Then, pensions were tweaked to 401Ks and other creative private enterprises, to support the stock market and corporations. If the stock market slides or crashes, well I guess we are out of luck.
I retired in 2009, just after the market slid badly in 2008. My retirement nest egg was reduced by 42% and by now it is gone all together.
Hope, me too! I retired in 2010. I am living on the scraps now in India. My $2,200 per month allows me some ease, but I can’t live in my own country on that amount. I got divorced in 2017 and the hub took half. So there you have it! Let’s fight to keep our rightful retirement funds!
I worry for my 40-ish children and their children. They are being conditioned to expect no Social Security or Medicare in their future, though they have paid into it for 20 years already. The Republicans wanting to cut or privatize are careful to say, Don’t worry, you current seniors, we won’t touch yours. We are talking about people younger than you.
A dog eat dog system pitting generation against generation. This is how obscene wealth and its power will be protected if Republicans have their way. According to the Two Santa Claus theory, Democrat Santa provides your benefits (and those of people you despise) but Republican Santa cuts your taxes instead. (Which is a Better Deal if you have no idea what services your taxes provide, but you know you hate paying them.)
I agree, Larry, and every one of us who ever worked for a living paid into these programs (SociaL Security and Medicare) Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF may be seen as handouts, but all three combined are less than we pay out to corporations and millionaire/billionaires in subsidies, depletion allowances, tax loopholes and lower tax rates. We who pay our taxes justifiably want those earning more in a year than we earn in a lifetime to pay at least 15 to 20 % tax rate too.
"Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF may be seen as handouts"
Here is what a true entitlement is:
A white man, or a million of them, with the power to steal the entire life of (or millions of lives) of a (million) black slaves.
Then? "Free them" without providing any land, any jobs, or any resources at all.
Then? When those black folks are starving, give them house cleaning jobs, janitor jobs, and put them back in the fields for 100 years as "share croppers" where their pay is? Well, they get to keep barely any of the food they grow!!
Now THAT is an entitlement let me tell you. Being able to steal someone else's entire life!
Then? If someone like Lyndon Johnson, who grew up in Texas and saw what black people were struggling through, decides to, for the first time in American history, to offer some food to literally a starving population of Americans with a stolen history, with SNAP "benefits"??
that becomes evil socialism? A handout???
HMMMM??? IT is OK to run a slave colony for 300 years by white men, stealing black lives.
BUT? It is NOT OK to then, after black lives are forced to be free by the federal government, to enable them to work and find food or buy property??
It is not OK to help them eat????
Amurca. Gotta love it? Gift link below. I recognize that we now have TWO black quarterbacks trying to beat each other out on the football field. Now, when the OWNERS of the football franchises become black, we will be making some real progress.
Saw a headline from eons ago, that reparations were offered to slave owners for the loss of their ‘property.” $300 for each freed slave. What was offered to the “property?” A noose. And one wonders why they arrive at the starting gate of life, hobbled by their history…. And blamed for their deficits.
And yesterday, on Firing Line, Glenn Loury, blathered white supremacists crap on PBS. A pox on you….
In the 1619 Book Project, in one of the Chapters that discusses the "Jim Crow" period after slavery, there is a paragraph detailing how common it was, in that 90 year time period, to ride/drive though the south and literally see black people hanging from random trees along the side of the road.
We should remember the freed slaves were promised 40 acres of land and a mule, so they could earn a living. That promise was never kept. So many of the formerly enslaved people had to struggle through poverty, lack of proper housing and clothing. They were then rewarded with Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Meanwhile , white Europeans were being given 40 acres of land by the same government that said keeping their promise to African Americans was too costly.
I don't really have a historical take honestly. I spent my early life on an East Texas farm fixing broken stuff and barely making any money with my family BUT we owned our own land because it was dirt cheap until the 1990's. We ate every day.
I did attend an integrated school after 1966 (unlike Boston which did not integrate until 1978 or Rochester, NY, which, has STILL not integrated).
My writing simply reflects my good luck at having always enjoyed reading (Public Library in Palestine, TX and small public school libraries).......
so, I have read Dr. Richardson's works (some of them) and I have read the 1619 Book Project and between those and some other reading,
"mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord". So, to speak.
Yes, indeed, but, I did see it that American glory once, way out in East Texas one day when I, as part of a job of reading water meters, happened on to the area where black folks lived. For the first time.
A half circle of shacks with no running water (1976). Out houses in back of the shacks.
ONE spigot sticking up out of the ground providing water for the entire community.
1976. All the white people (like me sort of) were celebrating the "Bi-Centennial" of our awesome American history on the day I stood looking at the shacks which housed the black folks.
As an old man now (63). I am both heartbroken, angry and lost as to what I can do besides volunteer my time where it is needed tutoring, making food at shelters, etc.
Now? I am haunted by my own good luck (which was born out of constant working but I could get a job, unlike black folks)
.....at "escaping" my East Texas poverty (which, looked like RICHES compared to what black folks had).
Every once in a while a group of us Dems here in Massachusetts get together for what we call 'drinking liberally'. COVID has made it harder to do; we're looking forward to more time discussing the issues as pandemic worriies ease.
The 'conservatives' think of any government program funded by taxpayers as intrusive and socialistic. And that rankles them: the idea that government could do something to help those in need, using 'their' money. Selfish and short-sighted and mean-spirited they are.
Which doesn't even take into account how much the wealthy corporations benefit from our tax supported programs like the new infrastructure bill - whose big semi's cross those bridges and deliver those products?!
But isn't it a government handout to give the rich and the big corporations so many loopholes, leting them dance along practically scott free? Yes, it is!
I think you summed that up nicely. Thanks. And if you patched all those tax loopholes I bet there would be more than enough money to pay for these programs. Kind of pathetic.
There surely would be enough. I remember the tax rates of the 1950s, when CEOs made reasonable salaries and unions were on the rise. If we revised the unfathomable tax code to make it more equitable, the rich would pay their fare share.
Good Morning Larry, who wrote "Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson saw the American people as a whole weren't doing very well preparing themselves for retirement, both medically and financially and the two programs were enacted. It was not a grab at individual freedom that led to their enactment. It was a need well demonstrated by the American people who had shown they weren't doing it voluntarily.."
During a convo with my attorney I mentioned that while volunteering at our community hospital, I realized that so many folks are unprepared for furure crises like health scares, and can't afford them. He responded "How can a family prepare on $8 an hour?" That wasn't so long ago. Judging by the evidence provided by commercial parking lots, especially on weekends, most folks keep score by shopping. OK, I shop also, but for quality not quantity. I know families wear items out, but buying as entertainment is or seems to be the number one sport in our capitalist country. What were the stim checks for besides propping up the economy? My personal form of entertainment, restaurants, was shattered in early 2020 and I never recovered, i.e., I haven't returned to the habit of routinely patronizing them. Not money well-spent, money well-saved.
But I really wanted to digress to another form of "entitlement" which so far has not been mentioned, that of pensions. As a sixty-something college student, I took a class on the Civil War, or whatever other label you use, and I was entertaining myself by volunteering at our county historical society, where I was archiving 24 boxes of various correspondence of a former governor and congressman, among them a box of letters from Civil War vets who were writing for help getting their pensions, in the 1890s. Disability was the reason these veterans were eligible. I wrote a paper on pensions, and traced the history through Teddy Roosevelt's including age itself as a form of disability eligible for retirement benefits. Of course these were federally funded. The last Revolutionary War pension payment was made in 1906. I'll just wrap this up by mentioning the dirty word which the red-leaning part of the state where I live uses as a throwaway reason for flying Confederate flags and other complaint-voicing. They complain about a small SS check and lack of Medicare insurance coverage while simultaneously yelling "Socialism is ruining the country." Have a nice day.
"They complain about a small SS check and lack of Medicare insurance coverage while simultaneously yelling "Socialism is ruining the country." Have a nice day."
And? Here we see the true power of the combination of powerful propaganda and poor education.
They are referred to as "entitlements" because every citizen of a democratic country is (or should be) entitled to a basic social safety net. Government benefits like Medicaid and food stamps are not "handouts" - they are part and parcel of being a participating member of a democratic society. Kind of like voting or serving in the armed forces.
Here's another widely held misconception: that employers pay half of a worker's payroll taxes. While technically true from an accounting standpoint, this employee overhead is just another cost of doing business and is not a "benefit" granted employees. In reality that money would be included in the employee's paycheck if the requirement for the employer to pay taxes supporting "entitlements" were to magically vanish, everything else being equal. But employers would like you to believe that this is a burden they bear. Or put another way, a teacher works just a little harder to compensate for the teacher that's not hired to assist her because this overhead is factored in when budgeting for headcount. And yes, it's a "return on investment" paid for over a lifetime of work, and would be quite a healthy fund if the damned politicians didn't keep sticking their grubby fingers in the pot every time they want to fight an unfunded war. It's infuriating. People need to wise up and stop buying this Reagan era BS!
LeMoine- Exactly! I used to insist that when our company negotiated to cut our "benefits" I always said those benefits were really deferred comp. A relative named Denison Smith wrote a book titled "Stop the Raid" on the SS Fund about how the gov't does just that.
Lemoyne, I'd even go further back and adhere that we are a nation built upon a social contract between government and the people and that all relationships covered by laws are a version of such a concept. This was as put forth by Hobbes centuries ago and central to how the founding fathers drew up the US Constitution. A couple of citations below to check out, but in the mid-20th Century the idea quite prevalent was that there was a social contract between the businesses and the employees whom businesses sought, not for a few months, but for a lifetime of productive work. The relationship was considered a key to American exceptionalism, the hardest working and most ingenious workforce in the world. American workers took pride in the businesses they worked for because they could rely on continous employment and a pension (fought for through unions and the public sector). Some of us remember the expectation to work hard in our strongest time and be respected when our energies declined, not to be dismissed. I remember the normal was to have a career and a few different employers and employers taking pride in the longevity of their workforce, the value of their senior workers, the investment in the security of workers (and their families) because it was good business to do this in the communities in which both employer and workers lived together. There was a social contract and we the middle-class lived as though this was the way things would remain. And, I can remember the idea of Social Security was conceived to protect folks into their old age because our social contract (we the government) with them was that they should not fear being old for reasons out of their control and regardless of the stability of something promised by their employer or the swings in prosperity that happen in industries and investments. And, I can remember that it was businesses that saw this as the right thing to do, the progressive thing to do as a modern business, while relieving them of some of the obligations that underfunded/speculative private pensions they may have found they were on the hook for (No it wasn't only the US Postal Serivce pension fund that is not fully funded). So, when I hear the claims that Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation , etc., are entitlements and the arguments that 401ks and privatizing pension/Social Security and Medicare should be made options, I have to shout NAY SIRS. They are not entitlements or gifts or taking something away from the business or other workers who do not have pensions or are not eligible for certain insurance-based schemes as ways to reduce debt or save these programs, I shout NAY SIRS. These are obligations of businesses, industry, the private and non-profit sector, and our government to their people, as employees and as citizens. They are debts agreed to under the social contract entered into by those elected to office to promote the common good, to ensure the health and safety of our people and all are bound under employment and commercial laws between though who employ Americans in the creation of, production of, delivery of, quality of, and expansion of the gross domestic product that is the measure of American enterprise. The manner of meeting such obligations may be open to our capacity for ingenuity and problem solving, but the obligations for such is not to be discharged through negligence or failures to act and deliver upon promises. The bottom line must start when the obligations are fulfilled, not where the money to pay is stashed or was failed to be set aside to fully-fund obligations entered into on day one of the social or business contract agreed to.
The social contract of business theory argues that businesses exist with the permission of society, so long as the business acts in ways that benefit society. Social contract theorists believe that a business should make decisions and structure their operations in ways that offer the maximum benefit to society.Nov 9, 2021
I agree. Their use of the label entitlement for Social Security and Medicare bugs me mightily. And when they use it, it’s usually with a tone of voice that implies anyone who participates in these programs is leeching off the government. I’ve been paying into SS since I was 13 years old. Now, at 60, after almost 50 years of paying into it, when I’m getting close to being able to draw from it, they want to take it away from me. It’s no different than if they were bank hackers that wiped out my savings account. It’s my money, damn it! They are trying to steal it by twisting the narrative. I find it insulting they think I’m so stupid! At least bank hackers respect me enough to disguise their theft. The GOP is announcing their thievery, putting it on the front page, and coming boldly in the front door to steal it. They’ve managed to convince upwards of 40% of the voters that it’s the right thing to do. These folks are so good at convincing their base with lies, I think they could pick up steaming piles of cow manure, put it in muffin tins, and people would eagerly line up for their “breakfast special”! It’s maddening.
It is important to remember that your FICA payments went directly to your parents and grandparents. And the benefits you will recieve come out of the paychecks of the generations behind you. There is no account with your name on it! So no one is "stealing" from you.....it can be argued that old people steal from younger people.
Becky, I don't know how old you are but I'm nearly 80. You might argue that "old people steal from younger people" but it's the "old people" that invested a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears building the infrastructure that younger people currently enjoy, from highways to medical technology to the cell phones they seem so attached to. Most don't yet have a clue as to what they owe older people. I can tell them in intricate detail what makes a computer tick but relatively few would care or comprehend, they just want to use stuff and bitch about how old people screwed them over. And the point you make to Carey about nobody having their name on a SS account is specious and irrelevant, even if it WAS true, which it is not. There's a reason why people have different SS numbers and receive different amounts when they finally collect it, assuming they live long enough to collect it. Have older generations made mistakes? damned straight. Future ones will too. But I deeply resent the sentiment that "old people steal from younger people".
LeMoine - thank you, you’ve said it better than I could. I also found the statement from a previous comment “Medicare has allowed people to live longer than expected.”, particularly offensive. “Well, geez, I’m so sorry I didn’t just lay down and die at 55 so we wouldn’t have to raise taxes on billionaires!”
You’ve misunderstood my comment. I am not stating nor implying that anyone receiving payouts from SS is stealing from me. I’m saying that the GOP trying to do away with SS will be stealing from me if they succeed in doing away with SS.
"Handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare" - really? Those "handouts" are minimal gestures at redistributing generational wealth stolen from the folks receiving them. We refused to give reparations and full civil rights to newly freed slaves; and failing to do so, while simultaneously failing to prosecute Confederate traitors and persecuting slaves' descendants, has put us in the position we find ourselves in today.
Trust fund babies like Tucker Carlson rant about the socialism of handouts to those without GW, yet from his first breath, he was and is a form of socialism in its purest form
All true, but the fact is we who contributed to SS & Medicaid ARE "entitled" to receive the benefits from the programs we paid in to all those years. That also seems to float somewhere in the ether above Repubs heads!
Another way to look at "entitlements" is to see them as something everyone is ENTITLED to. The term has been coopted, like many others, to give it a bad rap.
In fact, aren't all people entitled to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, the opportunity to get a decent education? Perhaps conservatives don't think so,, but in a democracy, it is important that everyone have a decent standard of living. If we achieve that, we will also have a more stable government because, who will want to overturn it? And with a good education, especially with the encouragement of critical thinking, people will be less likely to be fooled by charlatans.
I would add that people are also entitled to justice. When justice is real, people see it and are more likely to respect the rule of law.
Cheryl, I agree completely. And with democracy comes freedom , but the flip side of the freedom coin is the responsibility of behaving in a way that does not sabotage the common (or community's ) interests, if anyone can agree what "common interest" is. Humans push back when there's an "other," but in this society it shouldn't mean "each other." I like your last two statements!
I suspect your confusion is based on the Libertarian sociopathy that pervades the US culture, which has entirely absorbed the Republican party, and dominates most common American understandings of government, nationhood, and economics.
You've mischaracterized Roosevelt's and Johnson's impetus in your mind. It wasn't that they saw people as "not preparing themselves voluntarily for sickness or old age." It was that they saw it was IMPOSSIBLE for most people to prepare themselves -- they were barely surviving day-to-day on wages offered by Capitalists. Indeed, it was proving impossible for people to even survive to old age in reasonably good health in the first place: many died young.
Recall that Northern "jobs" in the 1800's were just slavery under a different name. If anything, jobs have the potential to be far more brutal than slavery: if the slaveowner works a slave to death, he must purchase a new slave. If a capitalist works an employee to death, he can just post an opening, and workers will come running.
Social Security was, from the beginning, a government mandated, forced contribution by wage-earners to a common (national) pool of wealth that would be distributed to all workers. It was largely based on the fraternal organizations of the 1800's (e.g. the Odd Fellows) which in turn had roots in the crafting guilds of earlier times. The basic idea was that workers would pool a portion of their income to pay subsistence for widows and children of workers who died young. The widows were 'entitled' to their pension, by virtue of their marriage, just like a Lord was 'entitled' to land by virtue of his rank.
That is why SS is called an 'entitlement', at least so far as I understand this.
The same is true of medicine. There are not enough people who need surgery for colon cancer who can also PAY for colon cancer, to support the surgeons, much less the entire support infrastructure the surgeons require, beginning with years of study. So you either distribute the costs of surgery 'from each according to means, to each according to need,' or you implicitly fold up the entire enterprise and use surgery -- as in the 1800's -- to perform amputations and nothing more, from which patients will either live (handicapped) or die.
It really comes down to the question of what it means to be an American. Are there really ANY benefits at all to being an American? Or do we just go on, generation to generation, mouthing platitudes and dying in poverty to make the wealthy few wealthier?
Social Security is a benefit. Roads are a benefit. A common currency is a benefit. Laws against public violence are a benefit. Strong national defense is a benefit. Everyone pays to maintain this.
Libertarians (Republicans) would privatize all of this, without exception, and remove all 'entitlements' in favor of a transactional model. The result is -- demonstrably -- an increase in positive propaganda, and a gutting-out of public benefits to line pockets.
I agree - it is maddening to keep hearing the misunderstood term, Entitlement (even though we are certainly entitled to that which we have paid into our entire working lives)--it should be referred to as 'Earned Benefits,' to remove any confusion.
And, I am continually mystified at the resistance to raising the income cap for paying into social security, which would be an equitable way to achieve solvency in a seemingly short time and with no rational arguments against it.
It just appears that doing anything that would improve ordinary, everyday, people's lives is just beyond their comprehension. But cutting taxes for the richest among us? Hey no-brainer. Literally!
An "earned benefit" would stop when you have taken out all your earnings (maybe with some interest, etc.) SS is an entitlement....not a savings account, not an annuity.....there is no account with your name on it. SS is an entitlement because many, many people take out far more than they ever paid in .....that is the crux of the problem!
The way I understand it was originally to work was that the money from our earnings would be put in an investment vehicle which would provide for our retirements. But that money has been 'borrowed' to the hilt by Congress over all these years - a lot of sticky fingers have found it ripe for the picking. If it had been left alone to grow and if the cap had been removed so that all earnings would be subject to a fair percentage of SS tax, we would not even be talking about this now.
For a democracy to function effectively, you need to have healthy, educated and civically engaged citizens. I suspect it’s less costly and more satisfying in the long term and definitely worth working for.
They are entitlements because you get the benefits regardless of need, and regardless of the actual amount you paid into the system. The fundamental problem is that Medicare has allowed seniors to live much longer than Social Security was designed for!! Many recipients are now receiving more in benefits than they ever contributed to the system. Initially the SS Trust fund had huge surplusses which proved to be irresistable to politicans of both parties.....thus the "raids" on the trust fund. But the ageing Boomers are a huge looming problem that needs a real fix.....not hysterics.
I don't know where you get your figures, Becky. In 1982 I believe it was (under Ronnie Reagan no less) a commission was formed to study the problem the baby boomers presented. Using projected actuarial tables and sound modeling they actually fixed what was projected to be a Social Security shortfall. Some subset of current recipients may well be receiving more than they paid in, even adjusted for inflation. Others didn't make the cut. It was all factored in. And where did you get the idea that "Initially the SS Trust fund had huge surplusses..." ? There was a time when a significant surplus had built up in anticipation of the Baby Boomer bulge, but GWB took care of that with his war against Saddam in EYE Rak. You know, the guy with all them weapons of mass destruction.
LeMoine- two things, there were surpluses, and the gov't did use them for non-SS reasons. Currently, the gov't owes the SSA $2.7B, which they are trying to reduce by cutting benes, raising SS taxes, and raising the income limit.
Second, if people live long enough, they will receive more than they paid in. My father was probably one of them, as he lived to age 99. Is your point that people should not receive more than they paid in?
Ed, did you mean $2.8 T (trillion)? That sounds a lot more like it. No, I was responding to someone else's comment that some people collect more than they pay in. My basic point was that when lifespans are taken into account, it's understood that a person living an "average" number of years will break even, or just a little bit less to adjust for administration of the program. Social security is supposed to be a "zero sum" game as I understand it, not a Ponzi scheme in which the government rips people off, or a fool's errand in which the government goes broke. And the question of what the cost to society would be if the 60 million SS recipients were deprived of this modest income never seems to get asked. As another poster observed, the vast majority of the money going out for SS is channeled right back into the economy. I know that there isn't a hell of a lot left of my SS check after I pay for groceries and gas, plus my ever increasing property taxes to spirit off to my secret account in the Caymen Islands.
LeMoine, yes I meant $2.8Trillions; but realistically SS was not intended to be a sole means of support in retirement, which is where lots of folks get it wrong. A farmer and another type of worker complain about their check amount, I ask if they reported their incomes. Of course not they say, "that's MY money, I ain't payin' tax on it!" All righty then.
Becky, I don't know of anyone who receives SS who didn't have the work credits to qualify, unless you are including disability and survivor benefits. Yes, certain sports figures for instance may not "need" SS, but if the gov't says they qualify, who am I to argue?
And in this political climate, who gets to design the fix?
Yes, of course recipients have work credits. But you can never exhaust your benefits no matter how long you live, so may people will take out more than they paid in. (Yes, some people who die younger will pay more than they receive.) And while survivor and disability programs are good things, they also drain the system and pay benefits to people who do not have those "credits." While there are many poor seniors scraping by on SS benefits, the fact is that seniors are the wealthiest group of citizens. And younger working people who have little prospect of accumulating the wealth that boomers have are subsidizing golf-course retirements that last 30+ years......
For example, the institute’s 2022 study has these estimates for workers who turned 65 in 2020.
A single man who earned an average income and reaches average life expectancy will pay $405,000 into Social Security and Medicare and receive $573,000 in benefits.
A single woman in that situation will pay $405,000 into the programs and receive $646,000 in benefits, because women live longer.
A married couple consisting of an average earner and a low earner will pay a combined $586,000 and receive $1.1 million in benefits.
And the company they worked for will have paid in the same amount that the employee paid in as part of the company's TAX DEDUCTABLE business expense so the single man by virtue of HIS labor will had contributions from his company and himself of 2X $405,000 = $810,000 into Social Security and Medicare and receive $573,000 in benefits. Seems to me that the average guy is not receiving the full benefit of his labor.
I remain confused as to why Medicare and Social Security are referred to as 'entitlements'. They are 'a return on investment', something I hope the so-called conservatives can understand. Entitlements makes it sound like they are handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare and using that term when referring to Medicare and Social Security seems to confuse the so-called conservatives as to what they really are. Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson saw the American people as a whole weren't doing very well preparing themselves for retirement, both medically and financially and the two programs were enacted. It was not a grab at individual freedom that led to their enactment. It was a need well demonstrated by the American people who had shown they weren't doing it voluntarily..
Hear, hear!!! I’m 70, using both. I’ve paid into them all my working life, every job I’ve had since age eighteen, as have my employers. That is money set aside for me, and I need it to live on in retirement. I’m glad President Biden is keeping a spotlight on it. And I do not understand why my senator, Scott, keeps thinking he’ll get re-elected by threatening it. Even dt and McConnell are calling on him to desist. Don’t these people know anyone like me, living on Social Security, a small teacher’s pension, and limited savings??? Stop scaring seniors!!!
Your only hope is to campaign for Scott's opponent in the next election. Good luck. I'm an escapee of Florida; you have my sympathy.
Truth. I envy your escape - living in the land of King Ron is very wearying. The Florida Democratic Party was disorganized in 2022 and seemingly received little support from the national party; I think they’ve given up on us.
Abbot (and the evil trio) do the same In Tx. Cheating wins
Speaking of that - the AG is paying 3.3 million to his former employees for blowing the whistle on his corrupt activities...... But he is still in office, he was still re elected and taxpayers will probably pay the 3.3. million
A situation that absolutely boggles my mind. Your "attorney" general, usually the chief law enforcement official of the state, under indictment and yet he's still there.
More info on AG Ken Paxton, https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/11/texas-ag-ken-paxton-criminal-allegations/
He admitted no wrongdoing?
Corruption, at least widespread corruption can be defeated with public effort, commitment, and solidarity, and we've pushed back on it before with at least partial success. Beloved Reagan conned us into inviting it roaring back.
Lived in Ft.Worth from 82-01, what’s happening there now breaks my heart.
Senators Cruz and Cornyn?
No that would be Paxton. TX Attorney General
Cancun and Mitch's sidekick?
We have that same problem here in Ohio. The national Democratic party puts very little $$ into our state leaving the Rs controlling both branches of our state legislature and the Governor's job to boot.. We had a very good candidate for the Senate, Tim Ryan, but the DNC virtually abandoned him leaving us with the very red, very radical JD Vance.
Tim Ryan was great and would have been a wonderful Senator! I don’t even live in Ohio but I still donated to his campaign. I was so disappointed when he didn’t win. JD Vance is awful.
Awful yes, and despite the backing Ryan got from folks like you, Gerrymandering elected Vance
I'm from Ohio and moved to that northern state M. Been here most of my life now and I am a reformed republican (thank God) Better late then never. I liked Tim Ryan also and found it hard that the people of the great state of Ohio would let the Republican's win anything. Hopefully, in 2024 we can get things right. Too much corruption in so much of our government with senators and representatives representing themselves instead of representing all the people in there respective area.
Get your state UnGerrymandered
Michigan did it
Look what happens
Our state Supreme Court ruled twice against our unfair maps but our legislators ignored the ruling and proceeded with our November election using the same old illegal maps.Our state government is very corrupt.
Not every state has the options MI does. (Those gerrymander dudes are smart.) Cheers for MI and Congrats!!
Believe me we are trying!!! ....70+%. Ohioans voted in 2015 and 2018 for "Fair Districts". but the formula didn't include an independent committee to reform the gerrymandered districts - so even though the plans put together by the majority Republican Committee (5 Repubs - 2Dems)
was declared "unconstitutional". 5 times by the OH Supreme Court - they got away with it....and here we are.
YES WE DID!!!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Michigan_Proposal_2#:~:text=Michigan%20Proposal%2018%2D2%20was,legislature%20to%20an%20independent%20commission.
I’m really sorry about Ryan. I think he would have been really good for Ohio. Vance will not.
The fact that the DNC abandons states where Democratic candidates & people who will vote democratic makes me very unhappy with "The Party". There are so many of us struggling in minimally support states so that people like Zinke get elected in part bc of $$$$$$$$$.
Exactly. Why some of us will never ever support DNC. It doesn't support us. And says so, right up front.
There are some really interesting grass roots groups operating inOhio that I’m learning about through Senior Taking Action. You might want to check them out. It will give you hope and make you proud 😊
I live in Florida, too, Suzanne. I agree. We had a nonexistent dem organization and no messaging. We need something to change
dramatically to get rid of Desantis, Rubio, Scott, Gaetz, and the overwhelming GOP control of our state legislature. Fla is not a true part of the USA. King Ron is a perfect description-we are a part of his fiefdom.
Same in TX
That’s sad. And it’s a shame. Florida has a lot of good things going on amidst the rotten stuff.
Fellow Floridian …sigh.
We need to message about the salary cap for Social Security ! $160,200 for 2023. So many who pay in throughout the year have no idea a cap exists.
So Rick Scott, and other millionaires/ billionaires, pay the Social Security tax for only a couple weeks ( or days ) while you pay throughout the year. Do you think that ‘s fair ??
I know why there’s a salary cap...to give the illusion that the wealthy aren’t directly supporting the poor, etc., etc., etc. I wonder what would happen if no SSA funds were withheld on, say, the first $10k people earn in a year but then remove the cap totally. The howls we would hear would be deafening.
Hmmmm....that kinda makes sense. Thinking about students working after school and weekends; folks entering the job market for the first time. Those first few paychecks have to go a long way.
Makes tons of sense!
I think that's a fabulous idea!!!
Exactly...pay on every dollar you make...end of discussion!
Why this push from business and the GOP? Your second line has the key "as have my employers". They want to pay you as little as possible. A number of years back I had a John Deere high level executive tell me "remember 80% of expenses wear shoes". From that view point they are not people and here lies the problem.
It was after 1980 that workers were deemed a liability on the spread sheets, cutting into shareholder profits.
Hm. That suspiciously aligns with Reagan's ascent to tge Presidency.🤔
Thats why we are referred to as Human Capital. Not even Associates to the pampered overlords.
Eeeeuuuwww.
Enough seniors in Florida are MAGAphased to elect Scotts and DeSantis-ists
Reality to them is Conservative Owned Media (COM)
Reality to many sitting in the “sun” is that they resist madly paying their fair share. Blather about Patriotism.... bull -hockey. No policies, no thinking, just terrible fear that they might be asked to pay their fair share.
If they use “entitlement “ one more time I would think the Dems would put out the truth on big billboards.
Then show the real entitlements.... loop-holes-,yachts, airplanes, free ride on the back of the working class.
No more use of my runways, highways, schools.
Also impacting voters are the gerrymandering & voter repression.
Ah, you have unlocked the cause! "As have my employers." Those business-capitalists types do not want to pay into their employees future! Not even a little bit.
Once upon a time a business of a certain size also offered pensions. Then, pensions were tweaked to 401Ks and other creative private enterprises, to support the stock market and corporations. If the stock market slides or crashes, well I guess we are out of luck.
I retired in 2009, just after the market slid badly in 2008. My retirement nest egg was reduced by 42% and by now it is gone all together.
You're not alone there. Many in that boat.
Hope, me too! I retired in 2010. I am living on the scraps now in India. My $2,200 per month allows me some ease, but I can’t live in my own country on that amount. I got divorced in 2017 and the hub took half. So there you have it! Let’s fight to keep our rightful retirement funds!
Namaste, Elisabeth!
I worry for my 40-ish children and their children. They are being conditioned to expect no Social Security or Medicare in their future, though they have paid into it for 20 years already. The Republicans wanting to cut or privatize are careful to say, Don’t worry, you current seniors, we won’t touch yours. We are talking about people younger than you.
A dog eat dog system pitting generation against generation. This is how obscene wealth and its power will be protected if Republicans have their way. According to the Two Santa Claus theory, Democrat Santa provides your benefits (and those of people you despise) but Republican Santa cuts your taxes instead. (Which is a Better Deal if you have no idea what services your taxes provide, but you know you hate paying them.)
Yes and the media should be talking more about Scott’s involvement with serious Medicare fraud
Amen!
I agree, Larry, and every one of us who ever worked for a living paid into these programs (SociaL Security and Medicare) Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF may be seen as handouts, but all three combined are less than we pay out to corporations and millionaire/billionaires in subsidies, depletion allowances, tax loopholes and lower tax rates. We who pay our taxes justifiably want those earning more in a year than we earn in a lifetime to pay at least 15 to 20 % tax rate too.
"Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF may be seen as handouts"
Here is what a true entitlement is:
A white man, or a million of them, with the power to steal the entire life of (or millions of lives) of a (million) black slaves.
Then? "Free them" without providing any land, any jobs, or any resources at all.
Then? When those black folks are starving, give them house cleaning jobs, janitor jobs, and put them back in the fields for 100 years as "share croppers" where their pay is? Well, they get to keep barely any of the food they grow!!
Now THAT is an entitlement let me tell you. Being able to steal someone else's entire life!
Then? If someone like Lyndon Johnson, who grew up in Texas and saw what black people were struggling through, decides to, for the first time in American history, to offer some food to literally a starving population of Americans with a stolen history, with SNAP "benefits"??
that becomes evil socialism? A handout???
HMMMM??? IT is OK to run a slave colony for 300 years by white men, stealing black lives.
BUT? It is NOT OK to then, after black lives are forced to be free by the federal government, to enable them to work and find food or buy property??
It is not OK to help them eat????
Amurca. Gotta love it? Gift link below. I recognize that we now have TWO black quarterbacks trying to beat each other out on the football field. Now, when the OWNERS of the football franchises become black, we will be making some real progress.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/12/sports/football/nfl-black-quarterbacks.html?unlocked_article_code=u0NC_iN2gTT--5dc12-eIFMkwyfjftECAJu5JiNP9m8lUtL0e9LAO_RSCn31a2GwvqXZ752GJETEj9d-kAU4-J6018_64H7H3ygL1wx4U6aEpDHe5ZJfIKSyxA7Ho1cb6sOPdHPUU5TyJHDVD-RDzKIjB_noUDBoUG7B-Hk55m6ZpaSaujP_cfFr6QpeE-aoCXqCxYMMy8KQMJRqNuTb_2moVeip37teYG9XjIzg8lnDhpKF56sXjyGWulyPKIQTHsKpej2TXWs8bFj7b6Vn1YhnE9HfPQvxWWBm-Qv5Z5d1vQp3_T851EgP8rcvYg23HPggF8OKADubDzYBZhG66kuE1f14oTaT&smid=share-url
Saw a headline from eons ago, that reparations were offered to slave owners for the loss of their ‘property.” $300 for each freed slave. What was offered to the “property?” A noose. And one wonders why they arrive at the starting gate of life, hobbled by their history…. And blamed for their deficits.
And yesterday, on Firing Line, Glenn Loury, blathered white supremacists crap on PBS. A pox on you….
"What was offered to the “property?” A noose. "
Jeri, yes.....
In the 1619 Book Project, in one of the Chapters that discusses the "Jim Crow" period after slavery, there is a paragraph detailing how common it was, in that 90 year time period, to ride/drive though the south and literally see black people hanging from random trees along the side of the road.
"A handout" so to speak.
"And one wonders why they arrive at the starting gate of life, hobbled by their history…. And blamed for their deficits."
Pure poetry, Jeri.
You and Mike S. are amazing truthtellers.
Agreed, Lynell. And good morning!
Morning, Ally! Yes. Jeri would go a long way toward curing the Democratic Party's messaging problems!
Hard to like this comment Jeri, but i do like truth, it is stranger than fiction.
And stronger!!
We should remember the freed slaves were promised 40 acres of land and a mule, so they could earn a living. That promise was never kept. So many of the formerly enslaved people had to struggle through poverty, lack of proper housing and clothing. They were then rewarded with Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Meanwhile , white Europeans were being given 40 acres of land by the same government that said keeping their promise to African Americans was too costly.
Actually, I think the white Europeans were given 160 acres, which makes the broken promise even worse!
Juanita Smith - "Actually, I think the white Europeans were given 160 acres, which makes the broken promise even worse!"
𝘛𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩, 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1862, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 160 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘴.
Your historical take is currently banned in floriduh. Keep writing!
Lynn,
I don't really have a historical take honestly. I spent my early life on an East Texas farm fixing broken stuff and barely making any money with my family BUT we owned our own land because it was dirt cheap until the 1990's. We ate every day.
I did attend an integrated school after 1966 (unlike Boston which did not integrate until 1978 or Rochester, NY, which, has STILL not integrated).
My writing simply reflects my good luck at having always enjoyed reading (Public Library in Palestine, TX and small public school libraries).......
so, I have read Dr. Richardson's works (some of them) and I have read the 1619 Book Project and between those and some other reading,
"mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord". So, to speak.
Yes, indeed, but, I did see it that American glory once, way out in East Texas one day when I, as part of a job of reading water meters, happened on to the area where black folks lived. For the first time.
A half circle of shacks with no running water (1976). Out houses in back of the shacks.
ONE spigot sticking up out of the ground providing water for the entire community.
1976. All the white people (like me sort of) were celebrating the "Bi-Centennial" of our awesome American history on the day I stood looking at the shacks which housed the black folks.
As an old man now (63). I am both heartbroken, angry and lost as to what I can do besides volunteer my time where it is needed tutoring, making food at shelters, etc.
Now? I am haunted by my own good luck (which was born out of constant working but I could get a job, unlike black folks)
.....at "escaping" my East Texas poverty (which, looked like RICHES compared to what black folks had).
Your writing illuminates the truth, Mike. It is almost poetry. Do not ever stop. People like you point the way to awareness.
63 is not old. It is the time of powerful elderhood.
YES!!!
Thank you.
Yes
😊😊
Truth! Laid it out. Thanks. Spot on!
When whites claim slavery wasn’t so bad because slaves had food, shelter, employment, remember that white masters could sell your children.
Thank you, Mike S.!!!
Sad indeed
Or something a little stronger Cheers!
Every once in a while a group of us Dems here in Massachusetts get together for what we call 'drinking liberally'. COVID has made it harder to do; we're looking forward to more time discussing the issues as pandemic worriies ease.
that's GREAT!!! too funny!! drinking liberally!! :D
Indeed!!
or even a zoomie... to drink together liberally!! :D
The 'conservatives' think of any government program funded by taxpayers as intrusive and socialistic. And that rankles them: the idea that government could do something to help those in need, using 'their' money. Selfish and short-sighted and mean-spirited they are.
But they refuse to acknowledge the money paid by tax payers to help support the obscenely wealthy.
To help Support The Siphon.
Which doesn't even take into account how much the wealthy corporations benefit from our tax supported programs like the new infrastructure bill - whose big semi's cross those bridges and deliver those products?!
But isn't it a government handout to give the rich and the big corporations so many loopholes, leting them dance along practically scott free? Yes, it is!
Great use of “ Scott free “ ! I’ll be stealing that for my messaging.😂
It wasn't a mistake - glad you got the message!!
Why not adopt Alexei Navalny's label for Putin's pseudo-party "United Russia" ?
GOP, THE PARTY OF SWINDLERS AND THIEVES
applies to some Dems, too... they're just not quite so brazen about it...
(like Nancy Pelosi talking 'free market' for legislators to scam the system with their insider trading...)
Yes
I think you summed that up nicely. Thanks. And if you patched all those tax loopholes I bet there would be more than enough money to pay for these programs. Kind of pathetic.
There surely would be enough. I remember the tax rates of the 1950s, when CEOs made reasonable salaries and unions were on the rise. If we revised the unfathomable tax code to make it more equitable, the rich would pay their fare share.
Good Morning Larry, who wrote "Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson saw the American people as a whole weren't doing very well preparing themselves for retirement, both medically and financially and the two programs were enacted. It was not a grab at individual freedom that led to their enactment. It was a need well demonstrated by the American people who had shown they weren't doing it voluntarily.."
During a convo with my attorney I mentioned that while volunteering at our community hospital, I realized that so many folks are unprepared for furure crises like health scares, and can't afford them. He responded "How can a family prepare on $8 an hour?" That wasn't so long ago. Judging by the evidence provided by commercial parking lots, especially on weekends, most folks keep score by shopping. OK, I shop also, but for quality not quantity. I know families wear items out, but buying as entertainment is or seems to be the number one sport in our capitalist country. What were the stim checks for besides propping up the economy? My personal form of entertainment, restaurants, was shattered in early 2020 and I never recovered, i.e., I haven't returned to the habit of routinely patronizing them. Not money well-spent, money well-saved.
But I really wanted to digress to another form of "entitlement" which so far has not been mentioned, that of pensions. As a sixty-something college student, I took a class on the Civil War, or whatever other label you use, and I was entertaining myself by volunteering at our county historical society, where I was archiving 24 boxes of various correspondence of a former governor and congressman, among them a box of letters from Civil War vets who were writing for help getting their pensions, in the 1890s. Disability was the reason these veterans were eligible. I wrote a paper on pensions, and traced the history through Teddy Roosevelt's including age itself as a form of disability eligible for retirement benefits. Of course these were federally funded. The last Revolutionary War pension payment was made in 1906. I'll just wrap this up by mentioning the dirty word which the red-leaning part of the state where I live uses as a throwaway reason for flying Confederate flags and other complaint-voicing. They complain about a small SS check and lack of Medicare insurance coverage while simultaneously yelling "Socialism is ruining the country." Have a nice day.
"They complain about a small SS check and lack of Medicare insurance coverage while simultaneously yelling "Socialism is ruining the country." Have a nice day."
And? Here we see the true power of the combination of powerful propaganda and poor education.
Which, red states offer both in spades.
Absolutely!!
And commenters like you, Ed and Mike S, are why this place is so inspiring!! Thank you, again... :-)
Thank you!
They are referred to as "entitlements" because every citizen of a democratic country is (or should be) entitled to a basic social safety net. Government benefits like Medicaid and food stamps are not "handouts" - they are part and parcel of being a participating member of a democratic society. Kind of like voting or serving in the armed forces.
Thank you, Talia! My sentiments exactly!👍 I am so tired of people using "entitlements " as a dirty word!
Here's another widely held misconception: that employers pay half of a worker's payroll taxes. While technically true from an accounting standpoint, this employee overhead is just another cost of doing business and is not a "benefit" granted employees. In reality that money would be included in the employee's paycheck if the requirement for the employer to pay taxes supporting "entitlements" were to magically vanish, everything else being equal. But employers would like you to believe that this is a burden they bear. Or put another way, a teacher works just a little harder to compensate for the teacher that's not hired to assist her because this overhead is factored in when budgeting for headcount. And yes, it's a "return on investment" paid for over a lifetime of work, and would be quite a healthy fund if the damned politicians didn't keep sticking their grubby fingers in the pot every time they want to fight an unfunded war. It's infuriating. People need to wise up and stop buying this Reagan era BS!
LeMoine- Exactly! I used to insist that when our company negotiated to cut our "benefits" I always said those benefits were really deferred comp. A relative named Denison Smith wrote a book titled "Stop the Raid" on the SS Fund about how the gov't does just that.
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html
Lemoyne, I'd even go further back and adhere that we are a nation built upon a social contract between government and the people and that all relationships covered by laws are a version of such a concept. This was as put forth by Hobbes centuries ago and central to how the founding fathers drew up the US Constitution. A couple of citations below to check out, but in the mid-20th Century the idea quite prevalent was that there was a social contract between the businesses and the employees whom businesses sought, not for a few months, but for a lifetime of productive work. The relationship was considered a key to American exceptionalism, the hardest working and most ingenious workforce in the world. American workers took pride in the businesses they worked for because they could rely on continous employment and a pension (fought for through unions and the public sector). Some of us remember the expectation to work hard in our strongest time and be respected when our energies declined, not to be dismissed. I remember the normal was to have a career and a few different employers and employers taking pride in the longevity of their workforce, the value of their senior workers, the investment in the security of workers (and their families) because it was good business to do this in the communities in which both employer and workers lived together. There was a social contract and we the middle-class lived as though this was the way things would remain. And, I can remember the idea of Social Security was conceived to protect folks into their old age because our social contract (we the government) with them was that they should not fear being old for reasons out of their control and regardless of the stability of something promised by their employer or the swings in prosperity that happen in industries and investments. And, I can remember that it was businesses that saw this as the right thing to do, the progressive thing to do as a modern business, while relieving them of some of the obligations that underfunded/speculative private pensions they may have found they were on the hook for (No it wasn't only the US Postal Serivce pension fund that is not fully funded). So, when I hear the claims that Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation , etc., are entitlements and the arguments that 401ks and privatizing pension/Social Security and Medicare should be made options, I have to shout NAY SIRS. They are not entitlements or gifts or taking something away from the business or other workers who do not have pensions or are not eligible for certain insurance-based schemes as ways to reduce debt or save these programs, I shout NAY SIRS. These are obligations of businesses, industry, the private and non-profit sector, and our government to their people, as employees and as citizens. They are debts agreed to under the social contract entered into by those elected to office to promote the common good, to ensure the health and safety of our people and all are bound under employment and commercial laws between though who employ Americans in the creation of, production of, delivery of, quality of, and expansion of the gross domestic product that is the measure of American enterprise. The manner of meeting such obligations may be open to our capacity for ingenuity and problem solving, but the obligations for such is not to be discharged through negligence or failures to act and deliver upon promises. The bottom line must start when the obligations are fulfilled, not where the money to pay is stashed or was failed to be set aside to fully-fund obligations entered into on day one of the social or business contract agreed to.
The social contract of business theory argues that businesses exist with the permission of society, so long as the business acts in ways that benefit society. Social contract theorists believe that a business should make decisions and structure their operations in ways that offer the maximum benefit to society.Nov 9, 2021
https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/social-contract-theories-business-59955.html
I agree. Their use of the label entitlement for Social Security and Medicare bugs me mightily. And when they use it, it’s usually with a tone of voice that implies anyone who participates in these programs is leeching off the government. I’ve been paying into SS since I was 13 years old. Now, at 60, after almost 50 years of paying into it, when I’m getting close to being able to draw from it, they want to take it away from me. It’s no different than if they were bank hackers that wiped out my savings account. It’s my money, damn it! They are trying to steal it by twisting the narrative. I find it insulting they think I’m so stupid! At least bank hackers respect me enough to disguise their theft. The GOP is announcing their thievery, putting it on the front page, and coming boldly in the front door to steal it. They’ve managed to convince upwards of 40% of the voters that it’s the right thing to do. These folks are so good at convincing their base with lies, I think they could pick up steaming piles of cow manure, put it in muffin tins, and people would eagerly line up for their “breakfast special”! It’s maddening.
It is important to remember that your FICA payments went directly to your parents and grandparents. And the benefits you will recieve come out of the paychecks of the generations behind you. There is no account with your name on it! So no one is "stealing" from you.....it can be argued that old people steal from younger people.
Becky, I don't know how old you are but I'm nearly 80. You might argue that "old people steal from younger people" but it's the "old people" that invested a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears building the infrastructure that younger people currently enjoy, from highways to medical technology to the cell phones they seem so attached to. Most don't yet have a clue as to what they owe older people. I can tell them in intricate detail what makes a computer tick but relatively few would care or comprehend, they just want to use stuff and bitch about how old people screwed them over. And the point you make to Carey about nobody having their name on a SS account is specious and irrelevant, even if it WAS true, which it is not. There's a reason why people have different SS numbers and receive different amounts when they finally collect it, assuming they live long enough to collect it. Have older generations made mistakes? damned straight. Future ones will too. But I deeply resent the sentiment that "old people steal from younger people".
LeMoine - thank you, you’ve said it better than I could. I also found the statement from a previous comment “Medicare has allowed people to live longer than expected.”, particularly offensive. “Well, geez, I’m so sorry I didn’t just lay down and die at 55 so we wouldn’t have to raise taxes on billionaires!”
You’ve misunderstood my comment. I am not stating nor implying that anyone receiving payouts from SS is stealing from me. I’m saying that the GOP trying to do away with SS will be stealing from me if they succeed in doing away with SS.
Yep.
"Entitlement" became a negative term under Reagan. The notion of the "welfare queen" who felt entitled to welfare payments.
But, in fact, those of us who paid into the system are entitled to benefits.
"Handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare" - really? Those "handouts" are minimal gestures at redistributing generational wealth stolen from the folks receiving them. We refused to give reparations and full civil rights to newly freed slaves; and failing to do so, while simultaneously failing to prosecute Confederate traitors and persecuting slaves' descendants, has put us in the position we find ourselves in today.
“Generational Wealth”, what a concept
Trust fund babies like Tucker Carlson rant about the socialism of handouts to those without GW, yet from his first breath, he was and is a form of socialism in its purest form
Beautifully and clearly stated! Thank you.
Exactly, and “duh” to those who know better but continue their diatribes
All true, but the fact is we who contributed to SS & Medicaid ARE "entitled" to receive the benefits from the programs we paid in to all those years. That also seems to float somewhere in the ether above Repubs heads!
Another way to look at "entitlements" is to see them as something everyone is ENTITLED to. The term has been coopted, like many others, to give it a bad rap.
In fact, aren't all people entitled to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, the opportunity to get a decent education? Perhaps conservatives don't think so,, but in a democracy, it is important that everyone have a decent standard of living. If we achieve that, we will also have a more stable government because, who will want to overturn it? And with a good education, especially with the encouragement of critical thinking, people will be less likely to be fooled by charlatans.
I would add that people are also entitled to justice. When justice is real, people see it and are more likely to respect the rule of law.
No justice, no peace.
Know justice, know peace.❤️
Cheryl, I agree completely. And with democracy comes freedom , but the flip side of the freedom coin is the responsibility of behaving in a way that does not sabotage the common (or community's ) interests, if anyone can agree what "common interest" is. Humans push back when there's an "other," but in this society it shouldn't mean "each other." I like your last two statements!
I suspect your confusion is based on the Libertarian sociopathy that pervades the US culture, which has entirely absorbed the Republican party, and dominates most common American understandings of government, nationhood, and economics.
You've mischaracterized Roosevelt's and Johnson's impetus in your mind. It wasn't that they saw people as "not preparing themselves voluntarily for sickness or old age." It was that they saw it was IMPOSSIBLE for most people to prepare themselves -- they were barely surviving day-to-day on wages offered by Capitalists. Indeed, it was proving impossible for people to even survive to old age in reasonably good health in the first place: many died young.
Recall that Northern "jobs" in the 1800's were just slavery under a different name. If anything, jobs have the potential to be far more brutal than slavery: if the slaveowner works a slave to death, he must purchase a new slave. If a capitalist works an employee to death, he can just post an opening, and workers will come running.
Social Security was, from the beginning, a government mandated, forced contribution by wage-earners to a common (national) pool of wealth that would be distributed to all workers. It was largely based on the fraternal organizations of the 1800's (e.g. the Odd Fellows) which in turn had roots in the crafting guilds of earlier times. The basic idea was that workers would pool a portion of their income to pay subsistence for widows and children of workers who died young. The widows were 'entitled' to their pension, by virtue of their marriage, just like a Lord was 'entitled' to land by virtue of his rank.
That is why SS is called an 'entitlement', at least so far as I understand this.
The same is true of medicine. There are not enough people who need surgery for colon cancer who can also PAY for colon cancer, to support the surgeons, much less the entire support infrastructure the surgeons require, beginning with years of study. So you either distribute the costs of surgery 'from each according to means, to each according to need,' or you implicitly fold up the entire enterprise and use surgery -- as in the 1800's -- to perform amputations and nothing more, from which patients will either live (handicapped) or die.
It really comes down to the question of what it means to be an American. Are there really ANY benefits at all to being an American? Or do we just go on, generation to generation, mouthing platitudes and dying in poverty to make the wealthy few wealthier?
Social Security is a benefit. Roads are a benefit. A common currency is a benefit. Laws against public violence are a benefit. Strong national defense is a benefit. Everyone pays to maintain this.
Libertarians (Republicans) would privatize all of this, without exception, and remove all 'entitlements' in favor of a transactional model. The result is -- demonstrably -- an increase in positive propaganda, and a gutting-out of public benefits to line pockets.
Beautifully stated, Joseph!
I agree - it is maddening to keep hearing the misunderstood term, Entitlement (even though we are certainly entitled to that which we have paid into our entire working lives)--it should be referred to as 'Earned Benefits,' to remove any confusion.
And, I am continually mystified at the resistance to raising the income cap for paying into social security, which would be an equitable way to achieve solvency in a seemingly short time and with no rational arguments against it.
It just appears that doing anything that would improve ordinary, everyday, people's lives is just beyond their comprehension. But cutting taxes for the richest among us? Hey no-brainer. Literally!
CC Barton - Yes. That would be a simple fix - either raise or remove the income cap and I too am mystified at the resistance to doing it.
An "earned benefit" would stop when you have taken out all your earnings (maybe with some interest, etc.) SS is an entitlement....not a savings account, not an annuity.....there is no account with your name on it. SS is an entitlement because many, many people take out far more than they ever paid in .....that is the crux of the problem!
The way I understand it was originally to work was that the money from our earnings would be put in an investment vehicle which would provide for our retirements. But that money has been 'borrowed' to the hilt by Congress over all these years - a lot of sticky fingers have found it ripe for the picking. If it had been left alone to grow and if the cap had been removed so that all earnings would be subject to a fair percentage of SS tax, we would not even be talking about this now.
For a democracy to function effectively, you need to have healthy, educated and civically engaged citizens. I suspect it’s less costly and more satisfying in the long term and definitely worth working for.
I wonder whoever thought Civics classes were expendable? They need to start again in every state in grade school and up from there.
Let’s bring back Art, music and science as well. Kids like to learn but we don’t all learn in the same way.
They are entitlements because you get the benefits regardless of need, and regardless of the actual amount you paid into the system. The fundamental problem is that Medicare has allowed seniors to live much longer than Social Security was designed for!! Many recipients are now receiving more in benefits than they ever contributed to the system. Initially the SS Trust fund had huge surplusses which proved to be irresistable to politicans of both parties.....thus the "raids" on the trust fund. But the ageing Boomers are a huge looming problem that needs a real fix.....not hysterics.
I don't know where you get your figures, Becky. In 1982 I believe it was (under Ronnie Reagan no less) a commission was formed to study the problem the baby boomers presented. Using projected actuarial tables and sound modeling they actually fixed what was projected to be a Social Security shortfall. Some subset of current recipients may well be receiving more than they paid in, even adjusted for inflation. Others didn't make the cut. It was all factored in. And where did you get the idea that "Initially the SS Trust fund had huge surplusses..." ? There was a time when a significant surplus had built up in anticipation of the Baby Boomer bulge, but GWB took care of that with his war against Saddam in EYE Rak. You know, the guy with all them weapons of mass destruction.
LeMoine- two things, there were surpluses, and the gov't did use them for non-SS reasons. Currently, the gov't owes the SSA $2.7B, which they are trying to reduce by cutting benes, raising SS taxes, and raising the income limit.
Second, if people live long enough, they will receive more than they paid in. My father was probably one of them, as he lived to age 99. Is your point that people should not receive more than they paid in?
Ed, did you mean $2.8 T (trillion)? That sounds a lot more like it. No, I was responding to someone else's comment that some people collect more than they pay in. My basic point was that when lifespans are taken into account, it's understood that a person living an "average" number of years will break even, or just a little bit less to adjust for administration of the program. Social security is supposed to be a "zero sum" game as I understand it, not a Ponzi scheme in which the government rips people off, or a fool's errand in which the government goes broke. And the question of what the cost to society would be if the 60 million SS recipients were deprived of this modest income never seems to get asked. As another poster observed, the vast majority of the money going out for SS is channeled right back into the economy. I know that there isn't a hell of a lot left of my SS check after I pay for groceries and gas, plus my ever increasing property taxes to spirit off to my secret account in the Caymen Islands.
LeMoine, yes I meant $2.8Trillions; but realistically SS was not intended to be a sole means of support in retirement, which is where lots of folks get it wrong. A farmer and another type of worker complain about their check amount, I ask if they reported their incomes. Of course not they say, "that's MY money, I ain't payin' tax on it!" All righty then.
Becky, I don't know of anyone who receives SS who didn't have the work credits to qualify, unless you are including disability and survivor benefits. Yes, certain sports figures for instance may not "need" SS, but if the gov't says they qualify, who am I to argue?
And in this political climate, who gets to design the fix?
Yes, of course recipients have work credits. But you can never exhaust your benefits no matter how long you live, so may people will take out more than they paid in. (Yes, some people who die younger will pay more than they receive.) And while survivor and disability programs are good things, they also drain the system and pay benefits to people who do not have those "credits." While there are many poor seniors scraping by on SS benefits, the fact is that seniors are the wealthiest group of citizens. And younger working people who have little prospect of accumulating the wealth that boomers have are subsidizing golf-course retirements that last 30+ years......
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html
Excellent info:
For example, the institute’s 2022 study has these estimates for workers who turned 65 in 2020.
A single man who earned an average income and reaches average life expectancy will pay $405,000 into Social Security and Medicare and receive $573,000 in benefits.
A single woman in that situation will pay $405,000 into the programs and receive $646,000 in benefits, because women live longer.
A married couple consisting of an average earner and a low earner will pay a combined $586,000 and receive $1.1 million in benefits.
And the company they worked for will have paid in the same amount that the employee paid in as part of the company's TAX DEDUCTABLE business expense so the single man by virtue of HIS labor will had contributions from his company and himself of 2X $405,000 = $810,000 into Social Security and Medicare and receive $573,000 in benefits. Seems to me that the average guy is not receiving the full benefit of his labor.
Social Security is an insurance program.