• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The TRUTH about Social Security ...

Here's an informative article from a dear friend at another Forum:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html

I wanted to share it with all of you and I encourage ALL of you to help spread it far and wide ...

We NEED to hold the "fear-mongerers" at bay and REQUIRE all our Congressmen/women to SPEAK TRUTH ...

IF debates are to be MEANINGFUL ... we NEED to start with TRUTH, not a bunch of lies some seem to be spinning on the Hill ...

Medicare and Medicaid MAY be a problem, but lumping ALL "entitlements" into the same category is simply NAIVE and UNINFORMED ...

Besides WHERE did the term "entitlements" come from as regards Social Security and Medicare ... WE ALL PAY (or PAID) into the systems ...

As for Medicaid ... Yes, that IS an "entitlement" or a "welfare" program ... Time we started DEMANDING TRUTH ...
 
Click to expand...
Social Security should not be considered an "entitlement."

You ask "WHERE did the term "entitlements" come from as regards Social Security and Medicare. Here's the awful answer.

In the 1960s, when President Johnson was in office, we were involved ever more heavily in the Vietnam War and spent an unbelievable amount of money on defense on that account. More than 50% of the US population wanted us to pull out of Vietnam. Johnson wanted to hide how much of the budget was being spent on defense in that context, so he lumped Social Security with the new so-called "entitlements" of Medicaid, etc. Because Social Security funds were so huge, he was able to make it appear that he was spending a very moderate amount on defense. Later, other presidents loved this: they could hide the ridiculous amount of money the US government spent on defense by continuing to treat Social Security this way.

As for Medicare, payroll taxes fund half the program. They were started in 1966 at .35% of earned income, varied up and down to 1.05% in 1979, and now are 1.45% percent, except for self-employed people, who pay 2.9%, because employers match the payroll tax contribution of employees. You pay for Medicare in advance.

Should Medicare be considered an "entitlement" if you pay for it? No, it really shouldn't. Moreover, those of us who pay payroll contributions to Unemployment Insurance also resent being told that is an "entitlement."

We do not pay into Medicaid and SNAP (Food Stamps), etc. Those are "entitlements."

But the real problem is not the word "entitlement."

The Republican Party pretends that Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance are favors the government does for us, when the truth is that we all pay into them to get a return later, just as with private insurance and pension programs.

Romney's famous "47%" included retired people living on Social Security and unemployed people living on their Unemployment Insurance and he claimed these were among those who "depend on the government" and "won't take personal responsibility."

And Congress under both parties has been responsible for arranging for the US government to borrow money from Social Security for US budget items that should have been paid for with income tax money, but the government lowered taxes on the rich so it didn't collect enough income tax.

What mainly threatens to bankrupt Social Security is that Congress doesn't want to pay back the money the US government owes to the fund for retirees. Disgusting.
 
It's an entitlement because it's a ponsi scheme. The money a senior paid in his entire life wasn't stored in a fund to grow and wait for him, it was used to pay for past generations. Now, our generation is paying for the eldest generation. The problem with this is we're paying for something that there is zero guarantee that it will still exist when it comes time for us to retire. We've tried to make a contract with people who may not even be born yet. Will this new generation be interested in paying for my retirement? Throw on top a massive mismanagement of the funds by the government, and you have a possible recipe for disaster.

I'd rather keep that money and make my own investments so that I know it'll be there when I retire, instead of being squandered by the state.
 
Buy into a Ponzi scheme, get burned.
 
Unemployment did become an entitlement when it's terms we're extended. Our " premiums " did not even go up and our "benefits" extended free of charge hence the entitlement. A special class of recipients, union workers I believe, got even more. We're they paying more? No just entitled.

That aside SS has become an entitlement. You want the truth? If it's not an entitlement where is the "account" minus my disability insurance premiums? Oh don't have one? Then it's an entitlement for the obese, addicted, and lethargist manipulators among us.
 
It's bad enough that our government borrowed that money but some now representing us want us to believe that it's gone and worst then that are those who claim we are stealing our SS. Worst yet there are those among us who believe we are not entitled to the SS we paid in. SS is not an entitlement since we paid into it.
 
Good article even though some neo-cons will never admit that



fdr was right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom