What are entitlements?

[Tilted]

The terms 'entitlements', 'entitlement programs' and 'entitlement class' have become favored generic villains of modern political rhetoric. The problem is that the terms, at least as to their common usage, have become rather vague and perhaps even ambiguous. It seems to me that they often get used rhetorically as a kind of scapegoat - a nondescript way to lay blame for budgetary issues and concerns about over-spending off on someone else's interests and ideological preferences In some instances, those interests and preferences may actually be our own, but we've now referred to them vaguely enough so as to conceal that reality (perhaps even from ourselves). Additionally, the vague references make it difficult to assess - and thus dispute - the legitimacy of the fiscal blame that we are trying to place.

So, the question of the day is - when YOU use and hear the terms 'entitlements' and 'entitlement class', what do YOU mean and understand them to mean? Are there specific programs or department appropriations that you consider as 'entitlements'? Do you have any idea how much we (I'm mostly referring to the federal government with this part, but you need not stick with it) spend on them in a year?

 

[Vince]

Entitlement - a program that the government uses to cater to those that don't work for what they are receiving, i.e. free healthcare, welfare, etc., and feel they are entitled to this just because they are alive and living in America. This is not the dictionary definition. If these entitlement programs did not exist, these people would either starve to death or have to get off their azzez and actually get a job. The entitled seem to feel it's owed to them. This does not apply to all of the entitled group. Some actually work and just can't make ends meet on their salary. They have kids to support. I know people that need these programs and are still willing to work and I really don't consider these folks are part of the entitled group.

 

[TurboK9]

The terms 'entitlements', 'entitlement programs' and 'entitlement class' have become favored generic villains of modern political rhetoric. The problem is that the terms, at least as to their common usage, have become rather vague and perhaps even ambiguous. It seems to me that they often get used rhetorically as a kind of scapegoat - a nondescript way to lay blame for budgetary issues and concerns about over-spending off on someone else's interests and ideological preferences In some instances, those interests and preferences may actually be our own, but we've now referred to them vaguely enough so as to conceal that reality (perhaps even from ourselves). Additionally, the vague references make it difficult to assess - and thus dispute - the legitimacy of the fiscal blame that we are trying to place.

So, the question of the day is - when YOU use and hear the terms 'entitlements' and 'entitlement class', what do YOU mean and understand them to mean? Are there specific programs or department appropriations that you consider as 'entitlements'? Do you have any idea how much we (I'm mostly referring to the federal government with this part, but you need not stick with it) spend on them in a year?

To me it's simple. If you are capable of providing for yourself, and yet you rely on public assistance as a permanent or semi permanent solution (long term) you are 'entitlement class'. Easy as that. Trouble is, you can't get out of that class without earning some decent money these days. It is not longer feasible on the lower wage brackets, so as long as someone is making an effort, I don't knock 'em.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

So, the question of the day is - when YOU use and hear the terms 'entitlements' and 'entitlement class', what do YOU mean and understand them to mean? Are there specific programs or department appropriations that you consider as 'entitlements'? Do you have any idea how much we (I'm mostly referring to the federal government with this part, but you need not stick with it) spend on them in a year?

A government give away, the goes beyond just helping someone get back on their feet i.e. unemployment

Extended Welfare .... Prescription drug plans for the elderly (thanks Bush)

 

[aps45819]

A government give away, the goes beyond just helping someone get back on their feet i.e. unemployment

Extended Welfare .... Prescription drug plans for the elderly (thanks Bush)

FEDERAL entitlements are programs like SS, medicare, medicaid. People have paid into the system form many years and are entitled to receive payments after they've stopped working and have a fixed income.
I think it's about 60% of the budget

 

[TurboK9]

FEDERAL entitlements are programs like SS, medicare, medicaid. People have paid into the system form many years and are entitled to receive payments after they've stopped working and have a fixed income.
I think it's about 60% of the budget

Well yeah. But the word has been bastardized to stand for pretty much any handout, most now at State level. Are we talking bonafide definition, or current meaning and usage?

 

[SamSpade]

To me it means a set of programs for which no budget is ever considered - the payout is predetermined before a single dime of revenue is collected.

All of the money for Social Security is based on what it owes, and not what it collects or is allocated in a budget. All of the money for Medicare is based on what people claim that year. Budget concerns have no meaning.

It amounts to a budget item that can NEVER be reduced or eliminated. The problem is, it not only never shrinks, it GROWS.

 

[chernmax]

From Urbandictionary.com...

entitlement 32 up, 23 down
Believing you are automatically owed something by society thanks to lies from Democrats, Socialists and Liberals. Usually comes in the form of handouts: universal healthcare, the redistribution of wealth, reparations for blacks, reverse discrimination against whites to benefit blacks, politicans voting themselves a payraise in the middle of the night, athletes getting paid $200 million for their "talent", affirmative action, welfare, social security, etc.

Entitlement has taght Generation-X and Generation-Y that they can have a lavish lifestyle of materialism that it took their parents YEARS to achieve. Young people (under 30) now have record debt as a result, and are buying homes they can’t afford, cars they can’t pay for and credit cards they can’t pay off. Entitlement has led them to having to live with mommy and daddy ‘til things improve financially.

 

[This_person]

To me an entitlement program is one that seems specifically designed for you to NOT get off of. SS, Medicare, medicaid, food handouts, Unemployment Insurance, etc., etc., etc.

For the most part, I am not against a safety net that has a VERY limited time of availability. Anything that lasts more than, say, six months is a SERIOUS problem. Anything that is less than advantageous to be off of is a SERIOUS problem.

 

[Aerogal]

Why is SS considered an entitlement when I've been paying SS tax for 40 years?

 

[itsbob]

Why is SS considered an entitlement when I've been paying SS tax for 40 years?

Because the government shouldn't be in the business of providing for people's retirement.

That we have NO choice and HAVE to pay in it, receiving it really isn't an entitlement but a payback. A TERRIBLE return on your investment.

The entitlement comes in when people in their 20s and 30s find a crooked doctory and get SSI payment for themselves, their kids, their brother;s and sisters, then tell ALL their kin about this GREAT doctor and next thing you know we have mulitple generations and multiple branches of the same family NOT working but living off the government dole.

 

[Tilted]

Why is SS considered an entitlement when I've been paying SS tax for 40 years?

It's among the kinds of things that the term entitlement has traditionally referred to - something someone is entitled to, whether by law, by contract, or otherwise. In the case of SS, Medicare, and perhaps unemployment benefits, we might also say that people are entitled to them because they, or someone on their behalf, paid into them over the years.

Here's the rub, the terms entitlement and entitlement class are often used as pejoratives - particularly the latter one. However, I don't think most people mean to include things like SS and Medicare (or recipients there of) when they are using those terms thusly. After all, it wouldn't really be fair to demean SS beneficiaries in the way that 'entitlement class' is often intended to demean those it is being used generically to refer to. Most SS beneficiaries have worked hard all their life and had money taken from their paycheck, or someone has on their behalf, in return for the promise that they would be helped when they got older or became disabled. They have legitimate grounds to feel 'entitled' to those benefits in a different way than people might feel 'entitled' to other kinds of benefits (e.g. Medicaid, WIC, TANF, Food Stamps).

That said, if we don't mean to include SS and Medicare when we use the term entitlement programs to ascribe blame for our federal budget problems, then what programs in specific are we referring to and how much do we actually spend on them? How much of a problem are they really? As far as entitlement programs go, the biggies are SS and Medicare - those programs represent huge parts of our budgetary problems, particularly as we go forward over the next few decades. My point is, not considering SS and Medicare beneficiaries, how much is this poorly-delineated 'entitlement class' really costing the federal government, and is the issue of government (i.e. federal) 'welfare' actually somewhat overstated?

 

[MMDad]

I see an entitlement as an unearned benefit. Since you have to work before you can collect unemployment or Social Security those are not what I call "entitlements."

Kind of like how health insurance was an earned benefit, but now is defined as a "right" that you are "entitled" to merely by being born here.

Entitlement class are those that think it is better to get things without having to earn them.

 

[Aerogal]

You sure have a way with words, Tilted. I feel that I've paid in therefore I should receive a stipend back. I'm sure you have as well. But I should just write off the SS and medicare taxes I've paid as a loss the way things are going.

 

[This_person]

You sure have a way with words, Tilted. I feel that I've paid in therefore I should receive a stipend back. I'm sure you have as well. But I should just write off the SS and medicare taxes I've paid as a loss the way things are going.

Most people who receive the benefits have paid in (certainly not all). Similarly, most people who receive the benefits get more than they've paid in in return.

Look at your check, your spouse's check, even your kid's check. Now imagine it without SS taken from it. Imagine what you could have done with that money over the course of your life - the things you could have, the savings you could have made, the investments.....

Now look at the federal budget. Imagine how much it would be different without those SS funds going out. Imagine it in a decade when the number of people supporting the number of recipients keeps on dropping. Imagine how much better our federal government's problems would be if we didn't choose to pay that money out.

I firmly believe SS is a part of the entitlement class. Like the health care insurance takeover law that recently passed, it's beginnings were far more benign than what it ended up being:

Social Security was enacted in 1935 (75 years ago). The country was suffering in the Great Depression. Communism was actually popular in this country at the time. The very concept was unprecedented. It is important to realize that the average life expectancy in 1935 (all races, both sexes) was 61. Social Security was originally intended to provide supplemental retirement income for workers (and their spouses) after they retired and reached the age of 65. At the time Social Security was enacted, it was palatable to the American public and a reasonably safe bet for the federal government. Most people didn't live long enough to become eligible. For several decades, Social Security did not appear to be the obvious Ponzi scheme that it is. At its inception, there were something like sixteen workers for every Social Security recipient, and the associated payroll taxes were low. Left alone, Social Security would be solvent to this day and perhaps far into the future. But things changed.

Imagine the outcry if we went to "life expectancy plus 4 years" as the standard for when one could receive benefits today.

It's a horrible program that should be phased out. My belief is a three pronged attack:

1. everyone under 18 today has the choice of paying in, or keeping their money
2. everyone 18 to 45 may stop paying in, converting their SS money to some other form of self-controlled retirement (money market, mattress, fishing cottage on a lake, whatever)
3. for those over 45, the age where one becomes eligible to withdraw funds goes up by six months every year until the age of eligibility reaches "life expectancy plus four years" and then remains there until all the people who hope to take that money are gone, and everyone else takes care of their own retirement.

This will greatly improve our national debt, and get people taking care of themselves.

 

[Larry Gude]

Look at your check, your spouse's check, even your kid's check. Now imagine it without SS taken from it. Imagine what you could have done with that money over the course of your life - the things you could have, the savings you could have made, the investments.....

Like what?

Our tax policy has long been geared to discourage simple savings, cash in the bank. If you put it in your home, paid it off, if you wanted to sell the last couple of years, you lost 10's, maybe 100's of thousands of dollars. If you aren't selling, that's good but, then, where would your money go if not a mortgage payment? Enron? AIG? Citi? GM?

I mean, I understand and agree with your point; I would have signed off to keep my money and be responsible for myself a long time ago. But, that is one of the key features of entitlements or any other dependency; people grow to depend on them. One of my guys is looking at retiring in a few years and that's gonna be his retirement, SS.

One of the big benefits for the left of our recent economic situation, a situation they built and the right pathetically went along with, is that, politically, ss privatization can't even be discussed for a generation, a point in time we most need to still be considering it and, frankly, doing it.


:shrug:

 

[This_person]

Like what?

Our tax policy has long been geared to discourage simple savings, cash in the bank. If you put it in your home, paid it off, if you wanted to sell the last couple of years, you lost 10's, maybe 100's of thousands of dollars. If you aren't selling, that's good but, then, where would your money go if not a mortgage payment? Enron? AIG? Citi? GM?

I mean, I understand and agree with your point; I would have signed off to keep my money and be responsible for myself a long time ago. But, that is one of the key features of entitlements or any other dependency; people grow to depend on them. One of my guys is looking at retiring in a few years and that's gonna be his retirement, SS.

One of the big benefits for the left of our recent economic situation, a situation they built and the right pathetically went along with, is that, politically, ss privatization can't even be discussed for a generation, a point in time we most need to still be considering it and, frankly, doing it.


:shrug:

You're suggesting we shouldn't change our taxing policy because our taxing policy wouldn't make it worthwhile. If we change our taxing policy without changing our taxing policy, I would agree.

 

[Tilted]

You sure have a way with words, Tilted. I feel that I've paid in therefore I should receive a stipend back. I'm sure you have as well. But I should just write off the SS and medicare taxes I've paid as a loss the way things are going.

Thank you. You should feel entitled to receive those benefits. You paid into the program - and not by choice I should add. It's not your fault that the SS program is going to become a huge burden on our federal fiscal condition going forward.

This is one of the reasons I seek to make distinctions between different entitlement programs. A sense of entitlement to SS benefits is a different animal than a sense of entitlement to other programs' benefits. But, at the same time, it isn't those other programs that are most problematic fiscally - it is SS and Medicare.

 

[BadGirl]

The things that get me is the practice of people believing that if they pay $$ in to the system, that they are entitled to receive $$$$$$$$$ from the system.

You should not be allowed to take away more money than you pay in, or at least not too much more.

 

[FredFlash]

The terms 'entitlements', 'entitlement programs' and 'entitlement class' have become favored generic villains of modern political rhetoric. The problem is that the terms, at least as to their common usage, have become rather vague and perhaps even ambiguous. It seems to me that they often get used rhetorically as a kind of scapegoat - a nondescript way to lay blame for budgetary issues and concerns about over-spending off on someone else's interests and ideological preferences In some instances, those interests and preferences may actually be our own, but we've now referred to them vaguely enough so as to conceal that reality (perhaps even from ourselves). Additionally, the vague references make it difficult to assess - and thus dispute - the legitimacy of the fiscal blame that we are trying to place.

So, the question of the day is - when YOU use and hear the terms 'entitlements' and 'entitlement class', what do YOU mean and understand them to mean? Are there specific programs or department appropriations that you consider as 'entitlements'? Do you have any idea how much we (I'm mostly referring to the federal government with this part, but you need not stick with it) spend on them in a year?

Words are just symbols for ideas/intellectual concepts. The meaning of the symbols is whatever idea or intellectual concept the writer or speaker was trying to convey.