“The Right is mostly wrong!”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1 Jan 16, 2013
Defined as: 'something to which one has a right.' Social Security and Medicare are NOT entitlements no matter how much and how long the Republican right scream the word. One paid into the system while working and, at retirement or upon a STATE-determined disability. The money contributed BELONGS to taxpayers when they want it, not when Congress arbitrarily decides. No contribution to Social Security through payroll deductions, no benefit payable.
Confused

Greeneville, TN

#2 Jan 16, 2013
Kohlrabi wrote:
Defined as:'something to which one has a right.' Social Security and Medicare are NOT entitlements no matter how much and how long the Republican right scream the word. One paid into the system while working and, at retirement or upon a STATE-determined disability. The money contributed BELONGS to taxpayers when they want it, not when Congress arbitrarily decides. No contribution to Social Security through payroll deductions, no benefit payable.
If an entitlement is "something to which one has a right," are you saying that the people who get Social Security and Medicare don't have a right to get it.

“The Right is mostly wrong!”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3 Jan 16, 2013
Confused wrote:
<quoted text>If an entitlement is "something to which one has a right," are you saying that the people who get Social Security and Medicare don't have a right to get it.
Not at all. One who contributed to Social Security and Medicare is due that investment back upon demand and qualification. It is THEIR money that was witheld from THEIR paychecks by the Feds. Could be considered as type of bank. No contribution, no money payable. Medicare/Medicaid is available, but payment of premiums is required. My point, though I may have not stated it well, is that one is due what one PUT IN without being made to feel like some kind of freeloader.
Confused

Greeneville, TN

#4 Jan 16, 2013
Kohlrabi wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all. One who contributed to Social Security and Medicare is due that investment back upon demand and qualification. It is THEIR money that was witheld from THEIR paychecks by the Feds. Could be considered as type of bank. No contribution, no money payable. Medicare/Medicaid is available, but payment of premiums is required. My point, though I may have not stated it well, is that one is due what one PUT IN without being made to feel like some kind of freeloader.
An entitlement means that you are entitled to it. One is entitled to receive Social Security and Medicare due to contributions. I don't think anyone looks at Social Security recipients as freeloaders. Some disability recipients are free loaders however. The Social Security and Medicare entitlements will have to be reformed because people live much longer than they did when the program was set up.

Also, the baby boomers are retiring in record numbers and there aren't enough workers to support them. The money that they contributed went to pay previous retirees and staff. Retirement age will have to be raised. Both S.S. and Medicare are very expensive programs to staff. A lot of your contributions go just to pay the government workers to run the program.

“The Right is mostly wrong!”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#5 Jan 16, 2013
Confused wrote:
<quoted text>An entitlement means that you are entitled to it. One is entitled to receive Social Security and Medicare due to contributions. I don't think anyone looks at Social Security recipients as freeloaders. Some disability recipients are free loaders however. The Social Security and Medicare entitlements will have to be reformed because people live much longer than they did when the program was set up.
Also, the baby boomers are retiring in record numbers and there aren't enough workers to support them. The money that they contributed went to pay previous retirees and staff. Retirement age will have to be raised. Both S.S. and Medicare are very expensive programs to staff. A lot of your contributions go just to pay the government workers to run the program.
Not to split hairs, but my view is an entitlement is just that--one gets it earned or unearned. Social Security, again my view, is an earned benefit--our money held by the government for us to have in old age. I think we're in agreement--just different statements to that effect.
History

Gallatin, TN

#6 Jan 16, 2013
Confused wrote:
<quoted text>An entitlement means that you are entitled to it. One is entitled to receive Social Security and Medicare due to contributions. I don't think anyone looks at Social Security recipients as freeloaders. Some disability recipients are free loaders however. The Social Security and Medicare entitlements will have to be reformed because people live much longer than they did when the program was set up.
Also, the baby boomers are retiring in record numbers and there aren't enough workers to support them. The money that they contributed went to pay previous retirees and staff. Retirement age will have to be raised. Both S.S. and Medicare are very expensive programs to staff. A lot of your contributions go just to pay the government workers to run the program.
Historically Republicans fought FDR and Social Security tooth and nail eventhough the program was intended to help the poorest of the poor who had often worked hard their whole lives and had nothing to live on in their old age.

Many Republicans today still talk against the program and want to "privatize" it which would lead to the same conditions for many elderly that FDR saw and the program helped.
Real History

Detroit, MI

#7 Jan 16, 2013
I am trying to figure out how Social Security was designed to help anyone?? When it was established the payouts would start when a person reached the age of 65 correct? I am pretty sure the average life span was well under that. Maybe the program was designed as additional money for the government and was never designed to pay anything. Maybe that is why Republicans fought it. Hummm!

“The Right is mostly wrong!”

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#8 Jan 16, 2013
Real History wrote:
I am trying to figure out how Social Security was designed to help anyone?? When it was established the payouts would start when a person reached the age of 65 correct? I am pretty sure the average life span was well under that. Maybe the program was designed as additional money for the government and was never designed to pay anything. Maybe that is why Republicans fought it. Hummm!
AT THE TIME it was a promise of possibly something to survive on in old age. Was never designed to show a profit and was doing quite well until the politicos' raided the fund beginning in the 1960's.
Confused

Greeneville, TN

#9 Jan 16, 2013
Kohlrabi wrote:
<quoted text>AT THE TIME it was a promise of possibly something to survive on in old age. Was never designed to show a profit and was doing quite well until the politicos' raided the fund beginning in the 1960's.
It seems to me that when SS was established that the life expectancy was 67, and the retirement age 65.
History

Gallatin, TN

#10 Jan 16, 2013
Real History wrote:
I am trying to figure out how Social Security was designed to help anyone?? When it was established the payouts would start when a person reached the age of 65 correct? I am pretty sure the average life span was well under that. Maybe the program was designed as additional money for the government and was never designed to pay anything. Maybe that is why Republicans fought it. Hummm!
The average age included the many who died young. Many individuals then as now lived to become quite elderly.

The program was never intended to be a program to raise money for the government as you imply but rather a program to help those who needed and deserved help.
Cotton

Greeneville, TN

#11 Jan 16, 2013
History wrote:
<quoted text>The average age included the many who died young. Many individuals then as now lived to become quite elderly.
The program was never intended to be a program to raise money for the government as you imply but rather a program to help those who needed and deserved help.
It wouldn't be necessary if people saved their money. You can get a much better return with other investments.
History

Gallatin, TN

#12 Jan 16, 2013
Cotton wrote:
<quoted text>It wouldn't be necessary if people saved their money. You can get a much better return with other investments.
What you say may be true and would have been true in the 1920's and 1930's, but the reality is that too many people never saved then to live well in their later years. Why do you think people today are any different? Some today don't need SS but many do need it to just exist.
Cotton

Greeneville, TN

#13 Jan 16, 2013
History wrote:
<quoted text>What you say may be true and would have been true in the 1920's and 1930's, but the reality is that too many people never saved then to live well in their later years. Why do you think people today are any different? Some today don't need SS but many do need it to just exist.
If people took the money that is withheld by the government and invested it, they would have much more money at retirement time. They would get a better rate of return, and they wouldn't have to pay untold amounts of money to fund a million government employees and their retirements to run the program.
History

Gallatin, TN

#14 Jan 16, 2013
Cotton wrote:
<quoted text>If people took the money that is withheld by the government and invested it, they would have much more money at retirement time. They would get a better rate of return, and they wouldn't have to pay untold amounts of money to fund a million government employees and their retirements to run the program.
I agree with you and you are correct in what you say. The question is though, how many would actually invest in their future to the point needed to live comfortably in old age? Some would of course, but many would not.

If Social Security were eliminated would you be willing to let those who did not choose to invest wisely starve? It bothers me to think about an 85 year old person no longer able to work having to resort to eating dog food or starving because they did not save enough for old age when they were younger.

Eliminate SS and history will repeat itself. Again, prior to Social Security, the elderly as a group were among the poorest of the poor. The day of communal poor house is gone, thank goodness, and we don't need to return there!
American

Johnson City, TN

#15 Jan 16, 2013
Cotton wrote:
<quoted text>It wouldn't be necessary if people saved their money. You can get a much better return with other investments.
You can also loose your ass on other investments! The employer pays a part of your Social Security withholdings as well!
Cotton

Greeneville, TN

#16 Jan 17, 2013
American wrote:
<quoted text>
You can also loose your ass on other investments! The employer pays a part of your Social Security withholdings as well!
If the employer did not pay half of the employees' social security, they would lower their prices, and the worker would have more money to invest.
History

Gallatin, TN

#17 Jan 17, 2013
Cotton wrote:
<quoted text>If the employer did not pay half of the employees' social security, they would lower their prices, and the worker would have more money to invest.
Again, would the bulk of that additional money be invested or treated as extra money to be spent on things making it necessary for the welfare system to have to provide existance in their old age for those who spent unwisely?

How many 20 or 30 year olds give serious thought to providing finincially for their golden years? My guess is not very many. I was well into my 40's before I really got serious about thinking and investing more for my retirement. Retirement never really crossed my mind when I was younger, and had I had more money to spend when I was in my 20's, I would probably have spent it on a fancier car or something like that.
American

Johnson City, TN

#18 Jan 17, 2013
Cotton wrote:
<quoted text>If the employer did not pay half of the employees' social security, they would lower their prices, and the worker would have more money to invest.
Do you really belive that? No company is going to lower the prices of their product or service, only add to their profit!
Cotton

Greeneville, TN

#19 Jan 17, 2013
History wrote:
<quoted text>Again, would the bulk of that additional money be invested or treated as extra money to be spent on things making it necessary for the welfare system to have to provide existance in their old age for those who spent unwisely?
How many 20 or 30 year olds give serious thought to providing finincially for their golden years? My guess is not very many. I was well into my 40's before I really got serious about thinking and investing more for my retirement. Retirement never really crossed my mind when I was younger, and had I had more money to spend when I was in my 20's, I would probably have spent it on a fancier car or something like that.
I agree with you that people do not have the discipline to save, and that is why SS exists. My point is that if they were disciplined, they would have a lot more money on which to retire. Social Security is a poor return on your money because of administrative costs. Just like every thing else that the government touches, it is very inefficient.
History

Gallatin, TN

#20 Jan 17, 2013
Cotton wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with you that people do not have the discipline to save, and that is why SS exists. My point is that if they were disciplined, they would have a lot more money on which to retire. Social Security is a poor return on your money because of administrative costs. Just like every thing else that the government touches, it is very inefficient.
The cold hard fact is that some politicans try to make hay by toying with and promoting the idea of eliminating Social Security under the false assumption that society would benefit by its absense. That idea is false as can be seen by studying the plight of the elderly prior to the days of SS.

Just the other night I heard a talk radio host talk about the merits phasing the program out over the next 30 or so years. He needed to have studied his history lessons a little harder in school. Eliminating SS would cause an untold amount of future suffering to individuals and probably cost society more finiancially in additional welfare benefits in the long run.

In short, I am deply concerned when I hear people talk about wanting to eliminate the program. I have read about conditions prior to its implementation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sally Yates 1 hr Dare2love 10
Heavy traffic drug dealing in South Greene area 1 hr Wow 9
Kendra Tweed (Oct '15) 2 hr Grapes 54
Linda Hensley Middle Creek 3 hr Curious 1
Marie Tweed Definitely NOT changed 3 hr Friedtaters 15
Good women scarce in Greeneville 4 hr Okay okay 22
Pilot Hill Restaurant 4 hr Okay okay 26

Greeneville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greeneville Mortgages