Is social security an entitlement?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjSome will say social security is considered an entitlement. I say no way, just my opinion.
The only way I can see it as "an entitlement" is to view the monster program as the Ponzi scheme that it is. Other than that, I and my employers have paid in the max for decades and I know I could have done a hell of a lot better handling those funds on my own.
Quote: weaselmanSocial security is not an entitlement. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is. People, often confuse the two.
It isn't often I disagree with weasel, but this is one of those times. By law, anyone who has worked 40 quarters of coverage and is of retirement age, or met entitlement criteria in other ways, by law can collect benefits. Meanwhile, SSI is not an entitlement program, but a welfare program.
I do agree that people often confuse the two -- exactly the way you are.
Quote: NicksGamingStuffIm upset with the fact that I have put so many thousands of dollars of my paycheck into something that will be gone before I can use it.
Some form of Social Security will be there when you're 67, Nick. However, we're facing a demographic crisis, which the program can't support long term. Even if nothing is ever done, enough money will still come in to pay most of what you're entitled to. So my prediction is you'll see a watered down version if it comes to waiting to the last minute to do anything. The longer we wait to either cut benefits or increase taxes the worse the problem will get.
Quote: Wizard
I do agree that people often confuse the two -- exactly the way you are.
Nah, I did not confuse them, I know exactly what they are ... Turns out I did not know what "entitlement" means in this context :)
I had it backwards. You are right.
Entitlement: NO
Ponzi scheme: YES
The problem I see people like to live life in a bliss even when its killing you.
Ken
in history and would take decades to reach saturation. The
original congress would all be long dead, what did they care.
Quote: vert1276.and to people saying its a ponzi scheme *rolling eyes*, I dont think you understand what a ponzi scheme is.....
A Ponzi is where the investors at the base pay money
to the investors at the top of the pyramid. Eventually
there aren't enough investors left in the base to support
everybody at the top, and the scheme collapses. This
describes SS exactly.
Quote: EvenBobA Ponzi is where the investors at the base pay money
to the investors at the top of the pyramid. Eventually
there aren't enough investors left in the base to support
everybody at the top, and the scheme collapses. This
describes SS exactly.
except its not going to collapse. the average person pays more into SS than they draw out, currently SS is solvent(or very close and could easily be made solvent) So it is NOT a ponzi scheme, and is run pretty much the same way most pension funds are run, the workers pay for the retirees. a ponzi scheme is an attempt to defraud someone by shuffling money around to give the illusion you are solvent. that is obviously not what SS is. when people say SS is a ponzi scheme they make themselves look like Rick Perry
Now, this makes me wonder how come every government program is not an entitlement? Like welfare (or SSI) - how is it not a guarantee of access to benefits for those who meet eligibility criteria? And surely, it is based on legislation ...
Quote: vert1276The average person pays more into SS than they draw out
The figures to back that up are where?
By the way, Merriam-Webster offers three meanings for "entitlement," all of which would seem to apply to Social Security:
Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
Well, I am now retired and drawing a Social Security pension, but I would be in a bit of a bind if I had relied upon that alone for my retirement years. I now view those entitlement benefits as a minority supplement to my other sources of income, including a state employees pension, which is another thing I am "entitled" to, both because I paid directly into the pension fund and because my labors generated revenue for the state, allowing them to also contribute to the fund.
Since my own projection was so inaccurate back forty years ago, I doubt I could rely on my guesses now as to whether Social Security will continue to provide a meaningful income stream for the rest of my life or will be able to provide a reasonable return for others who are now in much the same situation I was back in 1970.
Quote: JohnzimboI always thought of Ponzi schemes as voluntary as far as participation...so where does that leave SS?
Its real simple. Lets say a 20 year old has a job and paying into SS. Is that money for HIMSELF or for somebody (he doesn't even know) collecting it TODAY?
I feel bad for the younger people. Does somebody really think, a 20 year old is ever gonna see his/her money they put into SS? No damn way. We'll round it out to 45-50 years FROM NOW for that 20 year old. No way.
Ken
Quote: s2dbakerSocial Security has enough money to pay off 100% of all benefits for a very long time.
Sort of. it's money borrowed by the government. You know, the debt that was recently downgraded from AAA to AA+? If you invest in T bills, you will earn the priviledge of lending the government money to pay for your retirement.
Quote: s2dbakerThe hand wringing cloth renders have been predicting the demise if Social Security and Medicare since they were passed into law. Ronald Reagan raised our taxes so that Social Security wouldn't be an issue for the baby boomers and that's exactly what happened. Social Security has enough money to pay off 100% of all benefits for a very long time.
"Social Security has enough money to pay off 100% of all benefits for a very long time" >>> Does that include the 20 year old of today? I'm not asking in regards to the 59 year old guy.
Ken
I sense a lack of confidence in the AA+ rated debt in which the money is invested. I'm perfectly fine with it.Quote: NareedSort of. it's money borrowed by the government. You know, the debt that was recently downgraded from AAA to AA+? If you invest in T bills, you will earn the priviledge of lending the government money to pay for your retirement.
Quote: DocI recall talking with people back in 1970-71, telling them I did not anticipate ever drawing any return from Social Security unless I became disabled early on.
We were told in the early 70's that it was going bankrupt
long before we retired, usually by the party that wasn't
in office. My dad retired in '76 just so he could get his
before they went under.
for president in 1976 that scared my dad into retiring
at 62 instead of 65:
"The high unemployment of recent years has curtailed Social Security's revenues, while benefits have risen with inflation. Since 1975 expenditures have exceeded income; and existing reserves will soon be exhausted.
Unless we act now, the Disability Insurance Trust (DI) Fund will be exhausted in 1979."
And its been the same ever since, almost always coming
from democrats. Scare the crap out of the old people to
get votes.
from democrats. Scare the crap out of the old people to
get votes.
Like this Democrat too, Bob
In writings, speeches and interviews, Gingrich has argued that Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. Without reform, according to Gingrich, this will cause major financial problems, such as large benefit reductions or massive tax increases
Quote: buzzpaff" And its been the same ever since, almost always coming
from democrats. Scare the crap out of the old people to
get votes.
Like this Democrat too, Bob
In writings, speeches and interviews, Gingrich has argued that Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs are fiscally unsustainable. Without reform, according to Gingrich, this will cause major financial problems, such as large benefit reductions or massive tax increases
Buzz is correct. It is far more of a 'republican' concept to be wary of paying out money you do not have. Despite the fact that there is not enough money coming in to sustain Social Security, Obama has decided to cut the payroll tax you pay from around 7% to around 5% for the second straight year. I have never heard one democrat say where this shortfall will be made up. The problems will manifest long after they are voted out of office, so why would they care?
As far as people who will be depending on Social Security--- they'll get it... at the expense of the general taxpaying public. One other scam that has been perpetrated on us is the "Roth IRAs". Great for those who own them, the government gets the one time tax payment now. In the future, when they are redeemed, there is no tax on them or the earnings they accrued. So the government is essentially taking money now at the expense of the future, which is the opposite of the traditional IRAs, which are not taxed now but will be once redeemed.
Quote: buzzpaff
In writings, speeches and interviews, Gingrich
In case you haven't noticed, Gingrich is an insufferable ass.
Quote: EvenBobIn case you haven't noticed, Gingrich is an insufferable ass.
I noticed even up here. I don't think Newt can beat Obama. Actually, I don't think he's even close competition.
Romney could be. Santorum isn't, but I think he'd get a the sort of support McCain did, but not enough to win. Am I right in thinking he's the tea party favoured candidate, for those wanting smaller government?
Ron Paul would make life interesting to watch, but also seems fundamentally unelectable, but seems the most parsimonious of the candidates, which is something I rate highly in a politician even if I don't agree with all they say.
The more fiscal conservatives don't seem to have a golden candidate. I'm interested to know where I am wrong, cos I probably am.
Quote: thecesspitI noticed even up here. I don't think Newt can beat Obama. Actually, I don't think he's even close competition.
Romney could be. Santorum isn't, but I think he'd get a the sort of support McCain did, but not enough to win. Am I right in thinking he's the tea party favoured candidate, for those wanting smaller government?
Ron Paul would make life interesting to watch, but also seems fundamentally unelectable, but seems the most parsimonious of the candidates, which is something I rate highly in a politician even if I don't agree with all they say.
The more fiscal conservatives don't seem to have a golden candidate. I'm interested to know where I am wrong, cos I probably am.
I'd say Ron Paul is closer to the Tea Party's ideal candidate than Santorum; they're both up there though.
The mainstream GOP doesn't have any real fiscal conservatives left. Okay, maybe some but very few. RP is an actual fiscal conservative but his other positions on foreign policy, social issues, etc. make him distasteful to the mainstream GOP.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and was really disappointed by the SC primary...not that he had much of a chance before, but at least he was getting more delegates than in '08. Two party politics.../me points gun to head. Unless by some miracle RP wins the GOP nomination, I'll probably just vote third party again.
Quote: WizardIt isn't often I disagree with weasel, but this is one of those times. By law, anyone who has worked 40 quarters of coverage and is of retirement age, or met entitlement criteria in other ways, by law can collect benefits. Meanwhile, SSI is not an entitlement program, but a welfare program.
This is true but meaningless. Sure you are entitled to the money.....unless congress changes the law. If they do, you cannot sue them for the money. There is no contract between you and the government, you in no sense own the "contributions" you make to SS. If you should happen to recieve a check from them then it is a handout. They steal from you and if they decide to they might give it back. You hold no title to the money.
Quote: thecesspitI noticed even up here. I don't think Newt can beat Obama. Actually, I don't think he's even close competition.
Romney could be. Santorum isn't, but I think he'd get a the sort of support McCain did, but not enough to win. Am I right in thinking he's the tea party favoured candidate, for those wanting smaller government?
Ron Paul would make life interesting to watch, but also seems fundamentally unelectable, but seems the most parsimonious of the candidates, which is something I rate highly in a politician even if I don't agree with all they say.
The more fiscal conservatives don't seem to have a golden candidate. I'm interested to know where I am wrong, cos I probably am.
Bless you
Quote: AcesAndEightsI'm a Ron Paul supporter and was really disappointed by the SC primary...
Ron Paul will be 77 next year, I mean c'mon. I know men
in their late 70's, they take lots of naps. RP is a doctor, if
he was my doctor, I'd find a younger one. He's OLD, its
a hard job for a 50 year old, RP would be 81 at the end
of his first term. Let it go...
Quote: EvenBobRon Paul will be 77 next year, I mean c'mon. I know men
in their late 70's, they take lots of naps. RP is a doctor, if
he was my doctor, I'd find a younger one. He's OLD, its
a hard job for a 50 year old, RP would be 81 at the end
of his first term. Let it go...
I am glad to see that you know all there is to know about Ron Paul's health.When's the last time you shook Dr. Paul's hand? And where did you do your medical residency Bob?
Quote: bigfoot66I am glad to see that you know all there is to know about Ron Paul's health.
All you have to know is he'll be SEVENTY SEVEN next
year, it's all downhill from here. Its a fact he won't be
getting healthier from now on, quite the opposite. Old
men make great titular heads of state, and awful actual
heads. Thats not what we need right now.
Quote: bigfoot66I am glad to see that you know all there is to know about Ron Paul's health.When's the last time you shook Dr. Paul's hand? And where did you do your medical residency Bob?
Come on man, that's a little vitriolic. Bob is just saying Ron Paul is old, that much is provably true (older than the next-oldest active candidate by almost 10 years). I don't take offense to it. I think he would still make a good president, but there's a valid argument to be made that he's too frail. I agree with you that it isn't true, but it's valid...
Quote: SlackJawYokelI think that this is an entitlement in the most basic sense of the word. The definition of entitlement as I understand it is the amount to which a person has the right. I have paid into this fund for years hence I have earned the right to withdrawl under the current policies of the United States. I disagree with others that feel this is a ponzi scheme becasue if the government would not borrow from this fund every year to fund other programs it would be completely solvent and 100 percent funded. I do not know about the rest of you but if you "borrow" something without the intention of repaying it, in my mind it is called theft. I am not saying that at retirement the program as I know it will still exist but some semblance of it will still exist.
I think it goes back to my unanswered question. Will the 20 year old paying into it TODAY, get a return (call it what you will) 45-50 years from now? Of course we are all guessing, yes or no. I say NO.
Ken
Quote: bigfoot66he has had no problem keeping up the very rigorous pace of campaigning.
How do you know? All you know is what you're
told. You have no idea what goes on behind the
scenes. And its not how well he's doing now,
its down the road that counts. He's not getting
nominated, its a moot point anyway.
Quote: EvenBobHow do you know? All you know is what you're
told. You have no idea what goes on behind the
scenes. And its not how well he's doing now,
its down the road that counts.
That's true Bob. But we are not hearing about trips to the hospital for fatigue, or canceled campaign appearances. He is still doing 2 and 3 events per day and has the same rigorous schedule as all the other candidates. But let's say you are right. Worst case senario, I am sure that he will pick a fine VP candidate (though if he does not I will be the first to object) who will take over for him when he retires in 2 years. What's so bad about that? If you like the man's ideas the fact that he may not serve a full term (your belief, not mine) is no black mark if he has a good VP. Now if he chooses Sarah Palin I am with you ;)
Quote: AcesAndEightsCome on man, that's a little vitriolic. Bob is just saying Ron Paul is old, that much is provably true (older than the next-oldest active candidate by almost 10 years). I don't take offense to it. I think he would still make a good president, but there's a valid argument to be made that he's too frail. I agree with you that it isn't true, but it's valid...
My point is that Bob is going off of one factor: Age. All other signs point to Dr. Paul being high energy and in great health. If Bob had some other knowledge to share with us I was inviting him to. Besides, Bob is a big boy, he can handle a little teasing.
Quote: bigfoot66My point is that Bob is going off of one factor: Age. .
Thats because its important, you know it and so
do the American people.
Quote: EvenBobIn case you haven't noticed, Gingrich is an insufferable ass.
I thought the only way Obama would be re-elected was a miraculous improvement in the economy or the Republicans nominating
" an insufferable ass". LOL
Medicare was set up to have about 6 people working to pay for each person reciving benifits. It was expected that there would be a huge increace of babies comming from the babyboom generatin simply b/c of the size of the generatin. The babyboom generatin neglected to have enugh children!!!
Back on topic: Acording to social security admin. wen it was started 53.9% of men and 60.6% of women who lived to age 21 would live to age 65 and collect for 12.7 years for men and 14.7 years for women. It is posible back then the numbers worked. And the system of retirment, disability, and the supplemental insurances that made up "social security" worked. For that it is possibale it wasnt a scheme. However they have not adjusted the formulas to balance the books which know makes it a scheme.
Im in my early 30's I dont expect social security to be of any help. Its possible there will be some $ paid to me but I expect it to be less (forget inflation) then what my parents are getting.
I would love it if I could just put 10% to a personal plan and not pay my side of social security to the Gov.(emplyer still would pay theirs)
Ken
Quote: whatmeFirst we should note medicare and social security started with diffrent standards.
Medicare was set up to have about 6 people working to pay for each person reciving benifits. It was expected that there would be a huge increace of babies comming from the babyboom generatin simply b/c of the size of the generatin. The babyboom generatin neglected to have enugh children!!!
Back on topic: Acording to social security admin. wen it was started 53.9% of men and 60.6% of women who lived to age 21 would live to age 65 and collect for 12.7 years for men and 14.7 years for women. It is posible back then the numbers worked. And the system of retirment, disability, and the supplemental insurances that made up "social security" worked. For that it is possibale it wasnt a scheme. However they have not adjusted the formulas to balance the books which know makes it a scheme.
Im in my early 30's I dont expect social security to be of any help. Its possible there will be some $ paid to me but I expect it to be less (forget inflation) then what my parents are getting.
I would love it if I could just put 10% to a personal plan and not pay my side of social security to the Gov.(emplyer still would pay theirs)
I stopped reading your post after about the 11th spelling error (which was the first line of the 2nd paragraph). Seriously man, take a second to read through what you're writing before you hit "post."
Quote: EvenBobThats because its important, you know it and so
do the American people.
That's fine Bob. Then say, "the American people won't vote for a man of his age" rather than "he must be in poor health because he is in his mid seventies". These are two different claims.
