It's MINE.
As in, I'm ENTITLED to it.
I've paid into it with MY money, deducted from MY paychecks since 1968.
Thieving, criminal fuckers.

My post was directed to those that do want to mess with Social Security. (and they are out there!)

There's a lot of entitlement spending we can cut. I'd also add Medicare Part C.

use the word medicare, since they hate so much. And yes, it should go.

hurt your grandparents, your parents and ultimately you.

I'm just trying to be helpful by pointing out some entitlements that can be cut. I believe in reaching across the isle in order to get things done!

table including our Dems, and our President who has actually offered them chained CPI on the table.

Entitlement means you deserve something. We are entitled to SS because we paid into it, we earned it.

What you are talking about is subsidies, which are simply given away because someone decided to give a certain group something for some reason other than because that group has paid into a fund with the agreement that they would then get something back for that.

Republicans want you to believe that entitlements are something we are just getting for free, so that they can turn people against it. Make them think that it's wasteful govt spending, when in fact it is not. It pays for itself, we have paid into the fund.

You are only helping Republicans if you accept their framing.

Maybe I should of put entitlements in quotations.

And adds to the whole false equivalency thing.

And I think it's much more powerful to just say no, you can't touch SS, period. Off the table. End of story. Otherwise you are bringing it into the fold along with subsidies and what's to stop the R's and several Dems from saying okay, so we cut those things now let's talk about SS.

No cuts to SS period. That is the stance we need to take.

your use of entitlements is impeccable: money given that is earned or gifted. If the repiggies say let's cut entitlements and don't say "earned" then it's fair game to go after the "gifted" entitlements as though that's what they meant (it's not but that's their mistake). Also note that it would put repiggies in their true light to suggest cutting something earned.

What a drain on revenue.

I would rather it was a hard number that kept adjusting for inflation.

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)

That's what "entitlement" means.

So do you think it's better than to call them "earned benefits"? Would that be beneficial to keeping SS off the table or do you think that would be allowing the R's to dictate framing?

That's what it means.

So do you think it's better to call them "earned benefits"? Would that be beneficial to keeping SS off the table or do you think that would be allowing the R's to dictate framing?

But R's are changing the meaning of words. SS was paid into by those receiving benefits from it. Those subsidies were not. So they really are not the same thing. So perhaps we should change what we call SS.

those do not qualify otherwise they will be asking for those entitlement to be cut
instead of social security.

Social Security is at the lips of every republicans to be gutted, see my point.

We paid for them by working and being taxed for it. It is essentially insurance we paid for.

The terms "entitlements" is much more appropriate for farm and oil subsidies, on the other hand, because it largess to the rich who think they are entitled to it.

You paid into them, you earned them, and therefore you are entitled to them.

Let's not play that silly semantic game anymore.

Last edited Sun Oct 27, 2013, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Subsidies are not entitlements

to be a sacred cow: i.e.; the untouchable entitlement.

I am tried of Democrats acting like Republicans.

and then delete this thread.

These are not entitlements. Entitlements are earned. These are subsidies not entitlements.

STOP paying SSI to the RICH !
Does John Mc Cain really need a monthly check when he is married
to a multi millionaire....NO.

Stop giving checks to anyone making over $90K a year in retirement,
because they DON"T NEED IT.

But if they ever fall below the $90K level, then they can start receiving
the absolute minimal SSI check available.


Means test the RICH, and once they have sold off most of their assets,
THEN, we can talk about an SSI check.

Do this (and remove the cap on earnings) and SSI will
be viable for 100 years or MORE.

But this is just MY working class opinion talking.

what you are talking about is unearned benifits...and it pisses me off that our democrats do not set that strait every time a Republican says it.

But don't look for them to cut unearned benifits...those go to the same people that finance the campaigns of politicians and bribe them for those unearned benifits...untill we can get the money out of politics.

One of his staffers will read it and maybe pass it on.

http://www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm