Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why I have a Social Security entitlement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:20 PM
Original message
Why I have a Social Security entitlement
Edited on Tue May-17-11 03:27 PM by ThomWV
I started working when I was young, John Kennedy was President. I paid about $0.03 in Social Security tax on the first hour of work I ever did ( for an employer who paid with checks). Many years and tens of thousands of working hours later I paid in $2.43 in Social Security taxes on wage for the last hour I worked before retiring. From that first hour to the last my employer took some of the money earned by my labor and paid 'the employer's matching share' too.

Charity or welfare this ain't. I paid for my benefit, and like many my age who are drawing from the system now or soon will be I expect to have it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nope, that's only if you have children, tell this board that you don't have childen

and you'll get told real quick that other people's children are going to have to "pay for your God damn social security!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. Social Security is a social insurance program, not an investment account.
All living workers have been paying into it all their working lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. It isn't an "entitlement," it's INSURANCE and you've paid the premiums
all your life, which is rather the point. It was always set up to be a self supporting insurance program, which it still could be.

LBJ put it into the general fund so he could use the small overpayment to fund his war.

Reagan raised the premiums SIX TIMES and robbed the HUGE overpayment to finance his giveaway to the rich. Every president since him has done the same.

If we want to preserve it, we need to get it OUT of the general fund and that means eliminating Reaganism in its entirety and I don't see that happening.

What I do see happening is a gradual chipping away of benefits and raising the percentage even higher to make it unpopular.

This is the first time in my life I've thought it was truly in danger.

Damn Republicans to the hell they want to create for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I'll be happy to take my money back together will all the interest
I would have earned on it. Fuck these crappy people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Of course it's an entitlement.
We are entitled to receive the benefits from the system we deserve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-11 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Don't fall for Newspeak.
Calling it INSURANCE would mean that people wouldn't be fooled into thinking it's old folks' WELFARE.

It is not. It's an insurance program most of us pay into our whole working lives. Yes, that insurance is duty bound to pay off when we qualify. However, calling it something besides what it is is one way they have of fooling the public into thinking it's unnecessary and a giveaway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No, it is an entitlement.
3. the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation.

The RIGHT to GUARANTEED benefits under a government program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. I don't know why some people are so scared of that word.
It is an entitlement. I paid in to the system, I'm entitled to my benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
econoclast Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Just a note to clarify.....
Edited on Tue May-17-11 05:20 PM by econoclast
Nobody "robbed" anything.

For a period starting in the LBJ administration and ending in the Reagan administration SS WAS "on budget" and SS surpluses WERE put "on the budget" and any SS surplus did reduce the reported budget deficit. They called it the "unified budget". There is a school of thought that thinks LBJ did this to hide the true cost of the Vietnam war.   But that stopped in the 1980's and SS was again put "off budget".  It is "off budget" today.

Since the inception of the SS program in the 30's any surplus is required by law to be invested in US Treasuries. THAT has never changed. The SS surplus does not and has never ( with the exception of the 15 or 20 years when SS was "on budget" ) reduced the budget deficit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-11 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. You're missing the point
Until enough of us were thrown out of work, OASDI ran a huge surplus thanks to Reagan and that surplus was put into t-bills the government simply printed for the occasion to pretend the money hadn't gone anywhere. Then they spent it in order to cover up the disaster that Republican tax cuts had caused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. I started working a job subject to Social Security when I was 14.
I don't think I paid much, if any tax, but I think I would have paid Social Security. I had a special work permit to work at 14 and I worked in day-care with small children..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNLib Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. Damn straight I'm sick of this BS that SS is an entitlement. I paid for this benefit
and I expect to get what I paid for when I am eligible to collect!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yup, as others have stated, you paid for this, you are 'entitled' to it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. That's why you, and I, and millions of others, are entitled to our entitlement.
That's why we should fight against the stigmatizing of the word "entitlement." And that's why we need to keep the power flowing to Social Security, the third rail of politics.

Or as I tell my gerontology students: I've paid my dues, now you can figure out how to keep paying me back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinny Liberal Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. I thought what we put into it
pays for the ones who are on it. And the next generation will pay for us when we're on it. But it'll probably be bankrupt by then. I've just resolved myself to the fact that I will work until I drop dead. =)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-11 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. Some confusion on this thread.
Yes, SS is an entitlement. In the government sense, not because you paid money into it. Folks are confusing different definitions of "entitlement" and "entitled."

On Day 1 when SS took effect, way back in the 30s, the people who received checks had obviously paid NOTHING into the system. Yet they were "entitled" to it just the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC