Talk:Entitlement program

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Why are you telling me all of this?[edit]

It is unclear to me why this article is here, except that the writer has a bug up their ass about someone on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Relevant under the "full range of crank ideas" clause. People in US-America who think that entitlement programmes are unconstitutional are cranks. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
More importantly, perhaps, (and a section worthy of being expanded) the term "entitlement" associated with things like Social Security is what's going to privatize SS. And what "justifies" cutting back on payments, or holding off till a person is 99 years old before they can get their SS. Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
David: while you are partly correct (the bug is now dead), I actually planned on writing this article before I saw the article on Wikipedia. As you can imagine, I was quite shocked to see the erroneous edit in WP occurring as recently as last Friday.
My issue was with the recent use of "entitlement programs" in politics, as a snarl word (as the article indicates), as well as the lumping of Social Security/Medicare in with actual welfare programs and then treating them all the same. Any legitimate wage-earner in the United States should be appalled by the the pundits who are talking about cutting/privatizing the programs that they are investing under the guise that they are wasteful taxes and not the secured benefit programs that they truly are. PintOfStout (who I almost ascribed through his/her initials--sorry) and Godot are also on-target with their points. --Sethpeck (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hummmmmmmmmmmm OK. Please make it clearer to non-'Merkins - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I can do that. --Sethpeck (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Preamble[edit]

The founding fathers were not referring to socialism. Talsley (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Socialism didn't really exist as an economic theory at the time. But what do you THINK they were talking about when they said it? -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Establishing a capitalistic society were people work for their own welfare. The government is to promote it by leaving small business alone. Talsley (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
[citation needed] -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It is common sense. Has the education system failed to teach you? Talsley (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
"You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means." Common sense, aside from the pamphlet by Paine, is not a valid argument. Common sense is the defense for tons of bullshit theories on Conservapedia, but this site is dedicated to rational thought. Common sense appears to have failed you entirely.
Oh, and don't claim to know me, my history or my education, you retarded, undersexed geriatric cunt. I'm done with you. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Talsley, "general welfare" is not only refered to in the Preamble but in Article 1 section 8 as a duty of Congress. Supreme Courts have upheld this interpretation as including Social Security and Medicare, so your claim is bullshit. Mr. Anon (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
But the Supreme court is dominated by liberals and corporate controlled "conservatives". Talsley (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
That is an opinion. That Supreme Courts have consistently upheld this is a fact. If you still think it's wrong, take it back to the courts. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow. What a horribly ignorant assessment of the Supreme Court, currently dominated by rank-and-file conservatives that allowed such atrocious rulings such as Citizens United. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Talsley is roleplaying a "right-wing troll" character for your amusement - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Poe's Law makes it a felony to ignore, avoid, or end arguments with any insane person.[1] 99.50.98.145 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Social Security and Medicare: a refund of money earned?[edit]

The article currently claims that Medicare and Social Security are not entitlement programs because "these programs are funded by the wages of laborers with the intent that they will be used later by the same individuals". However, this is simply not true--while eligibility is established by working, people typically take far more from these programs than they paid in[1]. This means that these "trust funds" don't really have any savings--even if Congress didn't borrow money from them, current workers are not able to fund their future benefits in full. In short, you are paying for current beneficiaries, and the next generations are going to foot the bill for you. Kimberly (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This section of the article is way off. The amount of money you put into Medicare has no relation to the amount of money you get out. Social Security is more complicated, there is a loose connection inbetween the money you pay and they money you get out, but the average return on their contribution is much higher for the poor and for those with an earlier birth date. Social Security is often though of as a mandatory retirement saving program, that's only 1/4 of the programs function. It also serves as old age and disability insurance, transfers wealth from the middle class to the poor (the rich are largely exempt),and the young to the old.

As far as the social security trust fund, that isn't individual accounts. Social Security is supposdly a program indepedent from other governement taxing and spending. Thus any money they collect from Social Security taxes that doesn't get spent immediately goes into the Social Security Trust Fund. Note also the Social Security Trust Fund consist entirely of IOUs from the government, though money borrowed from it doesn't show up on the standard measurements of the National deficient and debt. But I'm sure they'll pay the money back, politicians always keep their political promises decades later.

Some comments[edit]

"entitlement" is not a snarl word used by conservatives, it's a legal term used by the authors of entitlement programs to grant legal titleWikipedia's W.svg to claims against the public treasury by qualifying groups and individuals. Secondly, Not all Social Security benefits are earned by the worker, neither are disability benefits paid to people who "become disabled before retirement". A retarded child, for example, who never becomes workforce eligible, is entitled to lifetime Social Security benefits. This is an important distinction, because the program is often sold as a workers disability program, and its not. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 01:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thirdly, "If an individual never earns a wage in their life, they won't collect Social Security when they reach the retirement age" simply isn't true. Anyone qualifies at the age of 65 who is below income requirements. I personally had a friend who served 42 years of his life in the Okla. State Penitentiary, was released at the age of 62, never worked a day in his life, and got $212 a month SSI beginning at age 65. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Embarassing[edit]

Rationalwiki is the only non-authoritive source on the internet that claims Social Security is not an entitlement. How long will this crap stand? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 03:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)