4 ms·

> ... when someone call social security an "entitlement" people get offended. I broadly agree with your overall points but I think it's worth examining this po

by _dps 8y ago

> ... when someone call social security an "entitlement" people get offended. I broadly agree with your overall points but I think it's worth examining this point a bit more. Social Security has been presented at various times (IMO dishonestly) as a pay-in pay-out forced saving system. This is why people unironically refer to it as "my money". The government even sends you periodic updates on how much of "your money" will be paid back to you upon retirement based explicitly on how much you've paid in. My sense, based on limited information, is that this was necessary to maintain some willful ignorance on the fiscal conservative side. In practice US courts have ruled that SS works like an entitlement (government can rescind or modify at any time), and is not a property right in the conventional sense. But a very large portion of the population, especially during the 70s-90s period, was told that it was just a government operated retirement savings scheme where you pay in and you collect later. So I think that this specific point about people viewing SS as not an entitlement has reasonable historical explanation. I don't view complainants as being openly hypocritical, since they were told it was not an entitlement but merely a government managed pay-in pay-out mandatory savings system.

scarface74 8y ago
That's just the opposite of what I'm saying. The definition of entitlement is "the fact of having the right to something". I have a right to social security. I paid into it forcefully money I could have saved for myself. Welfare is not an entitlement. Politicians who want to cut social security and Medicare purposefully conflate it with eelfare so they can cut it and still get the approval of voters. These are the same politicians who have people riled up about Medicaid and saying they need to get a job. Until I try to explain that Medicaid is also used to take care of granny in the old folks home. Are they going to tell thier 90 year old mom to get a job?
- _dps 8y ago
  Edit: re-re-reading here, I now see I misunderstood your response and I'm sorry. I do think you're using "entitlement" in a way different from how most people understand it in a political context, but I also now understand that that seems to be part of your point. Apologies for the confusion (I'm leaving my original response here for context). I understand what you're saying — and as I said I agree with the thrust of your post — but your use of the word "entitlement" is not universal. The courts, in particular, disagree with your use, and specifically distinguish the concept of a property right from things the government has promised to give you. SCOTUS has ruled that SS is the latter and not the former. The fundamental difference, in my lay understanding, is that the government needs to use an argument like eminent domain to deprive you of a property right, but can arbitrarily stop or reduce social security at any time if they so desire (as they can with welfare or medicare).

by _dps 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

That's just the opposite of what I'm saying. The definition of entitlement is "the fact of having the right to something". I have a right to social security. I paid into it forcefully money I could have saved for myself. Welfare is not an entitlement. Politicians who want to cut social security and Medicare purposefully conflate it with eelfare so they can cut it and still get the approval of voters. These are the same politicians who have people riled up about Medicaid and saying they need to get a job. Until I try to explain that Medicaid is also used to take care of granny in the old folks home. Are they going to tell thier 90 year old mom to get a job?

_dps 8y ago
Edit: re-re-reading here, I now see I misunderstood your response and I'm sorry. I do think you're using "entitlement" in a way different from how most people understand it in a political context, but I also now understand that that seems to be part of your point. Apologies for the confusion (I'm leaving my original response here for context). I understand what you're saying — and as I said I agree with the thrust of your post — but your use of the word "entitlement" is not universal. The courts, in particular, disagree with your use, and specifically distinguish the concept of a property right from things the government has promised to give you. SCOTUS has ruled that SS is the latter and not the former. The fundamental difference, in my lay understanding, is that the government needs to use an argument like eminent domain to deprive you of a property right, but can arbitrarily stop or reduce social security at any time if they so desire (as they can with welfare or medicare).