RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation"

RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 4:28:49 PM)
Yup,veterans are tops with cons.....supposedly....officially anyway. So with that caveat, I guess that makes the rest of the elderly,sickly out-a-luck non-veteran Americans, really really fucked. Bunch of lazy no good bums. Who the hell are they to ask us able-bodied folks to feed them?!!! Let`m fuck starve. Cons will be happy to pay for the funerals,long as it`s the final bill. We`ve got budgets to balance, god dam-it!!

Real0ne -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 4:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's "entitlement" if the Democrats think it's something that needs funding and an "obligation" if it's something the Republicans think needs funding. Simples! It's the...other way around. To the repubs...it's an entitlement that needs to be cut. To the dems...an obligation that must be paid as a contract responsibility. If your comments are specifically geared towards retirement and disability pay for veterans, then I suspect you'll find most Republicans (the real ones... not politicians) do not consider those payments as up for consideration to be cut. Those veterans who are recipients earned those benefits, and the Government is obligated to pay them. Social Security and Medicare lean more toward obligation than entitlement, by virtue of the fact that citizens have been contributing funds throughout their working lives with the good faith understanding that those funds would be returned to them when needed. However, being a contributing member of a fund (either private or public)... even if involuntarily... does carry the obligation to be informed about the purpose and status of that fund. In the case of Social Security, it was never intended to be a full pension program for Americans. It has also never been a secret that Social Security benefits are not sufficient to provide a comfortable retirement. In other words, capable members of society have always had the obligation to take steps necessary to care for themselves... which includes planning for retirement. Welfare/charity is not a Government obligation. It is a societal obligation and should be handled at that level. And no, I'm not a cold-hearted bitch who would see the poor, elderly and disabled suffer from the misfortunes of life. I take responsibility for my own, and I am generous with others in need. and how does one plan for retirement when the gub pisses everything away and worse devalues the money/wealth/whatever?

MrRodgers -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 5:13:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's "entitlement" if the Democrats think it's something that needs funding and an "obligation" if it's something the Republicans think needs funding. Simples! It's the...other way around. To the repubs...it's an entitlement that needs to be cut. To the dems...an obligation that must be paid as a contract responsibility. If your comments are specifically geared towards retirement and disability pay for veterans, then I suspect you'll find most Republicans (the real ones... not politicians) do not consider those payments as up for consideration to be cut. Those veterans who are recipients earned those benefits, and the Government is obligated to pay them. Social Security and Medicare lean more toward obligation than entitlement, by virtue of the fact that citizens have been contributing funds throughout their working lives with the good faith understanding that those funds would be returned to them when needed. However, being a contributing member of a fund (either private or public)... even if involuntarily... does carry the obligation to be informed about the purpose and status of that fund. In the case of Social Security, it was never intended to be a full pension program for Americans. It has also never been a secret that Social Security benefits are not sufficient to provide a comfortable retirement. In other words, capable members of society have always had the obligation to take steps necessary to care for themselves... which includes planning for retirement. Welfare/charity is not a Government obligation. It is a societal obligation and should be handled at that level. And no, I'm not a cold-hearted bitch who would see the poor, elderly and disabled suffer from the misfortunes of life. I take responsibility for my own, and I am generous with others in need. I do agree that govt. should not be just giving money away but let's look at the very wide spectrum when one considers all of the money going out. However, in all of my life, I have never heard in such a way as to believe it...that SS was supposed to suffice as one's entire pension. It was never to be more than a portion and that's all it is now. In fact much more so, it was stressed in our family to join the corporate world, earn and save what you can and then your SS, corp. and your own nest egg. The three together could provide at or more than the median per capita income. Being out of debt, should be a good retirement. SS has grown more costly because politicians added to it and added SSI which is its own budget. The biggest part of the problem for SS is the robbing of the over payment and it being squandered by both sides.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 5:26:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers SS has grown more costly because politicians added to it and added SSI which is its own budget. The biggest part of the problem for SS is the robbing of the over payment and it being squandered by both sides. Once again, the vast majority of SS cost increases is due to longetivy. Period. And there has been no "Robbing" of the surplus contributions. Keep lying and I'll keep correcting you.

erieangel -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 8:19:25 PM)
Willbeur, are you arguing that virtually president since Nixon has not "borrowed" from the social security trust fund?? I'm too tired to look up the proof that you're wrong right now, it is after 11 here and I've had a hard week. But the trust fund has been squandered. And Mr. Rodgers, SSI, while it is administered by the social security administration is funded with federal welfare dollars. Nixon signed the law that eliminated several state run programs that provided for the disabled who did not qualify for social security disability. In doing so, Nixon streamlined the "rules" of what constituted a disability on a national level, as prior to that, every state had their own guidelines and rules. At the inception of SSA taking over the new SSI program, federal welfare funds were diverted from the states to fund it, and that continues to this day. I don't know a lot about government and politics and am constantly learning, but one thing I am well versed in is the social security system--having been on SSI for more than 15 years and having to learn to advocate for myself. I learned even more when I returned to the workforce. To the OP: Your pension and disability checks to total obligations. It is also money to which you are entitled. I think there in lies the problem. Some people just don't think the government should live up its obligations because they don't believe the people benefiting from those obligations are entitled. And then there are some obligations which are just nonsensical to me. I am in favor of military disability, however, does my BIL deserve to receive over $200 a month added to his basic retirement pension (having served in the army for 20 years) because he broke his finger while he and some friends were rough housing in barracks during basic training? This is wrong because the finger healed without problems and it did not impede in his duties one bit.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 8:44:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Willbeur, are you arguing that virtually president since Nixon has not "borrowed" from the social security trust fund?? I'm too tired to look up the proof that you're wrong right now, it is after 11 here and I've had a hard week. But the trust fund has been squandered. Your premise is correct (sort of) but your conclusion is wrong. Lets start at the back end: If you have an IRA or 401(k) that invested in US Treasuries, would you say you squandered that money? (If you actually think there will be a default you could answer yes, but that isnt happening). The SS Trust fund invested in Treasuries, no different than the huge number of personal retirement plan investors, huge retirement funds, trust funds, endowments and governments of the world. If all of those entities "squandered" that money (as some of the conspiracy nuts here will maintain) then your conclusion is valid, but that is the ONLY circumstance where its valid. Now you might argue that there were better alternative investments, but 1) that isnt the same as "squandering" and 2) there are very important social and economic reasons for the Trust fund to be invested only in US Treasuries. Now go to the borrower..."virtually every President since Nixon" HAS borrowed from the Trust fund. So what? The resason there was borrowing is because there was deficit SPENDING. If there was no SS trust fund to borrow from they would have just sold Treasuries to some other entity. There has rarely been any problem selling Treasuries, the money would have been borrowed somewhere. And the size of the "captive buyer" wasnt big enough to substantially impact yields, so it would be a major stretch to say that money was spent only because of the captive buyer. So the fact is that the borrowing had nothing to do with it coming from SS surplus and everything to do with spending. Dont fall for the soundbites and rhetoric. There is a Trust fund, it has been appropriately invested, and nothing has been squandered.

erieangel -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 9:14:12 PM)
But Willbeur, technically, that money wasn't supposed to be used to fill in budget gaps, which is what deficit spending is and which is what has happened since Nixon. While longevity does play a role in the problems with social security, another problem is that the money was used to purchase T-bonds and now those bonds are coming due and payable. And Treasury does not have the money to even pay the interest on those bonds, let alone cash them in. Which brings us to the so-called "insolvency" of the SSA.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 10:00:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel But Willbeur, technically, that money wasn't supposed to be used to fill in budget gaps, which is what deficit spending is and which is what has happened since Nixon. While longevity does play a role in the problems with social security, another problem is that the money was used to purchase T-bonds and now those bonds are coming due and payable. And Treasury does not have the money to even pay the interest on those bonds, let alone cash them in. Which brings us to the so-called "insolvency" of the SSA. No, there was never any prohibition against investing in Treasuries, it was intended from the start. You may be confusing investments with whether SS was an off budget or on budget item, which has flip flopped twice. As long as you know whether its off budget or on budget (and the surpluses used to disguise deficit spending) its irrevelant. . And no, the purchase of Treasuries has nothing whatsoever to do with SS problems (unless you want to argue for higher yielding investments, which as I said in the other post, has undesirable economic consequences). The projected insolvency when Reagan amended SS was totally longevity driven. The current recesssion has contributed to reducing the time to insolvency, but again, longevity would have done that on its own, just a few years later. Resolving SS now is a relatively painless fix. Sociological trends are toward later retirement anyway, and a slow increase in full benefit retirement age will solve most of the problem. Eliminating the actuarial increase for late retirements for those not yet 66 will reduce some immediate cash flow problems. Something on the order of a .3% increase in the tax rates then solves the rest of the projected insolvencies. Yes, some will argue that the tax increase can also be accomplished by uncapping the wage base, but that changes the nature of SS from a retirement system to a redistributive entitlement. (Or more redistributive, since it already substantially favors the lower paid.)

TreasureKY -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 10:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne and how does one plan for retirement when the gub pisses everything away and worse devalues the money/wealth/whatever? One plans for retirement by not counting on the Government. They cannot piss away that which is not given to them. (Meaning your gross income after taxes.) In the end, independence and self-sufficiency are not easily devalued.

Owner59 -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 10:55:30 PM)
And what of the hundred of thousands who lost their retirements/pensions/savings in '08'? Better luck next time? In the mean time,eat cake?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 10:56:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne and how does one plan for retirement when the gub pisses everything away and worse devalues the money/wealth/whatever? One plans for retirement by not counting on the Government. They cannot piss away that which is not given to them. (Meaning your gross income after taxes.) In the end, independence and self-sufficiency are not easily devalued. But becoming endangered values.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 10:58:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 And what of the hundred of thousands who lost their retirements/pensions/savings in '08'? Better luck next time? In the mean time,eat cake? Not trying to be confrontational, Owner, but what law of nature guarantees health, wealth, a good mate and a government retirement? Firm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 11:01:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 And what of the hundred of thousands who lost their retirements/pensions/savings in '08'? Better luck next time? In the mean time,eat cake? Not trying to be confrontational, Owner, but what law of nature guarantees health, wealth, a good mate and a government retirement? Firm The Law of Diminishing Responsibility Free stuff is addictive.

TreasureKY -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 11:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 And what of the hundred of thousands who lost their retirements/pensions/savings in '08'? Better luck next time? In the mean time,eat cake? Not to sound too callous, but you should only risk what you can afford to lose. Should those who carefully plan, sacrifice and save, and not risk their future be forced to subsidize those who gamble?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/29/2011 11:29:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 And what of the hundred of thousands who lost their retirements/pensions/savings in '08'? Better luck next time? In the mean time,eat cake? Not to sound too callous, but you should only risk what you can afford to lose. Should those who carefully plan, sacrifice and save, and not risk their future be forced to subsidize those who gamble? Which leads to the problems that would result from privatizing SS (well, just some of the problems). People suck at investing, and the pressure for bailouts would be enormous after a 30% market drop.

mnottertail -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 2:57:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers SS has grown more costly because politicians added to it and added SSI which is its own budget. The biggest part of the problem for SS is the robbing of the over payment and it being squandered by both sides. And there has been no "Robbing" of the surplus contributions. Keep lying and I'll keep correcting you. This is a fucking lie, and you are the author of many lies. You have been corrected.

Fightdirecto -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 5:46:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY One plans for retirement by not counting on the Government. Questions then: (a) If one is working directly for the Government, i.e. a soldier, sailor, airman, marine or mail carrier, are they not supposed to "count on the Government" to fulfill the contract made when the person enlisted or re-enlisted or hired? (b) If a person cannot "count on the Government" to fulfill the contract made when the person enlisted or re-enlisted or hired, does that mean that every soldier, sailor, airman, marine or mail carrier (to name some examples) is a gullible, trusting fool and deserves to be screwed by the Government and the American people? (c) In today's all-volunteer military, if a person cannot "count on the Government" to fulfill the contract made when the person enlisted or re-enlisted, where will we find people to join the military and remain in military service? Are you proposing we re-introduce the draft?

Fightdirecto -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 5:50:29 AM)
BTW: Thanks for all the positive comments from many of you on this subject. An interesting demographic, at least to me, is when I checked the available information of the poster on the other Internet Forum and those who supported him in the position that military retirement pay was an "entitlement" rather than an "obligation" - all were white males between the ages of 20 & 35. Somehow I was not surprised.

erieangel -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 5:56:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 And what of the hundred of thousands who lost their retirements/pensions/savings in '08'? Better luck next time? In the mean time,eat cake? Not trying to be confrontational, Owner, but what law of nature guarantees health, wealth, a good mate and a government retirement? Firm No law, but I see every elected official protecting their own health, wealth and government retirement. I'll have faith in what Washington is saying about the necessity to cut programs when they give up some of their entitlements.

imperatrixx -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 5:58:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Not trying to be confrontational, Owner, but what law of nature guarantees health, wealth, a good mate and a government retirement? Law of nature? Really? What law of nature guarantees free speech? What law of nature guarantees that you won't be tortured and burned for your religion? All our laws are human laws. Including any potential laws that say health care is a right not a luxury.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625