General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsConservative leaders say the next target will be cuts to entitlements like Medicare
Mostly Republican talking points in this poorly written article, and NO MENTION methods which COULD be used to ACTUALLY strengthen social security and medicare - only mention of CUTTING them (and that is NOT "SAVING" them). AND it calls them "entitlements" and equates social security & medicare with welfare (as Trump does).When you run up the deficit, your next argument will be, Gee, youve got a large deficit, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a former Democratic presidential candidate, said in an interview.
Now Republicans are beginning to acknowledge as much. Mr. Ryan said at a town hall-style meeting last month that Congress had to spur growth and cut entitlements to reduce the national debt.
. . .
Sharon Parrott, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said Republicans understood how bad it would look to cut food benefits for poor families and health care for the elderly at the same time they were cutting taxes for corporations and the highest earners.
Theres a reason they separate them, she said. They think they can get away with it.
But in an election year with high political engagement, she said, I think its wrong to count out the idea that the public will figure it out.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/politics/tax-cuts-republicans-entitlements-medicare-social-security.html
CousinIT
(9,267 posts)All Americans should realize that in any other western developed democracy any party who proposed let alone passed legislation that does what this tax bill will do, well that party would cease to exist after the next election. It is astounding that a group of people this cynical and this willing to so blatantly misrepresent the impact of major tax legislation can sit as elected representatives in any democracy in this world. This will surely hasten the decline of your country. Once the people feel the impact of this the pitchforks and torches will come out and then the price of this cynicism will be paid in full. May God have mercy on the United States of America.
TEB
(12,933 posts)Lunabell
(6,129 posts)I paid for them, I want it back!
ProfessorGAC
(65,301 posts)We are damned well entitled to them because we kept our side of the compact by paying all these years, and the government should keep their side of the deal.
The conservatives have hijacked the term entitlement! We need to take that term back!
Lunabell
(6,129 posts)They aren't entitlements.
ProfessorGAC
(65,301 posts)The first, preferred definition, is something to which one is entitled.
We are, in fact, entitled to that $ because we kept our side of the agreement!
Freddie
(9,275 posts)I'm a payroll accountant and part of my job is to keep up with legislation affecting payroll. Entitlement, in this case, means a benefit you are entitled to because you paid into it. I know they mean well but I cringe a bit when I see FB posts "how dare they call SS an entitlement!"
Igel
(35,382 posts)That's it.
The explicit agreement is that we pay in money that's mostly used for current expenses in things like Social Security and Medicaid. In the '80s that was expanded to "you pay in more money than you need to so that we can provide full benefits as provided by the guidelines in place for longer."
There's never been anything from the government side that said it was a retirement account and you get the money you paid in. Just that according to current law and current guidelines, if you paid in $X you'd be entitled at retirement to $Y. Politicians may have said this, implied this, but the law is what's binding. Not what some politician decides to tell his constituents to get votes. What Trump says is what Trump says, but he's not a god and the text of the law coupled with judicial interpretation is what counts.
Simply put, an entitlement is something you're entitled to. After that things go pear shaped for a lot of people.
To "entitle" means "give someone the right to do or have something". The government gives us the right to these benefits. It's not inherent. It's not based on prior acts unless the law says so, and then that's true only as long as the law is the law. It's all based on what the law says, what the law provides for. At work I'm entitled to certain things, but if I'm fired I lose those transient rights, and if my employer changes the terms of my contract I lose (or gain) entitlements. If Congress changes the terms of Social Security, if they revoke Medicare, if section 8 housing goes away, that entitlement evaporates unless Congress has bound itself. Hint: Congress very seldom binds itself to do much of anything, and if Congress bound itself with a simple majority vote then it can usually undo that with a simple majority vote.
All the usual things referred to as "welfare programs" whatever their current designations are entitlements dependent on easily-changed law. So's Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security. Things like a FAPE are entitlements harder to change because they've been rooted in the Constitution.
My brother's retired and entitled to some of these things because he meets the current guidelines. He's entitled to the Social Security COLA, such as it is--but in the absence of a law stipulating a COLA, he wouldn't be entitled to it. Notice that this is just the past passive participle of the verb "to entitle," like "driven" is the past participle of "drive."
There's another definition of the identical-sounding free-standing adjective "entitled" that people confuse with the verb: "feeling that you have the right to do or have what you want without having to work for it or deserve it, just because of who you are." This confusion makes them upset when they hear the word "entitlement" applied to, well, entitlements and causes them to seek a way to reconcile the two words "entitled", to make it so those things we feel we have a right to, things we deserve, into things that must also be (necessarily) granted by the government.
Of course, in a given situation there are places where you simple can't tell which meaning a person has in mind. "I'm entitled to Social Security" could reflect a counterfactual "I deserve this because I'm me" versus the accurate "I deserve this because the government says I do." We can be hostile and assume it's the counterfactual parsing or show good will and assume it's the accurate meaning that's intended. Either way, "assume" is the main verb in the sentence, and assumptions say more about us than the other person.
In either event, those two words are homophones. Like "phone" is the thing you talk to (shortened 'telephone') but "phone" is also the technical term for "any distinct speech sound or gesture".
ProfessorGAC
(65,301 posts)My whole point is that entitlement has been stolen!
Your damned right I'm ENTITLED to it!
I started paying in at 15 and I'm 61!
The R's have hijacked the term to mean something it doesn't mean
Me, you, millions of others are ENTITLED to that payment because we held up our end of the bargain!
sadiegirl
(138 posts)and cuts to their social safety net?
i guess not. But we will soon know how it felt.
Igel
(35,382 posts)So a lot of the birdshots and buckshots were also refusing to pay taxes.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)that along with SS too. See how long GOPers can allow tax cuts to the rich, oh wait, they will just raise taxes on the middle and poor class.
Vinca
(50,321 posts)of the tab for Grandma at the nursing home? When you vote for the GOP you're voting for senile parents in the spare bedroom and performing 24/7 nursing duties.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Although a great many do vote GOP, but who cares. Just blame it on the Dems.