Sign up  |  Log in

Entitlement Programs

Would you be in favor of elimination or significantly reducing entitlement programs along with a tax increase to reduce our deficit?

I’m not expecting to get social security or medicare, and my parents are already dead, so yeah, let’s make sure your parents don’t get any.

You want a quote?  Haven’t I written enough already???

Sure knock yourself out and reform the entitlements if accompanied by near term expansionary fiscal policy. The entitlements are a long term issue not one today. Try to cut deficits now and you will throw the economy back into a recession/depression similar to the late 1930s and similar to the failed austerity programs ongoing in Europe currently.

Personally I’m not in favor of government spending on anything that is not clearly a public good (education, infrastructure, some aspects of healthcare, military, etc). Social safety nets fall in that category but reform is certainly reasonable given the rising costs of healthcare. I think Social Security is a “good” program and it is definitely solvent for the foreseeable future, leaving Medicare and Medicaid as the elephants in the room.

It is the obsessive focus some people have on slashing government spending and raising taxes now that is unequivocally a bad idea in my opinion. Worry about the economy now, not the deficit.

I really wish we could find some way to abolish social security in its present form. I think some kind of “forced saving” such as mandatory payroll deductions placed into CDs/savings that just roll over would be beneficial to those who cannot save for themselves. Even at just a couple % interest compounded over 40 years would be a lot of money.

Get rid of the SS ponzi scheme/trust fund BS.

Medicare isn’t going anywhere, but we need to find a way to contain costs. Obamacare completely failed at containing health care costs.

For the hundredth time, social security is NOT a f*cking entitlement program! Stop watching so much Fox News! Social Security is an overly generous and poorly designed Pension Program! If you and your spouse never worked a day in your life; you won’t be receiving social security benefits. It’s so annoying when people call social security an entitlement program, especially financial professionals who should know better!

Being Born Wealthy > Being Jewish or WASPY > Born Pretty > Top 5 MBA > CFA > Avg MBA > Born middle class > Born lower class > Born in crack house > Working in IT but looking to switch to buyside

For the hundredth time, Zesty. You’re wrong.

The phrase “Entitlement programs” was created so that conservatives can say “cut entitlements,” which sounds like you’re taking away things from greedy people who don’t deserve them, rather than say “cut medicare and social security,” which would get them thrown out of office at the very next election. Social safety net programs also get lumped in with Entitlements, but the country is more divided on whether to keep these.

The fact that you have to pass certain conditions to qualify for social security doesn’t change the fact that it’s an entitlement. You have to have under a certain income to qualify for welfare. You have to have had a job and be looking for a new job to qualify for unemployment. But these are also in the firing line as entitlements, and even all put together, they are quite a bit smaller than the social security and medicare entitlements.

You want a quote?  Haven’t I written enough already???

Try to take Social Security away and see if people think they’re entitled to it or not. You’re remarkably incorrect Zesty.

@bchadwick and sweep, I’m surprised at the level of ignorance here. Using your flawed logic then your companies 401(k) program is an entitlement program. An entitlement program is one that is a right across a population reference point; i.e. once you hit 65 you can get medicare (i.e. you don’t have to pay anything to receive Medicare). Social Security is a pension plan, i.e. annuity product, where you pay a certain amount of money to receive guaranteed payments upon retirement. If you haven’t paid into social security you’re not receiving a dime (unless you’re receiving benefits of a dead spouse who did pay in). If you don’t understand this fundamental difference well, let’s just say I’m sorry for anyone that comes to you for financial advice!

Being Born Wealthy > Being Jewish or WASPY > Born Pretty > Top 5 MBA > CFA > Avg MBA > Born middle class > Born lower class > Born in crack house > Working in IT but looking to switch to buyside

Zesty–seriously, just look it up.

Anywhere.

TkPk_CFA Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Zesty–seriously, just look it up.
>
> Anywhere.

From dictionary.com:

Main Entry: entitlement program
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a government program guaranteeing certain benefits to a segment of the population; the right to benefits offered by a government, esp. as compensation

From Auburn University’s Glossary of Political Economic Terms:

Entitlement program

The kind of government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or even political parties may have similar special “entitlements” under certain programs. The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans’ Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.

This space available.

@higg, Auburn University, come on. But seriously, fine, if we want to say that SS is technically classified as one fine, I concede. But SS is fundamentally different and I don’t see how SS is different from a pension program at the state level? Why aren’t GM pensions called entitlement programs?

Please answer these questions?

1. Is a GM pension an entitlement program?

2. How is a GM pension different from SS?

Thanks

Being Born Wealthy > Being Jewish or WASPY > Born Pretty > Top 5 MBA > CFA > Avg MBA > Born middle class > Born lower class > Born in crack house > Working in IT but looking to switch to buyside

Auburn says, “number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program.”

If you reach eligibility requirements for SS, age 65, and haven’t paid into SS, you’re not getting a dime. Auburn’s definition doesn’t make sense.

Being Born Wealthy > Being Jewish or WASPY > Born Pretty > Top 5 MBA > CFA > Avg MBA > Born middle class > Born lower class > Born in crack house > Working in IT but looking to switch to buyside

Nobody is saying that an entitlement program means everyone in the country gets paid. You’re right–if you haven’t paid into SS, you’re not getting a dime. Because you’re not ENTITLED to. That doesn’t mean that social security isn’t an entitlement program. You just have to let go of your own definition that an entitlement means everybody gets it.

Fine, you don’t like Auburn’s definition (gosh-dang southerners)…how about the Congressional Budget Office?

entitlement: A legal obligation of the federal government to make payments to a person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which the budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act. Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through those programs’ eligibility criteria and benefit or payment rules. The best-known entitlements are the government’s major benefit programs, such as Social Security and
Medicare.

TkPk, I agree, technically it is classified as one, I can argue with Auburn (hicks) but I’m not going to sit here and argue with the CBO.

I’m just saying, if you look at Medicaid, Medicare, and SS. One is definitely not like the other.

@Bcahd, I take back my rant aimed at you.

Being Born Wealthy > Being Jewish or WASPY > Born Pretty > Top 5 MBA > CFA > Avg MBA > Born middle class > Born lower class > Born in crack house > Working in IT but looking to switch to buyside

Zesty Wrote:
——————————————————-
> @higg, Auburn University, come on.

They are the reigning BCS champion and the dude who put together the glossary earned his MA and PhD from Stanford. He also taught at Yale earlier in his career.

This space available.

higgmond Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Zesty Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > @higg, Auburn University, come on.
>
> They are the reigning BCS champion and the dude
> who put together the glossary earned his MA and
> PhD from Stanford. He also taught at Yale earlier
> in his career.

The guy sounds legit.

Zesty, I understand your logic but I believe you are overthinking this one.

@higg, Auburn has won one BCS bowl; I’ll bet you money that they won’t repeat.

Being Born Wealthy > Being Jewish or WASPY > Born Pretty > Top 5 MBA > CFA > Avg MBA > Born middle class > Born lower class > Born in crack house > Working in IT but looking to switch to buyside

Correction I think they won the Sugar bowl back a few years ago.

Being Born Wealthy > Being Jewish or WASPY > Born Pretty > Top 5 MBA > CFA > Avg MBA > Born middle class > Born lower class > Born in crack house > Working in IT but looking to switch to buyside

Zesty Wrote:
——————————————————-
> @higg, Auburn has won one BCS bowl; I’ll bet you
> money that they won’t repeat.

Only a diehard Auburn fan or really stupid money would bet on Auburn to repeat, and I am neither. They probably lose 3 games this year.

Auburn did win the Sugar in 2005, but it was not the BCS title game. Thanks to Reggie Bush, there is no 2005 BCS Champion.

This space available.

So, back to the original question:

ManMythLegend Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Would you be in favor of elimination or
> significantly reducing entitlement programs along
> with a tax increase to reduce our deficit?

Yup. It won’t be pleasant, but last I checked, this was basically the only feasible option.

i like zesty. His/her habit of arguing vociferously about inconsequential details of larger issues is entertaining for some reason.

They’re probably going to have to come up with some sort of income test or asset test to see how much of a payment you will get. Those that are well prepared and have saved probably won’t get anything. It’s not fair but sacrifices will need to be made.

@jbald, I know; I should have went to law school. I think that pretty much sums up the legal profession.

@Stocks, yeah I think it’s crazy how you can be a Millionaire and still receive social security checks!

Being Born Wealthy > Being Jewish or WASPY > Born Pretty > Top 5 MBA > CFA > Avg MBA > Born middle class > Born lower class > Born in crack house > Working in IT but looking to switch to buyside

Stocks & Blondes Wrote:
——————————————————-
> They’re probably going to have to come up with
> some sort of income test or asset test to see how
> much of a payment you will get. Those that are
> well prepared and have saved probably won’t get
> anything. It’s not fair but sacrifices will need
> to be made.

I have assumed pretty much from the day I started my career that SS would not exist when it came time for me to retire, so feel free to divvy up my contributions. SS is a decent part of my parents’ current income, so I’m okay without collecting myself.

This space available.

They asked a similar question last night during the debate. If you could have $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax hikes, would you do it? Everyone, even Ron Paul, raised their hand.

I think so long as we’re not just throwing money at the problems, but actually introducing massive, long-term structural change, most people would be fine with generating some more revenue in the short term.

Stocks & Blondes Wrote:
——————————————————-
Those that are
> well prepared and have saved probably won’t get
> anything. It’s not fair but sacrifices will need
> to be made.

I agree that is the direction we are headed, but it is wrong and totally unfair to those who are successful. If the government forces me to pay 6.5% of my gross earnings (subject to the $106,### annual cap) then I deserve to get that money back in Social Security. No question as to whether I have 100k in the bank or 10 million.

If I had the option today, I wish there was a way to opt out of social security. Give me what would be deducted and I’ll invest it myself. But the government will likely never allow such a thing.

They couldnt do this because what if you invested it all with the Bernie Madoffs of the world and you ended up with nothing. Social Security is there so that you aren’t living on the street when you’re unable to work. Too many people would opt out and just blow the money

rothwise Wrote:
——————————————————-
> They couldnt do this because what if you invested
> it all with the Bernie Madoffs of the world and
> you ended up with nothing. Social Security is
> there so that you aren’t living on the street when
> you’re unable to work. Too many people would opt
> out and just blow the money

It’s not the government’s job to ensure people invest their money wisely. If you, as an individual, decide to take a chance on a risky investment and lose, then you’ll have to live with it, even if that means on the streets. Or you can beg your kids to take you in later on in life if you’re in such bad shape. This crap about having to protect everyone from everything is getting old.

You would end up with more people on welfare at retirement. What was the savings rate 5 years ago? Negative. True that it isnt the governement’s job to protect everyone, but social security was developed as a safety net. Like it or not

ManMythLegend Wrote:
——————————————————-
> It’s not the government’s job to ensure people
> invest their money wisely. If you, as an
> individual, decide to take a chance on a risky
> investment and lose, then you’ll have to live with
> it, even if that means on the streets. Or you can
> beg your kids to take you in later on in life if
> you’re in such bad shape. This crap about having
> to protect everyone from everything is getting
> old.

PREACH!

rothwise Wrote:
——————————————————-
> They couldnt do this because what if you invested
> it all with the Bernie Madoffs of the world and
> you ended up with nothing. Social Security is
> there so that you aren’t living on the street when
> you’re unable to work. Too many people would opt
> out and just blow the money

What’s the chance you’ll receive nothing from SS now? People would be better off throwing darts.