Social Security: How did something we've paid into our entire lives become an "entitlement?"

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Mon, 11 May 2015 06:53:24 -0400

According to this article (and countless others) Social Security "entitlements" must be reformed because our government can no longer afford them.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-fiscal-train-wreck/article/2564171

Invite others to respond by typing @name

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made May 11 at 2015 7:17 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Mon, 11 May 2015 07:17:48 -0400

That is because congress has dipped into it so many times and owe us. It's a damn shame!

Response by SPC Steven Depuy made May 11 at 2015 7:21 AM

SPC Steven Depuy — Mon, 11 May 2015 07:21:20 -0400

Yeah, turned 56 last week, for the last 11 years, they send me letters saying I have paid enough in to qualify, will I ever actually see anything, who knows.

Response by PO1 John Miller made May 11 at 2015 7:29 AM

PO1 John Miller — Mon, 11 May 2015 07:29:25 -0400

If our government can no longer afford this BENEFIT, does that mean we can stop paying social security taxes and in fact sue our government for theft (all of the social security taxes we've paid our entire working lives)?

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 8:09 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 08:09:32 -0400

Ask this question to those who have raided the "trust fund", extended benefits to include those who never paid a dime, and claimed that they "balanced: the budget by raiding - or borrowing (never to be repaid) from it.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made May 11 at 2015 11:36 AM

Sgt Mark Ramos — Mon, 11 May 2015 11:36:21 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, I never understood this criticism and usage of the word "entitlement". It is a common use, so please don't take this personally. Social Security is an entitlement for those who paid. Entitlement is the right to a guaranteed benefit. You don't really mean "entitlement" you mean an optional payout.
Someone along the line confused the usage of the phrase "feeling entitled" when there was no right or guarantee. Then subsequently mixed it up with no right or guarantee when one truly exists. And somehow people ran with it and it stuck.
Social Security absolutely is an entitlement.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 12:27 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 12:27:18 -0400

George Carlin:

"You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly sh***ier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your f****** retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this f****** place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it."

"You and I are not in the big club."

Response by SFC Douglas Duckett made May 11 at 2015 1:11 PM

SFC Douglas Duckett — Mon, 11 May 2015 13:11:22 -0400

entitlement - the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something.

I have paid into the system for over 35 years, I would like to see it, I am entitled.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made May 11 at 2015 4:32 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Mon, 11 May 2015 16:32:19 -0400

I think you'll note that the only people using the word "entitlement" are using it to describe things they wish to eliminate. It's a marketing word with intentionally negative connotations.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 5:03 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 17:03:58 -0400

I don't think gov't officials value semantics...unfortunate.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made May 11 at 2015 5:34 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Mon, 11 May 2015 17:34:10 -0400

Because most people simply don't understand what Social security is. They don't look at their paycheck stub, see that Fed Withholding (Income tax) Fed MED (Medicare), and OASDI (Social Security) are three separate deductions.

They also don't understand that Social Security and Medicare are *benefits* paid for like you pay for Insurance, and that money was supposed to go in a trust to be invested, and that those investments were supposed to fund the program in perpetuity.

People also don't realize that if they were to invest the same amount that is deducted from their paycheck (age 18 to age 65) into a 401k or Roth IRA they would almost certainly come up millionaires by the time they were 65.

People also don't realize that the reason Social Security is in trouble to begin with is because instead of investing it politicians decided to loan it to the federal government (by buying bonds with a dismal interest rate).

People just think it's another leach on society, like ObamaCare, Welfare, Medicare, or any other program where the beneficiaries don't have "skin in the game".

Response by TSgt Christopher D. made May 11 at 2015 9:05 PM

TSgt Christopher D. — Mon, 11 May 2015 21:05:29 -0400

Pardon me for a semantic contention... One of the most clever things anyone did was create the idea that people "pay in" to Social Security. Social Security taxes are taken from people before they see their pay. No one pays in to social security. The government simply takes that money, claiming its to help make sure we have income in retirement, then loans it out immediately (moneys deposited into the Treasury from Social Security taxes are indistinguishable from other moneys). The treasury gives the social security administration an IOU, and the gubmint does whatever it's going to do with that money.

There is no social security trust fund. What the SSA has is a bunch of promises to pay from the Treasury. But they're going to fund the social security payments for Bob not with the money he contributed, but with money they are getting from me now. And because we live longer, Bob might even draw social security payments from money my son earns. This effectively enslaves the younger generation to the older. Thomas Jefferson advised against this. (speaking of the unborn) "For if the living could charge it (the unborn) with a debt, then the world belong to the dead, and not the living generation."

The boomers are the richest generation to ever live, and are likely to remain that for a very, very long time.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 12 at 2015 10:13 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 12 May 2015 10:13:03 -0400

Gunny, I think part of the problem is the mission creep that has been associated with SS. SS, as envisioned, was never intended to be a retirement pension. It was intended to be a extra boost in retirement income, in addition to any earned pensions, so that people who were no longer working had enough money to survive. Again it was never meant to be the sole pension for people. However, that is what it has morphed into, which requires much more money from the Fed to accomplish.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2015 10:26 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 May 2015 10:26:35 -0400

Where can I go to my refund for all the money I have put into this failed program?

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jul 20 at 2015 1:02 AM

SGT Rick Ash — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 01:02:58 -0400

I'm terribly afraid Obama has raped and pillaged SS a while ago. First thing we hear is that SS will only be able to pay out 70% to each of us when we become eligible. Next thing we hear is that SS won't have any funds left by the year 2033. OK, so I would be 80 by 2033. It won't be a problem for me other than being very mad and vocal about where IS MY MONEY !? I worked hard for 31 years in IT Sales and I paid the maximum every year AND the max for Medicare of what,1.85%?
Waiting anxiously to see if Obama will allow Texas to get their gold back now they have requested it. I believe it is a precursor to Texas seceding from the U.S. and if they go then I am leaving HERE for