Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you also under the FALSE impression that if the government stopped subsidizing them that ALL of your 2% tax dollars will be RETURNED to you??
Many of you are under the impression that the reason the country owes TRILLIONS is because of government "handouts" and the poor is to BLAME for all of this country's financial ills.
Do you really believe that your pre-tax $500 a week salary will suddenly jump to $600?
If so, then you are a FOOL! If anything taxes will STILL be raised for some other crap the government deems necessary and you'll have streets full of homeless lining the sidewalks, back alleys and abandoned/foreclosed houses begging for change and food.
Also, please understand that ANYTHING the GOVERNMENT has a hand in is a SUBSIDY. This includes MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. Doesn't matter if you paid into it. If the GOVERNMENT has to GIVE it to you, then it's an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM.
The poor are an easy target. It's easy to feel superior to them unlike the ultra-rich and powerful, so many people find that they can just blame them for the problems of society. It's almost ironic because the poor have the least political influence and effect on society than anyone. Politicians don't even try to court the poor - it's always "I'm for the middle class!"
So just like in grade school when the insecure and angry at the world kids would pick on the weakest and most vulnerable....they become the same bullies as adults.
Are you also under the FALSE impression that if the government stopped subsidizing them that ALL of your 2% tax dollars will be RETURNED to you??
Many of you are under the impression that the reason the country owes TRILLIONS is because of government "handouts" and the poor is to BLAME for all of this country's financial ills.
Do you really believe that your pre-tax $500 a week salary will suddenly jump to $600?
If so, then you are a FOOL! If anything taxes will STILL be raised for some other crap the government deems necessary and you'll have streets full of homeless lining the sidewalks, back alleys and abandoned/foreclosed houses begging for change and food.
Also, please understand that ANYTHING the GOVERNMENT has a hand in is a SUBSIDY. This includes MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. Doesn't matter if you paid into it. If the GOVERNMENT has to GIVE it to you, then it's an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM.
im amazed that this post gets serious responses. the problem is that it is directed to people that do not exist. nobody believes that cutting welfare will increase their income by 20%. so she is calling that non-existent person a fool and not making any legitimate points whatsoever.
im amazed that this post gets serious responses. the problem is that it is directed to people that do not exist. nobody believes that cutting welfare will increase their income by 20%. so she is calling that non-existent person a fool and not making any legitimate points whatsoever.
I'm trying to figure out why the poor is singled out all the time as the downfall of modern society.
They seem to be blamed for just EXISTING.
90% of people calling them trash ALWAYS say they're living on the dole and eating up THEIR tax dollars that could be used for more "constructive" projects than "worthless scum" popping out babies and sitting on their butts watching TV all the time using "our" food stamp money eating bonbons and other junk.
This is why I ask if folks really believe that the trillion dollar debt will go down once we tell 47% of the popular to F__k off.
Also, please understand that ANYTHING the GOVERNMENT has a hand in is a SUBSIDY. This includes MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. Doesn't matter if you paid into it. If the GOVERNMENT has to GIVE it to you, then it's an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM.
Well, you can choose to define words any way you wish to. You can define them in inflammatory, misleading ways if it suits the purpose of your rant. Let's just take the word "entitlement" There are two ways to view what that means, in terms of government programs:
1. First, the legitimate, positive sense: If we have agreed to work for wages and be paid every two weeks, and if we have performed that work and the two weeks is up, then we are entitled to our paycheck because we have earned it. If we have purchased an annuity and the contract reads that we are to receive a certain amount each month for life, then we are entitled to each monthly payment because we have, in effect, paid for it in advance.
2. Second, the pejorative sense (entitlement as created by law): Let me use food stamps as an example. By law, if people meet the threshold low income requirements, they can present themselves, fill out a form detailing their income, hold out their hands, and say "Here I am, let me have the food stamps." There has been no quid pro quo in this transaction; it is simply a hand-out. Notice I am not arguing against the food stamp program, I am merely describing it - accurately and objectively.
Now let's consider Social Security. Should Social Security be considered an entitlement of the first or second type (as I have defined them in the numbered paragraphs above)? Well, it would be the first type because benefit recipients have paid into the program; there is a quid pro quo, and the benefits are not a hand-out. Enemies of Social Security, who want it eliminated or privatized to suit their own agendas, are fond of calling it an "entitlement program" in order to taint it and demonize it by pretending that it is an entitlement program in the same sense as food stamps.
Now let's consider Medicare. It has elements of both kinds of entitlement. Beneficiaries (enrollees) have paid into the program via payroll taxes which fund Part A (hospitalization). They also pay a monthly premium for Part B (doctor visits and the like), but this premium funds only 25% of the cost, leaving 75% to be funded by the general taxpayer - the 75% being a hand-out, in other words. ("Here I am, and here is proof I am 65, so let me have that three-quarters value in Part B benefits".)
It's not that your original post lacks validity - it does make some good points. But you are so angry about those points that you fall into the trap of overstating your case with the inaccurate use of language. There is a basic and fundamental difference between Social Security and a hand-out, even though both can conceivably be called entitlements. Your use of "entitlement" denies and obscures that difference to the detriment of truth.
Edited to add: You have also mis-used the word "subsidy", but rather than in a misleading sense, in a sense that is plain wrong, period. A subsidy is a helping hand granted by the subsidizer to the subsidized. Examples: Some students' college educations are subsidized by their parents, while others work their way through college. Or: Electric vehicles have been granted a subsidy by the U.S. Congress in the form of a tax credit for their purchase. This subsidizes both the companies which produce them and the consumers who purchase them.
To call Social Security retirement benefits a subsidy is totally erroneous.
Last edited by Escort Rider; 12-05-2012 at 10:53 AM..
I'm trying to figure out why the poor is singled out all the time as the downfall of modern society.
once again, there is nobody who singles out the poor as the downfall of modern society. you are being dramatic and ridiculous and creating arguments that dont exist.
Well, you can choose to define words any way you wish to. You can define them in inflammatory, misleading ways if it suits the purpose of your rant. Let's just take the word "entitlement" There are two ways to view what that means, in terms of government programs:
1. First, the legitimate, positive sense: If we have agreed to work for wages and be paid every two weeks, and if we have performed that work and the two weeks is up, then we are entitled to our paycheck because we have earned it. If we have purchased an annuity and the contract reads that we are to receive a certain amount each month for life, then we are entitled to each monthly payment because we have, in effect, paid for it in advance.
2. Second, the pejorative sense (entitlement as created by law): Let me use food stamps as an example. By law, if people meet the threshold low income requirements, they can present themselves, fill out a form detailing their income, hold out their hands, and say "Here I am, let me have the food stamps." There has been no quid pro quo in this transaction; it is simply a hand-out. Notice I am not arguing against the food stamp program, I am merely describing it - accurately and objectively.
Now let's consider Social Security. Should Social Security be considered an entitlement of the first or second type (as I have defined them in the numbered paragraphs above)? Well, it would be the first type because benefit recipients have paid into the program; there is a quid pro quo, and the benefits are not a hand-out. Enemies of Social Security, who want it eliminated or privatized to suit their own agendas, are fond of calling it an "entitlement program" in order to taint it and demonize it by pretending that it is an entitlement program in the same sense as food stamps.
Now let's consider Medicare. It has elements of both kinds of entitlement. Beneficiaries (enrollees) have paid into the program via payroll taxes which fund Part A (hospitalization). They also pay a monthly premium for Part B (doctor visits and the like), but this premium funds only 25% of the cost, leaving 75% to be funded by the general taxpayer - the 75% being a hand-out, in other words. ("Here I am, and here is proof I am 65, so let me have that three-quarters value in Part B benefits".)
It's not that your original post lacks validity - it does make some good points. But you are so angry about those points that you fall into the trap of overstating your case with the inaccurate use of language. There is a basic and fundamental difference between Social Security and a hand-out, even though both can conceivably be called entitlements. Your use of "entitlement" denies and obscures that difference to the detriment of truth.
Thanks for breaking it all down Escort.
I just want to make it clear that I'm not against ANY of these government subsidies at all. I live in REALITY not FANTASY. Poor people have been in this country since its inception just like it was in England and old Rome.
They're NOT going anywhere any time soon. It almost sounds like from many of the posts that people are "envious" of the poor's situation. Being under control of the government is nothing anybody should WANT to be a part of.
ETA: I still believe that if you have to fill out GOVERNMENT FORMS to get money that is OWED you, it's a "form" of a government help. Private pensions and retirement funds are NOT. Government loans are a form of a subsidy to help you get through school, but you have to pay it back.
once again, there is nobody who singles out the poor as the downfall of modern society. you are being dramatic and ridiculous and creating arguments that dont exist.
Yeah right. You must not be reading the same posts I am.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. If I did, I wouldn't have responded.
I wasn't. However, I was only referring to the part about labeling, not the rest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Skewed definitions and accurate definitions
