What is the Best Definition of Entitlements?

Political Science
21

Except that you cannot be entitled to something the government cannot lawfully provide. Paying in doesn’t matter, the promise itself was an example of lawlessness. The Constitution is not “I Tax therefore I can.” which is essentially how the Court kicked governance by constitutional means aside to permit social security, saying that if the appropriations are disallowed then the purpose for collecting the tax is thwarted … but taxes are NOT amendments to the Constitution to permit spending.

The correct construction would be if there is no lawful power to spend for a particular purpose then a tax to support that specific spending is also unlawful.

22

The difference between investing yourself vs the government taking the money by force, promptly distributing and spending it all in the current year as was done since the beginning (there never was a trust, no assets, they were always offset by a corresponding liability on the books, something if you or I did it, keeping double books, would see us in jail) is that the absolute worst that private investments can do is leave you with nothing vs the absolute best that the government approach can do is leave you with a huge pile of unsecured promissory debt.

Now laying aside the fact that the whole stock market etc has never been reduced to nana, the hypothetical “nothing” that would represent is still better than the very real world less than nothing which is unsecured debt.

23

Granted, The current gub’mint run Ponzi scheme is not a power given to Congress in Article 1, (much of what we live under isn’t). With that stated, we still have the system until otherwise repealed, and contributors to the existing system are entitled to the promised return on their investment.

24

Do we really?

That we were defrauded of our means in the first place does that give us the right to see others similarly defrauded in turn that we may benefit?

That we’ve “paid in” is a self serving assertion, one which is neither particularly moral or ethical given the way our country is drowning in debt.

The attitude that can save us would be screw everyone, including me … to restore governance by constitutional means and make an end of it.

Thinking you’re entitled only helps mean it goes on till it can finally go on no longer and it all comes crashing down.

Yes, Eisenhower could have saved the nation … and it’s a pity that those who were cheering as governance by constitutional means was cast aside for a fistful of benefits will never see that which they celebrated go away and have to humble themselves to turn to others to help them voluntarily for what goes away.

25

Prior to Carter (I think) raiding the Social Security “lock box” the program was fully funded beyond anyone alive today at least. Lobby to repeal the unconstitutional programs not rob those citizens who were robbed of their wages all their lives.

26

Incorrect.

There never was a lock box.

Never.

From the very beginning all money not distributed as benefits was spent. What was then done was keeping double books, pretending there were assets when there were none. Simply, the same entity cannot both own a bond and owe the debt it represents.

Just try to tell a bank loan officer that your right hand had loaned your left hand money and then say you’d an asset on account of the “bond” in your right hand. They will laugh at you while they are calling the authorities to turn you over for security fraud (assuming they take you that seriously).

… well, that or you’ll find the dumbest loan officer in the nation.

Again, there was no lockbox.

As for opening what never was, well, it’s more corrupt than that.

Under LBJ, not Carter, they stopped the double books. Had that been all they had done it would have been a great reform, for it would honestly admit that all was unsecured empty promises where future tax payers were on the hook, being defrauded.

But it seems that LBJ also started spending the black ink on the ledgers, ignoring that it was offset by matching red (again, the same entity cannot own and owe a particular debt), issuing more red ink.

They weren’t spending the same money twice, just pulling money out of thin air by borrowing it into existence, inflating the money supply in the process. As always, inflating the money supply robs savers by devaluing money. They used this notably to help pay for the Great Society and Vietnam.

The “black ink” ran out early in Reagan’s tenure and the practice stopped.

I will leave it to you to decide it it’s entirely a coincidence that inflation fell around that time, once the money supply wasn’t being inflated on the sly.

27

Interesting. Back to the OP, what is an entitlement? Since I was not party to the corruption, am I to be punished for the sins of the politicians?

28

In that era people were for the most part working right up to the day they died, “retirement” was only possible for maybe 10-20% of the population.

Today we’re living far longer than we’re working so we’ve got to find a happy medium in there somewhere.

29

Not really. If it were simply put into one of the many funds that mirror the Dow or NASDAQ you’d far exceed that.

As people approached retirement age, say 10-15 years out, you should move a percentage each year into something like a money market fund to guarantee the principal.

30

In REALITY, what%of people would actually invest that money instead of spending it.

31

That is irrelevant. We can provide poor houses for the irresponsible.

32

That is what Non-profit organizations are for, not taxpayers to provide them "free housing “.
Why should everything go to " low income " people, where they turn homes into drug labs and destroy neighborhoods. When will those " paying the freight " get something besides the :SHAFT”!!! Don’t these people receive enough!!!

33

100% if it were made mandatory to do so.

34

Mandatory means government force at the muzzle of a gun. Not my idea of liberty.

35

Mine either but it’s a legitimate area for gov’t intervention since the taxpayers pick up the cost for those who don’t.

36

It’s a legitimate area for government intervention if government has a delegated power to address it. Same with those programs where taxpayers are being made to pay for them. People’s circumstances or society’s conditions, even if dire, are not amendments.

1 Like
37

Entitlements are the lure ,Liberals use to bring the HORDE of LOCUSTS( ILLEGALS) into our country at taxpayer expense.
They are also used by Liberals to keep blacks at the bottom on public housing (projects) food stamps and having enough not to get ahead.

1 Like
38

If the gov’t controls your access to healthcare, food supply, water supply, shelter, utilities and transportation you are a captive whether you recognize the chains or not.

39

About the only things separating law abiding citizens from being subjects and then serfs are their guns and their cash … both of which various people in power are eager to get rid of.

40

Most don’t own them and half the country has a 0 or net negative tax liability and is living off of welfare and refundable tax credits.