What's wrong with entitlement?

Post Reply New Topic

Um you forget the majority of people pay a host of taxes from federal, state, sales, just to name a few. The average American is swamped with them. So you see, it's not "free." We pay through taxes and nobody gets their social security taxes in the form of refunds. So yeah I am going to say that's our money and we should get it back otherwise get rid of the tax entirely.
And next time you admonish entitlement mentality, consider the last time you went ahead and worked but wanted no compensation for it because companies see workers as people wanting entitlements. They think everyone should work for pennies on the dollars. That is what the elite rich want for America. See, they feel entitled, too. Entitled to a lot of free labor. So this little speech is not going to work on me because I know better and you shouldn't let it work on you either. You should be wise to all the bs they use to try to take from you.

And the federal government wants to take your social security tax and throw it down a black hole all because elitists in this country don't want you to have any of it back, they want to spend it on what they see fit. They want for everyone to pay the tax and get nothing in return. That is what they want. They will cut every "entitlement" to the bone and your taxes will be higher than ever before. This is the great vision. Are you going to stand by and feed into their agenda or will your reply be a resounding hell no?

I know it's not "free" per se because it's paid for with taxes, but it's "free" because we don't pay when we get it even though it's paid for by our taxes. Just like health insurance, what we pay into it is usually much less than we use if we have to use the insurance, but they make their money because not everyone uses their health insurance that much so there is a surplus they can pay hospital bills with, plus the money that goes into it is invested. Now, as for our taxes, the government is under no obligation to provide us with healthcare, food, social security or anything else with our tax money except for what they have put in place themselves, therefore creating the contract between those who sign up for it and the government. The government is not obligated to provide any life neccessities for anyone, although it's the right thing to do. I'm FOR the government doing that. They should do it. However, they can legally do away with any of those programs at any time. The only actual entitlement was have for any government benefit such as these is because the government itself created the program and entered into a contract with us about it. Even if they were to cut out those programs, the tax money would still benefit us because of roads, schools, police and fire, military, etc. Now, them cutting those programs is the last thing I want to see happen, but when you pay your taxes you don't get to choose which things your money goes for. That's why we vote people into office. It's the same as when people scream that they don't want their tax dollars used for abortion. Well, it's not their choice, if Medicaid is paying for abortions in your state then you don't get a say so in it, except for the chance to vote for a candidate that would vote against it.

We "get it back" by having other things provided as well, even things we may not use. People without kids (or kids in public schools) have their tax money go for schools. People who live in the middle of nowhere have their tax money go for freeways and sidewalks. People who don't need food stamps or Medicaid have their tax money go for those things. They are giving it back to us, even if it's not in ways we want. Do you think that the rich people who pay taxes and who don't use the schools or Medicaid or food stamps should have their taxes partially refunded because they won't use those services? They can't provide everything for everybody, so we have to vote for people who we think would help provide what we each believe is needed. That's why I voted for Obama. Because I thought he would use the tax money to provide everyone health care, but he blew that all to hell and back because some people can't even afford any of it.

Companies also don't see workers as wanting entitlements. Yes, they would like to pay people as little as possible, to increase their own profit margin but good workers can negotiate their salary. It's not an entitlement to want your paycheck. You enter into a verbal contract of sorts when you take the job. You agree to do x amount of work for x amount of money. That isn't entitlement mentality at all. Entitlement mentality would be going to the company and saying "I'd like to work for you but you won't hire me so you should give me the paycheck I would receive from you if I worked here". That's not the same as a pension or unemployment either.

It's good business to pay employees as little as you can, but it's smart business for the worker to do his job well and negotiate a raise with the company. If you are an asset to the company and you make money for them, then that offsets the amount they give you as a raise in your salary. It's far from entitlement.

Nobody has "fed" me anything. I've figured this out for myself. I'm a Democrat and a liberal, but I also know that there is only so much money to go around. It needs to be used wisely and it's not being used wisely. That doesn't mean we just just scream hell no and demand our taxes back because that isn't going to happen. We have to vote people into office who will spend it the way we believe is wise. Republicans have the right to do the same thing, vote for those they want to have in office to spend the money the way they want to. I'm also not trying to make "my little speech" do any kind of "work" on you at all. I have absolutely no interest in changing your mind or your political views, I'm just debating this topic on an internet forum that's never going to be read by anyone who has any power to actually change anything. I'm trying to explain why I understand why the government cannot pay for her sex change operation, which is pretty much why this whole thread was started.

It can't do that because it can't pay for treatment for people who are directly dying from things right now. If the government paid for everything that everybody not only needed, but also wanted, medically, then the country would go broke. Life threatening illnesses and injuries are, I think, a must treat. Things that are potentialy directly life threatening are also must treats like my husbands blood pressure. Quality of life things should be judged individually, like her operation and my depression. Completely elective and cosmetic things should only be covered when we have everyone in this country fed, with a roof over their heads, food in their belly, working if they are able to work, and educated. Little Sally's braces can wait until those things happen, in my opinion.

Where do you think the money is going to come from to cover each and every thing that we don't have? Yes, there's tons of stuff that can be cut but probably won't be. There isn't a whole lot we can do about it except during election years. In the meantime, if you are going to pick somebody's healthcare to fight for, I'd pick somebody in the hospital waiting on heart surgery or somebody dying of cancer or needing chemo or bone marrow. Those people will die, and will die soon if they aren't treated. My husband will die from his, but hopefully not anytime soon, and maybe we will be able to afford health insurance before then, so they come first. I'm not saying I'm ok with how it is, or that it should stay the same. I'm saying that there isn't anything we can do about it except make our voices heard during election year.

You have to understand that the government pays for more than entitlement programs and if some of those things were cut, you would be in a world of hurt. Obama has ruined the economy, and more people would be out there working, paying in more tax dollars, if he hadn't done this. Because of the law requiring employers to provide insurance if they are a certain size, many companies aren't hiring more people. Because of the fact that lots of the companies aren't hiring more folks, there are things that aren't being built because the big companies are covered up on those jobs and don't have the time or manpower to build new ones. This means that it will be even longer before the new businesses that are waiting to be built are up and running and hiring more people, creating more jobs, thus giving us more tax money to do things like pay for healthcare.

Just because I understand how things work doesn't mean I like it, nor does it mean I'm complacent, but I also know that just being angry and talking about it isn't going to do anything. We have to vote.

Cannot? It already has. San Francisco started covering city workers in 2001 and found that covering would cost them much less than expected. San Francisco's health plan for the uninsured has started covering the surgery, saying it's been a success. Other city governments have established that in their health plans. California's Medicaid has been paying for it.

So it is clear that the government can.

Also, there's this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/hhs-e ... eassignmen

It seems that soon Medicare may show that it can pay for sex reassignment surgery.

It is your unqualified, untrained opinion that these people do not need to be on disability. Are you a trained physician or Psychiatrist? Licensed? You may not like the system as it is, and you may see people who are on disability that YOU believe should be working but unless you are a professional in the field of Psychiatry or some other specialized field of medicine it is just your subjective biased opinion and not a fact. Just as easily as you can say there are people receiving disability who should not get it I could make the samew claim about people in WP who have Aspergers "undiagnosed" on their profile, but I get in trouble for that. You do not get in trouble for what you do. Telling people who have disabilities that they do not deserve their SSDI award simply because you believe they are capable of working is BS. You have no idea the stress and burden you put on people with disabilities when you make those statements.

I was placed on disability by recommendation of Psychiatrists, Psychologist, my primary care and my neurologist. Not because I went to them asking for the recommendation. They TOLD me I should be on disability. And when I applied for SSDI I was approved first time within 5 months of application, only to constantly be pointed at by people like YOU, with no qualification, only opinion, and told I do not deserve my SSDI. After working and paying taxes and paying into Social Security from the age of thirteen I now have to suffer the indignity of people like you trying to constantly guilt trip me and I am getting sick and tired of it. I can fully understand why people with mental issues finally get fed up with society and people like you and finally just end up buying a room full of guns and going out and killing 30 people in 40 seconds.

Are you saying that no one is gaming the system to their benefit? That everyone on relief belongs there and no one can even unofficially challenge that or voice an opinion?


Wouldn't hurt my feelings any to be accused of faking having Asperger's. Is it not possible or better yet probable to diagnose oneself if they know the criteria or should we instead lie about having an official diagnosis? In case you didn't know, there is no SSDI benefit being paid for being on WP. Not the same for those on relief which the taxpayers do have a voice in.


You brought your case up here. Has anyone on WP told YOU that you weren't entitled? If so who and post a link to it.


Condoning massacre to compensate for being offended or hurt feelings? That's really swell.

An honest question was asked and zer0netgain gave an opinion that did not target any individual or claim that all recipients of entitlements or SSDI are un-entitled to them. You elected to be offended when it was totally unnecessary. I can assure you that if I were on SSDI and had the paperwork to prove my eligibility I wouldn't care what anyone said about it, even face to face.

I see this every day. people accusing people on disability not deserving their benefits because, according to unqualified onlookers, like the person I am addressing on this thread, telling them they are able to work,and should be working. That is what is lame. Stygmatizing people who already have issues enough to deal with on a daily basis by trying to guilt trip and shame them. Yeah, I am going to speak up when ever I see this BS.

And I am not condoning mass killings, I am saying I understand these things when they happen. I can understand the frustration and rage that build up in someones mind that would drive them to do horrendous things. That is not "condoning" those activities.

Society is aging. People who have worked all their lives are breaking down. They are unable to function as before, both mentally and physically. SSDI is there specifically for that reason. To make the claim that people are just abusing the system because they do not want to work and trying to bully and shame them pisses me off and I am not going to sit silent and watch it. I realize you apathetic Tea Party, right wing extremists types are soulless, heartless and unfeeling, totally void of compassion, but being in my position and dealing with this every day I am going to say something. SSDI is not an "entitlement." It is an earned benefit. If a person has not worked a specified amount of time, counted as credits, they do not qualify to receive SSDI. There are actually people who follow SSDI recipients around with cameras because some unqualified nutcase thinks they should be working instead of receiving benefits that have been approved not by one Dr, but by multiple review boards of trained professionals. Yet these diabled people have to deal with this constant barrage of lies and accusations regarding their mental and physical conditions.

I should not even be dignifying you with a response as you have already admitted in WP that you have no problem with lying and deceiving people in order to achieve your political ideals. You have no credibility to waste time exchanging syllables with.

oliveoilmom:

Yes you should demand what you want from your taxes. You shouldn't feel guilty about it. For instance, if beneficii wishes to demand a sex change operation that he should and if you feel the need for something you should demand it too! You might not agree with his choice but you both should indeed speak up! Do not let anyone guilt you out of it. I notice there's a vocal majority that tries to guilt trip everyone else. I say hockey pucks to that!
Everyone has just as much right to demand as everyone else and the one who demands loudest and most often is the winner. The one who sits in the corner and feels guilty for demanding is the loser. That's life. You can decide where you want to be but there are always going to be winners and losers.

I think you are purposely misinterpreting what zer0netgain said and are bringing your own story into this as if everyone's case is like yours.


But you do have an issue with some guy in Texas killing a child molester who he caught f*cking his 5 year old daughter. Yeah, I saw that.


More of the same; "we're being targeted!" again.


Where did I claim to be or even imply that I'm a tea party member? If I were I'd admit it.


I believe I said entitlements OR SSDI, not that they were both the same. I pay into social security, too. I expect to be able to collect some day.


Where and when? What political ideals could I be achieving here? It's not like I'm running for office.


You say that AFTER you wrote all that above.

If you cant distinguish between the fact that because some people do need disability and that it is being over run with fraud at the same time then you have a serious issue.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfing ... taxpayers/

"In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government."

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

Not flawed at all.

The government spends more than it takes in, so the total % must be greater than 100% of revenue.

The Social Security trustee reported that Social Security disability will be insolvent in 2016.



sources:
GRAPH SOURCE: http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/30/news/ec ... rust-fund/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 ... -counting/

This is a pervasive thing where people gaming the system gets brought up, and the point of emphasis that pervasively gets brought up is "If I can't see the disability with my own eyes, then it's not real, or what I do see is not impairing enough."
This is entirely the wrong point of emphasis. Until this attitude changes people have very good reasons to feel threatened.

And there you go misgendering the person you are trying to agree with.

I thought beneficii was a man waiting for gender reassignment to a woman meaning he hasn't done it yet? If he isn't my mistake.

I am waiting, but I have started hormone therapy as well as the real life experience, so it is by this time more appropriate to refer to me as 'she'.

Dependence is better than destitution. I agree that welfare dependence is a bad thing, but its a much better alternative to homelessness. A few bums is the price you pay for knowing that the social safety net will catch you if you need it to.