posted
One of the hallmarks of the conservative movement is that the Welfare System for the poor creates an Entitlement Mentality. This mentality is the belief that the state owes these people not only basics of life, health and shelter, but other perks that the rest of us work hard to achieve.
It was to fight this mentality that the great Welfare Reforms of the 80's and 90's were struck.
However, this Entitlement Mentality was a political boon to the Democrats. They gauranteed the votes of those poor by promising them ever increasing entitlements.
It seems to me that the Republicans are hopping on that patronage/bribery band wagon by creating an Entitlement Mentality for the wealthier Americans.
School Vouchers are an "Entitlement" program based ont he belief that parents who send their kids off to private schools are entitled to public school tax money.
Social Security Reform is being spun, since its your retirement money, you should be ENTITLED to invest it as you wish.
Most Corporate "Welfare" is based on the idea that, since the big companies are bringing in Jobs, they are Entitled to not pay any taxes.
President Bush's Tax Cut that favored the wealthy was explained away that, since the wealthy paid the most in taxes, they were ENTITLED to bigger cuts.
The problem with entitlements, whether for the rich or the poor, is that they are a drain not only on the government's resources, but are also a drain on the entrepenuerial spirit that makes America so prosperous. If we decide that the Government should pay our bills, and not us, then we lose something valueable within ourselves.
Has anyone else noticed something similar? Do you think its a fair thing, or a dangerous thing, or both?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: School Vouchers are an "Entitlement" program based ont he belief that parents who send their kids off to private schools are entitled to public school tax money.
While I'm not a proponent of the voucher system, the purpose is an incentive to aleviate pressure on public schools and is open to all Americans, wealthy and poor.
quote: Social Security Reform is being spun, since its your retirement money, you should be ENTITLED to invest it as you wish.
There's a difference between the entitlement to your rights and the entitlement to resources that aren't yours.
quote: Most Corporate "Welfare" is based on the idea that, since the big companies are bringing in Jobs, they are Entitled to not pay any taxes.
President Bush's Tax Cut that favored the wealthy was explained away that, since the wealthy paid the most in taxes, they were ENTITLED to bigger cuts.
You're use of the word "entitlement" is not justified in these instances because the purpose of those two policies is to provide incentive to improve the economy.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not investigated the proposed changes to SS extensively or anything, but I don't see a problem with privitization at this point.
As for corporate "welfare", I think it is very important for the government to help budding businesses if anything. That will help jobs too, and will help the entrepenuerial spirit of America a great deal.
I just think of the huge advantage that big companies have over small. An established, trusted name that lends them credibility. An ability to buy more capital for less due to their buying power. The momentum that they already have going. How are small-businesses supposed to survive in the hostile atmosphere?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl? How do school vouchers help public schools? The idea is that, if you send your child to a private school, money the government would have paid to the public school will go to the private school in question, resulting in less money to the public schools. The caring parents with the most dedicated kids will leave the public schools, leaving the most expensive and most in need kids to be educated in the public schools which will face ever dwindling funds.
Social Security Reform is being described as a way of improving your retirment fund. Social Security is supposed to be a safety net, to catch those who would otherwise starve or have to beg to survive after retirement. It was never supposed to replace private pension plans or private retirement funds.
Each of these issues has arguments pro and against them. I could argue them for hours. What I am more worried about is the spreading of the idea that the government owes you these things.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with privatization is that Bush says he's going to do it without a major spending increase on social security. This means he's going to either majorly cut benefits or use fuzzy accounting to ignore the problem until he's out of office (he did a similar thing with the worst of the tax cuts -- not only were they passed to take effect late, but their real expense was hidden because the first bills passed didn't include the tenth year, as the tax cuts expired just before then, right after many go fully into effect. Of course, the tax cuts are almost certainly going to be made permanent, adding billions and billions to the projected deficit).
Its a simple math problem. Currently money is paid out pretty much as it is paid in. Once you start creating private accounts, suddenly you have a lot of money that should be coming in able to go out, not. Which means a (larger) line item deficit.
At least in his 2000 campaign proposal on the subject he had "misplaced" about $1 trillion over 10 years. I don't know how much he's misplacing in this one, but he's definitely neglecting to account for large sums of money unless he either asks for a large increase in expenditures (which he's said he won't) or a large cut in benefits (perhaps pigs will fly).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is really tough to take away a benefit from anyone to whom it has been extended. Think of employees of companies who have been told that there benefits will be cut. They whine and squeal and carry on! And understandably so. Many of them have planned their finances around having those benefits in place. And even if they haven't, it is hard to give up something you have come to perceive as yours.
I think it is so very easy to get an "entitlement mentality", and that is indeed a problem. After all, we American's tend to feel entitled to our countries bountious wealth and freedoms. We don't want more immigrants coming in nor do we want our labor going to other nations. Good for them, bad for us.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The noble idea behind vouchers is that they will relieve overcrowding and reduce class size and hopefully that the school will save more money than they spend.
posted
The problem is, of course, that public schools don't spend the same amount on each child. Some they spend more on, and quite simply, those are the kids with various disabilities.
However, vouchers amounts are based on the average. This means most of the kids who can afford to leave the school are the ones the school is, effectively under state funding formulas, "making" its money off of in order to educate kids with disabilities.
Now, vouchers may very well cause a (small) rise in test scores, overall, but there may very well be a huge cost in the loss of a right to education among disabled kids in poorer areas.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, I'm not a proponent of the voucher system, but it doesn't compare to welfare entitlement.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:School Vouchers are an "Entitlement" program based ont he belief that parents who send their kids off to private schools are entitled to public school tax money.
Which is NOT targeted to wealthy people, who can send their kids to private school anyway.
quote:Social Security Reform is being spun, since its your retirement money, you should be ENTITLED to invest it as you wish.
Entitled? To control your own money? How gauche!
quote:Most Corporate "Welfare" is based on the idea that, since the big companies are bringing in Jobs, they are Entitled to not pay any taxes.
It's not a question of entitlement, it's a question of efficiency of capital. Do you know how many business decisions are made not because of what will produce the most economic return but how to accomodate taxation?
quote:President Bush's Tax Cut that favored the wealthy was explained away that, since the wealthy paid the most in taxes, they were ENTITLED to bigger cuts.
This is why I hate discussing the government budget - people talk about a tax cut as if the government is giving something away. They're taking less.
posted
Actually, I haven't figured out who did it, but the American people have been brainwashed into thinking they are giving the government money for their own retirement. I don't understand why they think that, but they do. It's like they think that the government takes money out of their check and puts into a personal investment fund for their retirement.
People, Social Security is an act of faith. Conservatives are big on faith, aren't they? You are currently paying into the system to pay for people like your parents who are on Social Security. And when you retire, your kids will be paying for you. It's always been this way.
The only problem is that the baby boomers all came at the same time, and their kids didn't have nearly enough kids to keep this pyramid scheme going. They have the same problem in much of Europe.
But the point is, you aren't entitle to your social security. That money you are paying isn't yours. It's the people's who are currently retired. You need to make sure you have lots of kids if you want to get your money back. That's the problem with pyramid schemes. The suckers that enter late always get the shaft.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, I haven't figured out who did it, but the American people have been brainwashed into thinking they are giving the government money for their own retirement. I don't understand why they think that, but they do. It's like they think that the government takes money out of their check and puts into a personal investment fund for their retirement.
Regardless of the actual mechanics, the way benefit levels are set makes the idea of personal savings much closer in results than the way you described it. The more you work, and the higher your salary (up to a certain point), the higher your benefit. Why? Because you put more into the system.
posted
Interestingly enough, taxes just aren't that simple.
If the government were to take exactly a certain percentage of money from everyone, but not spend it at all (remember, we're talking hypotheticals here), the net effect on the economy would be . . . precisely the cost of the book keeping it introduced. In that sense, it wouldn't matter if the government took half your money, they'd be taking very little in value (granted, and giving back nothing, but again, intellectual exercise). And as money is by fiat here, one could hardly call that part taking something as the money belongs to the government, and the value the money holds was left with the original owners.
Precisely because money != value and the nature of taxation is so complex it is not understood, it is unclear to what degree taxation removes value in different situations (which is really all that matters).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, Social Security pay-ins are capped at a certain salary, making it an effectively regressive tax.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Social Security Reform is being described as a way of improving your retirment fund. Social Security is supposed to be a safety net, to catch those who would otherwise starve or have to beg to survive after retirement. It was never supposed to replace private pension plans or private retirement funds.
Dan, I'm sure you've seen how much money goes out of your paycheck for Social Security. It is a lot, almost as much as taxes. I understood that everyone is supposed to get social security. What is the benefit of us having the government forcibly take control of our money and poorly plan it for us, simply for the sake of having a fall back plan? Frankly, it makes planning a real retirement more difficult Why shouldn't we be able to control our own money?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, Social Security pay-ins are capped at a certain salary, making it an effectively regressive tax.
Yes. It's one of the problems with it.
The first thing they need to do is remove disability from the same pot, and budget those needs as they happen.
The second thing they need to do is decide if we'll have a pay-as-you-go system, or a save-for-the-future system. Right now we get some of the worst aspects (or, at least, most expensive aspects) of both.
It is especially grating that some disabled people growing up are told by their educators and some by their parents not too worry too much, because they will automatically get Social Security.
I know it isn't being put into a personal retirement fund, but still it irritates me because it has always been represented as for when we retire. And the actual preaching of entitlement in schools bothers me a great deal as well.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, Social Security pay-ins are capped at a certain salary, making it an effectively regressive tax.
And yet those who meet the requirements for lower (or no) taxes due to their poverty still have to pay SS in full.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:School Vouchers are an "Entitlement" program based ont he belief that parents who send their kids off to private schools are entitled to public school tax money.
In my area, the poor minorities vote in favor of vouchers, almost as a block. A democrat in D.C. that doesn't support vouchers doesn't stand a chance of winning a post as garbage man.
As for myself-- I'm against the privatization of Social Security (though, the government REALLY needs to work on banishing the idea that it can be counted on for retirement), because I believe that society needs to support those that cannot work any longer. I don't begrudge the money, and I don't count on having it for me in the future. I HOPE that it's being utilized well now-- if it's being wasted, I'd prefer to see efforts directed at making it a more efficient program rather than making sure I get my share in the future.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
