Does it not fit the definition? (It actually uses SS as an example in the last definition.) I don't think that fits the definitions. SS is an entitlement program. "An entitlement is a provision made in accordance with a legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement. Entitlement can also be informally to do with social relationships, social conventions and social norms. Entitlement - Wikipedia" It has nothing to do with being poor. It is government mandated "rights" for everyone. Some programs only benefit the poor but many (most?) are for everyone. Semantics. I think the media has tried to make the word "entitlement" a dirty and dividing one for quite some time. Left and Right wing media have been using two completely different definitions of the word when yelling back and forth and making accusations. They are barely even speaking the same language. Agree that it has been poorly managed. It would be nice if people could opt out....or only get back what they have put in to the program. If someone was a lazy and irresponsible person their entire life and never paid anything in then they should get nothing out of the program. (Is that the way it works now or do worthless pricks still get a minimum payment no matter what they contributed?)
I would agree that SS is an entitlement program in the same way that my savings accounts, company retirement annuities (as oks large company fixed payout pensions are handled today) and 401K are my own personal “entitlement” programs. Yes, then SS is in the same group. However, true socialist programs such as European health care are also “entitlements”, even for people who never paid in. So, only one perspective of “entitlement” can be correct. I think the definition posted is so broad as to eliminate differentiation between people who earn and people who only take. Words matter, a lot. Due to lack of such differentiation, many people view SS recipients as people who benefit only due to the generosity of the American taxpayer. Something that can be taken away. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm afraid that words can have more than one meaning. Also, I thought that, like the European health care (not sure there is such a thing, I thought each country has their own healthcare program), Americans could pull a SS pension even if they have basically contributed nothing into SS. It won't be much, but they will still get something. I think you are under the impression that you get back what you put in. It isn't like that to my understanding. Some people contribute much more than they take out, others take more than they put in. (I pay in $860/month to SS. I'll never get that back out. I would love it if I got back what I put in, but it will never happen.) So yes, I see SS as an "entitlement" program (using your definition of entitlement).
Per the Social Security Administration: https://www.ssa.gov/sf/FactSheets/aianssavsssifinalrev.pdf The Social Security benefit programs are “entitlement” programs. This means that workers, employers and the self-employed pay for the benefits with their Social Security taxes. The taxes that are collected are put into special trust funds. You qualify for these benefits based on your work history (or your spouse or parent). The amount of the benefit is based on these earnings.
Like I said and Roosevelts statements backed up. SS was created to be a filler to stabalize people's retirement from downs in the economy or pension. It was created to assist but NOT as someone's sole retirement. That was the common belief on it as well until the 90's when Dems started a far deeper socialist agenda. To draw SS you were required to have 40 SS credits or your spouse because a family unit and all so a wife would receive credit for her husbands work but this was meant in the event of his death or departure at an elderly age. Later SSDI was created which quite honestly wasn't related to SS but to make it easier to steal funds for its use and other uses the SS part was added to disability insurance and you had to have 20 credits. However later on waivers were allowed as a way to bypass the legal requirements which were designed to fill very rare cases but later twisted by liberals to include non citizens who recently immigrated at an elderly age. You could NOT legally draw SS by the law without having contributed the minimum amount of credits. This would make it NOT an entitlement but more of an investment or retirement insurance investment. Further when it was created it was designed for those who's income fell below a certain threshold supporting the idea of it being more of a retirement insurance when sh*t went downhill but later.
