My first experience with the word “entitled” to mean spoilt was in a psychiatric context, to avoid using value-laden words like “spoilt”, etc. Don’t have the energy to check, but I recall its appearance in DSM V, maybe in describing BPD.
So I suspect it has been co-opted for political purposes from a legitimate context.
[Bolding mine]
If you said to me that someone is entitled… for example:
“John is entitled.”
The first thing I would think is, “Entitled to what?” and I would ask you that.
Yes. For the alternative meaning, one would write “John feels entitled.”
Should we add simple English usage to the long list of the bitter issues dividing the increasingly polarized U.S.A.? 
Yes, I agree with you. People never have a problem with their own entitlements, they just don’t like ‘those people’ demanding what they are entitled to. Mainly because they see anything that is an advantage to others to be a disadvantage to themselves.
Facebook memes on Social Security are among the worst of Facebook memes.
One goes “Make Congress pay back the $(insert whatever number you want) TRILLION that it stole from Social Security”. No, Congress didn’t steal the money. When SS runs a surplus, it buys T bills. When it goes into deficit spending, it can cash them in. The money is still on the books as an asset.
Another goes “If you worked for 40 years averaging 50K and invested the SS that you and your employer paid, you'd have (insert large number) which would give you $X per month if you just take out 3% per year. And the average SS check is only $Y! It’s a PONZI SCHEME!” Jesus. I tried to replicate the math and came up with a much smaller number as the meme grossly overestimates the amount paid in taxes and the earnings they could have made, and the average SS check is irrelevant to the comparison to their $50K per year for 40 years example.
These Facebook memes are meant to undermine confidence in Social Security. The genius of them is that they are created by those that want to destroy it but shared by millions who are concerned about losing it.
The truth is that Republicans have been trying to destroy Social Security for 80 years, and they’re getting desperate as their stranglehold on power is about to be lost. Don’t believe any Facebook meme about SS and don’t believe any Republican about SS.
It’s an “entitlement” to someone who thinks we pay too much for it or that it shouldn’t exist.
My subsidy is another matter entirely.
Nobody “demands” a real or actual entitlement.
The calculations may or may not be off on the margins: when I did the calculations it indeed looks like one would come out ahead by investing. However, it does assume that there is enough room in the economy to meaningfully invest an additional amount almost equal to what’s currently in the stock market. My guess is that it would unlock only a limited number of investments, and would mostly dilute the existing ones and cause the actual yield on these new post-SS investments to drop far down. Existing investors would make out like bandits of course with so much money chasing a limited number of equities.
And that’s even avoiding the caveat that the system was meant mostly to ensure people weren’t flat broke in retirement, which investing would not guarantee.
People are often denied what they are entitled to.
That’s new one on me. Can you give an example?
Many groups of people have been denied their Constitutional rights based on the color of their skin. Women have been denied their rights just based on their gender. Even when this was seen as unjust it was often accompanied by the idea that it just wasn’t time to change things. The right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to equal protection under the law are entitlements, and people have been denied what they were entitled to, and when they have eventually received what they were entitled to it wasn’t because they sat around and waited, it’s because they demanded to have what they were entitled to.
You seem to be under some misunderstanding about what an entitlement actually is, in the context of this thread. Your statement, while certainly true, has nothing to do with the definition or administration of entitlements. In specific cases where an entitlement was wrongly denied, there was a law, rule or regulation wrongly made or applied to support enacting such denial.
So now I will request a “specific” example, or cite, as t’were.
I’m not understanding what you see as a difference. Jim Crow laws were used to deny people what they were entitled to. Can you give me an example of what you consider an entitlement that is somehow different? I am talking about the denial of entitlements, whether through statute or otherwise. If there is a Constitutionally sound denial of an entitlement to someone, they aren’t entitled, and there is no entitlement to deny.
An entitlement is formalized by law, rule or regulation - such as Jim Crowe laws, just like you said.
People denied under Jim Crowe were not entitled, by definition. Sure it was wrong, but that’s not what this thread is about. Maybe you should start a new thread about civil rights entitlement miscues?
They were entitled because the Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional. I don’t know what you are getting at. You are either entitled to something or not. Sometimes people have been denied what they were entitled to. If they were not entitled they weren’t denied.
Sorry you are not getting it. :rolleyes:
SSA did a study that calculated the rate of return by income group and filing status. For very low income people the return is around 4-4.5%, for low income around 3-3.5%, for medium 2-2.5%, and for high income its around 1.5-2%.
By comparisonthe 20 year returns for the S&P 500 is 8.2%, and the Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index returns 5.3% for 20 years.
Thank you, Ludovic. Big existing stockholders are certainly rooting for the SS-stock market boondoggle, since SocSec funds would perforce follow the ‘Buy High - Sell Low’ strategy. Another, admittedly simplistic, way to grasp the illogic is to reflect that U.S. Treasury long bonds are not undervalued: the interest rate is set by the free market.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I followed this sub-debate and all I can do at this point is remark that **TriPolar’**s rubber and BeenJammin’s glue. 
I don’t doubt that one theoretically could do somewhat better by investing, however the meme grossly overestimates what one would put in (lumping the Medicare tax in the mix and ignoring lower past contribution rates). Moreover, it completely ignores the disability insurance benefit and the portion of the contribution that supports that.
And many thanks for contributing to the paralipsis in this thread, as well! 