Republicans have turned “entitlements” into quite a negative thing, something that comes about because lazy and shiftless Americans feel “entitled” to something (that Republicans feel they don’t really deserve).
But then some claim that these “entitlements” include things that we all paid into and I find it difficult to believe that I don’t “deserve” Social Security when I paid into it all my life. Or Medicare, which I also paid into my whole life.
And if we go with the “corporations are people, my friend” school of thought, what about corporate “entitlements”? Republicans don’t seem to being that up very much.
It seems to me that before we can debate on eliminating or cutting funds for something, we should first have a working definition of what it is. So what’s an “entitlement?”
The problem is that “entitlement” has multiple meanings, and they are being confused. There’s “sense of entitlement” which is often used to mean that the person doesn’t really deserve what they feel entitled to and there’s “entitlement program” which refers to a program where all eligible receive the benefit (such as Social Security). Because all eligible receive the benefit, it can be difficult to predict how much the program will cost each year. There are other programs, such as Section 8 housing assistance , which have a set amount of funding which means that some eligible people will not receive the benefit due to the funds running out.
“Entitlement”, generally stated in the plural, is defined as a modern conservative trick-word for “Social security, medicare and medicaid.” It’s used to avoid saying that you want to cut pensions and health care.
Though admittedly, it’s also used to cover non-discretionary non-military, non-interest spending. Interest payments are never defined as entitlements.
What I wrote on a friend’s facebook thread a couple of weeks ago:
*One problem is that the economic conservatives have cleverly used semantic judo to turn the word “entitlement” into a shibboleth. “Entitlement,” in the context of government spending simply means “money that the government is obliged to pay to entities who are entitled to it.” The payment of some contracts for services rendered, for instance, is actually a form of entitlement spending.
But in a totally different context, the word “entitlement” can be used to describe a pathology of a narcissistic personality disorder wherein the subject feels he has a right to receive endlessly, without personally contributing anything. The semantic judo comes in when the two meanings are conflated, such that any participation by an individual in a program that pays out benefits to people who have paid into the program (such as SS and Medicare) can be framed as “a selfish undeserving brute is at the gates with a bunch of fellow thugs, demanding unfettered access to the Nation’s treasury.”
And this is why we need GOOD teachers in our schools; so our kids can learn the critical thinking skills that will help them to NOT fall for that kind of crap.*
How does this quote - which according to many on the right was not a guy caught pandering with his pants down but a guy speaking an unfortunate truth - be interpreted that those who desire/require/demand/deserve “entitlements” are anything positive? You can’t. You really can’t.
If you want to discuss any of those cites, quote the parts that you think support your thesis. I’m not interested in wading through them to see if they do or not.
Yeah, I remember that well enough. And I remember that he was vilified by many in his own party for that statement. Your own cite, which you say supports it, does nothing of the sort. Let’s quote a few passages:
The intent is to induce an emotional reaction to a rational debate. Of course. And by doing so, avoid the debate but create a negative environment around it.
It’s anti-intellectual in the, now, GOP tradition.
I thought entitlements, in the context of government spending, was that spending that didn’t have to be re-upped every year. Contrast that with discretionary spending, such as military spending, foreign aid, paying for dirty artwork, funding muppets, and so on.
Romney said what he said and many in the GOP supported him for it.
The sites all show prominent Republicans - all potential nominees for President or the nominee himself or the right wing media - saying entitlements were bad, that people relying on them is bad, that too many people rely on them and are happy to rely on them. Sorry you cannot click links to see this. But I already quoted them all that needed to be to make my point.
I had the misfortune of seeing Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich on Fox News ask “Have we become a handout nation” while at work one day after the election. You really think these two clowns were saying entitlements were hunky dory? Spoiler: They weren’t.
Fuck man, just look up “entitlement society” on Google to see the narrative or those responding to the narrative (not anyone denying the narrative exists). You think that term is one of endearment?
I don’t know what kind of cognitive dissonance it takes to not have heard this or believe it despite a ton of citations, but if it’s not pretty obvious to you then there’s nothing left to talk about. Feel free to leave this thread feeling vindicated that the GOP loves entitlements and those who use them… :rolleyes:
Oh? They vilified him? Because I seem to remember them saying that his statement, though “inelegantly spoken”, was pretty much correct.
I know there are a couple of people in that article that call him a jackass for saying it, but there are a lot more who are saying “yeah, how he said it was bad, but it raises an important point…entitlements!”
“Entitlement” doesn’t sound bad to me. It’s just shorthand for government provided benefits like Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure there are many Republicans who feel that some subset of people are “lazy and shiftless” and are gaming the system, but I don’t see any evidence most Republicans believe that most people receiving those benefits are “lazy and shiftless”.
If someone wants to whine about the mean old Republicans winning yet another semantic war, that’s all fine and good. But the fact of the matter is, the term has entered the American lexicon. My advice would be to focus on the next semantic battle and see if you can win that one. Or, many Democrats have embraced the term “Obamacare” and and run with it. If it’s a popular program (and both Social Security and Medicare are), then you’re not going to make people dislike it by playing with semantics. You’re damn right I’m “entitled” to Social Security-- I paid into the system with every paycheck I earned!
Huh, my OP never used the phrase “most Republicans” at all - yet you underline it as if it’s an important point! Interesting that you are debating something that wasn’t actually said!
Although the fact is that the guy they chose to run for President felt this way. And most of the guys who were in the running also felt that way. As do the pundits at Fox News and RedState.com.
So it’s certainly fair to say that there is no shortage of prominent Republicans who feel this way.
There is certainly a strong strain that runs in the GOP which is averse to creating what they call a “culture of dependency”, in which Democrats create ever increasing benefits (or entitlements) that get more and more people “hooked on handouts”. In it’s crassest form, you can hear it when Romney talked about voters getting gifts from Obama. That’s different from saying recipients of programs like Social Security are “lazy and shiftless”.
Oh, and if you want to see one of the semantic wars the Democrats did win, just look at the use of the term “Bush tax cuts”. Nothing wrong with trying to frame the debate, and maybe the Democrats would do well to work harder on that. But you gotta let go of “entitlements”. That train has left the station-- just do a google search and you’ll see it used by every major news outlet in the US.
This was the Republican Presidential candidate. This is what he said. Those words. You really think getting “lazy and shiftless” is out of line when he said the bolded things? Really?
Lazy isn’t “(They) believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it – that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them?”
Shiftless (defined as lazy and lacking ambition) isn’t “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility?”
Really?
Do you like to use bendy straws when grasping at them? You know, to get a better grip or something?
And the “entitlement” train hasn’t left the station since entitlement reform is a major theme in what Republicans want from Obama in our very current fiscal cliff negotiations. From the very recent date of yesterday:
So… If as you said it’s just framing the debate, then we must define it. So I repeat: What’s an entitlement?
Other than something unspecified that many prominent Republicans don’t think many Americans deserve? (Which is the case whether you acknowledge it or not.)
No, I don’t agree that “lazy and shiftless” is an accurate paraphrase of what Romney said. And I don’t really think it even matters because his comment is not reflective of mainstream Republican thinking. He has become irrelevant to the political process so soon after his lost election, in large part because of his gaffe about the 47% and the “gifts” Obama used to buy votes.
Yes, "entitlement’ reform is a major them of what the GOP wants from Obama, but trying to get people to not use that term is a lost cause. That train has left the station.
As to what’s an entitlement, it’s a government program, based on legislation that isn’t up for renewal every year, that takes money out of the taxes raised by the government and distribute it to the citizens as a benefit. The big 3 are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Some others would be: Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, anything that is mandated by law to be paid out in the future. I think wikipedia says it pretty well:
Note that The Big 3 make up 43% of the Federal Budget. And note that those 3 will equal all tax revenues by about 2070, according to the GAO.. Hence the need to reign that spending in. Actually, hence the need to reign in all spending, including Defense. So, call them anything you like-- golden gifts from government or the barest needs for survival-- they are huge and growing.
