Well, I think you’re wrong. I say this using a complicated method where I know the definition of words. This is all above. I’ll let an impartial observer make their own determination, which they can do with a very rare textbook called a dictionary.
That’s fine with me.
Do you know what an entitlement is yet? I think that for all intents and purposes we can say that it’s The Big 3. They make up the lions share of mandatory spending (other than interest on the debt).
Well, of course they have…it’s politics after all, and it strikes a cord, especially with their base. It’s buzzword BINGO!, political style. Sort of like how Democrats have turned ownership of a personal firearm into something that is ‘quite a negative thing’. As with Republicans, not ALL Democrats have done this…but enough that it’s associated with their party. And for exactly the same reasons the Republicans are trying to turn ‘entitlements’ into a negative…because it resonates with the base, and keeps them hungry and riled.
All that’s true…which is why it’s an ‘entitlement’. You are (and obviously feel) you are entitled to it. The issue with the Republicans who are whining about this isn’t YOU getting your Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid…you paid into the system your whole life, as you said. The problem from their perspective is that they feel, rightfully or wrongfully, that many who haven’t paid into it, or haven’t paid in enough, are getting the benefits of it anyway…and THAT is where they are turning ‘entitlement’ into a negative. People feel entitled even though they haven’t paid into it.
Now, how big a problem this actually is could certainly be debated or at least quantified, but that’s what they are getting at…people receiving and feeling they are entitled to programs that they didn’t earn or pay for through their labor and taxes. I see this theme all the time in the rants of my dad and his constant rumblings about ‘skin in the game’, etc etc.
No idea what you are getting at. If it’s about the bail outs, let me just point out that most of the sane Democrats were in favor of them as well, if we are talking about the evil banks during the financial melt down. In fact, I’d guess that most Democrats (the sane ones) were more comfortable with them that Republicans were, despite the attempt to paint Republicans as being ‘pro-business’, and Democrats and being…er, well something else. Gods know.
I very reluctantly went along with the bank bailouts only because so many really, really smart people said we absolutely had to do it. And, remarkably, all (or almost all) of that money has been paid back. Whether it was needed or not, we’ll probably never know. But we did get the money back.
Same here. I had friends in the banking and financial industry that had a clue (unlike me) about what was going on and who were saying it needed to happen or else…well, a lot of stuff that scared the shit out of me at the time. And as you say, most of the money has been paid back…heck, I think the government might have made some money on some of it.
It does seem to be a rant point for certain left wing and Democrat types, however, so that’s why I mentioned it.
We certainly hear the term “corporate welfare” all the time, and I, for one, think that’s reasonable terminology. And I’m against it. This is usually in the form of tax breaks, which are good/bad if you’re a Republican/Democrat or in the form of Solyndra-like hand-outs (aka, investments) which are good/bad if you’re a Democrat/Republican (generally speaking). I say to hell with all of it!
Corporate entitlements:
Three video clips combine to make one Jon Stewart bit at his best - I suggest you watch them all - but the third one articulates corporate entitlements quite well: Fox News points out the “entitlement society” who is “lazy and dependent” (not shiftless, but you know, I like that word better anyway)… Those Welfare Queens at 250 corporations that got nearly a quarter trillion in federal tax subsidies… The Wall Street firms given access to discounted borrowing rates… Five billion in direct payments to “moocher” farmers… The tax breaks the government gives the investor class…
So yes, there is a ton of Corporate Welfare out there. I wonder if corporations are people, why these entitlements don’t come under the same scrutiny as entitlements for actual people.
So how come these aren’t entitlements?
Corporations aren’t people, regardless of what Romney said. And that whole meme is getting really, really tiresome. I know a lot of people around here think they sound clever repeating it, but trust me-- they don’t.
[QUOTE=John_Stamos’_Left_Ear]
Three video clips combine to make one Jon Stewart bit at his best - I suggest you watch them all - but the third one articulates corporate entitlements quite well: Fox News points out the “entitlement society” who is “lazy and dependent” (not shiftless, but you know, I like that word better anyway)… Those Welfare Queens at 250 corporations that got nearly a quarter trillion in federal tax subsidies… The Wall Street firms given access to discounted borrowing rates… Five billion in direct payments to “moocher” farmers… The tax breaks the government gives the investor class…
[/QUOTE]
I’ll see if I can watch them tonight in my hotel room. If nothing else, Stewart is amusing. But, that’s really the point…he’s, you know, an entertainer who is trying to make a joke, not a serious authority on the subject.
I realize it’s a matter of cannon by the faithful that all this corporate welfare is for the rich to further milk the system, but that begs the question about why the Democrats equally support it…in fact, you see libertarians and liberals converging on this particular point. Do you find that interesting?
Personally, I’m with John on this one…I’d lose no tears over doing away with the things. Go for it. I think that the results would be different than you think they would be, however…it wouldn’t be a huge hit to The Rich™, and instead would actually be more of a hit to working people. It’s counter intuitive, and obviously it depends on exactly which ‘corporate welfare’ we are talking about (it’s situational, and pretty variable).
Because corporations aren’t getting a free ride, since they pay taxes (whether federal or local), provide jobs (with people who also pay taxes) and otherwise pay their way in one way or another…though, again, it’s going to depend on WHICH ‘corporate welfare’ we are talking about. Some of it’s pure pork, no doubt…but at the trough you will assuredly find a politician, probably several, from either political party, having a hand in the barrel.
I think we should start a campaign to refer to dividends as entitlements. The right of the rich to their dividends is on the same level as the right of the working class to their Social Security.
In a previous thread, we told each other what media sources we used for our news. Save me a search, John Mace: where do you get yours?
I do Google search “definition:entitle” to get
*en·ti·tle
/enˈtītl/
Verb
- Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
en·ti·tle·ment
/enˈtītlmənt/
Noun
- The fact of having a right to something.
That the right-wing uses “entitlement” to “whizz” (!) on the working-class is not in doubt. For example (although he didn’t happen to use the word in “entitlement” in that sentence), Bill O’Reilly whines that “people who elected Obama are (non-traditional) Americans who want things.”
Let’s do start referring to dividends as “entitlements” ! 
Septimus: Mostly NPR and the PBS NewHour for TV. Print: San Jose Merc ad the NYT. Internent… not much, mostly here or Yahoo News. I used to have MNBC as my go-to cable news outlet, but that was before they tried to be the left version of Fox. Now, I don’t watch much of any cable news.
And thanks for editing my post to distort the meaning. I have no idea why you would do that. Are you trying to say that you don’t think “entitlement” is used by all the major news outlets? I see it all over the place. Often as “entitlement spending”. “Culture of Dependency” is something one hears from certain Republicans, but I don’t think it’s part of the American lexicon like 'entitlement spending" is.
The definition you are offering for entitlement is pretty much what I said upthread, I think.
How precisely does one recognize “mainstream Republican thinking”? I mean, I’d have thought that their Presidential candidate would be, by definition, pretty mainstream. But apparently not. Should I just judge based on random signs seen at Tea Party rallies, or something?
How often do you hear any Republican repeating it? If it were mainstream, I think you’d hear it quite a bit. If not, then not.
[QUOTE=septimus]
I think we should start a campaign to refer to dividends as entitlements. The right of the rich to their dividends is on the same level as the right of the working class to their Social Security.
[/QUOTE]
Um…why? Start off by explaining what YOU think a ‘dividend’ is, since I can’t for the life of me see how this analogy works to be honest.
I agree. But let’s let him try, and report back in a year or so on his results. I’ll be on the edge of my seat until we know!
IIRC the coalition that passed the bailouts were most democrats and moderate Republicans, with Bush helping. I guess some of the more leftwing Democrats might have been against it, and Occupy people are, but most of the opposition was on the right.
When I think of business entitlements I think of oil depletion allowances and farm subsidy payments for mega corporate farms. That could be called corporate welfare, not worrying for the moment about the justification for it.
They weren’t mad at Romney for saying it, they were mad at him for getting caught saying it. Even most Republicans are smart enough not to insult a huge chunk of the electorate to their faces.
If the government gives it to me, it is deserved. If the government gives it to you, it is Socialism. You need to keep up, man.
An entitlement is (by definition) a payment to which a person is legally entitled.
A dividend is a payment to which a person is legally entitled.
A Social Security stipend is a payment to which a person is legally entitled.
(ETA: Obviously only some people – shareholders – are entitled dividends, just as only some people are entitled to SocSec.)
Touchy today! I didn’t mean to distort your meaning… You did seem to be supporting the false meaning that right-wingers have attached to “entitlement.” Why don’t you make amends by making a more useful contribution to the question “Are dividends and SocSec stipends both entitlements?”
I’m slightly flabbergasted by the fact that our right-wingers cannot understand this analogy (even for their lives). Let me take it slowly.
A dividend is analogous, in the sense of legally entitled payment, to interest on a bond or receipt from a purchased annuity.
Such an annuity is analogous, in the sense of legally entitled payment, to receipt from a defined-benefits pension plan.
Social Security is a defined-benefits pension plan.
That XT and John Mace were unable to make this connection truly flabbergasts me. I hope they will explain. I sure hope it’s not as moronically simple as “Private pensions good. Guvmint bad.”