The money I've put into my 401k is mine. I'm entitled to take it out.

The money I pay into social security is also mine. I'm entitled to take it out.

The obvious difference is that the 401k contributions are voluntary, and the social security contributions are not.

Key word Yankee was "extent". I do believe people pay much more into SS than they do Medicare...maybe not in some circumstances. I know this is hard to do for some, but I think it's reasonable to believe Romney wasn't simply calling anyone who doesn't pay taxes or is on some form of entitlement (whatever the definition) a leech sucking the gov't dry. I think it's a lot more reasonable to see that he was basically saying that he can't expect much support from the types of people that WILLINGLY rely on gov't assistance. I know you've complained about that group here as well, but clearly that group doesn't constitute 47% of anything. Romney clearly jumbled up that number with other groups, but I think it's disingenuous to say he truly thinks folks on SS, military benefits, medicare, etc, are just a bunch of useless castoffs to him.

Just like the old "redistribution" clip by Obama, these snippets are the WRONG reasons that people use to base their vote on. People get caught up in a quote without thinking about what a candidate 1) really wants to do based on details like Romney's 50 page economic plan or 2) actually can do based on his limited powers in the executive branch, like tax code modifications that ultimately have to be passed by congress.

This is why if Obama is re-elected I'm not going to jump over a cliff. No matter what he might truly want to do if he were "king", he won't be able to because congress will and has already vetoed down some of his more unviable ideas. Going back to what DF said, the system itself is not productive or responsive enough anymore. Campaigns are full of lies, filtered through biased coverage, and are decided by voters largely looking out for themselves rather than what's best for the country. It doesn't much matter who is president for 4-8 years, because the problems we have are going to last much longer and will require a consistent approach through several terms. That approach won't be taken seriously until the bubble bursts, when sick or retired people start dying off sooner without medical care or a retirement that they worked their ass for their whole life...when young people (the ones that actually worked hard) still can't find a job because all business is overseas or bought out by other countries owning our debt...when the level of truly unproductive leeches on society cannot be sustained any longer through welfare or prison. I really think that time will come around the time I retire, and I have an equal expectation of losing my retirement due to economic collapse as I do of being able to live off of it. The next dummy in office, lib or con, will not change that because we as a people do not take these things seriously enough to change our political system or spending habits. The medicine people refuse to take now will be jammed down their throats twice as hard in 20 years. I'll be learning how to grow wheat, peanuts, and make bread in the meantime.

No, it's not reasonable, considering that 47% are people who actually NEED the gov't assistance and DESERVE it. Saying that they won't vote for him means that he obviously has a plan that goes against their assistance that they deserve.

Away from:

Troops
Disabled
Elderly on SS
Students
People making 20k or less a year who pay a payroll tax

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

If you really believe Romney wants to take assistance away from all those groups you listed there's no point in any further discussion.

He won't be able to take those programs away. But he basically said those people are reliant on the government and insulted them. In the video. CLEARLY. That's the 47%.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

In the same vein, if you think someone who wants to be president of the united states should have such disdain for half the population, if you think it's appropriate for him to think that they "Don't care for their lives", then there's no point in further discussion.

That Romney video is hardly a snippet.

“The biggest problems with the denizens of Bullshit Mountain is… If they had success they built it. If they failed, the government ruined it for them. If they get a break they deserve it. If you get a break, it’s a handout and an entitlement. It’s a baffling, willfully blind cognitive dissonance.”

jon stewart.

_________________

_________________

Except SSI under the auspices of Social Security will provide benefits to people who haven't paid SS tax.

And you're not "entitled" to have a 401k...if you were, everyone would have one.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

FFS, XC, he didn't say he's entitled to have a 401k, he's entitled to the money he's contributed.

_________________

You're correct of course, but I wasn't going to bother with the discussion.

There's a fundamental difference in how people interpret the word 'entitlement' in today's society. It's misused and abused to no end.

Conservatives are happy to scream about any money the government gives to someone ELSE as an entitlement, but don't have a word to say about any government money that flows their way.

No, that's not what you said.
You said "by definition my 401k is an entitlement"

It's not. It's an employee benefit...you're not entitled to matching funds from your employer and you're only entitled to the money you contribute in the same way you're entitled to the money in your savings account.

Maybe there is a problem with the word entitlement, but since those on the left are paralyzed when the topic comes up this shit will never get fixed and it desperately needs to. That should be freely admitted by anyone who espouses loyalty to those on the receiving end of these government programs.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

It's not just the left.

If I retired today, I'd have my 401k money, Social Security income, and Medicare access.

The right would call me a leech on society because I'm taking social security and medicare, both of which I would have paid into my entire working life.

Here's the reality though...you're not retiring today.
You're retiring well after the projected insolvency of both of those programs. The left argues for the status quo, therefore they don't want you to get any of your money back.
The Democrats plan is to stick their head in the sand and pretend there is no problem.

I call that willful ignorance and they're misleading the public on the issue of entitlements.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Social Security will, as currently constructed, never become insolvent. At it's absolute worst, it will simply be forced to reduce benefits.

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/ ... 001&lidx=2
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/tr2012.pdf

Oh, so you mean the money you've dutifully paid in your whole life you won't get back?
Thanks for proving my point.


Furthermore, the rate at which SS is sliding towards this outcome is increasing.


But that's not coming from me, it's coming from the known right-wing ideologues like Tim Geithner and the LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/24 ... t-20120424

and Democrats have no plan to address the facts of this problem.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I'm totally ok with that.

Even if SS remained paying out 100% of scheduled benefits, I'd still never get all the money I paid into it back. I look at the difference as an insurance premium towards the rest of the social security benefits that I'll hopefully never have to use.

Dems have not come up with a decent plan aside from raising the wage base a little bit, but we all know that's a non starter because the disciples of Grover Norquist think that a 3% tax increase phased in over 50 years is the same thing as punching babies in the face, the no Republican would ever dare consider it. However, the Republican privatization plan is WORSE than doing nothing, so if you're going to shit on the democrats for having no/a crappy plan, you should shit on the republicans for providing an equally shitty option.

It doesn't affect me much. In addition to my normal 401k contributions, where I set an income target way above my current income, I contribute extra into my IRA to offset the entirety of what social security would pay me when I retire. I'm simply assuming it's not going to be there because of two reasons.

1. If we do nothing, it will be at a reduced payout.
2. If we do what the left wants, it will still be there.
3. If we do what the right wants, it will probably be zero.

No matter what, I'm covered.

Funny, I must have missed this democratic plan, it must be hiding under the last 3 years of budgets.

The Democrats don't have a plan other than to vilify whatever someone on the right proposes.
As I've said before, maybe vouchers are a horrible idea, maybe taxes need to be raised, we won't ever know what may or may not fly because the entire issue is a non-starter for Democrats.

And really, "reduced payout"?
Give me a break, after the next 20 years of baby boomers working their way through the system there will be jack squat left.
Certainly not anything someone can live off of or consider a viable safety net.
That's what happens when a Ponzi scheme goes upside-down.

And no matter what, I'm covered too...I'm not concerned about you and me, I'm concerned about a couple of the largest ticket items in our unsustainable balance sheet.

Hell, anyone under 45 who's banking on SS is crazy and fooling themselves.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I thought Libertarians hated things like Social Security.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual