I'm sorry, Adam, but as soon as I hear you say "entitlements", I get enraged. I worked for every penny I'm getting on Social Security. It is NOT an entitlement!
I don't care what the government calls it. If they think it's an entitlement, then I AM ENTITLTED TO IT. IT'S MY MONEY, IT'S MY HUSBAND'S MONEY. THE GOVERNMENT ABUSED CONTINUOUS DEPOSIT EVERY WEEK AND DIPPED INTO IT SINCE TRUMAN. THAT'S NOT ON ME, THAT'S ON YOU.
I agree 100%! I'm glad you posted it so eloquently. Many of us rely on getting our money that was intended to come back to us in retirement. It is OUR MONEY, not an entitlement.
"In government and legal language, Social Security and Medicare are called "entitlements" because the law entitles (guarantees) benefits to anyone who meets the specific eligibility rules, such as age and paying enough payroll taxes. It is a technical budget term, not a judgment about whether you earned them." It's the politicians, particularly Repubs that have co-opted the word to mean something negative like the person didn't work and is getting a freebie.
I believe “entitled retirement benefits” is more appropriate than earned benefits. There are a lot of people who live longer then their money paid in will cover. Under those conditions, they haven’t really earned them, but under the Social Security act, they continue to receive them until I pass away. We have more centenarians now ever before and people will continue to live longer with all the advancements in modern medicine. Other people die young and they never receive any benefits and this money should be drawing interest and used to pay the people who are receiving more than they did contribute. Of course, with the increased life expectancy comes the problem of running out of money for care when you can no longer take care of yourself. This is where Medicaid comes in. The majority of the nursing homes have more Medicaid patients and they do Medicare patients. This is something that needs to be considered and planned for as well. Nothing has ever easy, and semantics can be confusing, but if you paid into Social Security for 40 quarters, you are entitled to get benefits from Social Security. However, in order to pay for Medicare part B, I believe, the money first comes out of your Social Security check so you think Social Security might be higher it doesn’t really rise that much since the average cola on Social Security 3% and the average amount of the additional cost of manicure every year is about 3% so becomes a wash. This is another problem. However, you have to have Medicare or a Medicare advantage plan. I’m in a accurate advantage plan through my employer. We don’t get a choice and I’m not happy about that but you have to have drug coverage so all that has to be considered.
I like Entitled Retirement Benefits better as well. It is a very involved process and depends where you individually fall when you retire. My husband & my Medicare comes out of our separate Social Security automatically as well. But our separate pick-up policy are paid by us each month. We set it up that way.
Don't let Republicans, even "reformed" ones, push you away from the word "entitlement." The fact is you ARE entitled to Social Security and Medicare BECAUSE you paid for it. If you paid for a TV, wouldn't you feel entitled to take it home? If you pay ANY insurance, don't you feel entitled to payments when you make a claim? Social Security and Medicare are no different. Don't let Republicans scare you off the word that defines the bargain the government made with its citizens: You pay the premiums, you are entitled to what you paid for.
You need to do a little more actuarial sniffing, actually. A small portion of what you get in Social Security is what YOU put into the system. A much, much larger portion is what OTHER people put into the system on your behalf, with the expectation born of a social contract that when it's their time, someone else will do the same for them as well.
Nothing is wrong with that kind of arrangement. It actually builds intergenerational trust, as well as political solvency, until the day comes when too many retirees survive on the backs of too few active workers. When it was inaugurated in 1935, one retiree was supported by about 13 active, working adults. Today, that ratio is closer to three, or even two, to one. You can thank longer life expectancy for that one.
Do the math. Yes, it will help if the absurd cap on Social Security taxes is removed. That's the easiest fix to make. But it isn't enough to restore full solvency. Something else has gotta give. The first is the attitude that "I earned every penny." You simply didn't. The more people educate themselves, the quicker we can move back to sitting at the table and figuring out a better way forward.
I feel that all social security payments are not equal. Some of us are forced to now live on under $2000 a month in today’s economy, and that IS what SS was intended to be; a safety net for those of us who were not able to succeed in securing our American dream before our older years hit. Then there are those whose monthly SS check is thousands of dollars that is supplementing their American dream lifestyles….those who can cut back, should.
The law that granted government workers who collect pensions to receive Social Security benefits they never paid into should have been "income tested." It would have helped Americans with smaller pensions rather than large ones, too. My sister collects an $80,000 a year teacher's pension and now gets half of her husband's Social Security check--an additional $1400 a month, complete with back pay. How does that make fiscal sense?🤷♂️
Why does that bother you? Her pension was paid for by her. Her husband SS was paid by him.
What makes sense is that the oligarch class pay more taxes. But they don't. It makes no sense to blame the small guy. But that is exactly what the WH regime and the oligarchs want us to do. One more thing, the WH guy is stealing our money.
Why? I guess because her husband still collects his full check, too--$2800 a month. If I collected on my husband's SS, I would lose my check, and I paid into SS my entire life just like my sister paid into her pension. But yes, Trump is stealing taxpayer money by the millions and increasing everyday expenses for all of us.
A spouse who does not get SS is entitled to half of the higher spouses SS. If that same person gets SS and it is lower than half of the partner's SS then they get up their SS to the half amount. If their spouse dies and their SS was higher than the person alive they can opt to switch their SS to the deceased spouse's SS. That's the law. If a person gets a pension or has any other 401K or any retirement benefit from a job that is money they earned from working and is not related to SS benefits.
Different buckets. If you had tucked your money back in various banks and investment accts., would you have wanted them to compare notes and then diminish your returns so that you were more equal with others who only put money in one bucket? I do believe some means testing should be enacted, though.
That is not true. A civil servant can’t get social security unless they’ve previously paid into it. My father got a civil service pension & small army pension, but the social security he received was calculated on the jobs he worked prior to his civil service work. My mother’s social security was larger that his, so she kept hers, and closed out my dad’s account when he passed.
I don’t see anything wrong with that. She is his wife. If she died 1st he would get her SS if it was more than his. You can’t keep both. And he’d get her pension too, if she got survivor benefits on her pension.
Actually I disagree a bit. What has happened is that certain people have made the word entitlement into something negative. But in my opinion, Social Security is an entitlement. Every damn person who paid into the system is ENTITLED by law to receive the benefits. So, my answer to those who argue that entitlements are always bad is to tell them to go to hell. Damn right it’s an entitlement and I ENTITLED to get my social security check. (Okay, I’m not collecting yet, but that’s not my real point.) I’m married, I am entitled to a faithful and kind spouse. I’m a mom and I’m entitled to brag about my kids. And I’m also entitled to the benefits that I paid into.
Here's a good definition:In government and legal language, Social Security and Medicare are called "entitlements" because the law entitles (guarantees) benefits to anyone who meets the specific eligibility rules, such as age and paying enough payroll taxes. It is a technical budget term, not a judgment about whether you earned them.
I agree with you, but they have not clarified that fact to the public at large. At least not to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong. But to stop the confusion about the name, they should explain it when you start putting into it, and again when you start to collect it. A simple letter would do.
it's the politicians that are misleading the public. you do get a letter when it is time to start collecting. and when you start a job they explain what will come out of your paycheck or they should. If they don't then the person should ask- it's their paycheck.
I was talking about the actual name of “Entitlements” that the Politicians use. I agree that the term entitlements is a term the politicians use is misleading &/or are confusing, which upsets people.
Why are government pensions never part of the discussion when talking about cutting retirement benefits? These pensions start years earlier, some as early as at age 50. The annual COLA is way greater than the 2-3% increase in SS benefits. And in many cases the government pensions are paid even while one is working. These government pensions are funded by taxpayer dollars. Taxpayer money pays for these pensions too and they should be included in any discussions of reducing the deficit. Why is that not the case?
I commend all the comments. Not to sound like Mr. M.O.T.O (master of the obvious) this is a complex issue, probably why no lasting solution has been tendered.
US gov't employee (active duty & civil servants) pensions have been altered (reduced) in the past. I don't remember the year of enactment(s), 1st ...active duty retirement pension calculations were changed to an average of the persons' last 3 years instead of their last (aka highest pay year). I'll admit that was more of "kick the can down the road effort). 2nd & again I don't remember the year this went into effect, US gov't civil servants went into a 401k-like retirement saving program (Thrift Saving Plan) and pensions were no longer offered.
Pensions are a benefit for certain jobs. It's a perk for jobs that usually pay less than the private sector so it was a way to get people to take those needed jobs instead of the higher paying private sector. In the private sector they can make way more money and some companies offer to contribute to what someone puts into their 401K's and there are bonuses as well. The pension is based on a person being vested and then the amount depends on how many years they worked and a percent of their last few years average salary.
You worked for every penny that you paid into the social insurance policy that is Social Security. Like most insurance, it isn't a savings plan. But you are, indeed, entitled to receive support frrom it but it is subject to financial management, meaning it is not something of which you can demand a certain amount. You are also able to manage it, such as the age you start receiving, and afterward, joining political action committees to ask Congress to enact changes and protections. The truth is, retired people are living much longer, and if it was a savings plan, many would have exhausted resources by now.
"In government and legal language, Social Security and Medicare are called "entitlements" because the law entitles (guarantees) benefits to anyone who meets the specific eligibility rules, such as age and paying enough payroll taxes. It is a technical budget term, not a judgment about whether you earned them." It's the politicians particularly Republicans that have turned that word into a negative meaning.
From USAFACTS Feb 2026: "In government and legal language, Social Security and Medicare are called "entitlements" because the law entitles (guarantees) benefits to anyone who meets the specific eligibility rules, such as age and paying enough payroll taxes. It is a technical budget term, not a judgment about whether you earned them"
Here's a good article from 2023 that I found helpful in how it all works>
If you don't distinguish between temporary deficit increases and structural debt, you're not discussing this issue seriously.
Since Clinton, ONLY the GOP has systematically and massively increased the structural debt (= debt that no future administration can erase with the stroke of a pen, so that keeps growing anyhow), while Democrats have systematically CUT the debt and deficit. Democrats only made exceptions for TEMPORARY deficit spending to deal with a huge crisis (the 2008 financial crisis caused by not enough regulation, covid, ...). And these bills help the 99% survive during huge crises, whereas the GOP bills that create massive structural debt increases only make the 1% wealthiest wealthier.
Also, since Clinton already, Democrats systematically apply the "pay-as-you-go" rule. That means that no bill leaves Congress that isn't fully paid for, so that doesn't include measures to guarantee that it won't add to the deficit or debt. Obamacare for instance LOWERED the deficit compared to where it would have been had the previous HC system continued. It also gave millions of Americans what citizens of Western democracies outside the US had for decades: real, collective health insurance.
And yet, time and again, the GOP lied and lied about "fiscal conservatism". As soon as it took over DC, the FIRST thing it did was drop the "pay-as-you-go" rule. Again and again.
I'm happy that you finally address this issue, but I'm not sure that today, you get reality as it is: the ONLY truly fiscal conservatives, for decades now, are Democrats. Republicans have constantly done the exact opposite.
And then there is the utter economic ignorance and incompetence of Republicans. You do NOT cut the deficit when the economy is recovering from a Great Recession. That is just irrational behavior. You cannot be a responsible householder if you indulge in irrational thinking. Facts are facts.
Obviously, today we know why back then the GOP spread so much fake news (including the creation of the Tea Party): studies have shown that as soon as Obama won (with a whopping 80% approval rating after he was sworn in), the GOP leadership got together and started focusing on only ONE goal: making Obama a one-term president. How? By lying and lying and lying, all while blocking any evidence-based legislation that would benefit the American people.
Clinton ran a surplus, which caused a recession. Federal deficits are necessary for economic growth. The US has had seven depressions -- all came after federal surpluses. The so-called "debt" merely is deposits into savings accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. This has no impact on federal spending or on taxes. The purposes of the T-bills are to provide a safe storage place for unused dollars --just like private savings accounts -- and to help the Fed control interest rates by setting a floor rate. PLEASE, EVERYONE. STOP WORRYING ABOUT THE DEBT AND CALL IT BY ITS REAL NAME: "DEPOSITS."
Demonstrably false. All mainstream economists agree: the 2001 downturn wasn't caused by a surplus at all.
Just try to imagine how your hypothesis would work, so tell us why exactly not having any government debt at all would somehow cause a recession, and try to back up your arguments with evidence.
If someone/something is paying interest on those deposits, it is a debt. If the total of that interest exceeds the amount spent on essential business operational costs, the debt is not sustainable.
No doubt, a fiat currency allows a nation to create dollars and pay for things. However, printing more money also results in dilution of the value of each unit.
So, yes, the country could mint that mysterious $1TN coin and put it in the treasury, but that would also have a rather disappointing effect on the markets. Just because one can, one oft-times shouldn't.
Don't let Republicans, even "reformed" ones, push you away from the word "entitlement." The fact is you ARE entitled to Social Security and Medicare BECAUSE you paid for it. If you paid for a TV, wouldn't you feel entitled to take it home? If you pay ANY insurance, don't you feel entitled to payments when you make a claim? Social Security and Medicare are no different. Don't let Republicans scare you off the word that defines the bargain the government made with its citizens: You pay the premiums, you are entitled to what you paid for.
You can also use the word positively. As an American citizen, you are entitled to full participation in the social insurance plan into which you and your employers paid into for years. Period.
There is one important difference you forgot to mention. The debt the Democrats ran up would have been paid for if Republicans didn't undercut their programs out of spite when they came into power. Republicans were responsible for about 3/4 of the debt with their endless wars and tax breaks for the rich and never had a plan to pay for their debt. Democrats have been cleaning up Republican messes for more than 50 years. I voted for some of those responsible for running up the debt because I believed Republicans were still the party of national security. It took Clinton to get the country out of debt from Reagan and George Bush. I voted for both presidents. GW Bush and Trump are almost completely at fault for our debt along with the Republican majority.
I too cringed when the word entitlements was used. We worked hard and paid into Social Security and Medicare. And we still pay for insurance coverage at age 78. We need to change that word. Thank you for the article.
Agree Jane. I say I am entitled to my social security because it’s MY money that I paid into the coffers. So yes I’m entitled to take MY OWN money out to live on now that I’m retired.
Don't let Republicans, even "reformed" ones, push you away from the word "entitlement." The fact is you ARE entitled to Social Security and Medicare BECAUSE you paid for it. If you paid for a TV, wouldn't you feel entitled to take it home? If you pay ANY insurance, don't you feel entitled to payments when you make a claim? Social Security and Medicare are no different. Don't let Republicans scare you off the word that defines the bargain the government made with its citizens: You pay the premiums, you are entitled to what you paid for.
That is because that is what it sounds like when it comes out out of a Republicans mouth. It is said with disdain, like we have our hands out begging for something.
But it is also available to some non-working people, like the disabled, surviving spouses who may not have their own SS, or people with dependent parents.
Add to the fact that the hard choices weren't made, not just in 2010 but over decades, to manage the debt the realization that the vast majority of tax cuts over the past decade have disproportionately benefitted people who didn't need them and contributed to the argument for further gutting programs like Medicare and Medicaid that people very much need, and you can see why "tax the rich" is becoming a popular slogan. It's been a long time since the two largest health insurance programs in the country have been funded for success and this will get worse after the BBB cuts take effect early next year. Not only will the poor and seniors lose coverage, we will all pay more for health care and many of us risk job losses. Space X has reportedly been given $3-4 billion in government grants; tell me again how we can't afford to provide basic health coverage for all Americans? It's all a matter of choices.
The same way they parrot "individual responsibility" and practice none. They use words to define how everyone else should act, while they act however they want.
We are going to have to do something. We need to clean up and drastically simplify the tax code. Loop holes need to go. No corporation or wealthy individual with significant resources and revenue should get off with paying nothing in taxes. We need to spend less on health care as a nation. We spend twice per capita what Canada does. With poorer results. Corporations spend lavishly because everything is tax deductible. If we don't want to go the way of The Roman Empire, we need to fix society, the economy, and the way we do business and politics.
The bigger problem is that until Americans FEEL the impact of the national debt, Congress won’t be motivated to act. The lack of bipartisanship stands in the way of progress on this and most other critical issues.
In real life, since Clinton, Democrats have systematically cut the deficit while the GOP has increased it. And the GOP constantly TALKS about "we should be fiscally responsible"; it's often (aside from fake culture wars) their only talking point. And it IS why people vote for it, again and again. It's also the GOP that, since Obama, has categorically refused to pass bipartisan bills (or only accepts doing so whenever Democrats would go against what polls show more than 80% of the American people want Congress to do). Obamacare is an invention of the GOP's main think tank, the Heritage Foundation (when it wasn't neofascist yet). It's 100% private sector based and LOWERS the deficit. And yet, not a single Republican voted for it.
I am a fiscal hawk and feel exactly the same way. Both sides have to give. SS D-Day is coming but every legislator is kicking the can until they can't (2032) Raise the age limit, don't put a ceiling on when you stop paying Social Security taxes and have the wealthy take a little less. Nobody's happy but then everybody is part of the solution and our grandkids don't pay the ultimate price.
I'm sorry, Adam, but as soon as I hear you say "entitlements", I get enraged. I worked for every penny I'm getting on Social Security. It is NOT an entitlement!
Its the governments own term for it
I don't care what the government calls it. If they think it's an entitlement, then I AM ENTITLTED TO IT. IT'S MY MONEY, IT'S MY HUSBAND'S MONEY. THE GOVERNMENT ABUSED CONTINUOUS DEPOSIT EVERY WEEK AND DIPPED INTO IT SINCE TRUMAN. THAT'S NOT ON ME, THAT'S ON YOU.
I agree 100%! I'm glad you posted it so eloquently. Many of us rely on getting our money that was intended to come back to us in retirement. It is OUR MONEY, not an entitlement.
"In government and legal language, Social Security and Medicare are called "entitlements" because the law entitles (guarantees) benefits to anyone who meets the specific eligibility rules, such as age and paying enough payroll taxes. It is a technical budget term, not a judgment about whether you earned them." It's the politicians, particularly Repubs that have co-opted the word to mean something negative like the person didn't work and is getting a freebie.
And what would be your term instead?
Earned Benefits has a more honest ring to it. Or Entitled Retirement Benefits.
I believe “entitled retirement benefits” is more appropriate than earned benefits. There are a lot of people who live longer then their money paid in will cover. Under those conditions, they haven’t really earned them, but under the Social Security act, they continue to receive them until I pass away. We have more centenarians now ever before and people will continue to live longer with all the advancements in modern medicine. Other people die young and they never receive any benefits and this money should be drawing interest and used to pay the people who are receiving more than they did contribute. Of course, with the increased life expectancy comes the problem of running out of money for care when you can no longer take care of yourself. This is where Medicaid comes in. The majority of the nursing homes have more Medicaid patients and they do Medicare patients. This is something that needs to be considered and planned for as well. Nothing has ever easy, and semantics can be confusing, but if you paid into Social Security for 40 quarters, you are entitled to get benefits from Social Security. However, in order to pay for Medicare part B, I believe, the money first comes out of your Social Security check so you think Social Security might be higher it doesn’t really rise that much since the average cola on Social Security 3% and the average amount of the additional cost of manicure every year is about 3% so becomes a wash. This is another problem. However, you have to have Medicare or a Medicare advantage plan. I’m in a accurate advantage plan through my employer. We don’t get a choice and I’m not happy about that but you have to have drug coverage so all that has to be considered.
I like Entitled Retirement Benefits better as well. It is a very involved process and depends where you individually fall when you retire. My husband & my Medicare comes out of our separate Social Security automatically as well. But our separate pick-up policy are paid by us each month. We set it up that way.
The government calls liberals "domestic terrorists". Does that make either of us one?
Well it’s wrong!
Don't let Republicans, even "reformed" ones, push you away from the word "entitlement." The fact is you ARE entitled to Social Security and Medicare BECAUSE you paid for it. If you paid for a TV, wouldn't you feel entitled to take it home? If you pay ANY insurance, don't you feel entitled to payments when you make a claim? Social Security and Medicare are no different. Don't let Republicans scare you off the word that defines the bargain the government made with its citizens: You pay the premiums, you are entitled to what you paid for.
exactly
I just made that point! 100% . That word has been co-opted to make us believe we are entitled to nothing.
But you actually didn't.
You need to do a little more actuarial sniffing, actually. A small portion of what you get in Social Security is what YOU put into the system. A much, much larger portion is what OTHER people put into the system on your behalf, with the expectation born of a social contract that when it's their time, someone else will do the same for them as well.
Nothing is wrong with that kind of arrangement. It actually builds intergenerational trust, as well as political solvency, until the day comes when too many retirees survive on the backs of too few active workers. When it was inaugurated in 1935, one retiree was supported by about 13 active, working adults. Today, that ratio is closer to three, or even two, to one. You can thank longer life expectancy for that one.
Do the math. Yes, it will help if the absurd cap on Social Security taxes is removed. That's the easiest fix to make. But it isn't enough to restore full solvency. Something else has gotta give. The first is the attitude that "I earned every penny." You simply didn't. The more people educate themselves, the quicker we can move back to sitting at the table and figuring out a better way forward.
Your answer is hysterical to a 40 year accountant. Better find out who you are speaking to before "mansplaning" to them.
Exactly. It's collective insurance.
I feel that all social security payments are not equal. Some of us are forced to now live on under $2000 a month in today’s economy, and that IS what SS was intended to be; a safety net for those of us who were not able to succeed in securing our American dream before our older years hit. Then there are those whose monthly SS check is thousands of dollars that is supplementing their American dream lifestyles….those who can cut back, should.
The law that granted government workers who collect pensions to receive Social Security benefits they never paid into should have been "income tested." It would have helped Americans with smaller pensions rather than large ones, too. My sister collects an $80,000 a year teacher's pension and now gets half of her husband's Social Security check--an additional $1400 a month, complete with back pay. How does that make fiscal sense?🤷♂️
Why does that bother you? Her pension was paid for by her. Her husband SS was paid by him.
What makes sense is that the oligarch class pay more taxes. But they don't. It makes no sense to blame the small guy. But that is exactly what the WH regime and the oligarchs want us to do. One more thing, the WH guy is stealing our money.
Why? I guess because her husband still collects his full check, too--$2800 a month. If I collected on my husband's SS, I would lose my check, and I paid into SS my entire life just like my sister paid into her pension. But yes, Trump is stealing taxpayer money by the millions and increasing everyday expenses for all of us.
A spouse who does not get SS is entitled to half of the higher spouses SS. If that same person gets SS and it is lower than half of the partner's SS then they get up their SS to the half amount. If their spouse dies and their SS was higher than the person alive they can opt to switch their SS to the deceased spouse's SS. That's the law. If a person gets a pension or has any other 401K or any retirement benefit from a job that is money they earned from working and is not related to SS benefits.
Different buckets. If you had tucked your money back in various banks and investment accts., would you have wanted them to compare notes and then diminish your returns so that you were more equal with others who only put money in one bucket? I do believe some means testing should be enacted, though.
That is not true. A civil servant can’t get social security unless they’ve previously paid into it. My father got a civil service pension & small army pension, but the social security he received was calculated on the jobs he worked prior to his civil service work. My mother’s social security was larger that his, so she kept hers, and closed out my dad’s account when he passed.
I don’t see anything wrong with that. She is his wife. If she died 1st he would get her SS if it was more than his. You can’t keep both. And he’d get her pension too, if she got survivor benefits on her pension.
Actually I disagree a bit. What has happened is that certain people have made the word entitlement into something negative. But in my opinion, Social Security is an entitlement. Every damn person who paid into the system is ENTITLED by law to receive the benefits. So, my answer to those who argue that entitlements are always bad is to tell them to go to hell. Damn right it’s an entitlement and I ENTITLED to get my social security check. (Okay, I’m not collecting yet, but that’s not my real point.) I’m married, I am entitled to a faithful and kind spouse. I’m a mom and I’m entitled to brag about my kids. And I’m also entitled to the benefits that I paid into.
Yes the republicans turned it into something negative- made it seem like these programs are freebies for people who did nothing to earn them.
Here's a good definition:In government and legal language, Social Security and Medicare are called "entitlements" because the law entitles (guarantees) benefits to anyone who meets the specific eligibility rules, such as age and paying enough payroll taxes. It is a technical budget term, not a judgment about whether you earned them.
I agree with you, but they have not clarified that fact to the public at large. At least not to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong. But to stop the confusion about the name, they should explain it when you start putting into it, and again when you start to collect it. A simple letter would do.
it's the politicians that are misleading the public. you do get a letter when it is time to start collecting. and when you start a job they explain what will come out of your paycheck or they should. If they don't then the person should ask- it's their paycheck.
I was talking about the actual name of “Entitlements” that the Politicians use. I agree that the term entitlements is a term the politicians use is misleading &/or are confusing, which upsets people.
Imagine if they had not felt entitled to use the surplus investments toward "other" programs and put it back into the Social Security program.
There would not be any problem then. Totally agree.
Why are government pensions never part of the discussion when talking about cutting retirement benefits? These pensions start years earlier, some as early as at age 50. The annual COLA is way greater than the 2-3% increase in SS benefits. And in many cases the government pensions are paid even while one is working. These government pensions are funded by taxpayer dollars. Taxpayer money pays for these pensions too and they should be included in any discussions of reducing the deficit. Why is that not the case?
I commend all the comments. Not to sound like Mr. M.O.T.O (master of the obvious) this is a complex issue, probably why no lasting solution has been tendered.
US gov't employee (active duty & civil servants) pensions have been altered (reduced) in the past. I don't remember the year of enactment(s), 1st ...active duty retirement pension calculations were changed to an average of the persons' last 3 years instead of their last (aka highest pay year). I'll admit that was more of "kick the can down the road effort). 2nd & again I don't remember the year this went into effect, US gov't civil servants went into a 401k-like retirement saving program (Thrift Saving Plan) and pensions were no longer offered.
Pensions are a benefit for certain jobs. It's a perk for jobs that usually pay less than the private sector so it was a way to get people to take those needed jobs instead of the higher paying private sector. In the private sector they can make way more money and some companies offer to contribute to what someone puts into their 401K's and there are bonuses as well. The pension is based on a person being vested and then the amount depends on how many years they worked and a percent of their last few years average salary.
Same here. I worked hard for that money, i paid into it.
You worked for every penny that you paid into the social insurance policy that is Social Security. Like most insurance, it isn't a savings plan. But you are, indeed, entitled to receive support frrom it but it is subject to financial management, meaning it is not something of which you can demand a certain amount. You are also able to manage it, such as the age you start receiving, and afterward, joining political action committees to ask Congress to enact changes and protections. The truth is, retired people are living much longer, and if it was a savings plan, many would have exhausted resources by now.
"In government and legal language, Social Security and Medicare are called "entitlements" because the law entitles (guarantees) benefits to anyone who meets the specific eligibility rules, such as age and paying enough payroll taxes. It is a technical budget term, not a judgment about whether you earned them." It's the politicians particularly Republicans that have turned that word into a negative meaning.
From USAFACTS Feb 2026: "In government and legal language, Social Security and Medicare are called "entitlements" because the law entitles (guarantees) benefits to anyone who meets the specific eligibility rules, such as age and paying enough payroll taxes. It is a technical budget term, not a judgment about whether you earned them"
Here's a good article from 2023 that I found helpful in how it all works>
https://www.everythingpolicy.org/policy-briefs/entitlements-what-you-need-to-know
If you don't distinguish between temporary deficit increases and structural debt, you're not discussing this issue seriously.
Since Clinton, ONLY the GOP has systematically and massively increased the structural debt (= debt that no future administration can erase with the stroke of a pen, so that keeps growing anyhow), while Democrats have systematically CUT the debt and deficit. Democrats only made exceptions for TEMPORARY deficit spending to deal with a huge crisis (the 2008 financial crisis caused by not enough regulation, covid, ...). And these bills help the 99% survive during huge crises, whereas the GOP bills that create massive structural debt increases only make the 1% wealthiest wealthier.
Also, since Clinton already, Democrats systematically apply the "pay-as-you-go" rule. That means that no bill leaves Congress that isn't fully paid for, so that doesn't include measures to guarantee that it won't add to the deficit or debt. Obamacare for instance LOWERED the deficit compared to where it would have been had the previous HC system continued. It also gave millions of Americans what citizens of Western democracies outside the US had for decades: real, collective health insurance.
And yet, time and again, the GOP lied and lied about "fiscal conservatism". As soon as it took over DC, the FIRST thing it did was drop the "pay-as-you-go" rule. Again and again.
I'm happy that you finally address this issue, but I'm not sure that today, you get reality as it is: the ONLY truly fiscal conservatives, for decades now, are Democrats. Republicans have constantly done the exact opposite.
And then there is the utter economic ignorance and incompetence of Republicans. You do NOT cut the deficit when the economy is recovering from a Great Recession. That is just irrational behavior. You cannot be a responsible householder if you indulge in irrational thinking. Facts are facts.
Obviously, today we know why back then the GOP spread so much fake news (including the creation of the Tea Party): studies have shown that as soon as Obama won (with a whopping 80% approval rating after he was sworn in), the GOP leadership got together and started focusing on only ONE goal: making Obama a one-term president. How? By lying and lying and lying, all while blocking any evidence-based legislation that would benefit the American people.
Clinton ran a surplus, which caused a recession. Federal deficits are necessary for economic growth. The US has had seven depressions -- all came after federal surpluses. The so-called "debt" merely is deposits into savings accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. This has no impact on federal spending or on taxes. The purposes of the T-bills are to provide a safe storage place for unused dollars --just like private savings accounts -- and to help the Fed control interest rates by setting a floor rate. PLEASE, EVERYONE. STOP WORRYING ABOUT THE DEBT AND CALL IT BY ITS REAL NAME: "DEPOSITS."
Demonstrably false. All mainstream economists agree: the 2001 downturn wasn't caused by a surplus at all.
Just try to imagine how your hypothesis would work, so tell us why exactly not having any government debt at all would somehow cause a recession, and try to back up your arguments with evidence.
You'll see: that evidence doesn't exist.
If someone/something is paying interest on those deposits, it is a debt. If the total of that interest exceeds the amount spent on essential business operational costs, the debt is not sustainable.
Rick, the federal government pays for everything by creating dollars. It can never run short. It just presses computer keys. It's called "Monetarily Sovereign." If the federal government needed to pay $100 trillion, trillion bill tomorrow, it could do so merely by pressing a few keys. For more information on this, please see: https://mythfighter.com/2026/04/29/historical-bullshit-claims-the-federal-debt-is-a-ticking-time-bomb-from-sept-26-1940-to-april-20-2026/ It gives you the substantiation data.
No doubt, a fiat currency allows a nation to create dollars and pay for things. However, printing more money also results in dilution of the value of each unit.
So, yes, the country could mint that mysterious $1TN coin and put it in the treasury, but that would also have a rather disappointing effect on the markets. Just because one can, one oft-times shouldn't.
Rick, although many believe that money "printing" causes inflation, that belief is wrong. All inflation in history has been caused by shortages of key goods and services, most often energy and food -- never money creation. See: https://mythfighter.com/2025/12/09/the-inflation-myths-debunked-its-never-money-printing-its-always-shortages/
I resent the word entitlement….. I worked 40 yrs for my SS and my husband is still working at 80 yrs old so may I suggest you rethink “entitlement “
And….. the OBBB just gave the rich a “ tax break” that would have helped everyone else if they just paid their share Adam.
Don't let Republicans, even "reformed" ones, push you away from the word "entitlement." The fact is you ARE entitled to Social Security and Medicare BECAUSE you paid for it. If you paid for a TV, wouldn't you feel entitled to take it home? If you pay ANY insurance, don't you feel entitled to payments when you make a claim? Social Security and Medicare are no different. Don't let Republicans scare you off the word that defines the bargain the government made with its citizens: You pay the premiums, you are entitled to what you paid for.
You can also use the word positively. As an American citizen, you are entitled to full participation in the social insurance plan into which you and your employers paid into for years. Period.
There is one important difference you forgot to mention. The debt the Democrats ran up would have been paid for if Republicans didn't undercut their programs out of spite when they came into power. Republicans were responsible for about 3/4 of the debt with their endless wars and tax breaks for the rich and never had a plan to pay for their debt. Democrats have been cleaning up Republican messes for more than 50 years. I voted for some of those responsible for running up the debt because I believed Republicans were still the party of national security. It took Clinton to get the country out of debt from Reagan and George Bush. I voted for both presidents. GW Bush and Trump are almost completely at fault for our debt along with the Republican majority.
Cui bono? Who benefits?
Since 1980 the country’s GDP has continued to grow solidly. But workers’ income (inflation adjusted) has been flat flat flat.
All that tax cutting has redistributed wealth and income to the richest people.
While our infrastructure has decayed.
I too cringed when the word entitlements was used. We worked hard and paid into Social Security and Medicare. And we still pay for insurance coverage at age 78. We need to change that word. Thank you for the article.
Agree Jane. I say I am entitled to my social security because it’s MY money that I paid into the coffers. So yes I’m entitled to take MY OWN money out to live on now that I’m retired.
Don't let Republicans, even "reformed" ones, push you away from the word "entitlement." The fact is you ARE entitled to Social Security and Medicare BECAUSE you paid for it. If you paid for a TV, wouldn't you feel entitled to take it home? If you pay ANY insurance, don't you feel entitled to payments when you make a claim? Social Security and Medicare are no different. Don't let Republicans scare you off the word that defines the bargain the government made with its citizens: You pay the premiums, you are entitled to what you paid for.
Thanks for that clarification. I think I was taking the word to mean “something not earned”
That is because that is what it sounds like when it comes out out of a Republicans mouth. It is said with disdain, like we have our hands out begging for something.
That's understandable because it's the way Republicans have been using that word for decades. It's what they WANT you to believe.
Yes. American Workers Benefits would be more appropriate.
But it is also available to some non-working people, like the disabled, surviving spouses who may not have their own SS, or people with dependent parents.
Good points, Gail. Any ideas for an alternative word to "entitlements"?
Nope. I think we should embrace the word and throw it back in their faces as often as possible.
😊👍🏻
Entitled or Earned Retirement Benefits.
Adam, I appreciate your honesty. Someone who cannot admit a mistake, or has no regrets, is either arrogant or stupid.
“..real plans on the table from serious people..” Ah, how we long for those days.
Add to the fact that the hard choices weren't made, not just in 2010 but over decades, to manage the debt the realization that the vast majority of tax cuts over the past decade have disproportionately benefitted people who didn't need them and contributed to the argument for further gutting programs like Medicare and Medicaid that people very much need, and you can see why "tax the rich" is becoming a popular slogan. It's been a long time since the two largest health insurance programs in the country have been funded for success and this will get worse after the BBB cuts take effect early next year. Not only will the poor and seniors lose coverage, we will all pay more for health care and many of us risk job losses. Space X has reportedly been given $3-4 billion in government grants; tell me again how we can't afford to provide basic health coverage for all Americans? It's all a matter of choices.
Republicans have not been the Party of fiscal responsibility in my lifetime. They parrot the words and then completely ignore responsible actions.
The same way they parrot "individual responsibility" and practice none. They use words to define how everyone else should act, while they act however they want.
Very true.
Adam, thank you for this. You have honor, integrity, leadership and self-awareness. And that's why I follow you.
Others here have already put it better than I can, but Medicare and Social Security aren't handouts.
I'll add that nobody goes on welfare or food stamps to get rich.
But now we're cutting public health, weather and scientific research.
I back our military, our police and our fire/first responders. I'll pay for that all day.
Wanna save some money? Medicare for All. Yeah I said it.
We are going to have to do something. We need to clean up and drastically simplify the tax code. Loop holes need to go. No corporation or wealthy individual with significant resources and revenue should get off with paying nothing in taxes. We need to spend less on health care as a nation. We spend twice per capita what Canada does. With poorer results. Corporations spend lavishly because everything is tax deductible. If we don't want to go the way of The Roman Empire, we need to fix society, the economy, and the way we do business and politics.
The bigger problem is that until Americans FEEL the impact of the national debt, Congress won’t be motivated to act. The lack of bipartisanship stands in the way of progress on this and most other critical issues.
In real life, since Clinton, Democrats have systematically cut the deficit while the GOP has increased it. And the GOP constantly TALKS about "we should be fiscally responsible"; it's often (aside from fake culture wars) their only talking point. And it IS why people vote for it, again and again. It's also the GOP that, since Obama, has categorically refused to pass bipartisan bills (or only accepts doing so whenever Democrats would go against what polls show more than 80% of the American people want Congress to do). Obamacare is an invention of the GOP's main think tank, the Heritage Foundation (when it wasn't neofascist yet). It's 100% private sector based and LOWERS the deficit. And yet, not a single Republican voted for it.
Etc. etc.
Thank you Adam for your honesty and integrity
I am a fiscal hawk and feel exactly the same way. Both sides have to give. SS D-Day is coming but every legislator is kicking the can until they can't (2032) Raise the age limit, don't put a ceiling on when you stop paying Social Security taxes and have the wealthy take a little less. Nobody's happy but then everybody is part of the solution and our grandkids don't pay the ultimate price.
Thanks Adam for being so honest.