[CitizenUSA]

I’m with you, 2ndDivisionVet. There are definitely different kinds of government payments, but some people put all the benefits into one basket. That gives them the ability to say over 50% receive benefits. While that is a terribly high percentage, it doesn’t reveal the different kinds of benefits.

Military veterans, for example, earn their benefits by serving the country. The “benefits” are payment for service rendered. Then you have people who receive Social Security benefits after contributing to the program for decades. I do not equate the above beneficiaries with those who receive handouts simply for being born or sneaking into the country. There are even some Social Security payouts to people who have never contributed to the program. Again, that is a completely different matter than those Americans who contributed for decades and now deserve what was promised.

[Dapper 26]

I have the same question about SS “benefits”. As I see it, for those who have paid into the system most of their adult working lives, it is an account payable for government. It is not a government benefit.

[tumblindice]

And as Jim points out above, you can opt out from receiving SS but not from paying.
So yeah, a lot different.

[NautiNurse]

some people put all the benefits into one basket. That gives them the ability to say over 50% receive benefits. While that is a terribly high percentage, it doesn’t reveal the different kinds of benefits.

Nothing changes the cold, hard fact that there are more people receiving government checks than there are people paying into the money pot. Describing some government payment checks as more acceptable than others does not change simple arithmetic.

The current situation with more people receiving money than paying into funding is unsustainable.

[babygene]

“I’m with you, 2ndDivisionVet.”

I’ll second that...

I’ve been working my whole life since going into the military at 17. I’ve put together a sizable nest egg for my retirement, plus I get medical from the company I worked for before I retired.

But guess what? I was forced on to medicare when I retired. It was a condition of my employers health insurance. The way it is set up, I had no choice.

[Nuocmam]

Amen to both of you!
Why don’t they at least differentiate between earned and unearned benefits? There is a big difference between the earned and “you owe me” mindsets!
If you work, you deserve compensation (benefit) for your work. Others may be eligible for some sort of charity. However, charity isn’t an earned compensation (benefit). It is a voluntary function not a government mandate. Is such a view unChristian? No! Although sharing and charity were a characteristic of even the earliest Christians communities, one was expected to contribute or asked to move on. And let us not forget that there is a big difference between those who cannot and those who will not.

[thackney]

While that is a terribly high percentage, it doesn’t reveal the different kinds of benefits.

It points out too many American dollars filter through the federal inefficient and sticky fingers.

[upchuck]

Bump to both of you!

From the article:

Some 42 million are seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare. They aren’t getting something for free; they faithfully paid into the system for decades with the expectation that they would be getting it back at retirement.

I paid into Social Security for 50 years. And, yes, I expect to get something in return.

More from the article:

But attitudes can change once people are on the receiving end of benefits, even if they are owed those benefits. Seniors who support limited government and fiscal responsibility—in short, the exact opposite of Obama’s policies—become very protective of their benefits.

If you opened a savings account when you were young and faithfully deposited money week after week, when you got to the point to start making withdawals, wouldn't you be protective of your investment? Yes, I know SS is not a savings account, but the analogy still applies.