Entitlements are immoral

Paying with EBT cardWhy work anymore? Let’s all lay around the house with our families and then head out with our friends for eats and partying on our new welfare debit card.

America has reached a crisis of entitlements, and I smell the stench of decay over the republic. Entitlements corrupt. Free stuff saps initiative. Accepting something of value that is unearned is unethical unless freely given.

But entitlement recipients don’t seem to care. Many of them have no shame and delude themselves into believing it’s some sort of game that they’re good at, like the welfare moms who pop out a new baby annually to multiply their child-care checks.

Government entitlements fall into two categories, one good and the other not good. Entitlements paid for by the recipient, like Social Security, are the good kind. In fact, it’s an insult to call Social Security benefits “entitlements.” Entitlements paid out of other people’s pockets, like welfare, are where the problems lurk.

Why work hard anymore if the fruits of your labor will be confiscated and given to people who haven’t earned them? Entitlements have crossed the line — they are as much evil as helpful.

Entitlements started out sensibly — to help the truly needy get back on their feet. But they morphed into an industry for liberal causes. They became a way to buy votes by giving away “free” stuff. They became a tool for liberals, mostly federal Democrats, to stay in office to perpetuate personal power and liberal programs.

Viewed in that light, entitlements are immoral. They are immoral in another way, too: They cause addiction and dependency. To many, avoiding work has become more pleasurable than the satisfaction of working and earning your keep. Why subject yourself to the annoying chore of getting up in the morning and trudging off to a job when you can live off the money made by others?

Instead of being a productive citizen and holding your head high, you can stroll over to your local welfare office and sign up for an Electronic Benefit Transfer welfare debit card. The card allows you to shop at local “underground” grocery stores, where you can use the plastic money to fill your shopping cart (in most states) with prime steaks, booze and cigarettes. And then the welfare queens can use their card to slip over and get their nails done at the local salon, while the welfare kings head down to use their cards at the casino and tattoo parlor.

Quite the life, dedicating oneself to a culture of dependence that rewards the lazy behavior of those dependent on other people’s money. Worse, this lifestyle scuttles the pursuit of happiness: In all my life, I have never known a dependent personality who was a happy personality.

By elevating the entitlement game to a life science, the liberals have long passed the point of filling needs. They’ve moved to the business of fulfilling “wants.” Even worse, the liberals are not ashamed of their behavior, even though they know satisfying “wants” buys lots more votes. I say erecting barriers to self-esteem to get votes is bargaining with the devil.

In 2012, food welfare giveaways totaled $75 billion, distributed to 51 million Americans. Over half of Americans now receive some form of entitlement, benefit or compensation from government. So the takers are the new majority, and the givers are now in the minority. The fault lies with the liberal political class over the last few decades. These are the same idiots who turned Social Security into a Ponzi scheme and twisted welfare to the needy into political control for themselves. The result is that national solvency is spiraling downhill.

Government should not subsidize stupid personal decisions. The true test for whether we can exit this government-created entitlement epidemic is whether American voters and political contributors have the wisdom to see through the travesty and withhold votes and funding from congressional and presidential candidates who don’t support entitlement and deficit reduction.

Top stories:

PA Dems. literally sinking city in debt

Gallup lists most conservative, liberal states

Welcome to the USA, here’s your free Obamacare

John R. Smith

John R. Smith

John R. Smith is chairman of BIZPAC, the Business Political Action Committee of Palm Beach County, and owner of a financial services company.
John R. Smith


36 thoughts on “Entitlements are immoral

  1. Marc Mooney says:

    Name calling won't distract from the facts John. Social security and medicare are classic entitlement programs, see below. And they are the programs that boomers like us will need to trim. So, again John, ready to take the pledge?

  2. Lynn Demarest says:

    I understand your point, but I believe the statistics show that most welfare recipients are honest.

    Remember when Governor Scott decided to drug-test welfare recipients because he was sure they were spending all the cash on drugs? This misguided attitude is what drove him to do it. What Scott discovered was what already was well known by anyone who cared to look: The incidence of drug use in welfare homes actually is lower than in the population generally. (This makes sense; drugs are expensive.)

    It's unfair to punish the majority for the misdeeds of the sliver. Bad people will always take advantage of government largess. That's a poor reason to punish the rest, especially if the rest include children who are in no way responsible for their impoverished lives.

    1. MLD says:

      I am sorry Lynn, but you are naive. I participate in holiday food basket distribution (food, not money is given), and see these things first hand. Most of the time, there is a Father/Husband around, but he disappears when the case workers arrive. However, he is very good at being present when the checks are received. Giving money without requiring an accounting of the dispursement does not work nor does it automatically go to those for whom the money was intended.

      I'm not certain how your reference to "drug use in welfare homes" forms a parallel structure in your argument. I do not see drug use mentioned in John's article. Am I mistaken?

      Instead he says that entitlements "cause addiction and dependency". He seems to be referring to the lack of motivation that is a direct result of these give away programs.

      One branch of my own family has been on welfare for three generations. They are not on drugs that I am aware of, but are masters at deception. With each new generation, my family has tried to change the mindset of the children and encourage them to become educated and self-sufficient, but the lure of the "free stuff" wins every time. They continue to think of us as the "rich ones" (or working ones), and are delighted with the continual growth of social programs. If you are intent on helping those that won't help themselves, I'm sure that they would be delighted to contact you, Lynn.

      As for my Grandparents, my Father, and me, count us out.

      1. BCcappy says:

        Indeed you are correct MLD. I have relation as well that has lived off from 'the dole' who are now trying to work due to programs not being guaranteed as lifelong. I have seen some working waiting tables in bars, boyfriend in high paid union shop, & living with them (family actually saw in that case) recieving welfare, food stamps, always late on low rent, getting programs to pay the eviction notices, and shutoff notices on utilities, getting food baskets monthly as well. When turned in no one went to bars after working hours to verify whether working, boyfriend had clothes at Mom's so was cliamed not living there, and the kids weren't getting that much. but NICE car for BF, medium for woman, and they stayed High as they wanted, going out to bars, and trashing the rental. It was a MUCH better time when the government was OUT of the AID process, and the church was in. The church demanded accountability to a point.

  3. Ted says:

    Article would have been much more helpful with researched numbers. How many are on entitlements abusing the system? Is the freeloading life filled with luxuries that are on par with the rich and famous? How would you exactly solve the problem of people cut off from entitlements? Would you just scoop them up off the streets and transport them to a national interior location, out of sight to the givers? Anyone who seems to pontificate what someone else is doing something immoral, seems to hint that the pontificator seems to be in some position to decree who is doing something moral or immoral. Lets look at a little at some of the abuses: The front loading of the national debt from five trillion when Clinton left office, to more than 11.5 trillion in national debt by unfunding wars, senior drug benefits and floating special deals to special companies, like Halliburton and KBR. Wouldn't you say that this debt loading and dumb unfunded wars could be maybe somewhat "immoral"?

    Offer solutions, or state upfront that, "even though I don't really know how this problem can be solved, I think I should talk about it anyway". If you think entitlement recipients are immoral, let's hear a solution. Not just more of the same grousing about "them takers", "welfare queens", "people just laying around, living off the system". How about some answers instead of the same old gripes?

    1. Ada says:

      The king of entitlements running the country for 4 more years. So, solutions and change and hope LOL.. yea right maybe after we are in the poor house and The next president if we are lucky is not another one of the same. For now.. we get what you the majority put in office and here we have it.

  4. Ada says:

    I find it even more pathetic when this majority of losers stand on soap boxes talking about how the illegal immigrants should not be entitled to Welfare. LOL.. Yes, true.. but if they were not here working the jobs you lazy entitled American will not do then your fruits and veggies and milk might cost us tax payers more and you would get less free. So, hmmmmmm crazy world when those born here with the world given to them fear those who cross a dessert to do just what any one who comes here dreams of doing.. attaining a freedom with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You should be scared that some day they will be your employer, when the government runs out of money and foreigners own us. Hope is was worth the free ride.

    I say shame on all of you who are able healthy and living off others. Shame on you for not realizing its not all about you. Our nations, one nation under GOD with liberty and justice for all. Not just for the lazy freeloaders.

    1. BCcappy says:

      If illegal immigrants were not doing the jobs of those low paying employers as libs call them, then the need for workers wour DEMAND they pay more for the work, or mechanize to the point of making it cost-effective. Then when the wages of LEGAL workers are acceptable only legals would be employed. It is the law of supply and demand. If someone will work for dirt- the employer will pay dirt. If there are ONLY legals in the workplace either the job will pay at a going rate, or they will figure out how to mechanize the job. Most of us I would think are NOT anti immigration. BUT a few decades ago immigration requred EVERY immigrant to ASSIMILATE, to learn our language, to swear allegiance to the country they want so badly to live in. Now we have a Supreme Court Judge who was part of La Raza- a racist anti-american froup that wants to overthrow the government and take posession of certain state. YOU call everyone else lazy, yet I have seen lines of people go down the block when a workplace is raided and the illegals are shipped back. The argument is a ploy to distract. If they come legally let them stay legally if not…. maybe we should do like THEIR country does. Mexico- prison for up to a year, confiscation of EVERYTHING, Iran, Iraq, and the others- possibly death and definately several years of prison and torture. Call all the names you want, just don't show the man behind the curtain.

  5. BCcappy says:

    Micheal, you are severely misinformed about whether Social Security was paid for or is taking from poor to pay for 'Rich'. Nice Alinsky tactics but as usual uninformed. YOUR statement "It is not paid out by the money paid in by thew (the?)recepient.

    Rather it is paid with the taxes of current working people. It’s a transfer of money from working clas(s?)

    Americans to wealthy retirees to pay for snowbirds to own retirement homes,

    eat out daily in restaurants and take cruise vacations." YOUR statement as it were.

    However BEFORE the Tax & Spenders got to hat money in that account, there was a HUGE & abundant account surplus that was growing steadily. Thiswas due to people continuosly putting money in and not many taking out. MANY of those died before getting to retirement age, this money kept rolling over and growing year by year- BY LAW untouched by the 'representatives'.

    HOWEVER, with the national budget way in the hole, they looked at that MASSIVE account and said "We'll just do some tricky bookwork to make it look like we are acctually being responsible here, and SAY that account is really in the nations budget, so it APPEARS the budget is ballanced, though we continue to spend like crackheads in the crack factory'.

    When the hue and cry arose that the SS moneys in the account were BY LAW only to be drawn out by recipients Dems said "WE'LL KEEP IT IN A LOCK-BOX ACCOUNT THAT NO ONE CAN TAKE FROM" Then quickly if not immediately started embezzling the money from that account till it is gone. So your BS about the money being paid in by the working people is only true due to embezzling of the account that in all likelihood would not have been empty for another century or so if it had not had its interest bearing accounts with EXISTANT money replaced by a bunch of federal issued IOUs. That money would have continued to accrue even more and grew more, if the vote-buying mentality didn’t increase spending in every way imagineable INTENTIONALLY depleting an accout that would have covered Seniors for likely ceturies to come had the money not been embezzled. AND WHO BETTER to collect that money from said account, than those who paid into the account the politicians were embezzling from for the previous 4-6 DECADES??? The money that was stolen to give to welfare recipients WAS THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH!!! You got a beef with your money going to the ‘snowbirds’? TAKE IT UP WITH THE SOCIALISTS!

    What you are gonna REALLY love is that ZerObama has ALREADY got his plans to steal all of the money you are putting into your 401Ks right out of your pocket because they literaly say they know what to do with it more than YOU DO! So your 401K will by incremental laws be stolen right from your account to be replaced with… you got it…. those SAME federal IOUs. Go to Bing, or another search engine than ‘Garbled” and type in “Obams to take retirement funds, 401K and see how many articles come up that you have NEVER been told about because you only read mainn strem media toilet plugging information. Get a life, and information. Retirees put their money into the plan, other than those illegal aliens that came in their 50s and 60s, that never put in to the SS funds, but are now drawing from them. Guess who made THAT law up too.

  6. BCcappy says:

    Patrick, you, like Michael need to check out the information I posted. In all of the decades that Social Security existed, and the payments forcibly removed from folks paychecks just how much interest do you think would have accrued for them in the account in the 40-50 years of their ‘investment’? Not to mention all of those who contributed for 40-50 years, retired, and died within a week or a year. And all of those who died 5, 10, 15, and more before their retirement? As socialist programs go this one should have lasted a helluva lot longer than politicians allowed it to if they had not embezzled all the money buying votes. They took into account that in all likelihood in those days more people were going to die than would collect at retirement. They also considered that the hugest majority (due to working themselves half to death) would NEVER come close to absorbing the money they put in.

    Only in the last few decades have people been living that much longer, and they have a lot of money from their investments if they were smart that will come from retirement accounts, IRAs, etc. Yet that money should be YOURS, right? I agree the SS program should have been in PRIVATE accounts, but the total goal of the account was not to care for the elderly, but to put more funds in government coffers. The people of those days would have had an uprising if the government had done what they did by putting the funds into a non-existent ‘lock-box’ account. That kind of book keeping would land any real businessman in jail and damn well should have landed those voting for the scheme in the Federal Pen for a few decades. However being as the money was forcibly taken from those people they dang sure deserve to get the coverage their premiums promised. Another little known fact is that after a certain level is achieved (many Kellogg’s, Ralston’s, etc employees benefitted from this); they stop taking the SS charges from the paychecks, yet paid out on the whole income of the wages made. Say they stopped taking the SS tax at 75K, when figuring the outgo back they took the sum of $100K if they made it when figuring payments as I understand. (The numbers are there for representation purposes, as I am not aware of the actual designated incomes). If they stopped taking payments at $75K the dividends should have been figured out on that pay scale. But many workers paid in till Sept or October, then got the SS fees as well as the other income in their checks.

    If you pay insurance on your car for 85% of your wages if you get hurt and can’t work, should someone else say you make too much so should only get 50%? After all, the monthly insurance fees were figured to pay for 85%. So if someone pays all of their life making big bucks (if they paid SS fees on all of it) would you have the right to say- I don’t care if they paid 50 years for insurance, they have too much money, so I want it in my check? Can I do that to you? Right now I figure people should get the insurance they paid for unless as I stated they stopped paying premiums at a certain wage, then THAT is what their check should be figured by. If you want to change the rules now, have your representative do it. Otherwise there is a requirement I believe for them to follow the contractual obligations.

  7. BCcappy says:

    It should be noted that Life Liberty & the Pursuit of happiness did not mean sitting on yer arse in a field to wait for the government to give you a log cabin, a horse, plow, seed, etc. They figured your PURSUIT would entail work. You sure throw a lot of names around without reason, as so many of the Alisky Rules For Radicals train of thought do…but then again, their goal is to overthrow the republic, and Capitalism.

  8. michael says:

    There was never a dime in an trust fund for social security. That was a lie to hide the reality social security is a ponzi scheme where working Americans struggling to make ends meet pay taxes that then are used to pay current beneficiaries who are among the richest Americans. You do not have an account with social security with your name on it. If you die before you collect not one penny you paid in social security is part of your estate that your heirs inherit.

  9. michael says:

    Foreclosures are due to people not paying for a loan they chose to take. Why should a bank give you a modification and not make you pay every cent you borrowed because your house went down in value. The bank doesn't get extra money if your house goes up in value. They lent you money to buy property and you agreed to pay it all back. It isn't you pay if the house goes up in value and the bank pays if it goes down.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts