The Most Dangerous Addiction of Them All: Entitlements

All addictions -- whether to drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex or cigarettes -- are very hard to escape.

There is one addiction, however, that may be more difficult than any other to escape, in part because it is not even regarded as an addiction. It is entitlements addiction, the addiction to getting something for nothing.

One indication as to the power of entitlements addiction is the fact that while great numbers of people have voluntarily given up drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. -- almost always at great pain -- few give up an addiction to entitlements. For the majority of able-bodied people who get cash payments, food stamps, subsidized housing, free or subsidized health insurance, and other welfare benefits, the thought of giving up any one of those and beginning to pay for them with their own earned money is as hard as giving up alcohol is for an alcoholic.

Politicians know this, which is why it is close to impossible to ever reduce entitlements. And, of course, the left knows this, which is why the left almost always wins a debate over entitlements. Every American who is the beneficiary of an entitlement backs them, and many who are not beneficiaries of entitlements would like to be.

Aside from ideology, this is why the left constantly seeks to increase entitlements. The more people receiving government benefits, the more people vote left.

In this sense, the left in every country -- in America, the Democratic Party -- should literally be regarded as a drug dealer. Virtually every American given a free benefit becomes an addict who relies more and more on his dealer, which is exactly what the left seeks.

As noted at the outset, one reason entitlements addiction is so powerful is unlike other addictions, it is not regarded as an addiction. As a result, few entitlement addicts see themselves as addicted. Why, then, would any of them seek treatment? To the entitlement addict, receiving entitlements is as natural and uncontroversial as breathing air. Air is free, and so are entitlements.

Another reason entitlements addiction is unique among addictions is that very few drug, alcohol or gambling addicts believe that they are owed drugs, alcohol or their gambling debts. Entitlement addicts, on the other hand, believe that society owes them every entitlement they receive -- and often more. The very word "entitlement" conveys the message that the recipient has a right to the benefits. So there is a moral component for entitlement addicts that does not exist among other addicts (except for opioid dependents, who are in pain; these patients really are owed painkillers, and society is immoral for not allowing them to receive them).

Not only do entitlement addicts believe there is moral virtue to their addiction but so do a vast number of non-addicts known as progressives. They believe that there is a moral imperative to give people more and more entitlements. This, in turn, feeds the moral self-image of those dependent on entitlements.

Yet another reason for the uniqueness of entitlements addiction is it ultimately does more damage to society than any other addiction. Other addicts can ruin their own lives and those of loved ones, and drunk drivers kill and maim people. But society as a whole can survive their addictions. That is not the case with entitlement addicts. The more people who receive and come to depend on entitlements, the sooner society will collapse economically. Society does not directly pay for drug addicts' drugs, alcoholics' alcohol or gamblers' gambling debts, but it pays every penny for entitlement addicts' addiction. In fact, the current U.S. national debt is about equal to the reported $22 trillion this country has spent on entitlement programs in the last 50 years.

When you combine the addiction and selfishness of many (certainly not all) of those who are dependent on entitlements (including middle- and upper-class Americans who receive a home mortgage deduction); the tendency for the addiction to grow from one generation to the next; the dependence of one of the two major political parties on the votes of those who receive entitlements for the party's very existence; and the belief of tens of millions of non-addicted progressives that society is morally obligated to give more and more people more and more entitlements, it becomes very difficult to see a solution.

In the meantime, the entitlement state in every country is failing, forcing them to bring in tens of millions of migrants -- many of whom share none of the countries' values -- to keep the entitlement state alive.

This addiction ultimately ruins the character of many of its recipients, the economy of all the countries in which it exists in large numbers and the value system that created the prosperity that made so many entitlements possible in the first place.

But other than American conservatives, almost no one even recognizes it as a major problem, let alone an addiction.

For those forced to invest in this “entitlement” their entire working lives, it is an “earned entitlement”, and to take it away would be no different for the same people to have paid off their home with earned income and having the federal government taking it away.

Yes, today’s SS checks do come from today’s confiscations. The problem is the corrupt government playing games with a system that would barely work to begin with and making an utter joke of it for the sake of buy votes.

So today’s retired should have to pay double? That is, having earnings confiscated while working and having that same money taken away again when they are no longer able to recoup it through employment?

When it comes time for the far right of the far right conservatives, (and leftiest of the dems for that matter) to start cutting entitlements, it will never start with those that have never earned it. It will be a vote buying scam of some sort to get a certain class of people to vote or to line pockets.

Politics do not change, just the era, people and places.

There is no simple solution. We can’t just go back into time and correct the problem when the feds started spending the funds for other purposes and giving entitlements to those that never paid in.

We’ve had (and still have) a very evil system, probably beginning with the big entitlement era of LBJ and his Great Society. And somewhere in the 90’s or so both parties morphed into the globalist Uniparty.

I believe Trump is trying hard, and will likely succeed. Fortunately, he is not a true conservative, even though much of his agenda tracks that direction. He’s more of a nationalist and loves America. I have more faith in this guy being “fair” than I do some far right ultra conservative do-gooder.

There is no simple solution.

Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions for a lot of our country's issues, and you're right, we can't go back and un-happen the factors that got us where we are now.

I believe Trump is trying hard, and will likely succeed.

The first part, sure. The second part depends on how one defines "success."

No one was “forced to invest”. “Forced”, yes the money was taken by force as is all taxes. “Invest”, no because there was never an investment. The money was taken if people wish to delude themselves and believe the takings were investments then they have their fantasies to help them believe they are owed the money. There is nothing to “recoup” and there is nothing “earned” in the way of future payments. Words such as invest, earned, trust fund, contributions, benefits, etc. are words used by politicians to help people feel good about the tax and spend welfare entitlement. People can choose to accept them and justify accepting the entitlement or they can see the words for what they are and understand that they are participating in a welfare program.

How about this. We quit collecting SS contributions and up the income tax by an equal amount. The monthly SS check could be renamed as the Montly Old Age Payment. Nothing would change except people could no longer claim they are “owed”.

“understand that they are participating in a welfare program.”

That is a deeply insulting play on words. I have never been on welfare. Social security is not welfare.

The general definition of “invest” can be found in a Google search and come up with: “expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture”

That pretty much fits social security.

OK, now I give in. Let’s say this social security “welfare” system is ended. Period. That is those receiving benefits are just told to go pound sand.

Answer this question: There are people that rely substantially if not entirely on social security that are not on welfare. Once their SS checks disappear, what happens to them?

The vast majority are too old to work for meaningful wages. Many are too sick or disabled to work at all.

So yes, once the government screws SS recipients out of their EARNED benefits, what happens to them?

I mean really, you may have a very good solution that’s better than social security

Let’s hear it?

End all the meaningless terminology that leads people to believe, mistakenly and fraudulently, that they have invested and earned and are deserving and entitled. Replace it with a real accurate name. Quit deducting the taxes separately.

Call it The Stipend for the Old and Infirmed.

I agree. We will have to carry some people for awhile so means test the program, raise the retirement age, and trim the disability rolls. Then gradually eliminate it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.