In my mind, entitlements are . . .
Social Security
Medicare
Veteran Benefits
Unemployment Compensation
Federal Pensions
Others
IOW, these things have either been earned through service or have been paid for.
Food stamps
Rent subsidies
Aid to Dependent Children
Medicaid
Others
Aren't entitlements. They are given as support by a society who intends to give people a hand up.
I hear people say they're insulted that SS is called an entitlement. I guess they don't know the definition of the word. You are ENTITLED to SS. You paid for it. It's yours.
You are NOT entitled to a rent subsidy or food stamps. People get this because society has determined they need help and is willing to help them.
Thoughts?
You may use terms like entitlements, welfare, subsidies, or others, and it is really just semantics, IMO.
It has become abundantly clear that in a modern, post-industrial society, not all people are needed for paid work. Something like 2% of the workforce produces all food needed, about 12-13% all manufactured products, and so on. Societal wealth has increased drastically in recent years, but it has done so with less workers.
And hard experience through history has also taught that it is much easier in the long run to simply ensure everyone has at least enough to get by, without starving or dying of exposure or medical emergency. Better to pay "welfare" than pay legions of military and police to guard against starving mobs.
In more recent times, the hard lesson of consumer demand has also been learned. In our consumer society, poverty and lack of demand can, and has, caused dangerous cycles of deflation and economic stagnation. And so making sure everyone has a least a little to spend is an economic benefit, in addition to any moral or security concerns.
Perhaps everyone does not have the same degree of "entitlement", but a problem arises in large and complex societies of exactly who is entitled to what. A man may live most of his life in criminality, in and out of jail, produce nothing but misery, and yet still qualify for social security in his old age. A worker may have been key in producing valuable assets for the nation, such as hydroelectric dams, airports, new computer software, etc, but then finds life takes a turn, or poor decisions are made, and he is now on "welfare". Who is more entitled? And who should be charged with making the decisions? I'm not saying there aren't some scum bums out there who deserve nothing but a kick in the teeth, but I can say from experience these folks number much less than some RW hysterics imagine.
Overall, our society tends to respect things like old age, military service, etc. But these are cultural and historical developments, that vary through time and place. They follow cultural trend, and are not carved in any existing economic stone.
Given changes in technology, today it would be impossible to put very many more people in the workforce than are already there, at least in any sort of meaningful jobs, in relation to economic and population growth. Rather than trying to jam a square peg in a round hole, better to just allow that only so many will do meaningful work, and no one else should be excluded to the point of life or limb, in today's wealthy society. Call it what you may.
