So my Republican Dad says, "Half the country is on some government entitlement program...."

[Igel]

48. They're called "entitlement programs" because the people are entitled to the benefits.

Buy-ins don't matter. You can pay all you want and if you're not entitled, you're not entitled.

Under feudalism, a king or bishop could grant you title; with the title came privileges. Land and income from the land, for instance. The right to draw from the treasury. The right to a circuit as judge. Or, if the bishop entitled you, you might have income from tithes in a parish or the right to beg in a given area. The grant might be because of service--or because of services expected in the future. Or just because the guy felt sorry for you or owed your relatives a favor. Often "earned," but disproportionate in return on investment; sometimes not "earned."


Same now, except that it's the Congress that grants title to a right or a privilege, and, again, they're only "earned" in the sense that you've satisfied the condition for claiming the benefit or right. My SIL's kid got disability payments, my SIL and brother paid FICA for decades. The benefits aren't directly tied to anything he did. And for all the "buy in", the benefits could change over time--and Congress could revoke them. The right is entirely one that's granted. It's not earned, it's not due.

My neighbor's kid could claim all sorts of rights without so much as one cent's buy-in: Father and father were undocumented, seldom paid into the fund that his kid's entitlements came out of. The kid could apply for free dental care, health care, pre-school, etc., etc., because he met the conditions: American citizen, family income less than a certain amount. He's entitled to the benefits because he met the conditions. His "buy in" was being who he was. Nothing more.