Makers and Takers

I am slowly coming to terms with the new normal in America, where those who want to be supported by the government outnumber and dictate to those who fund the government.  Many are now calling this delineation the makers and the takers.  Immediately the liberals pounce upon those who dare to call some in the society the "takers".  Their usual line is to point out retirees or the disabled on Social Security and lump these people into our "taker" definition.  Not true.  Takers can be easily defined.  A taker is a capable person who pays no federal income tax and would rather take a permanent government check than earn one in the job market.  Retirees collecting Social Security are not takers - they are receiving funds previously paid in.  Disabled are not takers either - we still live in a society that take care of those who cannot.  The liberals who denigrate those who point out the obvious, are the real threats to the retired and the disabled.  Our current fiscal trajectory is not sustainable.  We need more makers and fewer takers.

I don't like where we are, and it's not because I am selfish.  I hate to see the takers taken advantage of.  You have heard the reasons.  Any government large enough to meet your every need is large enough to take it all away.  Unfortunately, this logic doesn't resonate with the taker.  They see the government trough as unlimited.  Whether it is or isn't shouldn't be the conversation.  The conversation should be simplistic.  

Why do they put "Don't feed the Bears" signs in Yellowstone? 
Is it because the bears would become reliant on the food given by tourists?
When the tourists don't show up, would the bears starve?
Why would we care more about bears in Yellowstone than the takers in society?