Join The Debate!

The Public Trough and Ponzi

Hitting the taxpayer up to provide funds for the 'needy' INDIVIDUAL was probably never considered as 'thinkable' when the Constitution was presented for ratification. It most assuredly was not considered 'Constitutional' in the 1830's, or else the "It's not ours to give" speech would be just a joke when US Representative David Crockett made that speech.
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/crockett_not_yours_to_give.asp

Crockett related a conversation with one Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce reportedly said in part, "when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people."

That statement alone should have been a warning that politicians and even judges and Justices on the highest Court in the United States should look upon the Constitution as a firm contract determined by what 'the People' understood and currently understand it to mean -- as written and intended.

I believe that Mr. Bunce could have said 'when GOVERNMENT once begins to stretch its power", there is no limit to it and no security for the people (the citizens of the United States).

'Government' HAS stretched its power to, or well beyond, the very boundaries of the tyranny that was so detested by the authors of the Declaration of Independence. Not only has taken to give away, but has loaded the American citizen with a debt that is so monstrous as to defy belief in order to provide funds for giveaway programs.

I cannot imagine any responsible or sane person willing to go deeply into debt to give away the proceeds of debt, particularly if their own family would have to suffer, and most assuredly not if they were already struggling.

Some may say that not all of the 'public debt' (or public disgrace) went to giveaway programs, and possibly that is true but when the Nation is ALREADY deeply in debt and more giveaways are added, where is that money coming from? Even the current interest on the 'debt' is beyond the total debt 50 or so years ago.

Who are the deceivers who would make us believe that it is 'responsible' to give away money we don't have? Quite clearly, those who profit from getting it are in favor of getting it.

OLD MAN compared this mess to a Ponzi scheme, and rightly so because people are duped into believing that such schemes are 'sound investments' when in truth they are mathematically unsustainable after just a few 'iterations'. However, 'government' has two things going for it that the Ponzi schemers do not have. When 'government' operates them, they are LEGAL and 'government' can FORCE people to 'participate'.

We have, by and large, been suckered into believing that government can give us something of greater value than the price we are forced to pay because we have been led to believe that 'someone else' will make up the difference. We seem surprised, even outraged, when we discover that WE are that 'someone else' and finally have to acknowledge that we have been suckered.

I, personally, do not vote for any candidate who indicates a willingness to vote for ANY giveaway -- either for a 'new' one or for sustaining an old one because I do not believe I 'owe' anyone except my progeny (within limits I set myself). I give to causes and even to people if I feel I can afford such charity.

Once again, alluding to Mr. Bunce, 'government' may be relieving some but at the same time may be taking from thousands who are more needy than the recipients of government 'generosity'.