FREE STUFF

Posted by $ Tap2Golf 11 years, 3 months ago to Economics
14 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like
the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because
the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer
afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And the folks who are paying for the free stuff
want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more
free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay
for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING
the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the
free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been
convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the
free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay
for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there
are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the
free stuff.

Now understand this.
All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere
between 200 and 250 years after being founded.
The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money
from the treasury by electing people who promised to give
them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776,
237 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff
outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff.

Failure to change that spells the end of the United States
as we know it.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years, 3 months ago
    A shorter version of what you just wrote:
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.”~ Alexander Frasier Tytler

    One of my favorite quotes. I think it is a logical assumption, but the truth is not always logical.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeborahH 11 years, 3 months ago
    The US will always have her Constitution. What we have lost is our financial status in the world and will soon experience the consequences of borrowing and printing trillions of dollars. Without financial power our influence is meaningless, contrary to what the progressives have fed the masses. There is no other nation in history that has surpassed our level of indebtedness which we can only get away with as long as the world buys and sells in dollars. When that stops, our dire financial situation will cause the US to be at the mercy of all other nations, none of whom care about our dusty Constitution. The Progressive one-world government theologians (includes republicans and democrats) know what path we are on and these elites seem to embrace it. I cannot explain crazy ... Ask the Clintons, Bush boys, media elites, ... Could they still be dreaming of a Marxist Utopia under a 1,000 points of light? We are witnessing the construction of a one-world government stage: question is -- Who will be the messianic dictator? What chaos will occur in the process? Oh how the progressives have worked hard to undermine our Constitutional rights by undermining our financial strength as a nation, spending to create more dependency on government and thereby insure re-election for progressives. Read Mark Levin's recent book on how states can get together and create change like term limits!! Ann Rand cannot help us; only God in Heaven can.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 3 months ago
      Amendments proposed in
      The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic:

      1. Term limits, including for justices.
      2. Repealing Amendment 17 and returning the election of senators to state legislatures
      3. A congressional super majority to override Supreme Court decisions (overruling what could be a stacked court)
      4. Spending limit based on GDP
      5. Taxation capped at 15%
      6. Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights
      7. Power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote


      For me:
      1. I never liked the idea that judges are unaccountable and in many cases, appointed for life.
      2. I wholeheartedly agree, the state governors should appoint senators. This requires the senate to honor the wishes of their respective states instead of becoming Washington drones. The state legislatures can come up with their own ways to figure out who senators should be.
      3. Sadly this is necessary, the supreme court has taken on the burden of deciding things far too important for 9 political appointees to figure out for themselves.
      4. Not sure, this may be counter productive.
      5. If this refers to the federal taxation, I agree. There is too much power concentrated in the hands of too few. The feds need to be reigned in, leaving social policy to the states.
      6. Oh yes, the commerce clause has been so abused that the feds claim nearly everything affects interstate commerce.
      7. Nope - not necessary if #2 & #3 happen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 years, 3 months ago
      Mark Levin's new book, "The Liberty Amendments" is, so far, a good read. I am just starting Amend 2. and anticipate greatness from ML. I recommend it also. Thanks.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 3 months ago
    Yes. I imagine 50 years ago (I'm 38.) when someone said, "People should pay some taxes to provide for the needy," most people thought that meant that that meant they were being asked to help the poor. Now it seems like MOST people think that sentence means SOMEONE ELSE'S taxes should pay for THEIR needs.

    We can debate whether the middle class and rich should be asked to pay for the needs of the poor. It's meaningless to debate whether the rich should pay for the middle class's and poor's needs b/c the rich simply do not have the money to carry everyone. That's what I sometimes see happening-- middle class people with an affluent lifestyle wanting gov't to pay for their mortgage, kids' college, healthcare costs, etc.

    I am generally optimistic, but this trend is concerning for the reasons you said.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo