• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Have you ever noticed how assumptions blind us to truth?

M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
I saw the following notion, perhaps attributed to Franklin, but it is one I've heard all my life:

?A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.?

-- attributed to Alexander Tytler, Scottish historian.

Isn't this something conservatives use to somehow warn us about liberals ? How so ans what sense do you make out of it? Is this really a concern?
 
The original quote makes sense and seems ultimately to be where all western nations are heading. Could it really be so simple that our future is defined by one sentence? Maybe.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.?
Click to expand...
That is accomplished when the elected officials start serving personal good, not the common good, ie. bailouts, bridges to nowhere, tobacco subsidies, selling Senate seats to the highest bidder, and on-and-on.

 
A constitutional republic would delay the inevitable as there is some check to the unfettered wishes of the masses. But eventually even our form of government will fail, cycle to some form of strong central rule and then back to repubicanism. It's a long cycle of course, but we have been seeing for many years now the notion taske hold among elected reps that their purpose is to get reelected and to do that they need to give bread and circuses to the people.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Well, what are the two largest government programs?
Click to expand...

Where I looked Social Security and defense were tied for second.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...spendingbycategory.png

How could I forget the wars? 😀

Yeah, I meant SS and Medicare.
Click to expand...
Uh, from your link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...s_federal_budget,_2008

$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
Click to expand...
Is the $608 billion the net figure of what is paid out minus what is taken in? Or is it just what is paid out?

$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
Click to expand...
EDIT:

Total reciepts:
$927.2 billion - Social Security and other payroll tax
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Well, what are the two largest government programs?
Click to expand...

Where I looked Social Security and defense were tied for second.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...spendingbycategory.png

How could I forget the wars? 😀

Yeah, I meant SS and Medicare.

But I think the quote in your OP is an argument against a pure Democracy, favoring instead, a Democratic Republic.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think so too but is it any more immune or any less of the conservative saw I think it is?

At any rate, is it the voters voting themselves medical and a retirement that is the problem or the theft of the funding for other purposes. We saw, for example, the conservatives who don't like having any money taken from taken from them, try to get SS self managed so people could have blown their wad in the market collapse. They did so, of course, because they know how much wiser people are about their own money than the government ever could be. But the Liberals said no and saved millions of people's asses.

At any rate, in a government that is supposed to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness you would expect there might be some money going to health, longevity and defense, no?
 
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Leave it up to my friend Moonbeam to once again pull a rabbit out of the hat!!
Click to expand...

I haven't pulled it out yet, but I have one up my sleeve. But I have to say, people here seem to be making a good case and are implicating both parties. But again, it seems to me that this idea, I thought, was more commonly suggested by the right to warn, particularly against welfare spending
 
Originally posted by: Billb2
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.?
Click to expand...
That is accomplished when the elected officials start serving personal good, not the common good, ie. bailouts, bridges to nowhere, tobacco subsidies, selling Senate seats to the highest bidder, and on-and-on.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly, but there's one trick you haven't included that is used to special effect by conservatives seeking to be elected, the very folk who warn us against profligate spending but at the same time implicates them in the same thing. Well maybe two tricks, or two that I can see. For example, it occurs to me that Republican pork is infrastructure and Democratic port is wasteful spending. Have you noticed that?

But the one that I had up my sleeve is this. There is more than one way to vote yourself money. You can vote for health care responsibly if you can responsibly pay for it or anything else for that matter given proper funding. But those who warn against the excesses of liberalism have a universal philosophy that accomplishes the same thing:

They promise you tax cuts if elected. Vote for me and your life won't change except you won't have to pay for anything. Voting the abnegation of responsibility sure is voting yourself money and like any ponzie scheme it works until the infrastructure collapses, no?
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, I think so too but is it any more immune or any less of the conservative saw I think it is?

At any rate, is it the voters voting themselves medical and a retirement that is the problem or the theft of the funding for other purposes. We saw, for example, the conservatives who don't like having any money taken from taken from them, try to get SS self managed so people could have blown their wad in the market collapse. They did so, of course, because they know how much wiser people are about their own money than the government ever could be. But the Liberals said no and saved millions of people's asses.

At any rate, in a government that is supposed to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness you would expect there might be some money going to health, longevity and defense, no?
Click to expand...

Well, right off the bat, these "conservatives" you speak of, are supporting the welfare state. Perhaps you missed the Medicare Prescription drug plan they passed. And during the 6 years they had power in the oval office and both houses of Congress, did they do anything about SS? No.

As for who is better at spending money, the government or people, I think it is inarguable that people in general do make much better customers than government.
 
I think the original quote may seem reasonable, but it assumes a lot. It assumes that the "slippery slope" exists, that once started down a path there's no way to change direction, stop, or even reverse the path. That is simply not true.

Another quote I despise goes something like this: The young are Liberal, the old are Conservate.(I know that's not even close to the actual quote, it's the essence of it though)

Utter BS. On some levels there are some Truths to it, but its' use is very far off the mark and assigns Political Partisan implications to it that were never intended. Ironically, it's usually snot nosed Conservatives that throw it around, automatically negating any point they had to begin with.
 
Originally posted by: Billb2
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.?
Click to expand...
That is accomplished when the elected officials start serving personal good, not the common good, ie. bailouts, bridges to nowhere, tobacco subsidies, selling Senate seats to the highest bidder, and on-and-on.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is part of human nature, to better ourselves. How will something benefit me?

Unless we evolve and no longer have that core trait, there will always be corruption and personal interest put before public good.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
I think the original quote may seem reasonable, but it assumes a lot. It assumes that the "slippery slope" exists, that once started down a path there's no way to change direction, stop, or even reverse the path. That is simply not true.

Another quote I despise goes something like this: The young are Liberal, the old are Conservate.(I know that's not even close to the actual quote, it's the essence of it though)

Utter BS. On some levels there are some Truths to it, but its' use is very far off the mark and assigns Political Partisan implications to it that were never intended. Ironically, it's usually snot nosed Conservatives that throw it around, automatically negating any point they had to begin with.
Click to expand...

The genesis of this is always with people who were optimistic and got burnt. It's that problem of self hate. We sabotage our own happiness because we don't feel we deserve it and then we become bitter and negative because we can never look at ourselves and see how we ourselves failed.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I saw the following notion, perhaps attributed to Franklin, but it is one I've heard all my life:

?A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.?

-- attributed to Alexander Tytler, Scottish historian.

Isn't this something conservatives use to somehow warn us about liberals ? How so ans what sense do you make out of it? Is this really a concern?
Click to expand...

Democrats really don't strike me as liberal by definition. Sort of like wrapping yourself up in the flag there isn't it?
Liberal
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Click to expand...

As for people voting themselves the largess of the public treasury, isn't that what is happening now? I submit to you that the form of government required to enact wealth redistribution of this scale cannot be anything other than tyrannical and oppressive. People have to be put down "in their place" to be forced to work for another?s benefit.

I would argue that no Union should be forced upon one another and to do so violates freedom. Of course we all have our priorities and I know where I stand on this matter, and you know where you stand. Never the twain shall meet.

Of course then we come to how this dispute is settled and if you'll enforce your redistribution through blood.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, exactly, but there's one trick you haven't included that is used to special effect by conservatives seeking to be elected, the very folk who warn us against profligate spending but at the same time implicates them in the same thing.
Click to expand...

First off, it's not JUST conservatives who say during their campaign they are against wasteful spending. This is NOT a partisan issue. It's a global issue accross all parties.

Secondly, the reason that works is because people want to believe. They want to be able to trust the politician. They believe them at face value, without looking more deeply into their past to make an educated decision. They listen to the MSM, and take that for the truth.

Well maybe two tricks, or two that I can see. For example, it occurs to me that Republican pork is infrastructure and Democratic port is wasteful spending. Have you noticed that?
Click to expand...

Once again, bringing party lines into this. It isn't a partisan issue. Both primary parties have pork. The difference being that R pork usually is more business minded (which the infrastructure must be good to support businesses), while D pork usually is more social program minded (and they try to benefit the poor/old/weak/etc). Either way it's both pork, just a matter of if the money goes towards private businesses (as R pork tends to do) or governmental spending (as D pork tends to do).

But the one that I had up my sleeve is this. There is more than one way to vote yourself money. You can vote for health care responsibly if you can responsibly pay for it or anything else for that matter given proper funding.
Click to expand...

You say there is more than one way to vote than solely with money. If you believe that, then why do politicians do things that have financial benefits for themselves generally? It all boils down to money, regardless of what you try to cover that up with.

But those who warn against the excesses of liberalism have a universal philosophy that accomplishes the same thing:

They promise you tax cuts if elected. Vote for me and your life won't change except you won't have to pay for anything. Voting the abnegation of responsibility sure is voting yourself money and like any ponzie scheme it works until the infrastructure collapses, no?
Click to expand...

Once again, you are solely looking at a single side. The both promise tax cuts/breaks. One side may promise more, but the other promises more benefits. Stop painting the world in a single color, and see it for what it is: human nature. Humans have it part of their core fibers to better themself, and as such watch out for their own self interests. This country rewards those who cheat the system, and unfortunately politicians are able to do that because of their positions.
 
I think that just because a long-dead academic said something does not mean it is accurate. I see that line deserving just as much discussion as someone's comment on this forum.
 
Originally posted by: Farang
I think that just because a long-dead academic said something does not mean it is accurate. I see that line deserving just as much discussion as someone's comment on this forum.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
(1)What is a liberal?

(2) what class of people are usually liberials?

(3) Government employees are they liberials or do they hang on the party that promises government growth and job security.

(4). Pretty much anyone who voted on this BS package is a liberal. FACT,

(5) I get a $250 bonus check from SS. This was not needed. I will not put that $250 back into System . I always wanted to light up a cigar with a $100 bill. Looks like I get to have 3 cigars. 2 $100 light ups and 1 $50. Now that Money will help no one. The paper may say its $100 but its really worthless paper.

Liberals are usually your lower class types. That are used by Dems to garner votes. You know the types Gay is cool Abortion is choice which infact it is. But the wrong choice= murder. Gay marriage. I am all for it . Give them a state tell them to stay in it . 100 years problem resolved.

Whether you believe in God or not. We are not animals acting like such is an afront to mankind.

For 6 years we listened to the war is wrong from the Dems . Even tho they voted for it.

Now its are turn . But its really not fair. Bush sucked. This guy is goiing to make Bush look like a Choires Boy. Secret meeting. Quick passage of a bill that will give powers to the Fed unlike any have ever had in the USA. Its going to be fun watching . But this isn't funny. Youth group movements . We been their done that.

I know today was a really Bad day . But I can't help buy think . What a hugh distraction that air crash was. May God have mercy on thier spirits. What time did that thing crash anyway?

I know you guys have heard this befor. But what was todays Date. 2/13/09.

Friday the 13th. THE 13th. Hugh date for the skulls. Tell me again . Why this bill had to be rushed threw. Was it the economics that they are worried about. OR a TIMELINE I think its about the Time line. Next week should be interesting.
 
My wife just fired up her PC. My daughter wrote an interesting programm with my aid.

I won't go into the details but it plots important dates for the FreeMasons . She running the programm now adding in todays numbers. ALL the numbers sad to say . Now I just have to wait a few minutes. and I can give ya a date that should prove meaningful.

Well this is a surprize. Looks like Dar needs to work on program more . I get a date of 2/17/09. That date I can't see the 17 as meaningful. This just isn't right. I know this program should have given me a number other than 2/17/09. Well back to the drawing board Dammit.


Well me and dar just talked about it. She said that the Code I added I wouldn't let her see. Could be the problem . That would be the Enoch code . It should not have run with the program but somehow todays numbers made the Enoch code run in the program . Well either I goofed a little. OR the 17 is going to be a very black day.
 
The fore fathers of the United States were brave enough to sign their names to the declaration of independence and fight tyrany and the King of England for their freedom. The people of the United States should be prepared to fight the tyrany of the government today. If that means a new revolution against the government then so be it.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
The fore fathers of the United States were brave enough to sign their names to the declaration of independence and fight tyrany and the King of England for their freedom. The people of the United States should be prepared to fight the tyrany of the government today. If that means a new revolution against the government then so be it.
Click to expand...

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278


The second amendment with the right to bear arms was not created for hunting or fishing, our forefathers put that there so we have the ability to rise up if our country becomes oppressive.

WWHHhhooooaaaaa...............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top