history lesson... (rant?)

Bonus! check out this photo I found online:

Well, the comments are flying this week on Facebook, so I dug this out of our collection to post there also.  We must have gotten it several years ago  (after Bush vs. Gore election in 2000?)  And again I say, health care is not a 'right' to be provided by the government!  But, ultimately, my citizenship is in heaven ~ Praise the Lord for that.  =)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough had this to say about "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:

THE FALL OF THE ATHENIAN REPUBLIC...

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to complacency! ;
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependence,
From dependence back into bondage."

A typical cell from 'El Morro Castle Prison' where tens of thousands of political prisoners were confined during the 1960s and 1970s (from TotalitarianImages.blogspot)

.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

And more recent (~10 years ago) commentary which related to the above:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent American Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:
Gore 127 million
Bush 143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore 580,000
Bush 2,427,000

States won by:
Gore 19
Bush 29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore 13.2
Bush 2.1

Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..." Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and the "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.  (emphasis added - Interesting, eh?)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

I heard discussion on the radio last week (Jan Mickelson on WHO ~ Anyone can and should listen to his podcasts!) ~ the caller said that only 50% of Americans are paying taxes.  So what does that tell us about the other 50%??  "Bring on the handouts. Who cares about the debt?" possibly?

And a few more peeves:  the Census form states it must count everyone living in the United States.  Nope.  The Constitution requires the citizens to be counted.  See the difference?  
Members of the Hispanic population want to boycott the census because they want illegal aliens to be counted - Hello?  (If you are in the US legally, I welcome you - If not, get in line on the other side of the border.)
A nearby city is campaigning for its college students to claim residence for the census ~ Are you seeing the dollar $ign$ in that idea?  Oh, and the census workers (who, HA, help the unemployment rate - HA) insisted they were required to leave a form at our vacant under-construction house - because "it had a roof on it" - Yup, my DH came down from shingling to talk to them.  No windows, but it had a roof!  That's our tax dollars at work for us!
Oh, and I have to dig out the book The Law by Bastiat ~ Jan Mickelson was explaining the 'broken window' idea from that last week.  Now you're curious, aren't you?  ;-)  I'll see if I can explain... Let's say a man goes downtown and breaks a window in a bakery shop.  Oh no, what a bad thing.  Oh, but wait, just think of all the stimulus to the economy!  The baker will hire someone to clean up the mess, buy a new window, and hire someone to install it - Think of all that money going into the local economy - new jobs even!  HOWEVER, all that money won't go into expanding the baker's business or even maintaining the business or employees he already has.  He's no better off.  Make any sense?  So, we have programs like Cash for Clunkers.  What did that accomplish?  Someone who needs a decent used car can't find one to buy because so many were destroyed at taxpayer expense.  The car dealer's sales were good during the program - with those buyers who had money to afford a NEW car, but what about now?  The new car buyers already bought a car last year.  Those who can't afford a new car still can't afford one -- and can't find a decent used car...  Hmmm?  Same thing in the housing market, don't you think?


Okay, I'll quit my ranting and raving, but I'll end with a favorite quote from President Calvin Coolidge ~

"The Government can do more to remedy the economic ills of the people by a system of rigid economy in public expenditure than can be accomplished through any other action."

(As seen in volume 4 of Clarence Carson's series, A Basic History of the United States, p. 255)

Carson also points out that Coolidge was true to his beliefs and led an administration which practiced economy in government.  "For the last time in American history (to this date ~1985), significant reductions were made in the national debt.  As a result of deficit spending during the war, the government had a large debt of $24 billion going into the 1920s.  By 1930, the debt had been reduced to about ~16 billion.  This was accomplished by keeping spending well below government revenues.  At the same time, however, taxes (except for the tariff) were significantly reduced.  The surtax on personal income was reduced from a top rate of 40 percent to 20 percent by the Revenue Act of 1926.  Estate taxes were similarly reduced, and gift taxes were abolished.  Moreover, despite several rounds of tax reduction, revenues continued to provide a surplus."  (page 256-257, emphasis added)

What a concept!  =)  The economy was stimulated when businesses and individuals were able to spend their own money willingly instead of being taxed into the poor house.