In my mind, as well, I think, as in the minds of the founding fathers, government is like an unruly child that must be watched over every second of the day, lest the entire family come to harm through his mischief. Let's say, for the sake of this illustration, that our unruly child has become a college student and we, his parents, sent our credit card with him to use for certain, very specific expenses or in case of emergencies. This is not money we have, but money we are willing to work in the future to provide for those specific expenses. He was fairly responsible at first. After a few blips here and there, we have gone on with our lives and not paid much attention to the totals on the credit card statement.
We have just received a bill for several trillion dollars. The extra zeros caught our attention. We thought "how could that possibly be correct?" After checking with the company, we have been assured that it is indeed correct. Our unruly child, bereft of our close attention, has been behaving badly. He seems to have decided that, since we are(or were)the richest family on the block and since he has a credit card that seems to have no limit, there's no reason he shouldn't help others as well as himself. In fact it looks as though our unruly child has decided that he can provide for the entire world...as long as he has our credit card. He seems to believe that it is his duty to do so, since he has the means...our credit card. He has purchased houses, food and medicine for his friends, his friend's relatives and strangers. He has even allowed thieves to come into our home and take our things for themselves. These thieves are not required to follow our rules, but we are supposed to treat them as honored guests no matter how they behave because our child thinks they will return his generosity with a like measure of their own.
We have invited our unruly child to a tea party to explain the consequences of his actions.
- He has put us so far into debt that we will never be able to retire and he must pay for the debt for his entire life as well. We are no longer the richest family on the block.
- He is on the verge of causing our grandchildren to be in debt for their entire lives as well. This is immoral and unacceptable.
- He has denied his fellows the satisfaction of paying their own way and possibly crippled them permanently in so doing.
- He has usurped the responsibility of other families/communities to care for their own. This is detrimental to the character of those families/communities.
- Thieves will not repay you for allowing them to steal from you except by stealing from you again. It is the height of foolishness to expect otherwise.
- He has placed us in a situation where, at any time, our creditors may call our debt due and take everything we have. Then, not having met our debt obligations through our property, our creditors will be allowed to sell us into slavery to satisfy that debt. We hope that we have been a good enough customer that they will be willing to allow us the time to work to pay off those debts. (Unfortunately, our child is currently engaged in telling them what horrible people we are.)
We understand the humanitarian impulses and even the power trip that spending all that money gave our child and we're willing to work to pay it off. We, after all, gave our child the card and did not keep a close eye on it's use. We are responsible for these debts, but there can be no more spending.
If he agrees, he must live under our rules until we have a handle on this mess. The credit card will be closed. Any extraneous assets must be sold. Any payments he is making for expenses besides those we approved at the outset must be stopped. His friends(who are now his dependents) must be allowed to pay their own way. We can work to ease that transition for them, but there must be a transition, we have no other options. There is no more money. The thieves will be arrested and removed from our home to face justice.
Much of America is at the point of saying that if our unruly child will not follow our rules, he is free to go and live on his own, but without our support or our credit card. That anyone who continues to lend to him based on the expectation of our paying it back does so at their own risk.
That is what the tea party movement is about and the tenth amendment movement as well. We the People are attempting to once again exercise our authority over this government.
"Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. " ~ Matt 18:23-30
Posts
15 comments:
Actually, I think after we explain all of this at the tea party, a trip to the wood shed should be the next stop for an application of the board of education to said child.
The wood shed is for younger children. This one is big and strong enough to fight back, possibly injuring his parents.
Mr. Morris has been having trouble posting to my blog. Here is what he sent to me as his post.
"Having trouble posting comments to your blog again. Here's what I wanted to say:
It's a good analogy, and the choir gets it, but they still don't get it because they're the ungovernable spendthrifts with the credit card in question.
On Dr. D.'s suggestion (I ain't smiling): they need to be strung up and tarred and feathered. In public. I know it sounds radical and crazy, but which is more radical and crazy -- my suggestion and the little bit of pain and suffering it would inflict, or to continue down the current road and the much more extensive pain that will be inflicted as a result?
On your response to Dr. D.: Yes, they're big and strong, quick and agile and all of that, but they ain't near as mean, nor as determined as ol' dad is, and I can guarantee you that.
On the debt each of us owes:
Let me say again what I've said before: I donate all I've paid into the socialist "social security" program during the course of my working life, with no strings attached. That's a fair-sized down payment on the (government) debt I personally owe, depending on whose figures we're going by. Everything else I have is bought and paid for, in full, and I will not incur anymore debt, irregardless. Come get me."
If anyone else is having trouble posting here, please send me an email at wakingdragon@hotmail.com and I will put your comments up as well.
This is a test, to see if things continue to work OK for me.
I think there might be a problem on my end which is causing the situation with my posting comments. What happens is that the "word verification" function somehow becomes disabled, resulting in my inability to post a comment.
But anyway, thanks for posting my comments for me.
I take a rather different view.
The tea party is where the parents get together and try to work out how to deal with this child. The pleadings for restraint and responsibility have already been made, the irrationality of the profligacy and recklessness have already been explained to the "child".
The sanest thing for the parents to do is to declare this "child" an independent adult and work out a plan to protect themselves. Carrying the analogy further, the parents should quickly file legal actions to absolve themselves of further responsibility and establish that this "child" no longer has a right to see them or even know where they are. Then they should move out of their current house to somewhere that their "child" cannot find them.
Don't worry about punishing the "errant child", nature will take care of that rather more thoroughly than the parents ever wished (the primary reason the parents have hung in as long as they have). Between thieves, creditors, and plain idiocy, the "child" isn't long for this earth. That's just too damn bad, the parents cannot alter the laws of nature.
Prepare a place of refuge where the Federal government (and internationalist "friends") will not be able to come. You may fail in this, but it isn't like you have any real alternatives. This may be a state realistically prepared to survive the collapse of the Federal government, or it may be a well-supplied bunker in the middle of nowhere, or anything in-between.
Organized survival is easier than individual survival, but make no mistake, survival rather than "justice" or "equity" is the problem to be addressed, this late in the game.
Even so, I find myself envious of those who can be 'parents'. Just don't look back.
Chiu,
We, as parents, have an obligation to work with the creditors, as the debt was incurred with our permission. It is not right to allow the creditors to suffer harm because we weren't paying attention. We have an obligation to make them whole or at least to work with them on a settlement agreement.
I think we all recognize that the child's access to our funds must be cut off as the preliminary step towards a solution.
That is a noble sentiment. It's not one I can share, because the debt wasn't run up with my permission and I never took a parental attitude towards the government. But if there is hope for the nation, it lies with those who are willing to accept responsibility for its reform.
I am willing to accept responsibility for my role in the future of America, but insofar as I have a role it will not be to restore the nation. Distressing as that is to me, I've come to accept it.
I think CC is correct in saying that he, and the rest of us, did not give our permission to our out of control Congress. They simply took it. This is where the parental analogy breaks down, I think. They certainly acted without my permission, and without the permission of anyone I know, other than Zero. They simply acted because they "know better." I'm not willing to accept the resposisbility for that.
Dr.D. and Chiu,
I must respectfully disagree. We have a participatory form of government. The only reason Congress has been able to engage in such spending is because We the People did not control them.
I too, feel that this was not done with my approval. However, as a country, We the People did nothing to prevent it. We did not work with our elected officials to prevent it, nor did we organize effective grass roots campaigns to do so when those elected officials engaged in such profligate spending. Or at least not enough of us did so to prevent it. Therefore We the People ARE responsible for the bills.
That is why we are having tea parties, because more of us have now realized that our elected representatives have been entirely irresponsible with our money, on our watch and we must become more involved if we want our children to have any hope of inheriting anything besides debt.
Mom, I suppose it is a question of just how far "we" goes. I have been writing letters to my congresscritters for years and being roundly ignored in the process. At some point, I think that there is not a whole lot more that I can do since I was not a full time "community organizer" such as the current impostor in the White House was. I just never had that luxury. I have always voted, usually for the best of a sorry choice presented by the national parties. I'm not prepared to accept responsibility for what I had no means of controlling; I just don't think it works that way.
Dr. D.
I feel the same way, but, I am an American Citizen. As an American Citizen, I have had the option to benefit from that spending whether I approved of it or not. And I am obligated to pay for it as the rest of America approved(whether by inaction or apathy)the expense.
Let's look at it this way. I am a married woman. If my husband decided to allow our son to purchase a car with us as the co-signers to the loan, as a Christian woman I have the obligation to advise him that we can't afford that expense(assuming we cannot) and ask him not to co-sign that loan. I can nag him about it. I could politely remind him of the other costs/liabilities involved, but the bottom line is that he, as the head of the household has decided to co-sign for that debt.
It is quite possible that we will benefit in some ways from that debt- availability of another vehicle (if our son is living near us),peace of mind in knowing that our son has his own transportation-possibly it allows our son to remain employed-whatever.
Should our son at any time become unable, or prove himself unwilling to make the loan payments, insurance or maintenance costs associated with that vehicle, it would be a liability for my husband and myself to leave that vehicle without insurance coverage or proper maintenance. (I would advise selling the vehicle at this point. If my husband disagrees, then we must pay those costs to protect ourselves.)
If my husband dies and the vehicle loan has not yet been satisfied, even though I was against the purchase of the vehicle, I am still required to satisfy that loan.
You and I and countless others may have been against that purchase, but the rest of America either didn't care or approved and that means all of America is responsible for the debts so incurred.
Mom,
In what specific ways have you had the opportunity to benefit from that spending? A lot of that spending has not, by any means, benefited me (or my family) at all ... by preference and design. How do I owe anything to anyone in that vein?
In the case of my family, I have one member who is on soc sec/disability due to a number of medical conditions. I have a friend who also benefits from soc sec/disability. These are folks who would require the help of family and community were it not for programs like soc sec/disability and Medicaid.
I know that the courts have required that a number of people with mental disorders shall be required by court order to remain on medications that keep them stable and relatively functional. (Although, as you know, from my posts elsewhere, I would consider the care of such family members to be a character building experience. That does not detract from the fact that some of these folks are very dangerous to themselves and others without their medication and most of those meds are quite expensive as was the research to develop them.)
There are also, in my family, a number of teachers or others who are or have been employed by the government with the associated benefits-which are outrageously lavish(in my humble opinion).
It is probably true that these folks would be employed elsewhere, were such government jobs not available, but I seriously doubt any other jobs would provide the retirement and health benefits that go along with being employed by the government. This takes a burden of care for them in their declining years from my shoulders as well.
I'm sure you will counter that a truly free market would address these things just as effectively and I think you are correct, but we don't have a free market.
Just as in the co-signing analogy, these are really more of the I-might-as-well-look-for-some-benefit-in-this-situation-because-I-have-to-deal-with-the-reality-that-the-liabilities-outweigh-the-benefits-and-it's-already-been-done-against-my-better-judgment arguments. That still doesn't leave me off the hook for paying the debts incurred on my watch.
Or were you thinking more along the lines of safety regulations, centralized oversight of contagious diseases(although the CDC's role in the H1N1 thing has been rather more ominous than helpful), making sure a landowner isn't fouling the water for 3 counties by his use of his land, OSHA regulations and that sort of thing?
Basically, anything that appears to take a burden of care from my shoulders and puts it onto the government will be perceived as a benefit, whether it is, in actuality, beneficial or not. Such things restrict my freedom, In the case of the analogy by tieing up my assets so that I can't use them freely and forcing me to maintain and insure a vehicle that is not in my possession, and in the case of "beneficence" legislation, by taking my money and restricting my use of nearly everything I own. But now I'm getting off topic.
Okay, okay.
Tell the feds that you give all that you've paid in socialist security taxes expecting no return on your 'investment.' No strings attached.
Post a Comment