What does an old founding father know, anyway!

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/NewPost.asp?cmd=SHOWNEWPOSTFORM


“The earth belongs to each… generation during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter from Paris, September 6, 1789





Obviously Jefferson’s thesis is sound but not entirely applicable to this era. We have come along way from an agrarian nation in which capital does not spiral too well — that is, if slavery is not counted. The industrialization evolved rapidly, culminating in the oligarchy of the Robber Barons that effectively dictated the nation’s economy driven by investments and therefore lending, not only to enterprising individuals but to governments here and abroad as well. By this systemic procedure, the oligarchy insured itself perpetuity.





Though the names have changed and Theodore Roosevelt busted the anti-trust schemers, very little has changed, except for a brief period during the post WW II days when the cost of capital was dramatically reduced by spiraling wages, and the determination of government to pay down the war debt. This was only possible when revenue exceeded spending, helped by the growing intake of social security far outweighing its outlay.





Alas, increasingly the cold war — together with its many hot spots — took its toll on the wealth of the nation. Today there is a new war on terrorism causing the national debt — let alone the tax cuts — to enter the stratosphere — this very day at $7,063,087,073,837.25, and climbing daily by $1.97 billion. This means that each of us individually is indebted to the tune of $24,081.02 [Google Search]. And the baby boomers are fast approaching social security years! — while the plutocrats are licking their chops and manipulating the economy so they get more bang for the buck out of a shaky future.





Perhaps it is time to take another look at Jefferson and his moral point that it is unfair to saddle our children and theirs with this profligate trend.





15,021 views 37 replies
Reply #1 Top
Thomas Jefferson is also credited with saying : "The government that governs best governs least." So I'm with you. Let's axe Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other programs that eat up most of the budget. I am sure Thomas Jefferson would be appalled by those programs.
Reply #2 Top
Good point. Don't you think the Robber baron mentality still exists? ( just look at the comment above...)
Reply #3 Top
And god forbid one of our founding father's is wrong. I'm not saying he's wrong about everything, but let's not attribute mythic qualities to this guy.

Cheers
Reply #4 Top
If we really want to get rid of the debt, why don't we get rid of programs that help only those that aren't contributing to paying off the debt (i.e. welfare, social security) and use the taxes from that to pay the debt? If we did that as well as ended the war on terrorism (which is but one of the ways the government wastes our money), the debt would plummet!
Reply #5 Top
stevendedalus- So many times when I'm on my blog and click on the title of an article that catches my eye, it is one of your articles! And you've made another great point. But I see you've caught the attention of the welfare pair, too! ;)
Reply #6 Top
Back in the days when thoughts were conjured and laws were made there was a measure of honesty that we don't have today.The founding fathers forgot to enclude the phrase [thoes who lie need not apply]for instance did you know there are more people that take social than need it?That there are people on welfare or other social programs that don't need to be?That the most money goes to the Lawers and management of the programs than to,the reciepients?Our founding fathers thought that laws would be obeyed,people would be honest.They didn't know The Oil Cartel,NASA, Halliberton, Enron, Politics in general etc.etc.It appears still easer for some people to cut down a tree than to dig it up the roots.
Reply #7 Top
Sometimes I wonder..Everyone has a point about how to cut the debt..but if suchandsuch program didn't exist..Do you think the money would pay off what we owe, OR..would another program come along to take its place?

I was watching an ad for the sentoral race and one candidate promised to stop spending the property tax on wasteful programs. It was a very slick commercial because he never outright said he'd cut the propterty taxation (though he cited how high it was)..but made it sound like if he was elected, it would be lessened..When all he said was "I won't spend it here. I'll find someplace *else* want to spend it on"...

So, if we did a jump for joy and got rid of welfare (or even kicked those off welfare who do not belong on it and ONLY the rightful people got the assistance nessecary)..the money would just be spent on some new project, pork, etc.,..

The cost of living for our Government continues to skyrocket and I doubt it would be able to operate with less money, even if it was spent on reducing the deficit.
It would be like asking Bill Gates to live on $10,000 a year. Just wouldn't work out so well.
Reply #8 Top
Ditto to the reply by'wise Fawn' I thought the same thing exactly.

This Jefferson Quote is used in a thesis as to the legality of all debt from one genereation to another, and has some good legal ponts to it. Jefferson also held that the Constitution should be opened for renewal and amendment at a convention each twenty years or so. He said this as if such did not occur, then inevitably the government would become corupt and so become as it is today, and also because philosophically under the thesis, no generation has the responsibility to be bound by its forebears errors and trials. The alternative, he felt, would be violent revolt.

The Constitution would be a living document and able to correct exigencies as they occured.
Each amendment should be call for Convention and only by avoiding it has it come to nought. I will e-mail the author of the thesis, a lawyer who wrote in the 1800's and was a next step of anarchy in his work. It is very interesting for it refutes such debt legality to another generation under contract law, also extending into the Federalism of governmment and absolving County-type jurisdictions of their debt under debtor rules of first come first served.

It amazes me how some miss the whole point of such writing, and sieze on it as an opportunity to dis-enfranchise Americans. Their world is made of teams, and enemies surround them in their own land. Someone did not teach this generation what an American is, for they think the fellow American is the enemy if they disagree with cabals and parties; bas-ackward thinking if there ever was such.

For those who see him otherwise, I beieve without Jeffersons' election in 1800 this country would have been lost to England without a shot being fired. He literally saved this country from becoming a vassal state of England. We became one anyway, but he was a great American and I'd take him over Bush or Kerry anyday.
Reply #9 Top
'course another way to get out of debt is to raise taxes... God forbid.

Cheers
Reply #10 Top
I think we forget where MOST of out governments money goes in to defense. (sure good that's doing us) How about less funding for our war-like government. Seriously now, can you say over kill? Why do we HAVE to be the worlds baby-sitters? Can't we all just get along?
Reply #11 Top
Dark-Star: You are incorrect. Here is a link to a pie chart on it: https://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=542

Most of our money goes to social programs. If you want to balance the budget, the best way, IMO, would be to do a cross-the board cut in all programs. Since social programs represent about 60% of federal outlays, that means 60% of the cuts would come from social programs.

WiseFawn: What exactly do you propose? "OH, such an insightful article, oh, he's so right, Thomas Jefferson believed we shouldn't leave behind debts." Thomas Jefferson, btw, also believed in trying to eliminate all federal taxes.

So you agree with what Thomas Jefferson wants as an end result but you guys are unwilling to do what Thomas Jefferson would actually do to accomplish it. In fact, you're not really willing to actually do anything to solve the problem. So in essence, you're just bellyaching.

Jeb: Feel free to tell us just how high the tax rate would be to balance the budget. Did you even do a rough calculation before making your statement that we could balance the budget by raising taxes? But gee, yea, I wish when I wanted more money I could just flip a switch and have my financial mismanagement solved that way. Sheesh.
Reply #12 Top
Wow, for living in a society with a corrupt government everybody hates, why hasn't anything been done about it?..No revolutions, no change of government. Heck, look at Haiti. We could be living in THAT kind of society.

Vive le Lunaticus.
Reply #13 Top
Wow, for living in a society with a corrupt government everybody hates, why hasn't anything been done about it?..No revolutions, no change of government. Heck, look at Haiti. We could be living in THAT kind of society.
Well said. I am sure someone living in some war torn country finds it pretty ironic that the biggest gripes we have with our government is its fiscal policy or at worst, imagined civil liberty violations.
Reply #14 Top
WiseFawn: What exactly do you propose? "OH, such an insightful article, oh, he's so right, Thomas Jefferson believed we shouldn't leave behind debts." Thomas Jefferson, btw, also believed in trying to eliminate all federal taxes


Umm, yes, I think this was a good and insightful article. $7,063,087,073,837.25, is the amout that stevendedalus mentioned, and I really don't think this most of this debt was because of social programs, do you? I shouldn't have teased, I usually try not to do that, especially in other's blogs. I got lost in the fact that someone was trying to turn this article into that.
Reply #15 Top
Most of our money goes to social programs.


Actually, when you cut out entitlements, like, debt service, paychecks, and pensions, and yes, god forbid, social security, Most of our money goes into defense. Even including Social Security as a welfare program, which it's not, because you're supposed to get back what you put in, the plurality of our money goes to defense. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself.
Reply #16 Top
I did check it for myself. I've written on it.

About 15% of the budget is on defense.

WiseFawn: YES, most of the debt is from social programs. If most of the money we spend is on social programs then most of the debt is, by connection, from social programs.

Jeb: Social security is a welfare program precisely because you get more money than what you put in. Most people get VASTLY more money than they put in. Besides, it IS a social program whether you agree with it being welfare or not.

Here's the piechart of federal expenses from 2000: https://www.stardock.com/temp/taxchart2000.jpg

Look guys, if you want to get rid of the debt, you have to cut the budget. And if you want to cut the budget you have to cut the things we actually spend money on.

Blaming defense is asanine. First, because it's one of the few things we can all agree on that the federal government should be in charge of. And secondly, because defense represents a relatively small part of the budget. If you want to solve the deficit and debt you have to cut the social spending.

Sheesh, it's no wonder so many people are in personal debt. It's like those people who cancel their cable bill to try to make ends meet while going out to eat 4 times a week.

Reply #17 Top
While I believe you have checked it out, I don't think you're actually listening to what I'm saying.

71% of the national budget is into entitlements. Those are things which the US government is not supposed to touch. Why do I include Social Security into that? Because Social Security isn't the government's money. However it gets paid out, it does get paid into by a person and taken out by a person. Same with Medicare and Medicaid.

Removing 71% of the national budget from your pretty pie chart and what do you get?
Defense becomes 59% of the national budget
Education, by comparison is less than 12% of the national budget.

Now I know your arguement is that we should get rid of many of these entitlements, but the thing is, your tax return lists those as seperate from your federal income tax. Which means your paying something else. Sure it's an income tax, but it's not categorized the same. Which means if the programs were eliminated, those that could be anyway, like social security, medicare and medicaid, the money would not some how miraculously end up in the federal governments pocket. It would instead go back to the consumer. Sure that's a great thing, but it would do nothing to reduce deficits nor would it pay down the debt. You want to get rid of those programs? Great for you, but it doesn't help the budget any, and don't pretend like it does.

Cheers
Reply #18 Top
Jeb: Let's use some common sense here okay?

We have a huge national debt. What is the cause for this national debt? Spending more than we're getting in. BTW, 15% of the budget is also spent on interest in the debt.

It's madness to try to solve the national debt by fixating on the 14% (100% - (71% + 15%)) that happens to be left after you take out entitlements and interest.

The education portion of the budget is a strawman argument. State and local goverments pay for schools and should be what pays for school.

If you actually WANT to cut the deficit, as opposed to bitch about it, you h ave to cut some from everything. Tell us Jeb, how much did the United States spend, in total, on defense last year? Was it greater than the deficit? No. So even if we totally eliminated our military, we would still have a deficit. And the military is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to exist for doing in the first place.

BTW, Medicaid IS welfare. You have to be poor to get it.
Reply #19 Top
Lest I be badly mistaken [and I have been before]Medicad is an attatchement to social security,Supposeedly an insurance supplemental, and an add on some several years after its inception as many other riders.First you get social security by becoming sixty two or sixty five for full benefits.Rich people draw SS sick people draw SS. the latest angle now is to work for a company say ninteen or twenty yrs.hurt your back get an attorney apply for early retirement ,get your pension and SS. and live happy ever after.Another extra added cost was when Insurance companies got bailed out by making Medicade your primary Ins.Nobody complained.And as far as the pie is concerned, as long as the goverment has the knife they will cut it any way they want.--- charlie poore
Reply #20 Top
Thanks for all the stimulating comments--Jefferson thanks you too. However, my point is when a nation strives to end strife in the world--as this nation has all through the 20th century to the present-- it inevitably leads to national deficit. Also when a nation is controlled by big money--and this nation is--it inevitablyleads to a struggle between haves and have nots,resulting in a national conscience only sometimes, thus social programs either cut or enhanced, which we wouldn't need if good paying workfare was the norm.
Reply #21 Top
Charles, Medicare != Medicaid.

Steven - the national debt is NOT caused primarily by defense spending. The United States spends only about 3% of its GDP on defense. It's not exactly going overboard relative to its economy on defense. The British Empire, for instance, at one point in the late 19th century, was spending nearly 25% of its GDP on defense.

The nation today is LESS controlled by big money than at any other time in its history. Hell, you couldn't even VOTE in the United States at first unless you were a property holder.

What exactly is "workfare"? The United States is nearly fully employed NOW. Unemployment is 6%, that's less than any major country in Europe. And yet we're STILL running huge deficits. You can't blame that on military spending.

Before quoting Thomas Jefferson, you might actually want to learn about him. I agree with Jeb that he's not exactly someone to idolize blindly but let's say he was. What would he say today? He would want to eliminate all the social programs first off.

Thomas Jefferson's beliefs aren't secret, he wrote them and carried out his fiscal beliefs as President:

1) He wanted to eliminate all federal tax collection.
2) He did not want the federal government to do anything beyond defense (And barely that).
3) He believed that the states should have more power than the federal government.
4) He certainly would not have tolerated a federal income tax.
5) He certainly wouldn't have accepted the federal government redistributing people's wealth.

If Jefferson was forced to choose a major political party today, he would be a very very FAR right wing Republican. Realistically, he was a libertarian.
Reply #22 Top
First of all, Brad, it would make better conversation if we defined spending. I am not one against defense spending for the obvious reason it means jobs — whole communities depend on it. Since 3% of GDP is for defense we forget that defense, too, is part of the GDP and probably responsible in the way of spin-off business and labor to cause a greater GDP, let’s say another 10% at least. If so, it has made the nation richer. Nor do I feel that social programs need be negative. Uncle Sam has never been generous; on the contrary he takes from Peter to pay Paul and Mary, resulting in a return to Peter.

I know its difficult for a CEO to understand that taxes are nothing but an investment to insure the flow of capital to where it will do the most good and by so doing strengthen the nation and its economy. The welfare mother’s purchase of a loaf of bread goes back to the baker who never would have realized that particular purchase had it not been for your tax investment, and the baker with enough welfare receipts might just happen to purchase one of your products. Long ago the government figured out that for every dollar spent on the G.I. Bill returned seven. And social security put Florida and Arizona on the map with its monthly checks.

Workfare is a means by which welfare is reduced by putting the “lazy” or chronic recipients under supervised work, such as cleaning up the ghettos, repairing bridges or whatever.

As for Jefferson, however ingenious he was, did not have a crystal ball far into the future. Yet he did, in spite of his beliefs, forge a powerful central government and had his way in the purchase of Louisiana not only to expand but to enhance the prestige and power of the new nation. Realistically, he probably would be a centrist.
Reply #23 Top

Steve, saying Jefferson would be a centrist today is absurd.  One book that I really enjoyed that wasn't directly about Jefferson but covered him a great deal was Adams by James McColough (sp).

We have a huge debt.  The debt is caused because the federal government spends more than it gets in. You either have to increase income or reduce expenses. The deficit is large enough and the debt so vast that raising taxes would not likely do the trick and besides, it rewards poor financial management.

What pro-mommy government people don't realize, typically because they've never dealt with the government itself, is that the government is incredibly inefficient and incompotent.  It's not like your tax dollar goes to some poor person directly. Instead, it goes through a huge beauracracy which eats up most of it and then a small amount makes it back.  Nothing is more efficient than individuals spending their own money and living within their means.

The debt is not caused by welfare to poor people. It's not caused by defense. It's caused by an over expenditure in both social programs and non-social programs. 

The reason this issue won't get solved is that people who care enough to even talk about this issue have no apparent idea of what the government spends its money on in the first place.  You have jeb talking about education as if it's mainly funded by the federal government when in fact arguably the federal government shouldn't be spending anything on public schools (it's a state issue).  The biggest problem is that the federal government is spending money on things that really have nothing to do with the job of the federal government.

Just because you believe in welfare doesn't mean that the federal government is the one to provide it.  The federal government is the least equipped to provide these programs because of its inherent inefficiecy. It would be much better for states or local communities to handle it if you don't trust charities (for some reason, liberals don't like charities and instead want the government to do instead despite the obvious ineptitude of governments.

People who love the government to do things are almost always people who have never had to deal with one of their agencies.  Ever deal with the phone company? Or some other big private industyr monopoly? They're usually incredibly incompotent. But that's nothing compared to the government. There is no incentive for them to be efficient becaues they can just get their budget raised and often have the support of people who think the answer is just to spend more money on things regardless of the outcome.

Reply #24 Top
There is incredible efficiency in the Post Office--except when you go there to mail a package. Nevertheless, they handle all thebusiness junk mail too well. FDR never had anything against charities, the high tax bracket generated huge donations. I'm afraid your deep belief in the states and/or business handling money effectively is a dream--they're just as bad and less trustworthy. I don't know what else is left, perhaps outsourcing the government--China might do a better job, certainly cheaper. Yet I'm not against small businesses bidding with a prospectus where they could do better in certain areas of government. Amen
Reply #25 Top
It's madness to try to solve the national debt by fixating on the 14% (100% - (71% + 15%)) that happens to be left after you take out entitlements and interest.


I was actually counting the 15% in the 71%

If you actually WANT to cut the deficit, as opposed to bitch about it, you h ave to cut some from everything. Tell us Jeb, how much did the United States spend, in total, on defense last year? Was it greater than the deficit? No. So even if we totally eliminated our military, we would still have a deficit. And the military is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to exist for doing in the first place.


Glad you asked. The federal government pent 328 billion dollars, give or take last year. That's quite a bit more than the deficit

I agree with Jeb that he's not exactly someone to idolize blindly


I'll be jiggered, that's like the third thing we've agreed on in the past few months? ::laughs::

Anyway, you didn't address the final part of my comment that neither medicare, medicaid or Social Security, is paid out of what we consider our "Income Tax" For instance, you don't get it back as a refund at the end of the year, and you don't have to fill out a 1040 for it either. My point was that the 44% of the national budget which is not a welfare program, is actually what our Income Tax pays for. If you want your TAXES to do more good than you need to cut the programs that are affected by the 44% of the budget paid for by your income tax. Otherwise you need to convince the American people that you aren't really raising their taxes when you transfer their Social Security and welfare payroll deductions over to Income Tax. You may actually be reducing the total amount withdrawn, but there are still a lot of people who hold on to the, possibly misguided, belief that they will some day see that money. I know I'm right on the boundary of the people they project will still get Social Security, and I suspect that you are too Brad.

As you once said in a different post "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." You show the "Whole Federal Budget" and claim that they are all funded by the same principle source, the income tax, but they aren't. Yes, it's all payroll deductions, but no, it's not the same thing.

Cheers