What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[The T]

Rick Santorum placed 2nd in Iowa....I'm guessing humor may be one of the beliefs.

Iowa means squat.

 

[Martinsamerica]

Personal responsibility is a key factor for most conservatives I believe. I am a conservative of fashion, but have varying views in many regards. However, the universal simplicity of most conservatives is the desire to be as self-sufficient and self-reliant as possible, and expect the same from others. If everyone takes personal responsibility for themselves and their actions, and does not lean on the reat of society or the government to carry themselves through life, things would be much better off.

martinsamerica.com

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Personal responsibility is a key factor for most conservatives I believe. I am a conservative of fashion, but have varying views in many regards. However, the universal simplicity of most conservatives is the desire to be as self-sufficient and self-reliant as possible, and expect the same from others. If everyone takes personal responsibility for themselves and their actions, and does not lean on the reat of society or the government to carry themselves through life, things would be much better off.

martinsamerica.com

Yes Jeffersonian freedom from liberal government means freedom to be responsible for yourself. The liberal wants to promote a communal welfare culture that makes it easier and easier for more and more to abdicate responsibility for themselves. This is why there is never enough welfare for a liberal and why government must always be bigger and bigger.

 

[g5000]

Personal responsibility is a key factor for most conservatives I believe. I am a conservative of fashion, but have varying views in many regards. However, the universal simplicity of most conservatives is the desire to be as self-sufficient and self-reliant as possible, and expect the same from others. If everyone takes personal responsibility for themselves and their actions, and does not lean on the reat of society or the government to carry themselves through life, things would be much better off.

martinsamerica.com

Yes Jeffersonian freedom from liberal government means freedom to be responsible for yourself. The liberal wants to promote a communal welfare culture that makes it easier and easier for more and more to abdicate responsibility for themselves. This is why there is never enough welfare for a liberal and why government must always be bigger and bigger.

Ah, Jefferson. Terrific guy. He hated poor people. Thought they should fend for themselves.

Oh, wait.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.

"Legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property".

It does not get more clear than that. It is the government's duty to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one.

In other words, the elimination of primogeniture.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

A progressive tax system, with lower income earners paying zero taxes.

Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

"Natural right". That is John Locke's influence right there. And the concentration of wealth is a violation of natural rights.

The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

So there you go. Distribution of wealth by legislation.

You should see what Thomas Paine had in mind!:

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

HOOOOOLLLLLY SHIT! WE ARE LIVING THE FOUNDERS' DREAM! Progressive taxes, poor people paying no taxes, welfare, social security, it's all there!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What difference does it make what % they were of the total vote?
58.5%, 60% whatever. Proves that they do not pay any attention.
We have 1001 other priorities other than the abortion issue.
No wonder the Republicans are such a dysfunctional party. We have nit wits that want to push their pet social beliefs on everyone else.
Barry Goldwater is rolling in his grave.

I think the difference between 60% (your number) and 8.2?% (actual number) is pretty significant, but that is just me.

You have your figures wrong.
The 14% figure is from ALL of the voters.
58.5 of Santorum voters /all of the voters = 14%.

No they are not.

58.5% of voters who said abortion was their primary concern voted for Santorum. (60% of 14% = 8%) You just insist on sticking with your first, erroneous, assumption that 60% of Santorum voters cared about abortion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

HOOOOOLLLLLY SHIT! WE ARE LIVING THE FOUNDERS' DREAM! Progressive taxes, poor people paying no taxes, welfare, social security, it's all there!

Cute to take Jefferson out of context. Jefferson said many things at many times but it is very clear why he founded the Republican party in 1791 and what measures he proposed while President!! Sorry

-That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.


-"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

-The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

-The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

-" the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."


-A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

-Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.



-Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

-Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.


-I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual
embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

"[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted. Some money could be
lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
--Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.

"The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
Address, 1805.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

"Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

"The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.


"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389


Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75

The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492


"The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson


"When the people find they can vote themselves [welfare]money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin



When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin


"The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison

Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."



Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."




James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."




I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin


"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin




Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

 

[Wry Catcher]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

A very short, concise and profound paragraph open to a world of possible outcomes, framed by at the time a seditious document. We most not take whole sentences and phrases from the founders to try and proof the righteousness of a contemporary political ideology. Jefferson wrote much but in his only book his Notes on the State of Virginia one finds justification for nation building, anathema to most conservatives. See, for example:

American Indians « Thomas Jefferson

 

[MeBelle]

This thread was stuck on 666 and that just bothered me for some reason!

 

[Douger]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Douger]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Douger]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Gadawg73]

Personal responsibility is a key factor for most conservatives I believe. I am a conservative of fashion, but have varying views in many regards. However, the universal simplicity of most conservatives is the desire to be as self-sufficient and self-reliant as possible, and expect the same from others. If everyone takes personal responsibility for themselves and their actions, and does not lean on the reat of society or the government to carry themselves through life, things would be much better off.

martinsamerica.com

Yes Jeffersonian freedom from liberal government means freedom to be responsible for yourself. The liberal wants to promote a communal welfare culture that makes it easier and easier for more and more to abdicate responsibility for themselves. This is why there is never enough welfare for a liberal and why government must always be bigger and bigger.

Ah, Jefferson. Terrific guy. He hated poor people. Thought they should fend for themselves.

Oh, wait.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.




"Legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property".

It does not get more clear than that. It is the government's duty to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.



In other words, the elimination of primogeniture.



A progressive tax system, with lower income earners paying zero taxes.



"Natural right". That is John Locke's influence right there. And the concentration of wealth is a violation of natural rights.

The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

So there you go. Distribution of wealth by legislation.

You should see what Thomas Paine had in mind!:

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

HOOOOOLLLLLY SHIT! WE ARE LIVING THE FOUNDERS' DREAM! Progressive taxes, poor people paying no taxes, welfare, social security, it's all there!

Wealth is never "concentrated".
Wealth is EARNED.
And each and every time government interferes with earned wealth it is THEFT.
And as long as there is someone waiting in line to receive the proceeds of that theft, with the support of government pointing a gun, those that receive the proceeds of that theft will always support it.

 

[Foxfyre]

have a reasonable basis for what they understand.

if liberalism is stupid how can it have a reasonable basis? PLease give us a substantive example. Thanks

I don't believe I said liberalism is 'stupid' per se nor did I say that there was no 'reasonable' basis for it.

Modern American liberalism is 'stupid' only in the sense that it seeks to tear down the basic principles of American exceptionalism that the Founders wrote into the Constitution. It violates the principles of unalienable rights and takes the right to govern from the people and returns it to a form of monarchal/dictatorial/totalitarian or other authoritarian authority.

Liberalism does not trust people to govern themselves and puts faith and trust in government that the Founders knew to be fallacy and sought to free us from. And it negates the sense of unalienable rights in that it does not recognize the right of people to their own labor and earnings but sees that as the property of the people.

Liberalism is often, perhaps even usually well intended and reasonably believes, as does the Conservative, that a moral society takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Liberals are not incorrect that some of those given personal power do misuse and abuse that power to the detriment of others.

Where the 'stupidity' comes in is in the wrong headed notion that the federal government, given power the Founders did not intend for it to have, would not misuse and abuse that power and, when given the ability to dictate what rights the people would have, would be far more dangerous and far reaching in such corruption than any individual or group of individuals could ever be. And liberalism becomes blind when it becomes so indoctrinated and entrapped in the entitlement mentality that it cannot see the corruption or inefficiency or immoral abuse or damage that is being done by a so-called 'benevolent' government.

 

[Gadawg73]

have a reasonable basis for what they understand.

if liberalism is stupid how can it have a reasonable basis? PLease give us a substantive example. Thanks

I don't believe I said liberalism is 'stupid' per se nor did I say that there was no 'reasonable' basis for it.

Modern American liberalism is 'stupid' only in the sense that it seeks to tear down the basic principles of American exceptionalism that the Founders wrote into the Constitution. It violates the principles of unalienable rights and takes the right to govern from the people and returns it to a form of monarchal/dictatorial/totalitarian or other authoritarian authority.

Liberalism does not trust people to govern themselves and puts faith and trust in government that the Founders knew to be fallacy and sought to free us from. And it negates the sense of unalienable rights in that it does not recognize the right of people to their own labor and earnings but sees that as the property of the people.

Liberalism is often, perhaps even usually well intended and reasonably believes, as does the Conservative, that a moral society takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Liberals are not incorrect that some of those given personal power do misuse and abuse that power to the detriment of others.

Where the 'stupidity' comes in is in the wrong headed notion that the federal government, given power the Founders did not intend for it to have, would not misuse and abuse that power and, when given the ability to dictate what rights the people would have, would be far more dangerous and far reaching in such corruption than any individual or group of individuals could ever be. And liberalism becomes blind when it becomes so indoctrinated and entrapped in the entitlement mentality that it cannot see the corruption or inefficiency or immoral abuse or damage that is being done by a so-called 'benevolent' government.

Liberalism was never practiced as a way for government to steal $$ from producers to give to the moocher class until the 60s.
For centuries the practice of it was to encourage charity and free thinking, both of which I fully support.
After that started in the 60s, where politicians figured out that there is a moocher class out there that will vote for you if you steal the wealth of the producers with the power of the government it has been like an avalanche.
And growing. They are the majority now.

 

[Foxfyre]

if liberalism is stupid how can it have a reasonable basis? PLease give us a substantive example. Thanks

I don't believe I said liberalism is 'stupid' per se nor did I say that there was no 'reasonable' basis for it.

Modern American liberalism is 'stupid' only in the sense that it seeks to tear down the basic principles of American exceptionalism that the Founders wrote into the Constitution. It violates the principles of unalienable rights and takes the right to govern from the people and returns it to a form of monarchal/dictatorial/totalitarian or other authoritarian authority.

Liberalism does not trust people to govern themselves and puts faith and trust in government that the Founders knew to be fallacy and sought to free us from. And it negates the sense of unalienable rights in that it does not recognize the right of people to their own labor and earnings but sees that as the property of the people.

Liberalism is often, perhaps even usually well intended and reasonably believes, as does the Conservative, that a moral society takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Liberals are not incorrect that some of those given personal power do misuse and abuse that power to the detriment of others.

Where the 'stupidity' comes in is in the wrong headed notion that the federal government, given power the Founders did not intend for it to have, would not misuse and abuse that power and, when given the ability to dictate what rights the people would have, would be far more dangerous and far reaching in such corruption than any individual or group of individuals could ever be. And liberalism becomes blind when it becomes so indoctrinated and entrapped in the entitlement mentality that it cannot see the corruption or inefficiency or immoral abuse or damage that is being done by a so-called 'benevolent' government.

Liberalism was never practiced as a way for government to steal $$ from producers to give to the moocher class until the 60s.
For centuries the practice of it was to encourage charity and free thinking, both of which I fully support.
After that started in the 60s, where politicians figured out that there is a moocher class out there that will vote for you if you steal the wealth of the producers with the power of the government it has been like an avalanche.
And growing. They are the majority now.

Which is why I differentiate between 'liberalism' in its purest sense and Modern American liberalism which is a very different animal and is truly 'liberal' about almost nothing. The Founders were all what is now referred to as 'classical liberalism' which is essentially the same thing as Modern American conservatism.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't believe I said liberalism is 'stupid' per se nor did I say that there was no 'reasonable' basis for it.

Modern American liberalism is 'stupid' only in the sense that it seeks to tear down the basic principles of American exceptionalism that the Founders wrote into the Constitution. It violates the principles of unalienable rights and takes the right to govern from the people and returns it to a form of monarchal/dictatorial/totalitarian or other authoritarian authority.

Liberalism does not trust people to govern themselves and puts faith and trust in government that the Founders knew to be fallacy and sought to free us from. And it negates the sense of unalienable rights in that it does not recognize the right of people to their own labor and earnings but sees that as the property of the people.

Liberalism is often, perhaps even usually well intended and reasonably believes, as does the Conservative, that a moral society takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Liberals are not incorrect that some of those given personal power do misuse and abuse that power to the detriment of others.

Where the 'stupidity' comes in is in the wrong headed notion that the federal government, given power the Founders did not intend for it to have, would not misuse and abuse that power and, when given the ability to dictate what rights the people would have, would be far more dangerous and far reaching in such corruption than any individual or group of individuals could ever be. And liberalism becomes blind when it becomes so indoctrinated and entrapped in the entitlement mentality that it cannot see the corruption or inefficiency or immoral abuse or damage that is being done by a so-called 'benevolent' government.

Liberalism was never practiced as a way for government to steal $$ from producers to give to the moocher class until the 60s.
For centuries the practice of it was to encourage charity and free thinking, both of which I fully support.
After that started in the 60s, where politicians figured out that there is a moocher class out there that will vote for you if you steal the wealth of the producers with the power of the government it has been like an avalanche.
And growing. They are the majority now.

Which is why I differentiate between 'liberalism' in its purest sense and Modern American liberalism which is a very different animal and is truly 'liberal' about almost nothing. The Founders were all what is now referred to as 'classical liberalism' which is essentially the same thing as Modern American conservatism.

Classical liberalism wanted no part of religous influences in government as that was the way all of the European monarchies oppressed the working class for centuries.
The monarchies claimed that God gave them divine right and their religous, social and "moral" proclamations were what God wanted and what God intended for society to go by.
The Founders ran like hell from that as evidenced by the Constituion, especially the no religous test for public office clause which was almost written in bold letters in the Constitution.
The majority of the colonies here opposed the revolution on those grounds. They believed God influenced the crown and that the monarchy had divine rights. They were conditioned to practice and believe that God and religion should have the power and not the people.
Thank God the Founders and the minority that supported them. They would have run the likes of Santorum and the Moral Police out of the country.
If they were lucky. Give me liberty or give me death in those days applied as much to freedom from religous influences in government than anything else.

 

[bripat9643]

wealth is never "concentrated".
Wealth is earned.
And each and every time government interferes with earned wealth it is theft.
And as long as there is someone waiting in line to receive the proceeds of that theft, with the support of government pointing a gun, those that receive the proceeds of that theft will always support it.

bravo!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Thank God the Founders and the minority that supported them. They would have run the likes of Santorum and the Moral Police out of the country.
If they were lucky. Give me liberty or give me death in those days applied as much to freedom from religious influences in government than anything else.

wow are you mistaken!! Yes, our founders did not want the religious wars of Europe to visit out shores but they were very very happy with moral behavior of individuals as promoted primarily by the church. They did not believe moral behavior
grew out of the dirt like a tree.

Now that the church is dead and without influence I'm sure our Founders would support Constitutional provisions to encourage moral behavior to fill the vacuum. Do you want the Girl Scouts to perform this function?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Founders were all what is now referred to as 'classical liberalism' which is essentially the same thing as Modern American conservatism.

Of course this is true but when you cut modern liberals off from a connection to our history you are in effect asking them to acknowledge that their history is communist, not American. The can't handle the truth as someone once said.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

politicians figured out that there is a moocher class out there that will vote for you if you steal the wealth of the producers with the power of the government it has been like an avalanche.
And growing. They are the majority now.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin