Our welfare system recipients.

[chuck j]

Davy Crockett's speach ;



Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

“He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course, was lost.

Davy Crockett explains his opposition

“Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be one for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

A polite but cold exchange with a voter

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’

” ‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

” ‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest….But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.

” ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

“Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

A freeman’s sound common sense

” ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.

If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..’

Crockett’s hard lesson

Painting by William Henry Huddle, 1889

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I did not have sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little influence in that way.’

“If I don’t [said I] I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.

” ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute to a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week.. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“Well, I will be here. but one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.

” ‘My name is Bunce.’

“Not Horatio Bunce?

” ‘Yes.’

“Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.

The grassroots activist

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

The blessed consent of the governed

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.

“He came upon the stand and said: ”

‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.

Conclusion

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

——————————————-
David Crockett was born August 17, 1786 at Limestone (Greene County), Tennessee. He died March 06, 1836 as one of the brave Southerners defending the Alamo.

Crockett had settled in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1811. He served in the Creek War under Andrew Jackson. In 1821 and 1823 he was elected to the Tennessee legislature. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to Congress. He was defeated in 1830 for his outspoken opposition to President Jackson’s Indian Bill – but was elected again in 1832.

In Washington, although his eccentricities of dress and manner excited comment, he was always popular on account of his shrewd common sense and homely wit; although generally favoring Jackson’s policy, he was entirely independent and refused to vote to please any party leader.

[bdickens]

That's all very cute, but the majority in this country don't give two hoots about the Constitution or about Liberty, for that matter.

[cb1000rider]

If you want to make a point.. At least with me, you'll need to tell the whole story. Not half of it.

Stating that immigrants - legal or illegal - arrive here to receive welfare checks is at best a partial truth. They can't arrive here and get a check of any kind.

Surprise, surprise; Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S. families headed by illegal immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs on behalf of their American-born anchor babies.Even before the recession, immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, according to the extensive census data collected and analyzed by a nonpartisanWashington D.C. group dedicated to researching legal and illegal immigration in the U.S.

That's the whole truth. They can arrive here and if they successfully have a child, that child is an American citizen. They can then do as they see fit with the support provided to them for their child.. Just like any mother can do what she wants with child support. It seems to me that 98% of the problem is the policy of "born here = citizenship". Maybe that's what you should be after in terms of getting fixed?

Also, many illegals use stolen or fraudulent social security neumbers to collect benefits and file tax returns.

Well, let's talk about that facts around that for a second.

1) There are some people who commit tax fraud. It's not uncommon or isolated to illegal aliens.
2) Some illegal aliens pay taxes into our system and social security. They do so not by choice, but because they are hired by employers who require a social security number. So they make one up or steal one.
3) Some illegal aliens file tax returns based on the social security number that they're using for employment reasons. Many don't file at all.
4) Illegals won't get a dime of social security, including that money they paid in.

Tell me if, as a whole, illegals "claim" more taxes than they pay in. Count state, federal, and social security tax. I think it's a hard metric to quantify accurately, but the entire truth is that the income is going both ways.

The fraud is out there. You can ignore it all you want but that does not mean it does not exist.
Anygunanywhere

On this, you and I agree, fraud is out there... It's not isolated to immigrants. Ever consider corporations who have tax shelter businesses outside of the USA? Like Apple? :-)
I digress, that's not fraud, it's a loophole.

They are here, they get the welfare, and when they are given amnesty they will vote dumbocrat.
Anygunanywhere

Is that what they did when Republican Ronald Regan granted amnesty in the 1980s? Well, lets look at history: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ty-act-le/

The fact is that 3 Million received amnesty in the 1980s. 613,440 voted for Obama in 2012. Amnesty isn't a political landslide...


Note, I don't agree with Amnesty necessarily as written... And I don't believe that Illegals are entirely welfare-free. I do, however, prescribe to hearing the complete facts around an issue, not the political slander version... :-)

[nightmare69]

Will need cliffs Chuck.

[chuck j]

Thanks for the comment

[Tecumseh]

I for one am tired of the public roads. Congress should not be paying for them nor should it be paying social security, welfare, disability, for a standing army, for the FDA, for any sort of agricultural subsidies, no oil subsidies, no research for any sciences, no disaster relief, or any of that. The biggest form of welfare is going to states. http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The majority of those states are GOP controlled states. A Fox Business article citing the same states: http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is nice to see that the Obama administration got it right when they turned Texas down for FEMA relief after the fertilizer plant exploded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/us/fe ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't it?

I am sorry but in reality I have no problem with the government using money to help others. It is easy to complain about welfare recipients buying steaks or having expensive cars, phones, or TV sets but how do you know they didn't have them before they got on the welfare? And why aren't we complaining about subsidies to companies and corporations? Corporations are people and it is insane to see some "people" get billions of dollars of tax money and not complain about it but do complain when another person gets a few thousand a year to eat with. Isn't it?

[nightmare69]

I am sorry but in reality I have no problem with the government using money to help others. It is easy to complain about welfare recipients buying steaks or having expensive cars, phones, or TV sets but how do you know they didn't have them before they got on the welfare? And why aren't we complaining about subsidies to companies and corporations? Corporations are people and it is insane to see some "people" get billions of dollars of tax money and not complain about it but do complain when another person gets a few thousand a year to eat with. Isn't it?

So you have no problem with some able body person who is perfectly capable of working but chooses not too and taking your hard earned money and buying booze, cigs, latest Iphone, 74in flat screen TV, or anything else that is considered a luxury? Sorry but I do have a problem with it.

[anygunanywhere]

I for one am tired of the public roads. Congress should not be paying for them nor should it be paying social security, welfare, disability, for a standing army, for the FDA, for any sort of agricultural subsidies, no oil subsidies, no research for any sciences, no disaster relief, or any of that. The biggest form of welfare is going to states. http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The majority of those states are GOP controlled states. A Fox Business article citing the same states: http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is nice to see that the Obama administration got it right when they turned Texas down for FEMA relief after the fertilizer plant exploded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/us/fe ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't it?

I am sorry but in reality I have no problem with the government using money to help others. It is easy to complain about welfare recipients buying steaks or having expensive cars, phones, or TV sets but how do you know they didn't have them before they got on the welfare? And why aren't we complaining about subsidies to companies and corporations? Corporations are people and it is insane to see some "people" get billions of dollars of tax money and not complain about it but do complain when another person gets a few thousand a year to eat with. Isn't it?

How long have you worked for ACORN?

Anygunanywhere

[bdickens]

I for one am tired of the public roads. Congress should not be paying for them nor should it be paying social security, welfare, disability, for a standing army, for the FDA, for any sort of agricultural subsidies, no oil subsidies, no research for any sciences, no disaster relief, or any of that. The biggest form of welfare is going to states. http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The majority of those states are GOP controlled states. A Fox Business article citing the same states: http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is nice to see that the Obama administration got it right when they turned Texas down for FEMA relief after the fertilizer plant exploded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/us/fe ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't it?

I am sorry but in reality I have no problem with the government using money to help others. It is easy to complain about welfare recipients buying steaks or having expensive cars, phones, or TV sets but how do you know they didn't have them before they got on the welfare? And why aren't we complaining about subsidies to companies and corporations? Corporations are people and it is insane to see some "people" get billions of dollars of tax money and not complain about it but do complain when another person gets a few thousand a year to eat with. Isn't it?

1) The Constitution allows Congress to spend money for roads and for a standing Army. As a matter of fact, they have an obligation to do so.

2) The Constitution does not allow Congress to hand out paychecks to professional couch potatos who refuse to work.

3) People are complaining about corporate subsidies. Particularly the ones that Barry is handing out to his friends and campaign contributors who then pocket the money while their front companies are folded under bankruptcy.

4) How's that Kool-Aid taste?

[cb1000rider]

So you have no problem with some able body person who is perfectly capable of working but chooses not too and taking your hard earned money and buying booze, cigs, latest Iphone, 74in flat screen TV, or anything else that is considered a luxury? Sorry but I do have a problem with it.

Drama. Seriously guys?
I'm sure that you guys know that what you're citing above certainly isn't the norm. Presenting is as normalcy is just more bending the truth for political advantage and sensationalism. Sure, there might be a welfare recipient out there with a 74in TV and absolutely no other income, but what is it going to be? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10000?

It's the same sort of cite as all the "illegals" coming over here and getting handouts. It sounds great politically and people believe it, but the fact is that illegals are ineligible for any type of assistance other than emergency medicine unless they have a child who is a US citizen. Lets tell the whole truth not just the parts that support our political agenda. Once they have a legal child, it's a problem, but knowing that little fact could shift focus and make the whole issue much easier to manage though legislation.

The point is that if you're barking about the waste associated with welfare recipients that successfully game the system for some sort of even moderate lifestyle, you're missing the bigger picture. Sure, you could cure that "waste" - but it wouldn't do much to resolve our budgetary mess.

If you want to rail against people that are abusing the system, you should read this: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Maybe at one time welfare was rife with abuse, but on the whole, it's become much more difficult to sustain. And the number of people on welfare has dramatically decreased in the last few decades. The new "welfare" if you should be concerned with isn't welfare. It's disability. 25% of working age adults are getting a check. I personally know of several who can work, but don't because they took "early retirement" with the help of attorneys. One is in her 20s. Once on disability, there is no "check in". The checks roll in forever unless you decide to take meaningful employment or you self-report an improvement in condition. It's a free ride for lots of people who didn't save or no longer want to work.

Get it? 1 in 4 people are getting a disability check? You and I are paying for those checks. And you guys are concerned about the maybe 1 in 10000 "welfare" recipients who are buying 72" TVs, assuming that actually happens? Understand why I get worked up over the lack of perspective and focus?

Tecumseh has his eyes on where the actual money is being spend and isn't getting caught up in the mud slinging... We need more of that. The more the political parties can distract you from where the money is actually going, the more success they are going to have... Follow the money and the spend.

[nightmare69]

Disability is the new welfare. Not hard to get, pay some doctor to write up you can't work then apply. Sounds easy enough.


I used to work for a grocery store in high school. I remember people coming in with their lone star card (food stamps) and buying cigs among other crap not food related. They would also cash out their card. If the card had 200 bucks for the month they would get 200 cash and walk out.

[priusron]

How does a company using a LEGAL loophole and moving its operations offshore LEGALLY constitute fraud. I am not saying is is right. But if it is legal it can't be fraud.

[chuck j]

Your right , it's not fraud ...........it's premeditated greed .

[nightmare]

"From each according to his gullibility. To each according to his greed."