Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

Michael1 · #1 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 02:20 PM

This is a bit long, but a great read:

Quote:

Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

From The Life of Colonel David Crockett,
by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

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.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when 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 – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings 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. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. 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 of our own money 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, ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

MrLiberty · #2 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 02:25 PM

I have posted this on other forums as well and I used in in my arguments about giving the 9/11 families money. I was appalled when Bush decided to hand money out like that. There was no reason for it.

Anyway, good post!

saltwn · #3 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1

This is a bit long, but a great read:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

I've read that before. But I always like
hearing a good story!

So you would not have given milk and lunch at a reduced rate to American school children?
To each his own, I suppose.

nursej007 · #4 (**permalink**) 11-07-2009, 09:39 AM

Wow!
That is a great story.. by a very good writer.
Thanks for posting.

---

Quote:

"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."

How very true.

Michael1 · #5 (**permalink**) 11-08-2009, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

I've read that before. But I always like
hearing a good story!

So you would not have given milk and lunch at a reduced rate to American school children?
To each his own, I suppose.

Of course I would have, voluntarily.

The point is that politicians don't have the right to tell people who can only afford milk and lunch for their own school-age children that they must forego bread in order to provide milk and lunch for other peoples' school aged children.

saltwn · #6 (**permalink**) 11-08-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1

Of course I would have, voluntarily.

The point is that politicians don't have the right to tell people who can only afford milk and lunch for their own school-age children that they must forego bread in order to provide milk and lunch for other peoples' school aged children.

Would you also build your own roads, Interstates?
Would you allow Connecticut to discriminate in housing to Blacks and Latins, while Alabama does not?

Michael1 · #7 (**permalink**) 11-08-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Would you also build your own roads, Interstates?
Would you allow Connecticut to discriminate in housing to Blacks and Latins, while Alabama does not?

You can't equate infrastructure with charity. No one is arguing that government has no place in anything. You're just avoiding the issue at this point.

As for 'discriminate in housing' based on race or ethnicity, I have no idea what specifically you're talking about and what or how that has to do with government taking your money and arbitrarily giving it to other people with little to no input from you.

saltwn · #8 (**permalink**) 11-08-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1

You can't equate infrastructure with charity. No one is arguing that government has no place in anything. You're just avoiding the issue at this point.

As for 'discriminate in housing' based on race or ethnicity, I have no idea what specifically you're talking about and what or how that has to do with government taking your money and arbitrarily giving it to other people with little to no input from you.

I am talking about the fierce, "get the government out of my business" argument from staunch conservatives.
Some people don't believe in spending trillions on war.
So if you allow politicians to make decisions about your tax money on one front, you allow it across the board.
You can argue and vote them out and protest, but they have that right you gave them voluntarily.

Michael1 · #9 (**permalink**) 11-08-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Some people don't believe in spending trillions on war.
So if you allow politicians to make decisions about your tax money on one front, you allow it across the board.
You can argue and vote them out and protest, but they have that right you gave them voluntarily.

Nope. It's all about your principles regarding what you believe is the purpose of government.

The Constitution clearly guides us regarding this matter. You did read the article didn't you?

saltwn · #10 (**permalink**) 11-08-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1

Nope. It's all about your principles regarding what you believe is the purpose of government.

The Constitution clearly guides us regarding this matter. You did read the article didn't you?

It does not give politicians the right to pay for an exit where Exxon wants a gas station. But they do it.
The constitution does not expressly give them the right to pay (with our money) for a bridge in a town far away from the Interstate but they do it.
Social Security is not addressed in the constitution: But the only way you will get a conservative to give it up is to pry the check out of his cold dead hands.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/opinions-editorials/9747-davy-crockett-vs-welfare.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Leaving left and right behind \| A Voice for Men	This thread	Refback	05-09-2012 08:05 PM

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Michael1 For This Useful Post:
Adept1, MrLiberty, nursej007, Spencer Collins