Shortly after coming to the United States, I was amused to learn that service personnel have a word they use to describe women who hang around military bases, trying to latch on to (and preferably marry) a young, inexperienced serviceman in order to access his military pay and benefits. The military describes spouses as "dependents", so the slang term for such ladies (?) is "dependopotamus". (Here's an example of the species.) All too often the result is a messy divorce, support payments that the serviceman will have to pay for decades, and another notch on the dependopotamus' bedstead as she starts looking for her next victim. I'm told some of that ilk are collecting divorce payments from as many as half a dozen former spouses.
Unfortunately, the term seems to be expanding to cover all those who regard "the government" as the source of everything they need. There's never any attempt to earn these things for themselves. Instead, their absence is "the government's fault". To get them, "the government must do something". If they still don't arrive, it's the fault of "the rich" for not paying "their fair share" of taxes to "the government", which therefore can't afford to buy what "the people need". In so many words, the majority of the electorate are all becoming dependopotami.
Two recent examples come to mind. First, Sarah Hoyt has just visited Portugal for the wedding of her second son and his bride (to whom our congratulations). She had this to say about such attitudes there.
When I was in Europe, whether visiting in Portugal or in brief airport sojourns in Madrid and Amsterdam I kept running into weird things coming off the TV. No, seriously.
“The government must provide more affordable housing.” “We demand the government create more pre-school slots.” “Government must provide more transportation.” “Government needs to create more child care.”
Look, it was so pervasive that I heard it twice at least per airport, though I only stayed there a couple of hours.
. . .
... in Europe the phrasing wasn’t even questioned. And I’ve seen the same from Australian posters on Twittex.
It makes me wonder, it does. Do they think government is going to be out there with trowel and bricks building houses? If not, where do they think it comes from?
. . .
You see, they have become convinced that the government giveth, the government taketh away, blessed be the name of the government. And at this point what they expect the government to do is the equivalent of expecting vampires to produce living children.
I’m not saying we don’t have trouble right here. And if we manage to thread this needle and get ourselves out of this pinch, it will be proof certain that G-d looks after fools, drunkards and the united states of America.
But I hate to say this, in the fight against globalist technocracy, Europe’s feet are in a cement bucket. It is impossible to fight against intrusive, all controlling government when you think government is the engine of the economy.
There's more at the link.
Next, from my country of birth, South Africa, there's this report.
The South African Social Security Agency’s (SASSA) annual report for the 2023/24 financial year revealed that it pays grants to 28 million South Africans.
In turn, the National Treasury’s 2024 Budget Review shows that 7.4 million individuals in South Africa pay income tax.
. . .
Put differently, approximately 45% of South Africa’s 64 million population benefits from social transfers.
. . .
The biggest contributors [to tax revenues] are people who earn above R1.5 million per year. They contribute R236 billion, or 32%, to personal income tax revenue.
What is concerning is that there are only 197,866 people in South Africa who earn over R1.5 million.
This means that 2.7% of people who pay personal income tax account for 32% of all collections from this important revenue source.
Even more concerning is that South Africa’s expenses, particularly related to social grants, are increasing much faster than tax revenue.
Again, more at the link.
Does that sound familiar to US taxpayers? Most US citizens and residents derive at least some financial benefit or support from our federal government. Many who derive such benefit(s) are not paying any tax at all. They're freeloading on those of us who do pay taxes. In so many words, they're dependopotami.
In fact, the situation is so bad in the USA that our government long ago stopped pretending to balance its budget. Instead, it issued "bonds" or "treasury notes" to raise extra money from investors, promising to repay them that amount plus interest over time. That's become so all-pervasive that close to a third of our national budget is currently funded by such means. When enough bonds can't be sold, the Treasury "sells" them to the Federal Reserve Bank, which conjures up the money to "pay for them" by means of computer transactions. No real money changes hands: it's all accounting sleight of hand. We're becoming more bankrupt by the day because our politicians dare not cut benefits to the dependopotami, who would vote them out of office in a heartbeat if they dared to cut our national coat according to the actual cloth (i.e. funds) we have available.
We are already, to a very large extent, a nation dependent on our government, rather than our own efforts and resources, for what we need to survive. That's very dangerous. As the late President Ford warned us:
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
True dat.
As for where that can lead us? Power Line published a parable about that a few days ago. Go read it, and ponder.
Peter
No comments:
Post a Comment