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
This idiocy is why I belive that people should have to have be net tax payer in order to vote. If you recieve more than you pay, you're a liability rather than an asset, and you shouldn't get to vote.
ReplyDeleteI don't care if the payments are social security, unemployment, welfare, Medicare, or student loans. If you take more money from the federal government than you pay, no vote. Period.
What about those of us who paid taxes for more than 55 years, are restricted from working by the government and are drawing Social Security.
DeleteNo vote. No taxes at any level. Our Social Security and other government resources continue because we paid much more than we will ever recover before kicking the bucket.
Dave, unfortunately the average recipient of SS collects what they pain in in six years. Since the government does not invest the money, but collects it and spends it (The SS surplus is borrowed by the Govt's general fund and given IOUs) there is not investment growth. In fact, quite the opposite due to inflation. I suspect either SS will not be around within 10 years or if it is, it will be because the govt has nationalized all retirement accounts and distributes the boodle fairly, as defined by the govt.
DeleteSocial Security is a sneaky means of turning taxpayers into Dependopotomi. The most insidious thing about it is it encourages people to use SS as their retirement savings. I paid SS for decades but I'm still too young to collect. I understand feeling I paid in so I owed payments, that was the agreement. It ain't gonna happen. Cost of living increases aren't keeping up with the real rate of inflation and default is coming soon. Doesn't matter what you want. SS has always been a tax and not an investment plan.
I agree with Kitten. No one, who is receiving any govt funds, including SS, health care, or a paycheck of any amount, should be eligible to vote. Currently 40% of our GDP is govt spending and our taxes barely cover half. We are printing the rest. Around 50% of the population receives gov't benefits of some kind. With the uncounted illegals this is probably higher. The plebes are once again voting themselves bread and circuses and it didn't end well the last time.
Xoph, what you advocate is that the military which fought in Vietnam, all the brush wars that the news didn't report on since then and more than 20 years in the sand box shouldn't be allowed to vote. You are saying that the military men missing legs, arms or other body parts aren't allowed to vote because they are on medical pay. Do you really think that's a good idea?
DeletePrior to Korea, military pay was not taxed for Social Security. When LBJ needed bucks to fund the Great Society military pay was taxed for Social Security. When Congress started the IRA business, the rules were that it was tax free if you didn't have a retirement or pension program. Lots of GIs signed up for IRAs and when our politicians realized that they goofed, the law was changed to exclude military members from the tax free IRA business.
At the time, military retirement pay was by law withheld back pay. Think about that. Serve your time honorably and you get the pay that you earned with blood, sweat and tears. And you don't want them to be able to vote.
I understand not wanting the grifters to vote, but there are other ways to restrict that vote. You all really haven't thought this out well.
Dave, I am a veteran and I do believe having served I'm demonstrated my commitment to my country. My father was a disabled veteran as well.
DeleteI have perhaps thought this out more than you think.
Do I believe our country owes our veterans - Yes. Do I believe that as long as our veterans collect money from Uncle Sam it will influence their voting - Yes. Seen it in my own family. Everyone’s rice bowl is sacred, go cut someone else’s. Veterans may have demonstrated their love and commitment to their country, it doesn't mean they’re infallible.
Our current situation shows LBJ knew that his great society would convert whole swaths of the population to dependopotmi. I’ll assume since you’re here you’re familiar with the overall debt and financial system of the US. I believe our system is going to collapse and leave many starving and without adequate shelter or medical care. This will be true for veterans and welfare moms with 5 kids from different dads – everyone is going to lose. The system is quite amoral.
So, if the future is to learn anything, what are they to learn? Votes can be bought – we know that now. I submit the only way to prevent vote buying is to not allow any recipient of any government funds to vote. I would even go so far to say the company you work for has a government contract, you can’t vote. I believe I was taught at some point that only extreme experience can cause a lasting change in behavior.
One alternative is veterans could receive a separation buyout and have a vote. A one time payment. Any who wish to receive a retirement check each month – no vote. There are alternatives.
OBTW, this isn’t even my most controversial opinion. I’ve been watching people for almost 60 years. Everyone believes their special- it's how we got in this mess. We’re supposed to be a constitutional republic with limited ability to vote, not a democracy. It’s time we started acting like it.
it is but a short hop to those idiots asking, why doesn't the government just print all the money it needs to give us more money, housing, schools, roads, pay our electricity bills......
ReplyDeleteThat's called MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) and it's a popular thing among leftist economists.
DeleteIt's wrong of course, but that never stopped anybody.
My husband went to Georgia this weekend with our church to help clean up from hurricane Helene. They were helping removed downed trees. There were many homes they passed with trees on the houses and when they asked if they would like help getting it off they said no they were waiting for FEMA. My husband was dumbfounded, though not overly so, that these people don't realize they are probably going to be waiting for weeks to months for the government to come help them. They could've at least help put a tarp up but nope, FEMA will come to the rescue. Totally government dependent. They don't just expect it they want it. I'd rather help myself and let the government help only if there's no other options left.
ReplyDeleteDependopotami have been around for generations. They are just more prevalent now... I knew of one situation in Hawaii where a dependopotamus was married to two different sailors on the SAME submarine, one on each crew! She got caught by medical...
ReplyDeleteWith rare exceptions people are lazy and stupid. When you grant suffrage to lazy, stupid people who emote their way through their existence the result is disaster. The inevitable result is the collapse of any society that makes this mistake. We are witnessing the collapse of our society for making this choice.
ReplyDeleteIt works the other way around too: around 1900 my grandfather served - civilian, not military - on a ship where one sailor had one wife in the UK and one in Australia.
ReplyDeleteIn the olden days, only landowners were allowed to vote.
ReplyDelete