Isn't the United States too big, and its governing too far away from its Citizens?

 A reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.  Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN (  http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers   ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.

The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule.  If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness.  Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government.  The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade.  Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth.  It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln, reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined that the southern states could not secede and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of multiple aligned republics being the future political unit disappeared.  The formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit set the example.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and the one by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.

How does this lead to a loss of control of our government?

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people.  But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435.  Now, there is one Representative for every 720,000 people.  If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.

Until 1914 the Legislature of each state selected and voted on the Senators to serve in the Washington, D. C. national Senate. Subsequently, our "elected" Senators are selected by direct voting, which no longer is guaranteed to reflect the political stance of their subject state, but by their ability to be attractive to the voters, which is directly affected by the amount of money they can negotiate for from very rich and opinionated "donors."  Those are who your Senators see as deserving of allegiance, not the voters' political and personal wants and desires., regardless of what the political ads or speeches say!

 The republican view of governmental responsiveness to citizens as well as to the rule of law has been lost.

Is it any surprise that our "elected" officials and bureaucrats that have never met more voters than they have bureaucrats do not have any instinct... any conscience...

to suggest that they owe any "allegiance," "care," or "oath of office" obligation to those citizens in the rest of the country?  Is it any surprise that many of them see "us" as the enemy?

Distance does NOT make the heart or the allegiance grow fonder, and almost inevitably leads to disrespect and betrayal!

We shoot ourselves by giving up on the study and discussion of History

 When was the last time that you felt that your government was being responsive to you, your values, your needs?  When was the last time that you felt that the government was there, in the words of the old half-joke, to help you?  When was the last time that you trusted the government to do the right thing?

If you are like most of the people I know, on all sides of the political spectrum, the answer is, "never!"

For a long time I have searched for a true answer for why this seems to be true.  Some have blamed ideology.  Others point to the need for term limits.  But these answers seem hollow and superficial.  Would changing those things change our attitude about today's United States of America Federal Government?  I suspect not.  So, my search has been ongoing, fitfully, for some time, since it seems that if one cannot define and truly identify the source of and reason for a problem, there is no hope at all for "fixing" it...assuming that it can be fixed.  And suddenly a whole new area of study and possible answer to my ongoing questions came to my attention.

In November of 2013, one Professor Donald Livingston, Professor Emeritus at Emory University, gave a speech at the University of Virginia on Republicanism (the government form, not the political ideology), David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.  That speech was broadcast on C-SPAN.  Now, most of us have had ideas come to us suddenly and the proverbial light bulb goes off in your brain.  But...this speech had flashbulbs of incredible brilliance going off continually for an hour of rapt listening...and nodding ascent.  Never before had I even considered the effect of our form of government on the current status of the country.

I had been taught that our government was not a pure democracy but a Republic.  But the difference between a pure democracy and a republic was never, at least in my case, a matter of intense or critical study.  Nor was there ever a study of the advantages and limitations of a republican form of government.

What an error in our educational content.  But, perfectly understandable.  Why?  To answer that question completely requires the reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.  Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN (  http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers   ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.  But I will share the substance of what stuck with me from watching and listening to Professor Livingston...and I am confident that substance will get your attention and initiate thought and debate.

The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule.  If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness.  Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government.  The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade.  Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth.  It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined, by force, that the southern states could not secede, and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of the various republics being the political unit, to one where people became the political unit and control was to be centralized.  The French Revolution resulted in the formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and then by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.

All of this is interesting on its own, but you might ask how this translates to the perception that we have lost control of our government...and it is a good question.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people.  But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435.  The result is that today there is one Representative for every 720,000 people.  If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.  And the Supreme Court now is the decider of what the Constitution says.  This means that we have lost the republican view of governmental responsiveness as well as the rule of law.

Additionally, consider that the number of votes necessary to enact laws and authorize spending, all concentrated in Washington, D.C., is 268, and if you limit that to a quorum minimum, the number drops to 135.  This level of representation has resulted in a national debt of over 17 Trillion Dollars, and total unfunded liabilities variously estimated to be anywhere from $220 Trillion to $238 Trillion.  This is the burdon that our government has placed on our descendants.  To give you some prospective, in 2011 the Gross Domestic Product of all of the countries in the entire world amounted to $72 Trillion.

Now you start to see the source for the assertion that we no longer control our government.

David Hume wrote on how to solve the problem of size and save the responsiveness of government in a large republic.  Both he and Jefferson realized the greatest danger to the existence of a republic was corruption; the danger of a group of representatives to make decisions for their own purposes and aims. The answer was to divide America into 100 republics, not states, and move the House of Representatives out of Washington to each republic capitol, with each republic having 100 Representatives ( getting us back close to one representative for every 30,000 citizens).  The Senate would pass a bill, and then it would send that bill to each Republic for ratification.

This greatly reduces the likelihood of corruption, as the cost and logistics of lobbying 10,000 Representatives in 100 different locations would be at best, problematic and at worst, impossible.  There would also be the benefit of Representatives living and being constantly available to their constituents countering with "their" wishes at home, rather than reaching out electronically to "representatives" enjoying their comforting isolation and support from the "deep state" in our nation's Capitol.

With such a process, the Senate would be less inclined to introduce bills with "earmarks" and "pork" projects that were clearly not beneficial to all, as there would be greatly reduced chance of passage by the House of Representatives.  And those bills which have merit, but not on the gigantic scale of the Commonwealth, could and would be adopted by those republics individually as they saw the smaller scale need.

Of course, the best operation of the republican form of governance is still the small republic.  The analogy presented by Professor Livingston seemed most apt, even if not absolutely correct from a medical viewpoint: when a cell grows beyond a certain size, it divides...when it does not it is a cancer.

This is why our government no longer serves us; why it may still be "of the people", and "for the people", but is no longer "by the people."  Now I can begin to study and ponder on what the solution may be, including those as presented by the application of David Hume's "Large republic" concept.  But is seems clear that the status quo has nothing to offer.

Spending money you don't have isn't "Ideology,"...it is FRAUD

 Life in general, and government in particular, exists with multiple beliefs and ideologies held by many.  Arguments and discussions are (or, at least used to be) commonplace throughout the world.  Where a practical democratic element exists, different ideologies come to power and then lose it on a fairly regular basis.

But some practices go beyond the pale...and for some reason no significant part of America's population wants to acknowledge this. Consider the following:

• As of January 23, 2021, at 8:05 am, the United States National Debt Budget deficit was above Twenty-Seven Trillion Eight Hundred Million ($27,800,000,000,000) Dollars;
• As of the same time, the United States National Debt deficit total was above Eighty-two Trillion Two Hundred Billion ($82,200,000,000,000) Dollars;
• United States Gross Annual Domestic Product output is just over Twenty-one Trillion, Two Hundred Billion ($21,200,000,000.000) Dollars.

We owe more than the value of what we produce in a year.  And the total unfunded liabilities are almost four times what we produce in a year.

Any organization other than our government would already be in bankruptcy.

This kind of Ponzi scheme is why Bernard Madoff is in jail right now.

If the Federal Congress had not exempted themselves from application of the RICO statutes when they were written and  passed into law, a majority of Congressmen and women would now have jail cells adjoining Madoff...which may explain why they did, in fact, exempt themselves.

Why do you all ignore this corruption?  Is it because, like many of Madoff's customers, YOUR check cleared?  ...because YOU are getting "stuff" that you don't have to pay for?

Perhaps it is time to start drafting a (apologies to the Catholics out there) "mea culpa" letter to your great grandchildren and beyond.  Perhaps you need to come up with a defense for your stealing their financial well-being.  And I wouldn't waste time with the "I didn't know" or the "I only did what I was told was ok" defenses...they didn't serve those tried in Nuremberg and they won't save your reputation here.  Want to make it right?  Each family just send a payment of Twenty-eight Thousand, fourteen ($28,014) to the Federal government right now (the amount will grow by tomorrow)

Oh...and you folks in New York, California and other states where the State is spending money they don't have had better check how much more you need to sent your Governor to balance their budget(s).

I have failed them too...but at least I spoke up, and voted based on candidates' recognition and willingness to stop this generational theft.

What will you say?

America has become a corrupt nation that is unlikely to remain "Great" for long

 The Founding Fathers knew human nature.  They also knew history, particularly the history of the great empires of Greece and Rome.  While they didn't know that America would grow into the most successful, wealthy, and powerful nation in history, they did have hope that it would endure and provide the freedom for its citizens that they wished and had fought for themselves.

Our government was set up to limit its power and, while there was never any way to stop it's growth or accumulation of power at the expense of the rights of individual citizens, the did try to build in roadblocks in the path to such power.  They split the legislative branch into two with only one reflecting the number of citizens in each respective state while the other had the same number regardless of size.  Power was similarly divided between the Legislative branch and the Executive Branch, and a Supreme Court was created with the power to stop or reverse actions by either branch to act contrary to the Constitutional guarantees.  Terms of office were staggered, with 2, 4, and 6 year terms set to further complicate attempts to gain power at the expense of the people. 

Recognizing the danger of combining the power to rule with the "higher" authority of any one religion, they even stipulated that one's religion could not be a pre-requisite for holding office and that no particular religion could be made the country's "Official" religion, as was true in Great Britain.  Yet they also mandated that religious worship be the free guaranteed choice of any citizen, not to be interfered with by any government.

They tried.

Just as with those who built the Greek empire and, later, the Roman empire...they failed.

An objective study of history suggests that the evil that resides in the human species is not to be denied...particularly over time; a combination of narcissism and of greed ultimately defeats all bonds designed to insure honesty, moral standards and respecting all human beings as equal.  That is what destroyed Greece...and Rome, and what is clearly happening (one could claim that it has already happened) in the United States.

Do you disagree?

The downfall is gradual, happening in small incremental steps that go largely unnoticed...at least as to the (perhaps) unintended consequences.

First: Ownership of property...the basis for taxation...is eliminated and non-owners of property are given the vote.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that when spending decisions are made by those elected by people who aren't paying taxes, no limits on conflagrate spending exist.  In our respective households, spending is controlled by those who earn the money to be spent if disaster is to be avoided.  No such limit survived at the Federal level.

But that was just the start.

• Shortly after the nation was formed (circa 1790),  each member of the House of Representative was elected by approximately one thousand one hundred (1,100) voters
• In 1909, each member of the House was elected by Twenty-three thousand nine hundred fifty-one (23,951) voters
• In 2016, each member of the House was elected by Two Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand (296,000) voters.

No thinking individual believes that today the wants and needs of any one of us matters to our Member of the United States House of Representatives.

Add to that the fact that there are no term limits for holding legislative elective office and the foundation for corruption, narcissism, and lack of interest in fulfilling the oath(s) of office is clear and unavoidable.

Second:  Freedom of Speech was redefined.  What originally was understood to be prohibition against prior restraint on speech, in no way restricting consequences of all speech, was inferred by the courts as a prohibition of consequences of speech. Further, the Press (now, media in general) was granted immunity from prosecution for libel when making false statement about "public" figures absent proof of Malice...and the courts have revealed themselves as being less than anxious to a finding of malice even when the average citizen would have no such hesitation.  That Freedom of Speech was also permitted to be used in the promotion of governmental systems antithetic to the existence of a Democratic Republic. Those who preferred a Socialist, Marxist, Fascist or Dictatorship to any democratic form of rule were, and remain, free to argue for such and if supported by the Press, free to promote such ideologies with lies, fictional claims and even physical attacks with no consequences.

Third: Freedom of Religion.  Already mentioned early on but expanding and clarifying the developments, the courts once again have defined Freedom OF Religion to mean Freedom FROM Religion in the public square;  evidence and the appearance of the Ten Commandments are legally removed and prohibited from public lands public buildings. The removal of the moral precepts contained therein from public view, the legal removal of daily prayer to start a school day and the prohibition of discussion of religious beliefs in schools, Universities, Colleges, Town Halls and Courtrooms has lead to a removal of absolute standards for civilized behavior in return for continually decreasing comparative standards of behavior allowed to be exhibited regardless of their lawlessness.  

Curiously, America's apparant desire to disrespect and remove any behavioral authority of the Christian religion does not interfere with the clear respect afforded the religious beliefs of Islam, which is the only religion of which I am aware that directs it's followers to kill those who speak in opposition to Islam, to strive for political power that, if attained is to be used to eliminate all other religions and install Islam law and standards as part of governmental rule.  The motivation for this attitude is murky and the logic totally escapes any analytical mind.

Fourth: Education.  Mentioned last, but likely the most influential element in the destruction of America, education at the start of the Twentieth Century was established for all and based on the Prussian Model.  It involved the teaching of basic civil skills (arithmatic, reading, writing and some history) and creating a mind-set that accepted regimented behavior.

In America, the regimentation portion of the curriculum was rendered inconsequential because of the need for all members of a family to work in order to survive and the constantly expressed corrective attitudes of parents when reviewing what their children had been "taught."  But the freedom of schools to explore different areas of learning was left in local control, and with teachers in short supply, that control quickly moved into the hands of teachers.  At the same time, those with socialist, Marxist, communist and fascist ideological beliefs found education to be an area of employment that did not prevent them expressing, albeit diplomatically, their beliefs regarding life and government.  By mid-century they were firmly in power of k-12 education and by the 1970s held firm control, as yet not declared, of a majority of Colleges and Universities.  As the Twenty-first Century dawned they began to reveal their ideologies, and "free" speech began to be denied to anyone espousing Democratic, Conservative or Moral Precepts that Leftist Activists found objectionable or disrespecting of their own views.

And so it is today.

Anarchist violence exists with approval in a number of our nation's cities.  Elected officials actually support those who commit the violence, encouraging contributions to bail out those who have destroyed the property of others, who have assaulted and even killed U.S.Citizens and been revealed to be non-citizens in the country illegally and with pre-existing felony convictions. We have elected people to public office who want to interfere and even eliminate law enforcement that protects the average citizen, even as those same elected individuals employ security forces, both private and public, to provide for their armed protection.

Does this sound like a country on a firm foundation, on track to continued success.

When questionable election activity cast doubt on the veracity of election results, and the highest court in the land refuses to examine the matter, does that sound to you like a country that will long exist in its present form?

The Devil Went Down to Georgia...

 This time he left the fiddle behand and brought Soros' bribe money and his army of minions whose souls he has already bought.  No fair competition this time; he intended to win and bring Venezuelan-style Socialist/Marxism to the United States.  Two wins in Georgia and he will have won.

Controlling the Senate, continuing to hold control over the Senate and with a Leftist President in the White House, He could taste the destruction of this annoying Republic.  That control would allow him to add to the Supreme Court justices that would see their roll as assistants to the Congress, pass limitations on personal freedom, legally eliminate Freedom of Expression through changed definitions, and never again have to return to the individual citizen the freedoms taken from them through the fear created by the COVIC-19 Pandemic.

1984 may not have happened on the stipulated year...but is is about to take place.  The Left (Biden never criticized the lawlessness in Portland or other cities, Harris actually stumped for funds to get law-breakers bail paid by supporters) approved of lawlessness by Antifa, BLM and Anarchists throughout the country as they destroyed the ability of citizens to peacefully enjoy their towns and their private property.

Under a Biden Administration, the Right to Protest will include the right to invade you businesses, your towns, your homes and even your (heretofore) private lives.  

Khrushchev was right; his goals were reached by our own hand, as narcissism outvoted the Constitution, wrong overcame morality, and equality became...not of opportunity...the guarantee of all living at the lowest common denominator of life.  Consequences will no longer be visited upon anyone...except, perhaps, for the sin of attempting to better yourselves without harming others.

Now we can know how the horror that a minority of Greek and of Roman citizens felt as they watched their civilizations crumble and fade away.

What makes President Trump the focus of such hatred?

President Trump is hated by those who disagree with him.  It is a visceral hatred, and extends to those who support him.  In the last seventy (70) years no other President has been the target of such violent hatred, vocal disrespect, and harassment.  The harassment has been public ( directed at those who work in his administration), private ( mob confrontation at the homes of those who support and work for him), and in Congress (through the contrived and partisan investigation(s) and impeachment actions).  What makes President Trump a target of such intense, virulent, physical attacks?

Is it his performance in office?  Considering that prominent Leftists were calling for his impeachment even as he was taking the oath of office, that doesn't seem likely.  And since taking office, he has actually kept more of his campaign promises in just three (3) years than all the Presidents combined from FDR up to an including Obama.  So his performance cannot be the added element.

Can it be because he came to office as an"outsider," with no political background.  That also seems to fail upon examination and reflection.  We have had Presidents that came to office with no, or insignificant, political experience; Presidents Eisenhower and Obama come to mind.

How about getting along with people?  Could his combativeness in speech and "tweets" be the cause?  Not since Grant and Roosevelt (Teddy) have we had a President that was so ready to do battle with opponents and the "Press" (whatever "press" stands for these days...but that is a subject for another day).  But while that is mentioned often by his opponents, those opponents are themselves just as guilty of extreme language, so that also seems lacking as an explanation.

Is this "hatred" simply a symptom of American Society's slow but inexorable slide toward "un" civilization, loosing dedication to civil behavior in the striving to eliminate all who disagree with us?  Well, I'd suggest that this may be "partly" to blame, but it doesn't really account for the quantum leap between the treatment and attitude toward President Trump  and that of President Obama.  Both were intensely disliked by those who opposed them, yet there was no outcry in public of general disrespect,and in particular not public harassment or hatred, of President Obama...yet it immediately surfaced toward President Trump even before he took office.  So...why?  Why indeed!

Perhaps it is the "Left" versus "Right" political ideology?  With the accelerated slide to the Left of the Democrat Party, has the gap grown so large that neither can abide by even the existence of the opposite point of view?  A careful analysis suggests that that doesn't hold a hope of an explanation; the "Right" has been sliding Left also, so the gap hasn't grown appreciably...although some small numbers of Republicans speak up in opposition from time to time, but with no significant effect.

Considering that Presidents have limited shelf lives (after all almost anything and everything can survive and carry on for a maximum of eight (8) years and come back) the extreme hatred seems to maintain its mystery.  All Presidents have lied, so the accusation of not telling the truth is neither unusual nor the lying (when it occurs) seem to mark a deviation from the actions of other Presidents.

What is it that makes President Trump, and his administration, different?  I suggest two (2) primary factors.

President Trump is the first President in at least the last seventy (70) years to come to office and to Washington, D.C., having neither desire to join the Washington Political "old boysl' (now "girls" also) club" nor respect for the "go along to get along" practices that have built up in Washington over the last two hundred and fifty (250+) plus years.  Certainly others have been elected as outsiders, campaigning strongly on disrespect for and derision of the "Washington Establishment," but upon arrival went to bent knee and swore secret allegiance to the God of "Government" as the only true constituent they served.  President Trump was the "Mr. Smith" in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" with the exception that President Trump was not and remains not naive about just what sort of corrupt operation that the Federal Government has become.  He was NOT concerned with making small improvements; he was and remains intent on bringing to the surface and rooting out the corrupt practices that have become ingrained in the Federal Government over the years.  He STILL represents those who elected him...NOT the elected and appointed officials who surround him.

That puts fear into the hearts of those who feel threatened.  And that in cludes those who exist outside of Washington who have benefited because of who and what they know, rather that because of what they have earned or deserve.  And FEAR GIVES RISE TO HATRED!

The developing discovery of the use of our FBI and Intelligence services to aid in political campaigns, the failure of the FISA court(s) to deliver on promises to protect our Constitutional Freedoms, the lies perpetrated by elected members of Congress to hide malfeasance and misfeasance are all signs of illegality that would arguably never have poked their ugly heads into public consciousness if President Trump had not been elected.  Those who are, as a result, at risk are, in order of progression: concerned, fearful, desperate, and full of active, actionable hatred.

For myself, any expression of this hatred is reason to believe that the person exhibiting it must be inappropriately benefiting from some Federal Program (or one that is funded by the Federal Government) and worthy of investigative questioning.

Beware of "haters,"  they have something at risk and something to hide.

The secondary reason for the vitriol is that those who lean Left politically have slowly been gaining power since President Reagan left office.  They became used to this gradual assertion of control and became convinced it was their divine right.  So enamored did they become that they ignored signs throughout the country that there was a growing annoyance turning into anger as they became aware that their elected officials were not only lying to them about their intentions in Washington, but ignoring them except for the short season for election campaigning.  The Left saw the election of Ms. Clinton as the final cap the signaled total power and control of the Federal Government.  President Trump's election was like an unexpected cold shower in a one room efficiency instead of the Wedding Suite at the Ritz-Carlton.

So surprise turned to fear, then to hate.  President Trump responded to Press attacks, so they felt fear...then hate.  And the Republicans in office felt rejection of their invitation to join the "Washington Insiders Club" and felt hear than a slightly less hate.  And all that have been getting "paid off" in various ways, as well as their lobbyists, felt fear...and then some level of hate.  All this is the source of the group known as the "NEVER TRUMPERS."

Disagree?  Tell me why...give specifics.

Madoff for President!

Bernard Madoff is in jail.  He is in jail for running a Ponzi scheme that resulted in taking money from investors to pay off earlier investors to satisfy their expectations of his achieving tremendous benefits for those investors.  That is illegal in America...in the private sector.  Those investors who had received the returns that had been promised by implication were very, very satisfied...lauding Mr. Madoff's abilities and worthiness to others and recommending him to their friends...until the law came after them and making them return the money because it had been originally obtained fraudulently and therefore could not be passed on to them or anyone else.  Oh, the anguish and gnashing of teeth...they had believed that, even with the discovery of the con, they had been "lucky" and won the equivalent of a financial game of musical chairs.

So, you ask, what is this nonsense of Bernie Madoff being President?

Both History and current events hold the answer!

For over 3 Presidential terms, the individual in the Oval Office in the White House has "bought" things for the American people.  Benefits of money, influence, real and imagined power, and insulation from the rule that regular people thought needed to be followed.  All to provide the profit to the person in the Oval Office of election, re-election, power and status.  Those, it can be argued, are the equivalent and even superior in the minds of some, of ill-gotten money.  Our leaders have lied to us...and that is a moral lack.  But...we have received benefits that we have not invested it, that cost money that we will never pay.  As with Bernie Madoff, that money is expected to be paid for future investors in...the future taxpayers of...the United States of America: the children and grandchildren of the current citizens.

We have people running for election to the American Presidency who are promising "free" stuff to many, vowing to take the money from current citizens who have legally acquired their riches.  But those riches, even if taken completely away by the government and applied to the cost of the promises, both past and future, would not even make a small impact on reducing the debt.  Consider that the National Debt at present exceeds Nineteen TRILLION Dollars;  There are about 400 Billionairs in the United States at present...if you took all of their wealth you would not net more than just over ONE Trillion Dollars.  Where is the rest of the money coming from?  FUTURE taxpaying INVESTORS.

Bernie Sanders is making these promises.  Hillary Clinton is promising to continue the benefits that President Obama has granted over more than seven years in office that added more than Fifteen Trillion Dollars a sum that current citizens expect will be paid by LATER taxpaying INVESTORS.

And yet...like the earliest Madoff investors...today's citizens accept the "investment returns" promised by Mr. Obama, and currently promised to be continued and extended by Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton.   And no one seems to even consider that our national financial game of musical chairs is subject to the stopping of the music at any time...or even that we imagine and talk ourselves into even believing that there is any music at all, much akin to the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes.

When Congress passed the RICO statutes that made it possible to really attack and more successfully prosecute those involved in "Organized" crime, they exempted themselves from its application.  Why?

President Bush waged a war that wasn't paid for...its cost was just added to the national debt.  The amount was huge...Trillions of Dollars.  But the actions of our Presidents and of Congress since then make that amount look like chump change.

Honest and well-meaning people can discuss and argue over governmental policy and ideology endlessly.  That is valid, and experimentation with different approaches based on the will of the people is to be expected...even encouraged.

But to steal from innocent taxpayers not yet born to fund benefits wanted as a "right" and not earned, is the very essence of corruption, crime and immorality at any level, sectarian or religious.

IF THE ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, PRESIDENT AND THE PROMISED ACTIONS OF SEN. SANDERS AND SEC. CLINTON OCCURRED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BE RESIDING IN CELLS ADJACENT TO BERNARD MADOFF.  AND CURRENT CITIZENS ARE COMPLICIT, AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE "INVESTING TAXPAYERS" THE VALUE EQUIVALENT TO THEIR UNEARNED "PROFITS!"

But I fear that our citizenry has become so narcissistically oriented that they knowingly refuse to acknowledge the truth, their greed, and their disregard for their children and grandchildren. so....

MADOFF for PRESIDENT.

Might as well go all the way and acknowledge our corruption and greed as a nation!