Jeeeeeez folks. There is absolutely no difference between the two. Society still ends up footing the bill. As outlined previously here (about 3 quarters of the way down) and here (half way down) the government is you and me. The government is society.
Government has no wealth and no money of its own.
Government revenue is merely the taxes, duties and fees that you pay daily on your house, on your utility bills, on sundry licences, on cigarettes.
When your government says that it will spend money to build a bridge, that is money that it takes from you to allocate to the bridge.
When your government says that it will create employment by spending money, that money comes from you.
When government tax revenue is not sufficient to satisfy all spending plans (social, military, transport, education, science) it must borrow money.
When government borrows money it must pay interest.
When government pays interest it must get that money from taxes… that is you again.
Thus, there is absolutely no difference between which entity takes on debt. It all comes to the same.
There however is one big difference. In taking money away from you, not only does government reduce your spending power but that money must go through the iteration of government which means that by the time it is allocated to whatever project it was directed at, the original amount is reduced by all the salaries of the people whose departments it has gone through.
Also, not only are government projects not necessarily subject to competitive bids but successive administrations always alter the plans of previous administrations when projects are already under way thus guaranteeing cost over-runs.
Finally, in time of crisis, when a government fantasizes about pulling the country out of recession through gargantuan spending, it cannot guarantee the best price for the project and will invariably end up paying the highest wages and guaranteeing the lowest productivity.
Thus, trying to pull a country out of recession by increasing the size of government is a contradiction in terms.
Perpetuating the ignorant (criminal???) plans of your predecessor is, at best, incompetence of the highest order.
How long till we can say that this is being orchestrated… intentionally… ? How much more proof do we require till the pitchforks come out?
All I can suggest in terms of peaceful resistance is to accumulate gold. Accumulating gold sends the strongest possible signal to the authorities that you no longer have faith in their competence and their ability to guarantee fiduciary duty. Accumulating gold sends the strongest possible signal to the authorities that you have lost confidence in the currency and that you are demanding accountability. A rising gold price is anathema to a Fiat and Fractional Reserve monetary system and forces the authorities to act with discipline.
If and when the authorities should outlaw the ownership of gold, you will know we have reached the end of the road. Banning individuals to own gold, will signal that the authorities have run out of options… peaceful options to perpetrate their schemes.
Personally, I believe that even before banning ownership of gold, the West will engineer a world war. But banning gold ownership will most likely be followed by a world war anyway.