Tweet
I was doing some thinking ...
A couple weeks ago, a Toyota dealership commercial came on the radio ... "conservative talk radio" as a matter of fact. The commercial was loudly, boisterously (typical of advertizing) inviting people to HURRY! COME ON OUT AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS ...!!" Then later I heard another similar for a Chevy dealership. And people did.
So, here we have a LOT of well deserved blame on government for spending money they don't have. BUT ... they can't do that unless someone accepts that money. So while Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hannity ... et al ... are placing a lot of well placed blame on government, they don't seem to place blame on the other end; the receivers of that money. If they do, I missed it because I don't listen to any of them very long.
What if the government came up with this cash for clunkers program and the dealerships said, "No thanks! We're all about free enterprise .. free markets. We don't want your socialist money." Or what if the dealerships were faced with an American public that said, "We're not buying a car from THAT dealer because they're willing to participate in yet another government boon doggle of a program."
What if a bank was failing and it was numbered by the government as one of the "too big to fail" institutions so the government said, "Here! We'll give you billions of tax payer dollar to keep going." and the heads of the banks said, "Ummm ... no thanks. We're about the free market principle. We don't want to partake in any socialist program. It's not good for the country." Or what if a bank did fail and depositors lost a lot of money ... FDIC is broke and government says, "Here, we will take more taxpayer money and give it to you to cover your loss. We'll up the outpay from $100,000 to $250,000 dollars." What if the depositors said, "No thanks. We'll accept our losses. The socialist trend tradeoff is not worth it. We'd rather have our freedom. It's our fault for putting out money into a bank and not watching to see that the bank was making wise decisions. It's our loss. We'll deal with it."
What if farmers had a bad year and took a loss that year ... but were able to hang in there because they KNOW that those sorts of years will happen so every year they put back something just for such a time as draught. But the government says, "Hey. We'll subsidize your loss with taxpayer money." What if the farmers said, "No thanks. We believe in the free market system. You win some and you lose some. We'll deal with it. In fact, this year's hit is harder than we were prepared for but some farmers in another part of the country that did very well in their growing season are going to help us out just as we did for them back when they had a bad year. We don't need no stinkin' gov't bailout. That would be akin to some socialist philosophy."
What if the government decided to give everyone $300 or $600 or more? What if the people said, "No thanks. We know you don't have it and you'd just be putting all of us in more debt. We prefer the free market system." If it had really been a "surplus" and they gave it back, that would be one thing but we all know that all tax revenues do not cover annual expenditure. The U.S. borrows ... these days ... about 4-5 billion dollars EVERY DAY to operate. There is no "surplus" other than in rigged books for political purposes.
I could go on and on as could any of you folks ... but my point is, it's not JUST government messing things up. It's the whole of society. I sometimes here people say ... "We need to flush out D.C.! Get 'em ALL out of there and start over with new people!" Right. How? By throwing out the Constitution? That's not how the Constitution says our country runs. It would be like President W. Bush saying that he has abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.
Abandoning the Constitution to save the Constitution. huh?
Anyway ... here is my point. Humans, in general, are only going to look at short term "what's in it for me." Unsaved people have a sin nature and they are, sadly, the majority. The sin nature is selfish; inherently so.
I hear the mantra on conservative talk radio, daily ... "Don't take money I worked for out of my pocket and give it to someone who did not work." That is a sound principle. However, all of us are partaking of gov't programs either directly or indirectly; programs that cost money that the gov't does not have and we are not willing to pay (increase taxes). If we buy a car from a company that was bailed out by the gov't, if we use medicaid or have elderly relatives that use medicaid, we are accepting money that is not ours. If we have a parent on medicaid that pays for $1,100 per month in prescriptions, we partake too because if there was no medicaid, we would find a way to take on the burden ourselves .. so we indirectly accept gov't money. Most would say, rightfully, that they cannot pay that themselves for their parent. So we go on with these gov't spending programs. Now, we are not taking money out of another fellow tax payer and using it. We are taking money out of the pocket of people not yet born, and using it. With current national debt levels, every household in America is in debt for something like $546,000. Waaaay beyond what any of us will ever pay. That is why I say it is debt on our children and our children's children ... and theirs ..... and on .... But you know what? Should the Lord tarry ... those children and on ... will do the same things and pass on their debt to even more future generations. At some point, it has to stop. But it won't stop because of wisdom. It will be a forced stop; forced by the economic laws that our Lord built into the creation.
Issachar
A couple weeks ago, a Toyota dealership commercial came on the radio ... "conservative talk radio" as a matter of fact. The commercial was loudly, boisterously (typical of advertizing) inviting people to HURRY! COME ON OUT AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS ...!!" Then later I heard another similar for a Chevy dealership. And people did.
So, here we have a LOT of well deserved blame on government for spending money they don't have. BUT ... they can't do that unless someone accepts that money. So while Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hannity ... et al ... are placing a lot of well placed blame on government, they don't seem to place blame on the other end; the receivers of that money. If they do, I missed it because I don't listen to any of them very long.
What if the government came up with this cash for clunkers program and the dealerships said, "No thanks! We're all about free enterprise .. free markets. We don't want your socialist money." Or what if the dealerships were faced with an American public that said, "We're not buying a car from THAT dealer because they're willing to participate in yet another government boon doggle of a program."
What if a bank was failing and it was numbered by the government as one of the "too big to fail" institutions so the government said, "Here! We'll give you billions of tax payer dollar to keep going." and the heads of the banks said, "Ummm ... no thanks. We're about the free market principle. We don't want to partake in any socialist program. It's not good for the country." Or what if a bank did fail and depositors lost a lot of money ... FDIC is broke and government says, "Here, we will take more taxpayer money and give it to you to cover your loss. We'll up the outpay from $100,000 to $250,000 dollars." What if the depositors said, "No thanks. We'll accept our losses. The socialist trend tradeoff is not worth it. We'd rather have our freedom. It's our fault for putting out money into a bank and not watching to see that the bank was making wise decisions. It's our loss. We'll deal with it."
What if farmers had a bad year and took a loss that year ... but were able to hang in there because they KNOW that those sorts of years will happen so every year they put back something just for such a time as draught. But the government says, "Hey. We'll subsidize your loss with taxpayer money." What if the farmers said, "No thanks. We believe in the free market system. You win some and you lose some. We'll deal with it. In fact, this year's hit is harder than we were prepared for but some farmers in another part of the country that did very well in their growing season are going to help us out just as we did for them back when they had a bad year. We don't need no stinkin' gov't bailout. That would be akin to some socialist philosophy."
What if the government decided to give everyone $300 or $600 or more? What if the people said, "No thanks. We know you don't have it and you'd just be putting all of us in more debt. We prefer the free market system." If it had really been a "surplus" and they gave it back, that would be one thing but we all know that all tax revenues do not cover annual expenditure. The U.S. borrows ... these days ... about 4-5 billion dollars EVERY DAY to operate. There is no "surplus" other than in rigged books for political purposes.
I could go on and on as could any of you folks ... but my point is, it's not JUST government messing things up. It's the whole of society. I sometimes here people say ... "We need to flush out D.C.! Get 'em ALL out of there and start over with new people!" Right. How? By throwing out the Constitution? That's not how the Constitution says our country runs. It would be like President W. Bush saying that he has abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.
Abandoning the Constitution to save the Constitution. huh?
Anyway ... here is my point. Humans, in general, are only going to look at short term "what's in it for me." Unsaved people have a sin nature and they are, sadly, the majority. The sin nature is selfish; inherently so.
I hear the mantra on conservative talk radio, daily ... "Don't take money I worked for out of my pocket and give it to someone who did not work." That is a sound principle. However, all of us are partaking of gov't programs either directly or indirectly; programs that cost money that the gov't does not have and we are not willing to pay (increase taxes). If we buy a car from a company that was bailed out by the gov't, if we use medicaid or have elderly relatives that use medicaid, we are accepting money that is not ours. If we have a parent on medicaid that pays for $1,100 per month in prescriptions, we partake too because if there was no medicaid, we would find a way to take on the burden ourselves .. so we indirectly accept gov't money. Most would say, rightfully, that they cannot pay that themselves for their parent. So we go on with these gov't spending programs. Now, we are not taking money out of another fellow tax payer and using it. We are taking money out of the pocket of people not yet born, and using it. With current national debt levels, every household in America is in debt for something like $546,000. Waaaay beyond what any of us will ever pay. That is why I say it is debt on our children and our children's children ... and theirs ..... and on .... But you know what? Should the Lord tarry ... those children and on ... will do the same things and pass on their debt to even more future generations. At some point, it has to stop. But it won't stop because of wisdom. It will be a forced stop; forced by the economic laws that our Lord built into the creation.
Issachar
Thanks...I still get confused with posts sometimes.
<--- irrelevant; just wanted to use it because I'd love to bike across the country sometime.
Comment