Matt Drudge, owner and publisher of the “Drudge Report,” recently tweeted a cryptic warning to his readers, “Have an exit plan.” Here is how Susan Duclos reported the story in BeforeItsNews.com:
“The economic indicators are bad, markets, the weakening dollar, banks preventing large withdrawals, news of China banks halting all cash transfers, in fact, economies across the globe are failing, and much more has led to a simple, four word Tweet from American political commentator and the creator and editor of the Drudge Report, Matt Drudge, that chillingly states ‘Have an exit plan.’”
Duclos also wrote, “Drudge’s words should be a warning to everyone, it is coming, it is almost here and ‘have an exit plan’ ready.”
The Drudge Report is one of the finest news sources on the Web. Matt is well connected. This is the first time I have known of him to write such a warning–as mysterious as it was. No, I do not know what Matt learned to cause him to write this warning; but I do believe we should all pay attention to it.
Without the accumulation of capital (i.e., savings), there is no capitalistic system. Liberal-progressive-socialism will have triumphed.
Liberal-progressive-socialism, adamantly opposed to the Judeo-Christian ethic of individual responsibility, focuses upon confiscating capital (savings) and redistributing it in order to control consumption.
In liberal-progressive-socialism’s Keynesian economic bible, consumption is the be-all and end-all of government economic policy. As we saw in the housing bubble that imploded in 2007 – 2008, government’s resources promoted going into debt to spend more than was being saved. Keynes, in fact, preached that saving causes economic recessions.
Until the administrations of Woodrow Wilson (1913 – 1921) and Franklin Roosevelt (1933 – 1945), when the liberal-progressive-socialist python began wrapping its strangling economic coils around American society, the prevailing ethic extolled personal hard work, thrift, and saving as the path to a better life. Empirical support for that ethos was readily at hand: the 19th century capitalist industrial revolutions in England and the United States had produced history’s greatest improvement, in the shortest time, of people’s standard of living.
All you need to know is that saving some of your income is bad; spending all of your income is good, even better if you go into debt to increase your spending.
Chairman Yellen, by all accounts, is a true-blue believer in the socialistic economic gospel propounded by John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 so-called general theory, of which the main points are:
First, economic recessions are caused by consumers spending too little.
It’s unclear how that comports with the rampant spending of borrowed money by consumers and deficit spending by the Federal government that led to the housing bubble and implosion of the financial markets.
Second, it’s better for academic intellectuals and bureaucratic experts to control the spending. As Bill Clinton said, he might have supported a tax cut, but the people would have spent the money on the wrong things. Ordinary taxpayers must be compelled to forego private medical insurance and enroll in ObamaCare; we can’t be allowed to use incandescent light bulbs; we must use more expensive, less efficient, and inconvenient “green” automobiles; we can’t be permitted to use much cheaper, more efficient, and less-polluting energy sources such as natural gas, petroleum, and coal; and we can’t choose our own kinds of foods and soft drinks.
Wonder of wonders – congress, the house at least, passed a budget that the Democrat controlled Senate will probably pass. That fact tells us pretty much all we need to know about the bi-partisan deal. Paul Ryan, along with John Boehner and company are crowing loudly about how this deal will remove the threat of a government shutdown over budget issues for the next two years.
The continuing resolutions came up far too frequently for the liking of those more concerned with the continuation of the ever expanding government juggernaut than the direction in which it is headed. The recent “shutdown” frightened the Republican establishment and angered the donkeys. Democrats were angry that their beloved bureaucracies were hobbled without a functioning budget. Many Republicans were scared silly that people would blame them for missing out on essential government services. On the other hand, it may be they were also afraid that people would realize that not all these services are quite that essential. Whatever the reason, both parties worked, dare I say conspired, to be sure they could continue to rule over us.
What did we the people get from the deal? We got a budget that fully funds ObamaKare. Spending continues to increase. There are no tax cuts. We are told there is a net decrease in the deficit. Unfortunately that takes place years down the road… which means it will never happen. Of course, the Democrats say they didn’t get everything they wanted. When one has an insatiable appetite for frittering away the taxpayer money, one never gets everything they want. Republicans have put the kibosh on the likes of Ted Cruz – recently identified by as Rasmussen Poll as the world’s third most influential person – not Boehner, not McConnell, not Cantor. Cruz made them look bad, and ineffective as he stood firm during the recent shutdown. Perhaps they think they have neutered him and his fellow patriots by this ploy.
Is Chris Christie ready to face America’s immoral entitlement system?
Republican establishment front-runner Chris Christie’s landslide victory in New Jersey’s gubernatorial election on Tuesday could not have come at a better time for Christie supporters.
Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s just-released book on the 2012 presidential election, Double Down, documents in a rather unflattering way Mitt Romney’s decision not to select Christie as his vice-presidential running mate. Romney’s team found Christie too large, too loud, and, for many a campaign event, too late. Most troubling for some in the Romney camp was the feeling that there were too many skeletons in Christie’s lobbying closet. One high-level staffer posited, “If Christie had been in the nomination fight against us, we would have destroyed him.”
Halperin and Heilemann report that Romney had two principal criteria in vetting potential running mates: that “they be qualified and immediately perceived as qualified to be Commander in Chief, and that there be nothing in their background that could become a distraction for the campaign.” Christie’s past was a distraction.
But Christie seems to have lost on style points more than anything else, given the marked contrast between his person and persona and those of the athletic, deliberate, altar-boyish Paul Ryan that Romney chose to take to the presidential prom.
Obama’s nomination of Janet Yellen to succeed Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve was joyously received in Wall Street. Reassured that the “Greenspan put” (the readiness of the Federal Reserve to pump fiat dollars into the financial system to shore up stock and bond prices) remains in force, stock and bond market speculators turned on a dime and pumped the markets back up after word of Yellen’s nomination. Financial market speculation will remain a no-risk game as long as the Greenspan put survives; speculators can be confident that they can borrow whatever amounts they need, at far-below-real-market interest rates.
Even more than current Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, Yellen has been an aggressive supporter of flooding the financial markets with trillions of phony, fiat dollars. Bernanke and Yellen both believe that the continuing inflation of stock market and bond prices will create a “wealth effect” that will fully revive the economy. So far, their expectations, to put it kindly, have not been met by economic performance. We continue to endure the slowest economic recovery since that of the the 1930s socialistic New Deal.
Main Street America will just have to keep scavenging for crumbs, while Wall Street speculators rake in huge trading profits, courtesy of the Fed.
In a free-market economy, little of which remains today, investors would focus on real, underlying economic factors such as the growth outlook for corporate sales and profits, along with increases in the numbers of well-paying, full-time jobs. Stock market prices would reflect that sort of fundamental analysis. More importantly, the stock and bond markets would be funded by individuals’ savings, not by the expectation that banks and hedge funds could continue indefinitely to borrow unlimited amounts of short term money at near zero rates of interest.
A few days ago, we witnessed a panic in the markets like we have never seen before. No, it wasn’t the robber barons of Wall Street worried that the Federal Reserve would stop pouring counterfeit dollars into the financial markets. This time it was people attempting to use their EBT cards to buy groceries, and whatever else they slip through the system, up to and including lap dances.
It’s unclear whether it was a glitch in the program, or if it was system maintenance. Although, in defense of IT departments, even those within the government, no one does maintenance on a major system in the middle of the day unless major problems have occurred. The point is that people took their shopping carts to the check out line and found their government cards did not work. This was the same for the single mother with no cash trying to buy milk for her children and the welfare queens who have made a career out of milking the taxpayers wallets.
Even though the shutdown only lasted about a day and a half, there was no indication initially when the money drought would end. In the case of either card holder, it was just a hint of what may be coming when reality sets in that the government really does run out of other people’s money, and the Fed stops making it up out of thin air.
The financial press and Wall Street stock market gurus confidently declare that the Republicans will be “brought to their senses” if the stock market continues to retrench in the face of uncertainty wrought by the government slim-down.
Members of Congress not committed to worship of the Democrat-Socialist Party’s collectivist control should ignore stock market speculators’ distress and look to the long-term welfare of the real America. Having gone thus far, Republicans should stick to their guns.
Unhappily, recent history gives stock market speculators reason to believe that Federal policy, particularly action by the Federal Reserve, will kowtow to the stock market, as if that were the real economic heart of the nation. Supposedly a prolonged market sell off would damage the economy. The truth, to the contrary, is that the stock market bubble of the past couple of years is to a major extent a creation of the Fed’s easy-money policies.
There is been a lot of discussion about the wasteful spending done by our government in the name of John Maynard Keynes. He preached the hair brained ideas that any kind of government spending was good for the economy. It put money in the hands of people who would spend it and stimulate businesses and help the economy. The reality is that it only takes from the hands from the productive people who earned it and could use it productively, and places it in the hands of people who only use it to increase the size and scope of governmental control.
One of the unexpected consequences, to the public at least, is additional wasteful spending in the private sector. A few days ago I received a letter from my mortgage company telling me all about the privacy rights I had and didn’t have. It went into great detail about how I could opt out of some information sharing, but how I had no say about other uses they made of my personal information.
My life is neither better nor worse for having received this correspondence. Yet this irritation was done by one of the fastest growing departments in any business – Compliance. Regulations force businesses into all sorts of non-productive efforts that rarely solve the real or imagined problems Washington believes plague the unwashed masses. None of the hoops companies have to jump through to please Big Brother come without cost. This presents another drag on the economy as money spent to comply with the maze of foolish and sometimes contradictory regulations could usually be spent on more productive pursuits like developing new products and hiring more workers.
Ronald Reagan once told us, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!” We see evidence of this all over our nation. Office holders enamored of their position as benefactors of the masses only see the upside of being saviors of the people. In fact, most of the upsides are merely the results of smoke and mirrors.
This city, once a major driver of the US economy and supplier of arms to defeat the Axis menace during World War II, has fallen on hard times as the American auto makers were slow to respond to the import invasion jobs moved elsewhere. Crime and corruption drove still more productive citizens from the city to the point where USA Today reports that there are 78,000 abandoned buildings within the city limits. What was left was a population of the poor and the dependent, all encouraged by the political class who was only too anxious to bring them in as wards of the city.
They responded just as planned by voting these people into power since the sixties… all supported by the unions who received sweetheart deals from the non-adversarial negotiations. It was these deals, along with the unwillingness to size the municipal government to the shrinking population of the city that brought financial ruin to this once prosperous metropolis. While things were going well, the national government could afford to help out… but now, even Uncle Sam is out of money. However, Detroit city council is still expecting to be bailed out of their self induced predicament. This is typical of the progressive left – pressing on to their workers paradise regardless of the obvious failures of their hair brained schemes. They have irrefutably proven the truth of Margaret Thatcher’s words when she said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.”
Prior to this new era of serial government crimes and scandals, it was difficult to watch a newscast on any channel where the word “sustainability” was not batted about as the ruling class attempted to tell us what we are, and are not capable of doing. We were told that our lifestyles are not sustainable. We were told that our leadership in the world is not sustainable. We were told that our consumption of resources is not sustainable. We were told these things by members of the party that has been pretty much in charge for the past fifty plus years. These were the people who created the mess we are in… and now we are expected to trust them to fix things.
The whole argument about the whether our path through the world is sustainable or not revolves around the question of whether the American genius that made this country the superpower in the world is capable of maintaining our position. To say that our lifestyle and position in the world is not sustainable is to say that Americans have lost their ability to create new products, concepts and energy sources. To say America is not sustainable, the speaker shows his lack of faith in the American people, the free market system that has carried us to the pinnacle of the global economy and the “divine providence” that guided our nation into existence is unreliable.
These naysayers, even when they recognize the historical significance of these factors, are telling us our time has run out and the individualism that has built our nation and made it prosper must give way to the collective approach driven by leaders with little real world experience who have sheltered themselves behind the ivy covered walls of academia, theorizing about all sorts of things, we, the little people, should be doing.
President Obama proposes to cure this putative ill and impose liberal-progressive social justice by limiting the amount of savings that citizens may keep in tax-deferred savings accounts. Liberal-progressive social justice, of course, has always meant that citizens should be equally poor and therefore unable to escape from the regulatory power of collectivized government.
Needless to say, once established, the power to limit personal savings will eventually be extended to all economic levels of society.
Forbes Magazine staff writer Robert Lenzner opines on the president’s latest socialistic attack.
Some people had to search for Rand Paul’s response to the presidential prevarications. The formerly main stream media hyperventilated over the words of their Chosen One. They covered Marco Rubio’s response, only find points to ridicule or criticize. Rand Paul didn’t warrant their attention. Either they thought he had nothing to add… or, more likely, they were afraid of the sense that he might add to the conversation.
Here are the thoughts that made a whole lot more sense than anything coming from the White House. Give a listen.
The Federal Reserve tells us that inflation is under control, but prices paid by businesses for raw materials and machinery are surging.
As Milton Friedman opined (and Paul Volcker, the only Fed chairman ever to reduce inflation, agreed), inflation everywhere and always is a monetary phenomenon. It is not caused by greedy businessmen increasing prices, as politicians would have you believe whenever gasoline prices spike. Government itself, through deficit financing and creation of fiat money, is the guilty party when the overall purchasing power of the dollar falls.
Periodic price fluctuations in different goods and services is not inflation, but a result of changes, or expectation of changes, in supply and demand. Bad winters in Florida produce higher orange juice prices. Iranian threats to close the Straits of Hormuz, or shutdowns of refineries in this country for maintenance, cause price changes for petroleum in the futures markets. Last year’s dry summer, coupled with government mandates for increased ethanol production, pushed up corn prices. Such price increases will subside as supplies are increased or demand for them is reduced.
[Editors note: This article was published about a year and a half ago. Reading it shows we have not progressed much in that time. The dividers are still at work and it is the people who are being short changed by the whole process.]
With all the one-upsmanship going on in the nation’s capitol, there is a serious cause for concern no matter what the final outcome of the debt ceiling “crisis”. In one wing of the capitol is the old-school Senate with primary concern for propriety, seniority, rules and power. Just on the other side of the rotunda, are some old timers who feel strongly about respect and tradition, but sprinkled among them are some new-comers not so much concerned with waiting in line until they achieve position and influence as they are in turning the lumbering ship of the republic away from the iceberg of debt that threatens to sink the entire country.
These Tea Party backed congressman completely changed the conversation, and, hopefully, will motivate the leaders to be guided more by principle than expediency. Some would argue that we don’t have time to do the thing the “right” way. Some call these true Americans hobbits and unAmerican. They are wrong! These naysayers claim we just have to get it done now. This is the same thinking that has guided congress for years and, as Dr. Phil would say, “How’s that working out for you?” It would seem that any objective observer would understand it’s time for a different approach.
While we can applaud their efforts to bring sanity to the debate, this whole process is illustrative of the deeper problem we have in the US. Each legislative body has, in turn, shot down the work of the other with the House actually passing two bills and the Senate… who knows what will happen in this graveyard of patriotism and common sense.
I candidly confess that I am not very superstitious. I don’t care how many cracks I step on on a sidewalk; I don’t care how many cracked mirrors I look at; I’ve never thrown salt over my shoulder; I’ve never rubbed a red-headed boy’s head for luck; I don’t carry four-leaf clovers or rabbit’s feet in my pocket; and the number 13 doesn’t scare me a bit. All of that notwithstanding, however, I can’t help but believe that 2013 is going to be a rough year.
One thing is certainly clear: the last year that ended in 13 was a horrific year for the people of the United States. In fact, 1913 was one of the worst years of the Twentieth Century. Consider the following:
February 3, 1913
This is the date when the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the direct income tax and IRS were instituted. This was a flagrant repudiation of freedom principles. What began as a temporary measure to support the War of Northern Aggression became a permanent income revenue stream for an unconstitutional–and ever-growing–central government.
When political leaders care more about gaining power than about promoting the general welfare, the Constitution is under attack.
The Constitution’s preamble cites among its purposes to “establish justice” and “promote the general welfare.” Which contributes more toward those aims? so-called social justice, i.e., forcibly redistributing wealth? or reviving the economy so that more people can find jobs and resume supporting themselves, while raising the overall standard of living for everyone?
Apparently, for the president, restructuring our economy and our political society in accordance with socialistic egalitarianism trumps all other considerations. He believes either that the negative incentives introduced by higher taxes are nugatory and that socialism can harmlessly proceed apace, or that working to complete Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal socialism should be his major goal, regardless of the negative effects on economic recovery.
Some Keynesian economists have argued that, though economic conditions are not at all the same as during President Clinton’s terms in office, reverting to tax rates prevailing at that time will cause no economic harm. More economists fear that raising tax rates now, when economic recovery is so slow and unemployment so high, will push us toward a renewed recession. No economist, so far as I’m aware, has asserted that raising taxes now will aid economic recovery or do more than slightly reduce the extent of deficit spending.
The Federal Reserve has announced that it will be buying 45 billion a month in government bonds. It’s just one of the results of our spendthrift government’s inability to master its Santa Claus and controlling impulses. Some would say it’s public spirited effort on the part of our central banker in chief, Ben Bernanke.
It may be better than giving the Chinese more influence in our land, but let’s consider this a little more closely. When the Federal Reserve buys these bonds, it’s not like you or I buying Series Es. Setting aside for a moment the wisdom of such an investment, we get the money together and write a check. Then we get our bonds – which we really don’t anymore. We get credit in a government account. When the Fed buys bonds, they don’t get the money together… they “print” it.
Then, to make it even more interesting, they expect to be paid back in real dollars purloined from the American tax payers. Al Capone or John Gatti could not have come up with a better, or more dishonest scheme to fleece the good people of our land. The Fed calls it “quantitative easing”, whatever that means, while the rest of us would call it counterfeiting if the perpetrator was anyone else.
How are we to end Obama’s Great Recession? Keynesian economic theory has completely failed to do the job.
A dialogue with a reader who generally defends the Keynesian thesis:
If you maintain that during a recession that it is best to reduce spending by all parties, how does that get the economic engine going again? Austerity during a depression is obviously non-nonsensical.
The only way a factory owner is going to hire more staff or build new plant and facilities, is if demand for his product increases.
The only way for demand for his product to increase is for more customers to have enough money in their pockets to buy!
This simple relationship between supply and demand is taught in Economics 101 in every college in the country (and not just in those “progressive liberal commie colleges” on the East and West coasts).
Having just returned from a Thanksgiving trip to the frozen north, I saw, first hand, the results of the cut backs in staffing many businesses are beginning to implement as they attempt to survive the initial implementation of ObamaKare.
Several formerly fast food restaurants were unable to keep up with the people coming through the door on the heaviest travel weekend in the land. It is a time when proper preparation equals profits and there just were not enough bodies behind the counters to get the job done. Then there was the nice, mid range hotel that didn’t have enough housekeepers to adequately keep the place clean… and help to prepare the usually excellent breakfast.
On top of this, I read recently where the Community College of Allegheny County cut the hours of about 200 adjunct faculty members and 200 other employees as they are looking to avoid paying their tribute to Obama for the “free” health care. Ironically, many of these may well have been the biggest supporters of the socialization of, what had been, a flawed, but workable, system. These are just the beginning of the negative impacts this and other progressive schemes will have on the people who actually want to earn an honest living.
With a hair more than half the voters having opted for four more years of Obamanomics, it’s worthwhile to take another look at liberal-progressive nostrums for reducing unemployment, policies that are divorced from the real world and have never been effective.
Liberal-progressives’ simplistic economic theory tells bureaucrats that, under all circumstances, an increase in the amount of government deficit spending will cause people to increase consumption of goods and services. From this will follow businesses’ increased production and added employment, thus ending an economic recession.
It hasn’t worked for Obama. Unemployment, counting people who have given up seeking work, is about 50% higher than when Obama took office, despite the highest level of deficit spending in the history of the world. In the 1930s Depression, after twelve years of stimulus spending by Hoover and Roosevelt, unemployment was still at 17% just before we began rearming for World War II. In the 1970s, we suffered stagflation: high unemployment and double-digit inflation.
With the terrible results of Tuesday’s election, some have wondered if God removed his protective hand from our wonderful country. We have seen the beginnings of this in the natural disasters that have come upon us, most recently hurricane Sandy – and as I write this, the northeast is being hammered by another storm. Beyond that we have seen such things as theater shootings and school shootings, along with economic catastrophes kidnappings, skyrocketing numbers of child molestations.
Many have clung to II Chronicles 7:14 that tells us, “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” Many have been in prayer for weeks before the election. If they were sincere, their prayers were heard. But have even Christians, changed their ways.
We see many Christians living just like everyone else. Divorce rates are pretty much as high in the church and outside. Many follow their own pursuits and give their Creator what is left. Craig Groeschel as written a book about what he calls Christian Atheists. These are people who say they believe in God, but live like he does not exist… until they need something, then they call on Him to get them out of a jam.
The cable news channel pundits, talk radio gurus, bloggers, and water cooler political experts are all are missing the most important point about the latest debate. The rancorous debate’s scorecard is irrelevant.
What matters is that the debates have made Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan look credible and allowed voters to give themselves permission to do what they have wanted to do for several years–fire Barack Obama.
Romney and Ryan looked, acted, and sounded qualified and presidential. Both Republican candidates sent voters a strong message that there is a credible and serious alternative to Obama and Biden.
This is terrible news for Obama and Biden–and I am predicting a strong Romney victory in the range of 5% to 7% or more of the popular vote.
This week’s announcement that there were only 339,000 new jobless claims this past week fell short of the 370,000 that the “experts” had expected. Large gaps between expectations and reality are nothing new. Not to be too hard on the “experts”, predicting economic activity is difficult at best – and next to impossible in a regulatory environment where nothing is stable or certain. If it would be easy, there would be many more stock market millionaires… instead of legions of people loosing their shirts.
In some ways this lower number is coming from the same government that gave us a fantasy drop in the unemployment rate, that not surprisingly fell below 8 percent just weeks before the regime is standing before the people in a vote of confidence. Admissions have come from the Obama camp that the lower unemployment number came from some missing data from a “very large” state. Even this revelation of faulty numbers did not make much of an impression as the formerly mainstream only covered the initial lowball announcement as it fit their penchant for supporting the president, whereas the correction did not. The same could be said about jobless claims which are almost invariably adjusted upward as the data becomes more complete.
Let us, for a moment, consider the numbers as we see them. While the jobless numbers have been coming down, perhaps we need to look at the environment in which they are calculated. Our economy has been hemorrhaging jobs for years. There just aren’t as many people working as there had been. A number that may be even more instructive would be one that relates claims to the number of people actually working.
We hear all sorts of complaints about an unwillingness of Romney and many Republicans to even consider raising taxes as part of a plan to lower the crushing debt we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. Democrats are using the issue to paint their opponents and short sighted and unwilling to work out compromise legislation. In fact, to a Democrat, bi-partisanship means doing things their way… and all too often, the “loyal opposition” falls for their nefarious schemes.
The problem with giving the national government more money is that it only feeds their addiction to profligate spending. Giving them more funds only gives them greater leeway in working through the spending cuts that are essential to getting the national debt under control, if, indeed, it is still possible to accomplish this task.
Ronald Reagan understood this when he said, “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” He knew then, what anyone who has honestly looked at our government’s finances knows today. So that does leaves us with a plan that needs to revolve around cuts in government and government spending. This is a great idea, but the people inside the beltway have invented their own lexicon, similar to that of the legal profession, that is designed not to communicate, but to obscure their actions and ideas from the citizens our our wonderful country.
In-your-face liberalism was on full display in Charlotte last week. Democrats offered a truly radical vision of the future that would fundamentally remake American society and challenged Republicans to engage them on issues from abortion on demand to abolishing the biblical definition of marriage.
Anyone watching the Democratic National Convention would have thought that social conservatives run Washington and that we are a vote or two away from stopping this vision of the liberal ‘progress’ the country would make under President Obama.
The reality is Republicans have yet to offer a contrasting vision–and probably won’t.
As always, the GOP establishment, firm in its belief that the only way to win is to run a content-free campaign, and uncomfortable talking about matters, such as abortion, that rarely enter the conversation at the country club, appears prepared to once again cede the high ground in the culture wars to the Democrats.
When political leaders (or candidates) talk about “prosperity,” there are at least two divergent meanings to their words. On the one hand, prosperity is described as the result of hard work and determination. On the other hand, it is the some combination of luck, greed, plus government intervention and assistance. Very few people would deny they want to prosper. It’s a good word. It means “to make happy or successful.” Most of us understand that. The problem arises when we change the verb prosper into a noun, prosperity, and try to set up a system under which this condition can be obtained by people. How do we make it more than a dream? How is prosperity gained by each successive generation?
How we understand prosperity depends on how we define wealth. Is wealth a known quantity or value that society strives to divide among itself, or is it something else? If the quantity of wealth is fixed, then what one person has, results in less for someone else.
This philosophy of wealth is what gave rise to communism and the Marxist ideology. Wealth distribution becomes the prime purpose of government in a society based on this belief about wealth. In America today, there are many people that have become convinced that the lack they suffer is directly related to the abundance of someone else.
Long ago, Eve was minding her own business as she strolled through the Garden of Eden. She knew what God had told her, but as she passed by the forbidden fruit, a serpent spoke to her with the advice that the fruit that was off limits would give her knowledge that she did not have. Knowledge is a good thing, but she did not understand that not all knowledge was beneficial. It sounded good to her and she fell for satan’s lie… and we all have been cursed with a sin nature.
There is often the temptation to take shortcuts to our worthy objectives. We often are so wrapped up in the pursuit of our godly goals that we don’t always look at the methods or the appropriateness of the path we choose. We don’t always remember that God looks at our heart and our efforts, that we are required to be obedient, and this does not mean we will always be successful… but in doing so, we will always be pleasing to our Creator.
Jesus gave us the example of how to deal with this kind of temptation. He knew that ultimately he would rule the nations, but the devil offered Him a shortcut. Matthew 4 records the conversation:
I saw a cartoon a day or so back that beautifully illustrated the inability or unwillingness of the former mainstream media to understand the public they are paid to inform. The image showed a woman at the end of a long line waiting to get into the unemployment office. A television reporter was telling her… not even asking her that she was upset about the remarks of senatorial candidate Todd Akin.
It is amazing with real unemployment well into double digits, gas prices at record levels, the national debt clock spinning faster than a souped up ceiling fan and the threat of radical Islam, that so much of what we hear from all the media – including FoxNews – is of a comment by Mr. Akin. Even Rush Limbaugh got into the act. Unfortunately for the Missouri Republican, the subject had such an emotional component that even if there were an element of truth to his statement, no one was listening.
In defending Akin’s exercise of his first amendment right, I must also defend the right of his critics to speak their mind as well, I will, however question their wisdom. His comments came off the cuff and did not come off as planned. His critics, however, issued planned and massaged remarks designed to show the moral rectitude of the speaker and the party.
Since the announcement of Paul Ryan to carry the Republican Vice Presidential banner into battle, a wave of controversy has traveled across the land. Of course, the progressive liberals in the political sphere and formerly mainstream media have derided the choice of the man who has done something the entire Democrat controlled Senate has not been able to do… that is, produce a budget for the country to run on.
As with many of the non-producing class, the donkeys in the upper chamber kicked and brayed that his solutions to the budgetary mess they created were unrealistic and unworkable. Never mind that they did not even attempt to provide a budget of their own. They’ve been too busy promoting homosexual marriage and the extermination of the not yet born to attend to the real economic problems facing the citizens and country today.
If you like the copyrighted content of Political Christian and would like to repost, republish or email the material, permission is granted for any article attributed to Larry Miller provided 1) there is a link back to this site and 2) there is no subscription fee and no paid advertising.
For other circumstances and other contributors, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or follow links that may be provided.