Another intelligent idea from Walter Williams:
I believe that a person who is 65 years old and has been forced into Social Security is owed something. But the question is, Who owes it to him? Congress has spent every penny of his Social Security "contribution." Young workers have no obligation to be fleeced in order to make up for the dishonesty and dereliction of Congress. The tragedy is that most seniors just want their money and couldn't care less about whom Congress takes it from.
Here's what might be a temporary fix: The federal government owns huge quantities of wasting assets -- assets that are not producing anything -- 650 million acres of land, almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. In exchange for those who choose to opt out of Social Security and forsake any future claim, why not pay them off with 40 or so acres of land? Doing so would give us breathing room to develop a free choice method to finance retirement.
My husband and I would gladly get out of SS for 80 acres (even if it was in the middle of nowhere). You can read the rest of the article here.
Another very excellent economist is Thomas Sowell. I loved this quote from a recent article.
Depending on what criteria are used, you can have as much official poverty as you want, regardless of whether it bears any relationship to reality.
Those who believe in an expansive, nanny state government need a large number of people in "poverty" to justify their programs. They also need a large number of people dependent on government to provide the votes needed to keep the big nanny state going.
Think about this the next time you here poverty stats.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Ahh, There's the Common Sense
I love the way that Walter Williams puts our economic situation in easy-to-understand no-bull terms.
If European governments and the U.S. Congress ceased the practice of giving people what they have not earned, budgets would be more than balanced. For government to guarantee a person a right to goods and services he has not earned, it must diminish someone else's right to what he has earned, simply because governments have no resources of their very own.
To read the whole article, go here.
So many people seem to think that the federal government (or other civil governments) has money (or something of value) of its own accord. Granted, it can manufacture more at the factory right down the road from where I live (which is very interesting to tour if you ever have the chance). But all that does is devalue the money you have in your bank and your future earnings. All of the money given to various people by any form of government is taken by force from other people. A possible exception might be rentier states. In that case the money given out by the government still comes from other people, but the people are from outside the country who rent our buy something of value from the country and all the citizens get a share.
Anyway, Dr. Williams' quote reminds me of one from the Ten Commandments. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
If European governments and the U.S. Congress ceased the practice of giving people what they have not earned, budgets would be more than balanced. For government to guarantee a person a right to goods and services he has not earned, it must diminish someone else's right to what he has earned, simply because governments have no resources of their very own.
To read the whole article, go here.
So many people seem to think that the federal government (or other civil governments) has money (or something of value) of its own accord. Granted, it can manufacture more at the factory right down the road from where I live (which is very interesting to tour if you ever have the chance). But all that does is devalue the money you have in your bank and your future earnings. All of the money given to various people by any form of government is taken by force from other people. A possible exception might be rentier states. In that case the money given out by the government still comes from other people, but the people are from outside the country who rent our buy something of value from the country and all the citizens get a share.
Anyway, Dr. Williams' quote reminds me of one from the Ten Commandments. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
A River to Cross- a disappointment
A River to Cross by Yvonne Harris was a disappointment to me. I love Christian historical romances, but this one fell flat.
The romance part was too modern. While nothing immoral happens between Jake and Elizabeth, there is none of the old-fashioned propriety one expects in a love story set in the 1880's. She even sleeps at his house unchaperoned. Though this would not seem strange today, it seemed very out of place for the setting.
The romance was also to sappy. The book made is seem as though everyone falls in love at first sight. Elizabeth's first husband proposed in only a few days. Jake proposed to a former fiance on the day he met her. The two in the story seem "know" as soon as they look into each other's eyes, but at least wait some weeks to get engaged. It seemed like the relationships were built solely on physical attraction.
The story opens by introducing Elizabeth as a woman who has come to Texas to help care for her niece when the child's mother passed away. Yet though the child is later orphaned she is barely mentioned throughout the rest of the story. So why have the kid in the story at all? Why not just say Elizabeth went to Texas to visit her brother? It seemed like the whole niece/aunt angle was woefully underdeveloped.
The plot did not flow to me at all. It seems like a whole section of the story (involving a beaver dam) served no purpose except to allow the couple to have another life threatening experience together. The rest of the story seemed fairly disjointed as well.
Though I usually enjoy the books I am given to review by Bethany House, I can only give this book 2 stars.
The romance part was too modern. While nothing immoral happens between Jake and Elizabeth, there is none of the old-fashioned propriety one expects in a love story set in the 1880's. She even sleeps at his house unchaperoned. Though this would not seem strange today, it seemed very out of place for the setting.
The romance was also to sappy. The book made is seem as though everyone falls in love at first sight. Elizabeth's first husband proposed in only a few days. Jake proposed to a former fiance on the day he met her. The two in the story seem "know" as soon as they look into each other's eyes, but at least wait some weeks to get engaged. It seemed like the relationships were built solely on physical attraction.
The story opens by introducing Elizabeth as a woman who has come to Texas to help care for her niece when the child's mother passed away. Yet though the child is later orphaned she is barely mentioned throughout the rest of the story. So why have the kid in the story at all? Why not just say Elizabeth went to Texas to visit her brother? It seemed like the whole niece/aunt angle was woefully underdeveloped.
The plot did not flow to me at all. It seems like a whole section of the story (involving a beaver dam) served no purpose except to allow the couple to have another life threatening experience together. The rest of the story seemed fairly disjointed as well.
Though I usually enjoy the books I am given to review by Bethany House, I can only give this book 2 stars.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Matthew 18 and Marriage
Many Christians are familiar with the following quote of Jesus' in Matthew 18. But I have never heard of anyone using it in a marital situation. My question is: why not?
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
My mom's friend (I'll call her Veronica) from church is going through a very terrible divorce. Veronica's husband (I'll call him Bob) had numerous affairs over the past 30+ years. Two of the most recent affairs have been with a woman in foreign country while on a mission trip and with a woman young enough to be his granddaughter. Veronica has been keeping all of this a secret for years because she wanted to save her marriage and help her husband. While this is admirable, I think she might have had more success in those regards if she had told a couple of fellow Christians years ago and had them confront Bob. If Bob did not listen to the friends, then taking the issue to the church does not seem uncalled for. Then this sin could not have been hidden and who knows how many woman could have been saved from Bob's clutches.
Yet I have never heard of anyone applying Matthew 18 to marriage problems. But surely Bob sinned against Veronica. So why do we never discuss following this plan with adultery problems or gambling problems or abusive situations or addiction problems?
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
My mom's friend (I'll call her Veronica) from church is going through a very terrible divorce. Veronica's husband (I'll call him Bob) had numerous affairs over the past 30+ years. Two of the most recent affairs have been with a woman in foreign country while on a mission trip and with a woman young enough to be his granddaughter. Veronica has been keeping all of this a secret for years because she wanted to save her marriage and help her husband. While this is admirable, I think she might have had more success in those regards if she had told a couple of fellow Christians years ago and had them confront Bob. If Bob did not listen to the friends, then taking the issue to the church does not seem uncalled for. Then this sin could not have been hidden and who knows how many woman could have been saved from Bob's clutches.
Yet I have never heard of anyone applying Matthew 18 to marriage problems. But surely Bob sinned against Veronica. So why do we never discuss following this plan with adultery problems or gambling problems or abusive situations or addiction problems?
Monday, September 5, 2011
Vigilante Left Me with a Heavy Feeling
The book Vigilante written by Robin Parrish reminded me something of a Christian batman. I received this book from Bethany House for review. I picked it because I generally like action books, super heroes, and don't mind a little violence. So I thought I would love this book. Yet as I finished the book, I just felt heavy. Not sad, mind you. Just weighed down.
Maybe that is the point of the book. Maybe it is supposed to make you think about heavy topics like when is violence as a Christian appropriate. Maybe Robin Parrish wants the reader to consider the depths to which humanity can sink and ponder what to do about it. But I read fiction for enjoyment. I read for fun. I did not find this book fun to read.
Even though I didn't really end up liking this book, it will likely appeal to many. It was well written. The characters are solid. And certainly the premise is not boring. So I ended up giving it three stars.
Maybe that is the point of the book. Maybe it is supposed to make you think about heavy topics like when is violence as a Christian appropriate. Maybe Robin Parrish wants the reader to consider the depths to which humanity can sink and ponder what to do about it. But I read fiction for enjoyment. I read for fun. I did not find this book fun to read.
Even though I didn't really end up liking this book, it will likely appeal to many. It was well written. The characters are solid. And certainly the premise is not boring. So I ended up giving it three stars.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Secret Stands
I have come to a realization about my church. They refuse to take a public stand on many cultural issues, but sometimes take a stand behind the scenes. For example, a new ministers first sermon is about it being a Christian duty to go green and shrink one's carbon footprint. He disappears in less than a month. One story is that he missed his home state too much. But the other is that many people were alarmed at his sermon and he was given the opportunity to go back home. Let's just say that the second reason is correct for the sake of this post.
The leadership refuses to take a stand on "issues" (I guess the green movement/creation stewardship is one of these) because it will "detract from our mission". But the minister ends up gone. And I feel wary of the leadership. The level of transparency is rather disheartening. Even the city government has more transparency.
On a separate, but related topic. . .
We recently ordained 15 more elders. One of the comments made during the ceremony was that we should honor our leaders because we have no idea what they do (in reference to helping people). But the comment really struck me. A shepherd parable in the Bible says the shepherd knows each sheep by name and the sheep knew the sound of the shepherd's voice. How can 40 or so men (including the new 15) know 5000+ people? And obviously they don't expect us to really know them if it is accepted that we don't know what they do.
Our church motto is Building followers of Christ through worship, community, and service. But this just doesn't seem like a community to me.
The leadership refuses to take a stand on "issues" (I guess the green movement/creation stewardship is one of these) because it will "detract from our mission". But the minister ends up gone. And I feel wary of the leadership. The level of transparency is rather disheartening. Even the city government has more transparency.
On a separate, but related topic. . .
We recently ordained 15 more elders. One of the comments made during the ceremony was that we should honor our leaders because we have no idea what they do (in reference to helping people). But the comment really struck me. A shepherd parable in the Bible says the shepherd knows each sheep by name and the sheep knew the sound of the shepherd's voice. How can 40 or so men (including the new 15) know 5000+ people? And obviously they don't expect us to really know them if it is accepted that we don't know what they do.
Our church motto is Building followers of Christ through worship, community, and service. But this just doesn't seem like a community to me.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)