How Much is Enough?

A few weeks ago, Barack Obama said he believes that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Many conservatives were (somewhat) rightly aghast. Hearing this from the President of the United States makes me very nervous. I certainly do not want our government empowered to decide how much money that anyone can make. However, hearing this from an individual, and looking at it from a biblical and spiritual perspective, I think Barack Obama, the man, made a good point.

Many times over, my wife and I have led the How to Manage Your Money Bible study, developed by the late Larry Burkett of Christian Financial Concepts (now Crown Financial Ministries). About 12 years ago, very early in our marriage, this study was key in helping Michelle and me get on the right path financially.

One of the sessions of the Bible study is entitled, “How Much is Enough?” The overriding theme of the session is that you will never have enough money until you decide that you are going to live on what you have. Also, chapter nine in Larry’s best seller Your Finances In Changing Times (over 1 million sold) is entitled “How Much is Enough?”

Clearly, Mr. Burkett, who dedicated decades of his life to teaching the biblical principles of finance, saw the concept of “how much is enough” as an important one for Christians (and anyone else willing) to grasp. Early in his private counseling there was a common question that Larry generally asked: what do you think the problem is? Almost always, the answer was: we (or I) don’t make enough money.

In nearly every situation—whether it was a $25,000 annual income, $50,000, or $100,000 —the solution was never simply more money. For example, Larry noted that if you took the family with the $25,000 income and replaced it with the $100,000 one, with everything else remaining the same, in one year—two at the max—he guaranteed that they would be back with the same problems.

Generally speaking, when it comes to financial discipline, the amount of income one has is largely irrelevant. Those who struggle financially when they have little money will almost certainly struggle in very much the same ways if they have a lot of money.

Those who are stingy with a little will be stingy with a lot. Those who are generous with a little will be generous with a lot. Those who are foolish with a little will be foolish with a lot. Jesus illustrated this when he said, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.”

Being content with what you have and trusting God is the real lesson here. As the Apostle Paul tells us, “I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” In other words, what you have or don’t have at any given moment is not the most important thing. What is important is your relationship with Him who gives all good things.

In Luke 12:13-21, the parable of The Rich Fool also helps us gain the proper perspective on wealth and money. “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed,” Jesus warned. “A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” Christ then revealed in the parable a certain rich man who had become even wealthier.

Never considering that perhaps God had other plans for this increase, the rich man decided to hoard it. He then said to himself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” Then God said to him, “You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” The parable concluded, “This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”

Notice that God never condemned the man’s wealth; only his attitude toward it. Until we come to grips with the fact that none of us really “owns” anything, we will never have the proper perspective on money and wealth. As I have noted often before, we are merely stewards or managers of God’s property. He owns “the heavens and the earth and everything in it.” Until we accept and acknowledge this, all the wealth in the world will not truly free us, financially or otherwise.

Of course, the concept of “how much is enough” applies not only to individuals and families. If President Obama thinks that, “at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” shouldn’t it follow that, at a certain point the government has enough of our money to do the things it is supposed to do? As U.S. Senate candidate, Rand Paul, (Congressman Ron Paul’s son) put it, “People think that there is a different logic for an economy than there is for an individual.” In other words, what makes sense in a family or business budget should also make sense for the government.

Until the United States, Greece, Italy, France, you, I, and so on, decide that we are going to operate within some reasonable budget (live off what we have), no amount of money in the world will be enough.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

"Demonizing" Democrats

The following shocking statements were directed at the President of the United States:

 

“It is a disgrace. This administration is a disgrace.”

 

“(He) is responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people.”

 

“He's embarrassing... He's not my president. He will never be my president.”

 

“You (and your administration) are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings.”

 

“I hate (him). I despise him and his entire administration — not only because of its international policy, but also the national.”

 

“I don't want add fuel to the fire, but I don't know what it's going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers.”

 

Boy, did the liberals hate George W. Bush. That’s right—every one of the above statements was directed at President Bush. The rage on display here was not conjured up by everyday Americans, such as those attending the TEA parties, but by celebrities such as Julia Roberts, Sean Penn, Joy Behar, and Jessica Lange.

 

In other words, these comments were made by those who have a much larger microphone than the Americans participating in the TEA parties that many liberals now seemed so concerned about. Liberals then were not so concerned with “demonizing the government,” as Bill Clinton recently put. (I suppose it matters who you imagine as a “demon” for there to be concern.)

 

What’s more, YouTube is replete with videos of protests during the Bush administration that show protestors brandishing signs that say things like: “George W. Bush is a terrorist!”; “Team Bush: The True Axis of Evil”; “F-ck Bush”; “Dead or Alive” sign with the name “George W. Bush”; and so on. Then there was the Bush Assassination film.

 

This slander and violence was at least ignored, and at worst parroted, by a media that showed no concern about “inflammatory” or “inciting” statements directed at the President of the United States.

 

But it wasn’t just the kooky celebrities and deranged protestors on the left who were unhinged in their anger. Take note of some of the comments made during Bush’s eight years by leaders of the Democratic Party:

 

“He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure pre-ordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!”—Al Gore

 

“The man's father is a wonderful human being, I think this guy is a loser.”—Harry Reid

 

“Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader.”—Nancy Pelosi

 

“We will take to the streets right now. We will delegitimize (him), discredit him, do whatever it takes, but never accept him.”—Jesse Jackson

 

“Regime change! (Do you think this bothered Chris Matthews?) Bush has to go and we have the power to do it. The officials of the government shall be removed from office for crimes and misdemeanor…”—Ramsey Clark

 

“American treatment of terror detainees at the Guantanamo Naval Base is comparable to torture at the hands of Nazis, Soviet gulags and even Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot.”—Dick Durbin

 

“In the last six and a half years we have seen a dangerous experiment in extremism in the White House.”—Hillary Clinton

 

“I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.”—John Edwards

 

“There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda.”—Hillary Clinton

 

“President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.”—Harry Reid

 

“The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader.”—Nancy Pelosi

 

“This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president.”—Howard Dean

 

“No president in America's history has done more damage to our country and our security…”—Ted Kennedy

 

Barely two years from the 9/11 attacks, in September of 2003, writing for Time magazine, Charles Krauthammer notes that, “Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush — a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological — unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around.” As a result of this behavior, Krauthammer discovered what he considered to be a psychiatric syndrome: Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

 

The TEA Party protests have miles to go before they approach the vitriol that was directed at Bush over a period of several years. And once again the mainstream media finds itself shamefully guilty of the hypocrisy and bias that it is so frequently accused of.

 

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

Democrats and Wall Street

According to Politico, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday (4/22/10) that he will not wait for Democrats and Republicans to reach a bipartisan compromise on a Wall Street reform bill, scheduling the first key test vote for Monday.

 

“I’m not going to waste any more time of the American people while they come up with some agreement,” Reid said. “The games of stalling are over.”

 

“…Democrats have made a political calculation that at least some Republicans will feel compelled to back the bill Monday, even without any changes – and if they don’t, it’s the GOP that looks bad.”

 

It seems that Senate Majority Leader Reid, weary after the long health care battle, is not in the mood for another lengthy legislative fight. And for this reason alone he is better positioned to move the liberal agenda? I don’t think so. Also, just because the GOP is unwilling to support more bad liberal legislation they are the ones who are going to look bad? Again, I don’t think so.

 

The Republicans were hardly damaged goods after the health care debate. Currently, nearly every generic congressional poll has the Republicans in the lead. Rasmussen has the Republicans with a 10 point lead over Democrats.

 

Also, Americans are still strongly opposed to the Democrats’ latest and greatest legislative achievement, Obamacare. Rasmussen has Americans opposing Obamacare by 20 points. Quinnipiac shows the opposition up by 14 points, and the last Fox News poll reveals Americans opposing Obamacare by 15 points.

 

What’s more, with significant election victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, Republicans should be nothing but emboldened when it comes to standing against the liberal agenda being championed by today’s Democrat Party. Of course, with the Massachusetts victory giving the Republicans 41 Senate seats, the Democrats can do nothing without some Republican support. As long as the polls stay where they are, what is the Republican motivation to relent?

 

Furthermore, despite the stereotypes, when it comes to financial reform, and when one actually looks at the facts, the Democrats are no position to paint themselves as standing against the big money and influence of Wall Street. According to this from Open Secrets, the current big money from large corporations OVERWHELMINGLY goes to Democrats over Republicans. Notice who is #65 on the list, tilting “Strongly Democratic.” That’s right. The liberal poster child for financial reform: Goldman Sachs.

 

And when it comes to the “party of the rich,” again according to Open Secrets, of the top 50 individual donors, 34 were “Strongly” to “Solidly” Democratic (one “Leaned” Democratic).

Given all of this, if Republicans stand firm and united and preach the facts, there is no reason to allow the Democrats another bad legislative victory. 

 

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

Liberals and the "Least of These"

Back in 2008, prior to the election, when then candidate Barack Obama was asked by pastor Rick Warren what he thought was, “the greatest moral failure of America,” he responded with, “I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me…”

After making up his mind to vote in favor of Obamacare, Georgia Representative Sanford Bishop said, “Unfortunately I think that my constituents are split right down the middle, so in a sense I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.” He continued, “If I’m going to be damned, I want to be damned on the side of the angels, on the side of what I think will be an obligation as a Christian to take care of the least of (us) and to make sure people are treated fairly.”

It is very interesting that liberals, while defending their views and their votes in support of big government, reference this Scripture. The Scripture, as Obama noted, is from the book of Matthew, contained in Jesus’ parable of The Sheep and The Goats.

The parable begins, “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” (How intolerant of Him!) 

The parable is a description of how Christ will separate the righteous from the unrighteous. (This, one would think, would be reason enough for liberals to avoid referencing such Scripture.) The distinguishing characteristic between the two groups is whether or not they cared for people in need. Matthew 25:40 says, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Thus, reason many liberals, the work of the righteous would include empowering government to help those in need. And, of course, the implication is that if you oppose such efforts, you are on the side of the unrighteous. However, nowhere in this parable, or anywhere else in Scripture, for that matter, does Christ advocate that His people use the force of government to do His work.

What’s more, it is appallingly duplicitous that liberals, when referring to caring for the “least of us,” are never talking about the unborn. Whatever moral causes one chooses to champion, nothing compares to the helplessness of an unborn child. In other words, there is no one among us more “least” than the unborn. It is the height of hypocrisy for liberals to preach about “social justice” and reference the “least of us,” while supporting policies which have lead to the slaughter of millions still in their mothers’ wombs. 

The message of Jesus was “repent and believe.” The mission He left to His followers was to “go and make disciples” (of Himself). The institution that Christ charged with doing His work was His church.

The reason for this is that, as Scripture teaches, Christ Himself is the head of the church. Thus His wisdom and Spirit lead His people “in the paths of righteousness.” Certainly this is not the case with the U.S. government.

I believe that most people who see such a benevolent role for the government have noble intentions. However, this is an extremely foolish position to take, especially for those who are Christians. (No one is “laying up treasure in heaven” by paying their taxes.) A secular government can never provide the real help for which those who have genuine needs are longing.

Without the wisdom, influence, and guidance of God and His Word, no amount of money given to the poor and needy will have the effect that it should. Literally trillions of U.S. dollars have been or will be spent by the federal government on welfare programs since they began early in the 20th century, with a very poor return on such a massive investment.

Also, once the government gets itself established in an additional part of our lives, another piece of our liberty goes out the window—perhaps never to return. This is another danger with government-run health care. John Adams said, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” I’m not quite this fatalistic when it comes to Obamacare, but certainly experience tells us that once we surrender such liberty to the government—with its power to tax, with the power to print money, with the power of the police, the military, the courts, congress, the treasury, and so on—it is nearly impossible to regain it.

“That government is best which governs least,” said Thomas Paine. I would add that, those individuals are behaving best who are freely giving of their own resources—not having it forcefully taken—to help those in need.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

The Fate of the Welfare State

“An absolute principle of economics,” the late Larry Burkett wrote in his 1992 # 1 best seller, The Coming Economic Earthquake, is that, “no one, government or otherwise, can spend more than he or she makes indefinitely. At some point the compounding interest will consume all the money in the world.”

Saddled by staggering debt, governments all over the world are in fiscal disasters and are teetering on bankruptcy. A financial reckoning unseen since the Great Depression appears to be looming for the welfare and entitlement societies that are so prevalent in the western world.

Every advanced society has some form of welfare and entitlement programs. As such, according to Robert Samuelson, “Almost every advanced country -- the United States, Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Belgium and others -- faces some combination of huge budget deficits, high debts, aging populations and political paralysis.”

In the U.S., decades after the start of welfare and entitlement programs brought on by FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society—to quote Jeremiah Wright—“America’s chickens (financial, that is) have come home to roost.”

Of course, nowhere in the U.S. is there more “roosting” going on than in California. In June 2002, the liberal magazine American Prospect hailed California as a “laboratory” for Democratic Policies. The author of the story, Harold Meyerson, boasted that “with its Democratic governor, U.S. senators, state legislature and congressional delegation, California is the only one of the nation’s 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control.” In California, Meyerson said, “the next New Deal is in tryouts.”

We all now know that California’s “New Deal” was no deal at all. “California is deeply in debt,” said Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown. “You could say that it's bankrupt,” he added. (Technically U.S. states cannot declare bankruptcy.)

Of course, California is not alone in its financial struggles. Nearly every U.S. state is seeing declining revenues and facing ever increasing budget shortfalls. However, generally speaking there is a trend among the states that are struggling the most. Forbes recently noted that the “bluest states (are) spilling the most red ink.” The article declared that “The five states in the worst financial condition--Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey--are all among the bluest of blue states.”

“Why do Democratic states appear to be struggling more than Republican ones?” Forbes asks. “It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership.”

Part of the Forbes formula in calculating the financial health of each state included unfunded pension liabilities. The insatiable generosity of many, especially “blue,” U.S. states (and cities) with pensions and with free, or almost free, healthcare, is perhaps the largest millstone around their necks. In the last two weeks alone, states such as California, Virginia, and Illinois, along with cities such as Atlanta, have made news because of their pension woes. “Doomsday is here for Illinois,” stated one pundit. In Virginia they are preparing for “the coming war over public sector pensions.” And in Atlanta a lawsuit has been filed, which the AJC declared as “the first shot of the pension wars.”

Of course, along with generous pension and health care plans come higher taxes. Unsurprisingly, according to the Tax Foundation, the top ten for state-local tax burdens in 2008: 10.) Rhode Island 9.) Wisconsin 8.) Vermont 7.) Ohio 6.) California 5.) Hawaii 4.) Maryland 3.) Connecticut 2.) New York 1.) New Jersey. Notice the “blueness” here?

There is another common link among liberal societies that is greatly compounding their financial despair: low fertility rates. You see, it isn’t just the financial folly of liberalism that has set their house of cards to tumbling; it is their foolish social views as well. In their lust (literally) for sexual gratification, liberal cultures have all but abandoned any moral boundaries when it comes to their libidos.

Marriage, family, and good parenting have taken a back seat to this lust, which is a cornerstone of modern liberalism and feminism. For example, virtually all of Europe has a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1. Greece, along with all of its other troubles, has a fertility rate of 1.36. Spain and Italy are at 1.30. Germany is at 1.41. Not to be left behind by the Europeans, Japan is at 1.22.

In the U.S., states with the lowest fertility rates are generally, again, the “bluest of blue.” Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, along with D.C., are all in the bottom 10 when it comes to fertility rates in the U.S. As Mark Steyn recently put it, “The 20th century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to.”

U.S. spokesperson for the entitlement society, Nancy Pelosi recently said, “Imagine an economy where people could change jobs, start businesses, become self-employed, whether to pursue their artistic aspirations or be entrepreneurial and start new businesses, if they were not job-locked because they have a child who's bipolar or a family member who's diabetic with a pre-existing condition, and all of the other constraints that having health care or not having health care places on an entrepreneurial spirit.”

There you have it: the classic example of the worldview of modern liberalism. If government would only provide yet another entitlement, then more people would be free to do what whatever they want. Contrast this with the words of President Grover Cleveland near the end of the 19th century:

While taking a stand against government aid involving a very deserving orphanage in New York City during a severe economic crisis, Cleveland, a Democrat, said, “I will not be a party to stealing money from one group of citizens to give to another group of citizens. No matter what the need or apparent justification, once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again…It is the responsibility of citizens to support their government. It is not the responsibility of government to support its citizens.”

In 1887, after vetoing a bill that appropriated $10,000 to buy grain for several drought-stricken Texas counties, Cleveland stated, “Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

If only today’s Democrat Party were in the same solar system with Cleveland. Ben Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Never have we been closer to such an end than we are today.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com