Gardens, yes.
Goats and chickens, yes.
Trust God for the future, oh yes.
Mention to our politicians that we don't want them doing that and they'll be hearing our views on election day: Again, yes.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

I would disagree. Morality is PART of the problem, but the core problem is spiritual (of which "morality" is only a small component).

Roy touched on it - the problem is in the response of the woman, who (it would seem) has no community, no salt and light (or even a goat or a chicken for that matter) that has her back. She lives in isolation. When you live in isolation and you're strapped financially, you have nowhere to turn.

If this woman's Christian neighbors had her back, she wouldn't respond to the guy at the door out of deficit. She would know that there are some true friends out there who have her back, and the thought of $63/month more wouldn't break her back.

More important, she would have her kid's back, and would have far more assurance for her child's future than the assurance that does or doesn't come with economic reality.

I also think this commercial/ad is VERY political.......it makes my skin crawl.

If this woman's Christian neighbors had her back . . .

Also, I've noticed that a good percentage of the serious posts I create end up being a platform for criticism of the church, even though that is never my intention.

Not that I disagree with you that true community is desperately lacking in our neighborhoods. I'm among the worst offenders.

It's just that I think that's miles away from the point of this post.

It wouldn't matter if this woman's Christian neighbor's had her back, because each of them is getting a knock on the door too. This isn't just her debt. It's everyone's. We all have to come up with that amount.
That's part of the horror of it. No matter how frugal and disciplined we've been personally, our country's situation is going to affect us.

nhe,

I'm sure it is an anti-liberal commercial. And, yes, of course, conservatives are complicit (hence my statement in the post itself). I have my own take on who's better fiscally, but let's leave that for another post and agree our politicians are pretty terrible, regardless of party.

I feel more comfortable believing that the government is not going to meet my expectations and being introspective in the face of this.

Me too, and we've done all we can (no debt other than the house, no credit card usage, work hard, save, etc). But that also is beside the point. The whole point of this isn't "Hey Gubmint, get off my wallet!". The reason this is a moral issue is because what We The People are doing to our grandchildren.

This is about other people, not you and me. They are inheriting a terrible problem from us. And we are currently spending more than a trillion a year more than what we take in ("we", again, being a representative term for our representative government)

That's why, at the end of the day, the main person pointed out in this video is the little girl. She's who the video is about.

Finally - and I have a post in me about this: there are two errors we fall into as Christians regarding politics. One is to get all wrapped up in it, treat our "opponents" awfully and without grace, and assume that we can make Heaven on earth through the political process. The other is to assume the current governmental situation doesn't matter at all, and that getting involved (or even paying attention) will taint us so best stay away. Many have gone this route, as an over-reaction to the excesses of the Religious Right. I can't say I blame them. "I'm not trusting in Government to save me", they/we say. And, of course, I agree. But what they are missing is that Salt and Light also includes taking part in our civic processes - at least I believe so. Because by our passivity, others will suffer. It's a moral issue.

Now, what to do? I don't have the right balance, but I'm working through it in my mind. Passivity can also mean selfishness: "Government isn't the answer and can't save us . . . and I'm doing pretty well anyway so who cares?" - we don't say that last part usually.

A lot of people aren't doing well. By not demanding a moral handling of our government's finances, we're complicit in their current and future pain and the future pain of our as yet unborn grandchildren.

Thanks nhe,

Actually, sounds like you are doing your civic duty!

The only thing I do from a political standpoint, pretty much, is vote, so I'm not doing very much on my own.

I'm working through the place political/civic action of the non-ministry kind (such as petitioning the government with grievances, etc) has in the life of faith. Still figuring it out. I may post some on that as time goes on, but I'm not ready yet and certainly not sure of my position, not by a long shot.

Thanks for the interaction.

The problem with this video is it drastically understates the debt.

Our national debt is already approaching $15 trillion. It will grow upwards of another $10 trillion in the next decade. And with the boomers retiring, our "real debt" if you include unfunded liabilities for medicare, social security, and government pensions is estimated at almost $100 trillion. Furthermore, that excludes the additional unfunded trillions owed for pensions, etc. in the various states.

We are a nation of a little over 300 million people at present, and our work force is about half of that, even if we get back to a more normal level of employment.

The reality is that every man, woman and child in the country owes approximately $350,000 just to pay off current debt and unfunded government liabilities. If you are a family of four, you obviously have to multiply that amount time four which ends up being $1.4 million.

Quite simply, these levels of debt will never be repaid, as it is so large in can't be. The interest alone will likely drown us in less than a decade, as is already happening in places like Greece.

There are only two options:
1) eventual default on our debts (i.e. bondholders don't get paid, people don't get social security checks, etc.), or
2) hyperinflation and the devaluation of the dollar which essentially does the same thing by 'satisfying' our debts with nearly worthless dollars.

Both of those alternatives essentially wipe out the savings of people who "played by the rules". Furthermore, it will also likely mean widespread crime, violence and a breakdown in society as well.

God is surely in control, but I also believe this lack of stewardship and financial irresponsibility is a sin, one that will have devastating consequences on American families.

And it doesn't matter what political persuasion you are.

Some small notes of optimism, before Bill switches on the oven:
1) Obviously national retirement age has to go up.
2) Probably you won't add £10T to the debt in the next decade, since it's unlikely that GDP would remain depressed for so long.
3) Inflation happens, over the life-time that the video talks about, that $60-odd a month becomes less significant. The Greek debt issue was a crisis because they'd taken out very short-term loans. To my knowledge (which isn't great) the US hasn't done that.

In general, as far as I know it is impossible to pay off all the debt once and for all. That quantity of money does not currently exist in the world. More money would have to be created, which means either more loans of quantitative easing (are there any other ways?)
Perhaps the choice is stark: would you rather have personal debt, or national debt?

I saw this on a friend's Facebook page the other day:

"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year & have $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey

Tony,

I don't doubt that most democrats mean well. I think most republicans do too.

I'm not sure I'm with you on the compassion point, though. Many conservative Christians are high-level givers (10% of gross income or more), in the area of supporting their church and giving to ministries. I've heard from some on the left who seem to think they themselves are more compassionate since they support large government programs, but that's other people's money, generally.

Again - I'm generally speaking. Anecdotal evidence can go either way.

What I mean by apparent compassion on the democrats side, and I've heard these type of words come out of mouths of persons whom I work with, we can't cut the department of education, what about the education of our children. We can't cut this and that program, who is going to take care of the poor. They firmly believe that the democratic platform is more caring.

They believe that standing up for gay rights is more compassionate. Don't they deserve some of the same rights that married people have after all aren't they people too? Well, of course however, liberals sacrifice the standard of marriage between a man or a woman and sacrifice the standard of a child being raised by a man and a woman (both sexes).

Bill, you are absolutely correct. Conservatives give more per capita to charity then liberals do. So conservatives are more compassionate.

Roy, well said.

I know this discussion is a few days old, but I just got a chance to swing by. The video made my skin crawl as well. Bill's clarifications (to the effect that we're all responsible) were good, but they were lacking from the video itself. The video was more of the same "Look what the other side's doing to destroy this country!"

One thing I'd like to point out in light of the idea that conservatives are better/more responsible with money: the Iraq War. It has been a huge expenditure, and a huge part of where our money has gone. Yes, I know we were in debt prior to it, but it's undeniably a huge portion of our budget. Now, conservatives tend to believe it was justified, i.e. "It's ok to borrow large amounts of money in order to sustain our efforts here, because this is necessary." The rational was "compassionate" in nature as well. At least, once we realized that there were never any WMD's, we switched to "spreading democracy" as our justification, which was ostensibly altruistic in nature.

All that to say, both sides have their pet projects they believe are worth outsized spending on. It kind of comes down to arguing they're going into debt for better reasons, which brings to mind Churchill's alleged conversation regarding paying a woman for sex..."we've established what you are, we're just negotiating price."

I'd like to find a party that would allow me to speak of gay people, single moms, undocumented workers, and people of other persuasions with respect, dignity, and I don't know, grace, while paying some attention to the budget we need to live by. Not sure that piece of ground exists in my country at this point.