On first glance being rich looks like the way to go. Our default position, when watching a once regular joe lottery winner ruin their lives is, "still, I'd like to give being rich a try". Watching immature individuals destroy a wealthy families name brings responses other than sympathy from most of us. "I know money can't buy happiness, but I'd like to see for myself", is another common thought. In my life I have tried to fulfill my basic obligations in life without taking on any more responsibility than I have to. (I've come to see this as a character flaw) Money equals responsibility and I sometimes wonder how I would do with millions of dollars. I know what I think I would do but I have to assume many with wealth have seen good intentions evolve, in time, into nightmares. "No one can serve two masters,for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." these words are straight from the horse's mouth. The horse, in this case, is the one they called Jesus. He goes on to say, "For this reason, (because you cannot serve God and wealth), I say to you, do not be worried about your life ......) With lots of wealth and power it becomes increasingly hard to worry about anything else. Keeping focus on serving others becomes difficult when all of society is falling at your feet, celebrating your arrival to the top of the heap. Not sure how I would fare with such a test. But I would say many fare well and reap a great harvest with the money and influence they possess. A harvest that is not for sale but comes with devotion to our Lord's calling. Obedience to their faith, to their God. "If salvation were a thing that money could buy, the rich would live, and the poor would die". This is a line from a song I occasionally sing. What do you think of it?
During this time of national crisis, the likes I have not seen in my lifetime, I am forced to ponder some unsettling questions about our country and its leaders. Questions that have been fairly easily dismissed in the past, but are demanding a closer look as we continue down the road to dissolution. While the likelihood of intention each step of the way from the beginning to where we are is slim, there seems to be a case for thoughtful direction in recent years. Maybe a case of opportunism. Liberal ideology, as defined in our current political climate, may not have had socialism as its objective. But I would argue, through activism in the courts and through legislation, pushed through from both parties as the ruling elite grabbed for power at every turn, we have laid a firm socialist foundation. We have moved from "rugged individualists" to "I want my mommy". From "no thanks, we'll be fine", to "it's about time you gave me some of your money!" Rights, as defined by liberals, have become the enemy of freedom. Anything that is declared a right seems to imply that it should be provided to all who don't have "it", by those deemed to have won the lottery of life. Having the right to health care, using today's understanding of the word, means it has to be provided for everyone. By this definition we would all be provided with firearms given to us by the government. It seems a more appropriate understanding of the word right would be to suggest no one can intentionally impede or obstruct your ability to obtain what you have a right to. That is to say, if you want to purchase a firearm you may do so. If you want health insurance, you have the right to purchase it. Is there a role for local and state governments in helping poorer families secure insurance if they want to acquire it? I would say yes, but with qualifications.
The current "hate the rich" sentiment is, in my opinion, a manipulative tool to move people to a more socialist point of view. Another move to consolidate even more power in the federal government. Truth is, we could take every penny of income that all the rich people receive and we would still be looking at a bankrupt nation. We could take all the current holdings of the "rich" and run the country for a short time, but then what? Truth is, wealth is a dynamic thing and we are destroying the process by which it is generated. The politicians promise more and more entitlements, when we can't even sustain our current levels of spending. We play games with the language, calling reductions in growth "cuts", leaving us with the possibility that "cutting spending" will bankrupt us at the same precise point as spending more would. Fact is, there are those who hate this country and want it to join the rest of world in poverty as a means of paying us back for all the ill we have spread around the world. If I were trying to destroy our economy, I can't think of anything I would do different than what Washington has done the last few years. (this includes George W. Bush's reckless spending) The answer isn't, "tax the rich", it's "follow the rich". While I don't know any super-rich people, (like Warren Buffet), I know plenty of people who fit in the current "rich" category according to our government. They don't buy new cars, they buy 3 yr. old cars so they don't take the hit on the steep depreciation. They don't buy the biggest house they can afford, they buy a house sufficient for their needs with a few extras thrown in, of course. They also tend to be rather generous people. More generous than I tend to be, much to my embarrassment. They investigate organizations who receive their aforementioned generosity to assure themselves that their resources will be effectively used. Dear Mr. Obama, please stop fueling class warfare, beating up on the rich, as a means of gaining some kind of political advantage, and start leading like someone wanting to make the country he is leading, rich.
