You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2010.

Spent some time on Wikipedia and elsewhere today.

Why? Listened to the State of the Union last night (it’s all the Republicans’ fault) and then listened to talk radio responses (mostly: Obama is an evil socialist who just might have really been born in Sweden, not Hawaii).

Wanted to find out for myself what’s really going on with the debt/deficit/spending thing.

Got surprised by a lot of things. The right/left divide has created an ideology-bound way of bending the truth about debt/deficit. Both left and right just see what they want to see. And they love to blame each other.

Facts suffer under this ideological pressure to prove one’s side as “correct.”

For instance:

Q: When (in the last 75 years) was the cumulative (real % of GNP) national debt the lowest?

A: During the Carter years. Lower than the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 80’s, 90’s or whatever we decide to call the last decade.

Q: When was federal spending the highest?

A: FDR’s reign. Nowhere in our history even comes close in federal spending as % of GNP. The Great Depression and WW2. Since then, it’s been less clear which side of the aisle is the biggest spender.

Also, the national deficit and the national debt are not the same thing.

For some of you this is 101, but apparently not for most Americans, a majority of whom are unable to distinguish correctly between the two.

The deficit is the annual gap between government income and spending; the “hole” in the annual budget, if you will.

The debt is the cumuilative total amount we owe (to whom is pretty unclear, no matter how much you look into it); the result of lots of deficits in a row.

I am a pro-family, free market, fiscal conservative (not that this matters, just want to be clear that there is no “liberal” agenda here) and was surprised to find out that the following presidents increased the total national debt, during their total time in office, by these percentage amounts:

Jimmy Carter: 45%

Ronald Reagan: 189%

Bush the Elder: 55%

Bill Clinton: 36%

Bush the Younger: 89% (not so bad over 8 years, considering the challenges he faced)

Obama: We don’t know yet, the first years for all of the above presidents were not indicative of the patterns to come for their terms.

Of course, Reagan, Clinton and “W” were 8-year presidents. The others were 4-year guys. Factor that in. Also, inflation is always a rich field for misinformation. It often gets left out or mentioned specifically in order to skew info. 1960 dollars are not the same as 2010 dollars, so sometimes “record” deficits are not really records. No president, in real GNP %, has spent as much as we did in WW2.

Same is true for population changes. America has about 300 million people (we’ll see how the 2010 nose count goes) which is almost twice as many as when I was born. Comparing the debt of a nation of 300 million to the debt of a nation with 150 million is apples vs. oranges.

It seems that, in real un-spun facts (which no one would dispute), the presidents who have most increased the National Debt of the US, in my lifetime, have been primarily–Republicans.

So how do the Democrats get the ‘tax and spend’ rep?

No matter how you cut it, no matter whose numbers you use, Bill Clinton was the most frugal of the presidents in our lifetime–and the prosperity during that era, in my opinion, may have resulted from that (my libertarian tendencies are showing). Not that I approve of him, his policies, or his views. But I like his deficit numbers. Who doesn’t?

The last recorded annual surplus (the opposite of an annual deficit) was during Clinton’s term. A Democrat.

My only explanation is that Republicans somehow don’t count defense spending as “real.”

In all fairness, Republicans aren’t ‘tax and spend,’ they just spend (and cut taxes). This opens up huge deficits.

Bush the Elder had the courage to call this “voodoo economics,” and he was right. He took it back so he could be Ronny’s VP, but it was true then and it’s true now.

Now granted, thank God that Ronald Reagan spent so much on defense–he bankrupted the Soviet Union without firing a shot; history will remember him for that. But he raised the stakes with money he didn’t have.

Glad he did it? Yes.

But it was real spending.

Granted, the social programs that the Democrats prefer are usually more or less useless in terms of real results (good intentions–lousy outcomes). But they cost way less than aircraft carriers.

And those who want to paint Democrats as socialists, ironically LOVE socialized military (obviously the most expensive form of socialism around). But somehow that doesn’t count.

Please hear me, I also, along with the Republicans, prefer a well-funded socialized military. A private military (pay the Hessians to protect us) would be a mess. And the corruption would be unbelievable. Interesting that no Republican would deny our men and women in uniform the right to socialized medicine…which they all have.

We fought a war (WW2) on two continents and destroyed massively evil regimes (Nazis, Fascists, etc.) in four years with socialized military. I am also very proud of our men and women today in the military–they are amazing.

Not that I have totally formulated how I feel about all this, but it’s important for social and market conservatives like myself to look at real numbers. We tend to want to idealize Republicans and demonize Democrats. Overspending is apparently an equal-opportunity employer!

The truth is important. In my adult lifetime, the big spenders have been the Republicans. The only difference is, they cut taxes at the same time–which piles up debt.

Military spending counts as real spending. And there is a real cost to being a warrior nation with extensive, long term, expensive deployment (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) in a hemisphere (Eastern) where our country isn’t (Western). Last I checked, with all of our valiant efforts, those four countries (where we have spent so much money and spilled so much blood) are still nut cases. Half of Korea is arguably the strangest place on planet earth.

If we are going to make real progress against big government, we have to look at real numbers. Including military spending.

How much of the world are we going to protect and how many failed states are we going to rescue from crazy dictators? Can we afford to straighten out the whole world? Where does it end?

Seems simpler to me. Agree on what % of our GNP we want to spend on the public sector (including military). Make real laws (Constitutional Amendment) against spending more that that. And then prioritizing, through democracy, how that fixed amount gets spent. Decide on how much of the globe we are going to police and stick to that. Let the Europeans worry about Kosovo, etc.

Living within our means.

My libertarian side says that our economy would flourish. And our military would focus on defending (which they do well) our homeland.

Just ideas. But since they’re my ideas, I think they’re right.

Unless you have better ones, which may well be true. Let me hear from you.

I want to hear what you have to say about our ability for civil discourse as a nation.

I am up in Canada for a week, teaching, and I am struck by the politeness of conversations on hot topics.

I think that Talk Radio, especially the “rant” hosts, have hurt our democracy.

Radio is a one-way medium. You can set up straw men and torch them. You can control who calls in and you hold the squelch button.

Over 6,000 people have read this blog in the last few weeks.

I used to let everyone post.

Lately, I have been deleting “rants” of left and right wing flavor.

If left and right just continue to rant at each other, we will become ungovernable as a nation. Then democracy fails.

Anyone else out there besides me who would like to see an unusually stubborn attempt to civilize our conversations on the difficult topics of the day?

It starts with respectful answers to statements made by those who disagree with us.

In Paul’s letter to the Galatian Christians in the first century, he talks about the contrast between pleasing people and pleasing God (see chapter one of Galatians).

The truth is, loving people is not the same as pleasing them. Loving them is required. Pleasing them is impossible.

We can “overshoot” people pleasing and end up totally co-dependent.

Our personality can actually disappear when we, like a chameleon walking across a patchwork quilt, exploded into a puff of smoke.

The truth is, the collective “web” of people’s expectations can smother us.

Paul calls this collective “web” the law. Most of it is good. But taken as a whole, it is impossible.

And those of us brought up in a (well meaning) religious background were fed an implied message (or even explicit one) that trying to keep all the rules and say yes to all the grownups made us “nicer” and better people. So we had a whole ‘nother layer of rules and (infinite) expectations from church and God that made our bar even higher to clear.

Add to that the expectations of peer pressure in teen years and the social expectations of advertising, the economy, our bosses, etc. and we’re in a real mess by the time we’re adults.

Our response to these impossible compounded expectations can only be a broken one. We lie. We bargain. We spin. We try to keep everyone happy. Remember Lucille Ball on the dessert assembly line? We get behind and we start to fake it and cut corners.

Isn’t this “broken response to impossible expectations” more or less a pretty good everyday definition of sin?

This would be a good place for a savior to show up :-).  More coming later.

Your thoughts?

How could an all-loving and all-powerful God engineer/allow an earthquake in the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere?

As a committed monotheist (believe in one God) this is a problem. If he’s on the clock, then this happened on his watch.

How should we pray?

What are your thoughts?

Where was God in the earthquake?

And watch–the monotheists will be the first ones to show up with help, love, and support.

This stuff bends my brain and soul.

I remain committed to an all powerful God and to the relief efforts; but none of this makes sense to me.

How about you?

Is the emerging-emergent-emergence church movement dead?

What if the emerging church stops…well….emerging?

No more candles and couches? No more tragically hip pastors with tattoos who blog on their Macs? No more soul patches and craft beers at gatherings? Do we have to stop saying “relevant” all the time?

Please read  Cheaper than Therapy‘s premature yet highly entertaining blog essay (<<CLICK ON) over this topic.

Why does the church best thrive in temporary movements?

And why do most congregations get identified with one or another of these movements?

There are movements and the inevitable reactions against them. Personally, I would rather catch these waves than to pick them apart. There is good in all of them.

Some of them have a long lifespan (e.g. Calvinism); some have less “shelf life” staying power (e.g. Promise Keepers).

But there certainly is a product life cycle curve for all of them.

One of the toughest jobs in ministry is trying to slow the decline of a movement on the “back nine” of its lifespan. I have had the exhausting (paid) job, at times, of propping up entropic Lutheranism, the Charismatic Movement, and the Church Growth movement. “Back Nine” movements have more money saved up–so there are actually jobs there.

I would rather put my energy into a legit move of God on the “front nine” of its existence, regardless of the uncertainty.

For whatever reason we seem to be in a “lull” season for new, momentous, traction-getting church movements right now. It’s as if no trains are leaving the station.

Perhaps you can start one :-).

You could say: “I want to do pure church free of movements.” The problem is, those churches don’t “move.” 🙂

In any case, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, especially if you have had some experience with the emergent/emerging movement. Or if you’d like to talk about movements in general.

What is salvation?

From what do we need saving?

Are those without self-consciousness of salvation any worse off for it?

Who isn’t saved?  Who is?

Are redemption, salvation, and deliverance the same things?

In many languages, the terms overlap and get confusing. In German, “Heil” and “Erloesung” don’t occupy the same shapes and territories as the English words.

Is it just a word for obituaries, grave stones, and fables?

From what do we need saving, redeeming, and deliverance?

What is the receipt–how do we know we have it?

I have pretty big opinions about this, but would rather hear yours first…

Do all faith systems teach more or less the same thing about salvation, or not?

Do you have to believe that the world is evil and we are wretches for salvation to mean anything?  Do some teachers overstate our depravity in order to create “salvation demand?”

If we are saved by grace, what is grace?

Can you have a faith system without teaching salvation in some form or another?

Does the “savior/redeemer” show up in pop culture because the church has forgotten how to talk about it? Think Keanu Reeves as Neo in the Matrix…

Have happiness, balance, appreciation, peace, effectiveness and other things replaced salvation as a human goal?

Do we need a Savior-Messiah if salvation is not a real and felt longing?

Sociologist Peter Gross from Switzerland suggests that Christianity could be stronger without stressing salvation. I disagree, but what do you think?

Is salvation, like “sin,” and “sacrifice,” a homeless word in our contemporary culture?

We had a house full of 18-25 year olds at our home last night. I am just trying to make sense of all this so that the Christian faith can actually have something to say to an entire generation that is taking a “pass” on church.

What are your thoughts?

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,525 other followers

Follow me on Facebook

Follow Me on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.