Many economists warn that the government’s huge national debt is a looming threat to long-term prosperity. But is it also immoral?
According to a growing number of conservative Christians, the answer is a resounding “Yes.”
As Washington debates President Obama’s proposed 2012 budget, the morality of the deficit has become the hot topic on right-leaning Christian blogs, radio programs and political mailings.
The concern is not only that the estimated $14.13 trillion debt could cripple the economy, some conservative Christian leaders say, but also that borrowing so much money violates important biblical tenets.
There are many rationalizations for chronic debt.
But if you borrow money that you expect others to repay then that’s dishonest unless you have the consent of the ‘repayer(s).’
If you expect others to subsidize you for life with money from the public treasury, money that is often borrowed, because you didn’t study during your K through 12 years and thus qualify for income-enhancing higher education with its scholarships and personally repayable loans, then that’s dishonest.
If you became pregnant out-of-wedlock (often multiple times) with the expectation that others will borrow money/work harder to support you and your children, then that’s dishonest.
If you ‘sire’ children and expect the government to go into debt to support your children or just don’t care who supports them, then that’s dishonest.
If you expect the government to go into debt to repay your self-incurred high-risk mortgage, then that’s dishonest.
If you expect the government to ‘step in’ and sustain your ‘unearned’ standard of living, with either taxes or borrowed money, while hard-working taxpayers pay the taxes, then that is dishonest.
The list could go on. But the fact is, the “Great Society” programs starting in the 1930s and ‘amped up’ during the 1960s have produced a large group of people in our country who do not understand the need for working an ‘honest day’s work’ and who really believe that the taxpayers should support them.
This attitude has been fostered and sustained by one of our two major political parties.
My wife and I are taking Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University. We thought we had our financial act together with a modest debt. What I am finding is that I bought into much of the secular world’s lies that debt is inevitable, debt helps you build wealth, and so forth. I am kicking myself for not taking the course years ago. The average time for a couple taking Dave Ramsey’s course to get rid of debt’s other than the house is 18 to 24 months. I am so impressed by his ministry – for that is what it is. Financial disagreements are the biggest reason for divorce in the first seven years of marriage, so Dave is helping preserve marriage. Also, debt-free families are in a much better place to give to church and other charities. I am quite sure there are many more orphans in Africa being supported because of Dave Ramsey.
You can find a Dave Ramsey Financial Peace University course [url=http://www.daveramsey.com/fpu/locate-classes/persistId/53143A219226AA1CDFB04C33E7C9F071/ ]here[/url]. Our church is subsidizing the course. That is a wise move because debt free parishioners can give more money.
Reality check: Anybody care to look at the debt incurred under St Ronald Reagan or W? I can’t see any moral superiority in borrowing to buy tanks and fighter jets and cutting taxes than spending on social programs. All of these can have unintended consequences.
Reply to Peter L (#3.).
Ronald Reagan’s bold military build up
(a) closed down the Soviet Union’s military option of invading Europe as a means of to solving its (the Soviets Union’s) growing internal economic disintegration and
(b) hastened the economic fall of that surviving European radical socialist state ( the other such state being National Socialist Germany).
And the jury is still out on Bush #2’s invasion of Iraq. There has been far too much agenda-driven hyperbole in the post-invasion analysis of Iraq. Especially when one considers that the political attacks on Bush #2 also served to encourage our enemies in Iraq.
I do agree that the planning of the invasion of Iraq concentrated far too little on providing the quantity and types of occupation forces required to stabilize Iraq politically and economically and to provide adequate assurance of public safety in that country
But the blame for that occupation force shortfall belongs much more on the shoulders of the career executive level Defense Department and State Department policy makers than it does on Bush #2’s shoulders.
Actually I really didn’t want to start a political thread, but to suggest (by balance) that it is out of the Christian sphere, because both sides (political parties) fall so spectacularly short of any biblical model.
I really don’t understand why Bush #2 didn’t divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions: Shia, Sunni, and Kurd. I was against the invasion. I would have preferred surgical strikes to decapitate the government and military…somewhat. Now, the balance of power shifted to Iran. Talk about unintended consequences.
But that is OT. Just got back from Dave Ramsey’s FPU. He is awesome. Tonight’s lecture was on insurance. Really made some great points.