I am not an economist, nor the son of an economist, but I think I have had a few successes when it comes to money. Every large item I possess, I own outright: cars, house, equipment; and I have neither bank loan nor mortgage--just a little line of credit that rears its ugly head at me every now and then.
And I have done that based on one salary (ie., one full-time working—no, make that one full-time paid working--parent), with nine young 'uns over the years. Over that time, we have hung out at Value Village, Salvation Army, and the WTS Store (see column #157 for an interpretation). Not the latest or greatest in anything, but we have done well enough, thank you very much.
I have often distinguished my money principles from my wife's as follows: She's frugal, I'm shrewd. The difference? She is very careful with what we do have; too careful, sometimes, if you ask me, but I'm not going to air our dirty laundry (though not to be confused with laundered money). My shrewdness shows up when it comes to what we don't have, but need to have. I am able to sniff out deals that even shock me.
You ought to see the deal I got on screen doors for submarines...
So, good money management is up in the top four of what makes a successful marriage—compromise, communication, and intimacy, being the other three, and probably in that order. (Funny, when you're younger, the order is reversed.)
Like you, we have worked hard to earn and keep our money; and like you, we have wondered what the government does with all the money it collects. It's a crazy world, because the money is ours in the first place; then it's taken by the government through a gazillion taxes. That would make the takers givers and the givers takers, wouldn't it? That would also mean that the government is using money that wasn't theirs in the first place to dictate its allocation to those whose money it was in the first place. (You think that was hard to read? Try writing it.)
All the more reason for the givers-cum-takers to have some say in how it is spent.
Let's move on to bigger and better things, for a moment—say, in how we send money overseas to foreign countries. I wonder if anyone has any idea how much money Canada sends overseas to third-world countries in the form of foreign aid. Times that by ten, and you likely have the amount that the USA sends overseas. Either way, as a taxpayer, I wouldn't mind having a little say in how it's spent.
If the amount itself isn't staggering enough, the complete lack of accountability and control is. Compound the problem with the desperate need for the giver to get its own house in order, and you'll see where I'm going with this. The US of A is in very, very tough shape, yet continues to throw money away to foreign countries. Foreign countries (takers), I may add, that have a really bad attitude the the USA (giver).
I have an assignment for you, and you, and you over there: Check out what countries are getting foreign aid from the Bank of Obama, and see if any of them rhyme with Yemen, Libya, and Egypt. Then examine what sort of checks (not cheques) and balances are in place for the proper distribution of all that unaccounted (and unearned) wealth.
Three things come to mind, without leaving your armchair: The money is going to enemies of America; it is not reaching the common people; and there is no plan to re-examine such a disgusting waste of taxpayers' dollars.
The same could be said of Canada, no doubt, but on a lesser scale. The reason I cite the US of A, is because—surprise, surprise—the recent spate of uprisings, murders, and anarchy directed at America, has come from countries that have been supported, under-written, and in fact, advanced by the same “devil” (their term, not mine).
Remember the story of the golden goose? It (the giver) kept on producing golden eggs until greed and curiosity got the better of the takers, and they killed it outright. By killing the goose that laid all those golden eggs, they lost all present and future source of revenue. The “have” countries cannot continue to support, under-write and advance the “have-not” countries to the degree that they formerly have, at the peril of their own economic system(s), to say nothing of the havoc that is being wreaked against their people on foreign soil.
No regular business would ever be so irresponsible to operate that way. And to make matters worse, it's your money they're wasting.
I don't know if President Romney, er, Obama, reads this column, but if he does, it may give him some ideas. I have a couple of things for him to think about: One, cut back your foreign aid, at least until there is far more accountability in place (just be consistent with what you do with, say, unemployment benefits). Two, don't throw money at the enemies of your country (or better, don't throw good money after bad); only the good Lord above knows what they are spending it on—and it certainly isn't postage and thank you notes.
And, if you want a third tidbit of advice, phone my wife. She knows the value of a buck or two.
No comments:
Post a Comment