Saving & Spending: Households Have an Edge

When the economic crisis hit this country, many households nation-wide had to tighten their belts. For a consumerist society, this was difficult but it could be done and it was. But it wasn’t just about cutting out needless spending; it was sometimes about walking away from a home and taking a serious hit to a credit rating, for example.

Photo courtesy of

Now Mitt Romney is trying to convince voters that he will be able to set this country’s twisted financial status aright. Maybe he will.

But it isn’t as easy for the United States government to reduce spending and tame the debt load it’s under. It’s infinitely harder. Because reducing spending means cuts, of course. Cuts to what? He’s unclear on that. Government programs would make the most sense, and if that happens, how will these programs survive?

Some of you say, to heck with ’em. Who cares about welfare and other programs for the poor? I’ve even heard some say that assistance should be a church matter, not a state or federal one. To those I’d like to say: how much do you tithe to these poor people? How much do you give? To you even tithe to your church? Most of them (that I’ve talked to) don’t even have a home church.

Sadly, government spending cuts are a necessary evil to reduce our debt and turn this country into a profitable nation so that we can help ourselves and others.  There will be those who need and would clearly benefit from government assistance who won’t get it, or won’t get enough. No one wants to bite the bullet on some of these programs because even the most capitalistic, hardest hearts know, deep down, that some innocent and challenged people will suffer. But they have to, in order for the greater good of the entire country.


2 thoughts on “Saving & Spending: Households Have an Edge

  1. I think if the government would identify and erase the corruption in the government assistance programs, a ton of money would be saved. I believe the majority of the country believe in helping the needy just not helping those that don’t. An example is the college student making around $70,000 in assistance, to help with college, living arrangement, food, etc but actually spending the majority on electronics, clothes, etc. This was a young man being sued by his ex-girlfriend for back payment on rent. I think it was on a Judge Judy program and she was appalled that she was paying with her taxes all of the above stuff. However, whatever the government runs is mostly in the red. The postal service is a good example.

  2. G, I think it’s a given that there are errors and flaws in all government systems, and welfare is one of them; back in 2000 Alabama really cracked down on welfare fraud and was highly successful. Fraud or misuse in any system should be reigned in but the the truth is that government is flawed because people are flawed. You can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. As for the postal service, it really bothers me that the government is considering shutting it down. In my opinion people who are retiring and want their full benefits should take what they can get for the ultimate better good of the USPS and for their country. If that also means cutting back days of service, so be it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s