Step 1: Build up $1000 in savings for emergency (something that threatens life, limb, or ability to work)
Step 2: Increase your net worth
a. Do not do anything that increases your debt. No loans, credit cards, etc...
b. Sell off or donate things you don't need
c. Exchange high payment items for lower payment items
d. Choose free or low cost activities instead of high price excursions
e. Do it yourself instead of hiring contractors
f. Do crafts for gifts instead of high price presents that end up in the trash, storage, or garage sale for 10cents. It'll mean more anyway.
g. Look for ways to cut expenses and save money. Get rid of leeches. Do you really need 500 cable channels? Getting rid of extra gadgets will also lower utility bills.
Step 3: Pay your food and utility bills; then, minimums on each debt bill, and anything left over send to pay extra on the lowest debt first.
Step 4: Once the lowest debt is payed off, then add what you were paying to pay off the next lowest. Repeat 3 & 4 until all debt is paid off. This gets results fast, and snowballs quickly.
Step 5: If you're not already, work up to giving at least 10% of what you make (before taxes) to God. Put the next 10% into savings and investments. Give to God first, and 'pay yourself' next.
Step 6: Pay bills, then put anything else toward building a secure, non-volatile but accessible nest egg of enough money to meet your living expenses for at least 3-6 months.
Step 7: You're there! You have security and no debt. Now you can breath easier, formulate a new budget and set immediate (within this year), near term (within 5 years), and long term (college, retirement, etc) goals.
a. Continue giving at least the first 10% to God.
b. Budget around 45% into savings and investments (at least 10% to long term savings and the rest for immediate and near-term goals -- buying a house, saving for college, vacations, car, etc).
c. You can now use the remainder for living expenses and anything left over is short term goals, gift giving, activities, and "mad-money".
Implement some self discipline:
1. If you can't buy it with cash, you don't need it. If there is something you want, it is far more satisfying to set goals and save up for it.
2. There is no 'good' debt, and you don't need a credit rating if you have the cash to pay for it.
3. A house is not an investment, it is a home. Don't commit to more house than you need. If you feel you 'have' to carry a debt, your mortgage should be the only one and you should work to pay it off early. Do not get a second mortgage or equity loan, and do not refinance.
4. Do not loan money to friends or family. If you can't afford to give it to them to keep, then don't.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Monday, December 4, 2006
Situational ethics
Situational ethics is just a way of saying you base your decisions only on a quick survey of the environment and jumping with whatever seems popular at the time. Either that, or the typical knee-jerk firefighting that all too often characterizes the contemporary manager.
Instead, one should make the best decision they can at the time based on ALL information available at the time. "All information available" includes not only the current state of the environment, but the experience and expertise of everyone involved as well as the moral and ethical codes that keep it all in proper perspective.
Moral and ethical codes are the tried and true values that have withstood the test of time.
Integrity should be used the filter the noise generated in an ever changing environment and allow focus on the really critical points that should drive a decision.
Instead, one should make the best decision they can at the time based on ALL information available at the time. "All information available" includes not only the current state of the environment, but the experience and expertise of everyone involved as well as the moral and ethical codes that keep it all in proper perspective.
Moral and ethical codes are the tried and true values that have withstood the test of time.
Integrity should be used the filter the noise generated in an ever changing environment and allow focus on the really critical points that should drive a decision.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Getting What You Deserve?
Recently I ran across a conversation concerning judges taking pity on sex offenders and acting with leniency in sentencing. The question was asked "Is he [the sex offender] any less deserving of prayer and forgiveness than any of us?"
Deserving? We ALL *deserve* to be cast into hell. We need to be grateful for God's mercy in not getting what we deserve because of God's grace in Christ.
Justice: getting the punishment you deserve
Mercy: not getting the punishment you deserve
Grace: being given blessings that you do not deserve
Offenders do not *deserve* pity, love, forgiveness. We do not love others because they are deserving of it or have a "right" to it. We choose to love because we are loved by God even when we were unlovable. Out of the abundance of God's love poured out on us, we turn and love others.
When/If the offender repents and receives God's mercy and grace, then the ETERNAL consequences of his actions are forgiven.
As individuals, we are to love everyone, even the worst of offenders. You can love a person, and at the same time, hate their sinful behavior. Part of love is to hold others accountable for their behavior (Prov 13:24).
True, it is in the best interest of the family and victims to forgive and move on -- keeping in mind that forgiveness does not mean immediate restoration of position and trust, and does not mean that the offender escapes accountability for his behavior. As individuals, we are to forgive after the same manner that we are forgiven.
Governments, however, are bestowed with a different set of responsibilities.
Law was instituted because of the hardness of people's hearts. Mercy bestowed on a loving person is appreciated and promotes better behavior. Pity bestowed on a cold-hearted person is interpreted by that person as a reward for their behavior, and promotes more of whatever behavior is rewarded.
Governments and judges are charged with the responsibility to hold offenders accountable for the temporal consequences of their behavior. When they fail to do this, it comes across to society as permissiveness, advocating, and promotion of that behavior.
What this judge is saying is that it is OK, excusable, and justifiable to molest a child.
Instead of pitying the offender, what about the victims?
When is it OK for someone to act out their own selfish desires on an innocent child? What about the children whose lives have been ripped apart at the seams? Seems to me if anyone was to deserve pity, it would be the victim.
Deserving? We ALL *deserve* to be cast into hell. We need to be grateful for God's mercy in not getting what we deserve because of God's grace in Christ.
Justice: getting the punishment you deserve
Mercy: not getting the punishment you deserve
Grace: being given blessings that you do not deserve
Offenders do not *deserve* pity, love, forgiveness. We do not love others because they are deserving of it or have a "right" to it. We choose to love because we are loved by God even when we were unlovable. Out of the abundance of God's love poured out on us, we turn and love others.
When/If the offender repents and receives God's mercy and grace, then the ETERNAL consequences of his actions are forgiven.
As individuals, we are to love everyone, even the worst of offenders. You can love a person, and at the same time, hate their sinful behavior. Part of love is to hold others accountable for their behavior (Prov 13:24).
True, it is in the best interest of the family and victims to forgive and move on -- keeping in mind that forgiveness does not mean immediate restoration of position and trust, and does not mean that the offender escapes accountability for his behavior. As individuals, we are to forgive after the same manner that we are forgiven.
Governments, however, are bestowed with a different set of responsibilities.
Law was instituted because of the hardness of people's hearts. Mercy bestowed on a loving person is appreciated and promotes better behavior. Pity bestowed on a cold-hearted person is interpreted by that person as a reward for their behavior, and promotes more of whatever behavior is rewarded.
Governments and judges are charged with the responsibility to hold offenders accountable for the temporal consequences of their behavior. When they fail to do this, it comes across to society as permissiveness, advocating, and promotion of that behavior.
What this judge is saying is that it is OK, excusable, and justifiable to molest a child.
Instead of pitying the offender, what about the victims?
When is it OK for someone to act out their own selfish desires on an innocent child? What about the children whose lives have been ripped apart at the seams? Seems to me if anyone was to deserve pity, it would be the victim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)