GOT GROUPON?

Heard of "Groupon"?  It's a new venture that is part group, part coupon.  Groupon is one of those great ideas that we hear about and go..."Hey, I could have thought of that!"  Each day Groupon posts an offer online for a huge deal in your city.  And if enough people sign up to buy the coupon, it makes the coupon active.

Why is this catching on?  Cuz it's a great idea!  An online business was created with no need of storefront or warehouse.  Groupon hires salesmen to locate the business customers.  If a small business is chosen to offer the Groupon "deal-of-the-day", their numbers (which can be anticipated and planned for) cover the profit.  What's the cherry on top?  Say a local nail salon is chosen to offer a Groupon discount.  They are a small business and unable to afford mass advertising.  This opportunity doesn't cost one advertising dollar, but they get tons of exposure.  Brilliant.

Groupon is so brilliant, in fact, that it's inventor reportedly turned Google down on their cool 6BIL offer.  http://mashable.com/2010/12/03/groupon-google-no/  Going from zero to 6 billion in two years?  That's not bad...

Is this the free market?  YES.  Is money flowing to both parties involved...and jobs are created...and people are saving money?  YES!  Are people creative?  YES.  Groupon is win-win business.

And the amazing thing is that government didn't have to create a program to make it happen.  Think of all the unintended consequence that "contrived" business has caused.  Did Cash for Clunkers work?  For five minutes it worked, and then it hurt more than it helped.  Did the gush of stimulus money "work" to create jobs?  No.  Did the money paid out the nose to jumpstart the Gulf after the oil spill...or post-Katrina New Orleans work?  It funded the clean-up crew briefly.  But did it stimulate real jobs?  No.  It is individuals who come in and devise solutions who stimulate the job market.  You saw the reports of those guys who had all sorts of inventions to remove the oil.  Even Kevin Costner had an idea.  So why DIDN'T they help?  Government was in the way.

OK, now I'm preachin' like the libertarian John Stossel.  I watched his special on the unintended consequences of government "help".  Maybe you did, too.  http://www.samadamsalliance.org/blog/index.php/2010/12/28/unintended-consequences-irreverent-messenger-of-the-week-john-stossel-reports-on-his-top-10-politicians-good-intentions-gone-wrong/

Let's begin at the concession that there IS a place for some government regulations because of greed.  Then where is the balanced approach?

The   <   (the side to your left) seem to think government solves all problems and to not give yourself wholly to the righteousness of government's "intention".. is morally abject.  But the   >   (the other side of the aisle) would have a STRONG moral objection to the way government uses taxpayer money.  This is not a reluctance to give money to the less fortunate.  Studies prove that conservatives give much more to charity.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html  While one side believes taxes are to support the disadvantaged, conservatives get to contribute to the IRS AND to charity.

Furthermore, the   >   would say government is unrighteous with their expenditures...both in the specific choices that are made, and extending the wasteful historic evidence that the programs are failures.  What specific choices?  Examples might include the abhorrent healthcare policy toward the unborn/aged...the fact that poverty is unchanged after billions are shoveled into government programs that have taken the place of men/destroyed black households...education spending that increases while education declines...the crazy regulations that broke the housing market...and on and on.

There are many examples of moral disagreements about government spending, but if tied into one neat bundle, the bundle might be labeled LIBERTIES.  The   >   sees government as trying to remove God-given liberties.

Lately, government has twice repeated the Declaration of Independence and left out the part about our liberty being "God given".  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR61uTGTFoM   Omit once (with a flurry of eye motion) and it's a "whoops"; read a teleprompter seven days later and the repeat is suspect.  The Declaration says "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  What's the big deal about that?

When "endowed by their Creator" is left out, our country over time will come to think men are just born with rights.  In the clip above, our leader begins a speech by the words "long before America was an idea".  Sir, God has dibs on that idea, and the plans He has are from eternity.  Then the leader goes on to say our shared value in those rights...makes us unique and binds us together.  No sir.  The Binder is God who has created this unique place where liberty may flourish so that men may taste freedom and know that spiritual freedom is a thing to be desired.  Our common bond in His providence is what Americans value.

So now, how do we make consensus happen when the high ground is AWOL?  Should the  >  acquiesce and allow a lower percentage of what they perceive as harmful policies...thereby compromising their conscience?  Or should the  <   acquiesce and allow less governmental control?

What was that Thomas Paine wrote in his famous pamphlet..."these are the times that try men's souls".  Lord, find us faithful.