Recently a question reached me as to how any Mormon could be a Democrat. Here is my reply to that question. -GMK
I have been a liberal, labor Democrat my entire life. I come from a long line of Democrats, and before that socialists (my grandfathers and grandmothers). I will attempt to answer your question, which has been posed to me quite often.
I am a Democrat because I believe that we have a common responsibility for each other’s welfare. When Christ commanded us to care for the widow and the orphan he did not exclude civil government from that charge.
I am a Democrat because I believe it is society’s requirement to care for those most vulnerable with in it: The old, the sick and yes, the unborn. I believe that one can be a Democrat and still be pro-life. The unborn are some of the most vulnerable.
Abortion however is a symptom of a much more troubling issue. How is it that we have come to value motherhood with so little regard that women who find themselves with an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy feel compelled to take such a step as abortion? Where is the support they so need in their darkest hour? Being opposed to abortion is only the start. We need to have the programs and actions in place to support women, married or not, so that no woman will ever feel that there is no other option open to her. I support the moderate position of the Church on this personal matter.
While I fully support the notion of the of the traditional marriage I am concerned about a marriage amendment and the unintended consequences it may cause. Consequences which may well harm rather than support traditional marriage. These include having states eliminate marriage rather than submit to a marriage amendment. Such an amendment would take power from the states and grant it to the central government. It would also mark the first time an amendment restricted rather than expanded liberty a slippery slope which could lead to all kinds of troublesome amendments in the future. Today it is homosexuals who are the target who will it me tomorrow? Mormons perhaps?
I wonder why it is we have government involved in a sacrament of the church, marriage. It is the only rite of faith in which the government has a hand and perhaps it ought not be so.
I am a Democrat because I believe that we need to do more than simply pay lip service to protecting and defending the family. We need to take real steps such as stronger family leave, insuring that all of our citizens are protected against financial ruin with proper health security. What good does it do to preach support for the family if we do not match our words with deeds?
I am a Democrat because I believe workers have a right to organize to protect their interests and better their lives. I believe that labor is an important and central part of our economy and we should protect the gains, some paid for with blood, that they have made.
I am a Democrat because I take the Book of Mormon’s warning against preemptive war seriously. While we must take actions to defend our nation we need not place our service men and women into harms way in wars with nations that did not attack us. By engaging in preemptive war we have weakened our stature abroad and our moral authority at home. We have failed to head the warnings of the Book of Mormon and we shall surely pay a bitter price.
I am a Democrat because I believe in the values which made our nation a beacon of liberty to the world. Values which have been eroded of late. I do not believe that America should torture, violate the rights we inherited from the Magna Carta and enshrined in our constitution. Rights for which lives have been given. Those brave men and women did not make the ultimate sacrifice just to have our government spy on our citizens, spirit people away to be held and tortured in repressive states all in the name of security. I am unwilling to trade liberty for security.
I do not vote on a single issue. I vote on many issues and for most of them I find that the Democratic party best reflect the values I hold dear as an American and as a member of the church.
I am a Democrat because of my faith, not in spite of it.
“When Christ commanded us to care for the widow and the orphan he did not exclude civil government from that charge.”
Nor did he implicate in any way that a big-slow-inefficient-government-bureaucracy coming in the name of “help” should take over that role and deprive the free citizen of doing that (for great examples see Huntsman Cancer Institute, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Humanitarian Aid, etc. etc. etc., and others that are much more efficient than a government program will ever be at doing the same thing).
The closing statement is interesting also “I am a Democrat because of my faith not in spite of it.” It seems to me that you are a Democrat becuase as you stated previously “I have been a liberal, labour Democrat my entire life. I come from a long line of Democrats, and before that socialists (my grandfathers and grandmothers).”
(socialists? Can you get that close to the fire of communism without getting burnt?)
It looks like you took a queue from Harry Reid when he tried making that statement at a recent speech he gave about this same topic.
Take care,
Oh come on, can’t we let somebody discuss their politics without slamming them? Talk about showing your true colors.
And it’s “cue,” not “queue.” A “queue” is a line. Let the man speak about his politics. I sure you’ve had more than your fair share of opportunities in life to do the same.
Check the book of Acts for the community of the early Church – seems like a bunch of socialists to me…
Chad, if the early Christians ran the Roman government you may have a point. The issue conservatives have with the idea of socialism is whether it is the job of government and if government is more effective at certain tasks than private efforts, not whether they should be done. Just moving the discussion forward.
Christ commands us to care for one another. He does not compel us to do so. When government takes upon itself this responsibility, it does so at the expense of taxpayers, compelling them to take part. I thought the plan to compel God’s children to be righteous was not necessarily Christ’s.
Marc, I must have missed something somewhere. I didn’t know that making counter-points to a blog post is considered slamming. What true colors am I apparently showing? Red, white, and blue?
Brandon, thank you for the spelling correction. The man has shared his point-of-view. I didn’t know it was wrong or improper to have an open dialogue about the points that are being made especially when there are red flags or questions I had regarding the content of the post itself.
Chad, I appreciate that example you pointed out. They were a community in Christ under their own free will. There was not a government power dictating them or forcing them, through the power of the state, that they organize in a community of Christ. They chose to do so on their own free will. It’s very similar to the vital differences between communism and the United Order. Very different in a number of important ways.
Please see this link for important and key differences in socialism/communism and the united order:
http://tinyurl.com/28y3m7
(see The Law and Order of Zion)
I particularly found the following paragraph of great import:
“The Lord’s economic system differs in significant ways from other methods of relieving poverty. These other methods include philanthropy—an outright gift to the poor by an agency or benefactor; government-sponsored programs—attempts to redistribute the wealth among citizens by taxing the more affluent to provide for the less affluent; and communalism—the pooling of private property and money to community ownership so that each member holds equal ownership in community goods. These are the distinctive features of the Lord’s “own way”:”
If you dig into what leaders have said about socialism/communism you will come to the unequivocal conclusion that it is not a good principle or form of government by any means. In fact, they have made statements in the past encouraging members to distance themselves from the various forms of communism. That is where the red flag came up for me when I read about the socialism in this blog post.
The fruits of an attempt at a current socialism type government by Hugo Chavez can be read about here:
http://tinyurl.com/yut68y
There you will read about various problems including food shortages for the people. That doesn’t seem like it’s “helping” the people to me.
Hopefully that helps answer your statement Chad.
I failed to mention earlier some of the positive points in this post which I applaud and that is his opinion on abortion. He also makes statements about strengthening the family which are vital to society.
I thought the plan to compel God’s children to be righteous was not necessarily Christ’s.
You know, I find it almost funny (if it wasn’t so offensive) that LDS conservatives can object to social programs on this basis, all the while doing their best to lobby the government to enact legislation requiring all of society to behave according to the LDS concept of deity’s commandments.
Which commandments are LDS conservatives trying to legislate the entire society to follow? I understand your hangup with one of them (which is probably what sparked your comment), but could you please humor me and give some examples of us “lobbying the government to enact legislation requiring all of society” to act as we do? Pretty weak argument, Nick.
Tossman,
There are actually quite a few laws proscribing behaviors that don’t harm others directly.
I’m a Republican, but of a strong libertarian bent. Personally I’d like to see government get out of the marriage business altogether, as well as the drug war and every other sort of “victimless crime” legislation.
And let us not forget that I am compelled to support a preemptive war with my taxes even though the Book of Mormon teaches against just such wars. So it is somehow evil to be “compelled” to do good with taxes but acceptable to be “compelled” to evil?
Greg,
I agree with you on that particular issue, but being able to choose which programs our tax money go to (and do not go to) is something of a slippery slope.
Presumably you support universal heath care. If the United States instituted that, but I didn’t want to pay taxes to support it, could I opt out? And if, say, 70% of Americans want to opt out, what does it do to the system? It’s certainly no longer “universal.”
Hi Greg,
I have a comment that has been “waiting for moderation” for sometime now. I would appreciate it if that comment was approved.
As far as the pre-emptive war argument you made for being a democrat, I really had a hard time clearly defining that issue as a reason to be a democrat or conservative. The reason I say that is because many leading democrats voted for the pre-emptive war you are referring to along with many conservatives.
Mike- If I’m not mistaken, the gay marriage thing is the only legislation the church has actively and officially lobbied for.
Tossman, you’ve never lived in Utah, have you? The LDS church has weighed in on alcohol regulation, gambling, the proposed equal rights amendment, and many other things. Add to that the lobbying by individual LDS members or groups, who think they’re doing “god’s work” with their religiously-motivated meddling, and if you’re honest, you’ll see my point. Besides, I specifically noted “LDS conservatives” in my comment, as opposed to the LDS church as an organization.
OK Kent
“The issue conservatives have with the idea of socialism is whether it is the job of government and if government is more effective at certain tasks than private efforts, not whether they should be done”
1st – my original comment shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of socialism as a political movement or form of government – it was merely a statement of fact that the NT church was by any definition a socialist entity (at least in Jerusalem).
2nd – I agree with your premise that conservatives think government doesn’t do as good a job as the private sector in relieving social ills, nor should it (or so goes the line) – Unfortunately this line of thinking disregards the very essence of our constitution summed up in it’s preamble declaring the reason for it’s writing to be “to form a more perfect union” and among other things “promote the general Welfare”. It begins of course with those most blessed words “We the People” not we the bureaucracy. (capitalizations are correct)
Darren:
“They were a community in Christ under their own free will. There was not a government power dictating them or forcing them, through the power of the state, that they organize in a community of Christ. They chose to do so on their own free will.”
First off thanks for your comment I enjoyed the link to the United Order info. As a non-LDS observer (and current self guided investigator) I found that info useful.
I agree with what you are sayng regarding the free will aspect of the community of Christ (not a pun on the renamed RLDS) – however I would argue that government is not as you say a power that dictates or forces us to do anything…the reason I argue this is our republican form of government allows that we are in essence the government. We elect those who we feel (hopefully if we’re informed voters at least) represent our views on so many issues…so if anyone is forcing us to do anything it is us…take for example the recent presidential primaries on both sides of the spectrum were found candidates outside of the establishment…I would say someone like Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D) or Mike Gravel (D) all of these candidates represented more radical forms of what they viewd to be their party ideology (or to them a more pure form of it) and yet for many reasons (media and debate blackouts included) the primary voters went for the same basic cookie cutter candidates. Albeit a diverse group, racially, religiously, gender and ideologically different but still basically the best the establishment had to offer…so in essence we’re choosing that for our future government. (I am guilty as well)
There is manipulation for sure but force I don’t think so. I am compelled to pay taxes at the threat of jail…but my taxes pay for my sons school, the roads, the library, the police all the common good necessities we all need…anyway.
I can understand what the post writer is getting at…he’s an oddity of sorts, a member of a religious group that tends to lean Republican, but he feels his faith informs his politics…as does mine…
This is a great thread…great comments!
If I understand the positions presented here, having a common responsibility for each other’s welfare derived from when Christ commanded us to care for the widow and the orphan means that is a proper function of government. Yet, having the government being involved in a sacrament of the church, namely marriage, perhaps ought not to be so.
Am I wrong in concluding that religious concerns should be a basis for government intervention in the circumstances you happen to agree with, and not be the basis for issues you disagree with?
One of the issue I have is with those who treat government as the problem. In such cases they seldom seem to see it as a problem when it is supporting and promoting idea to which they agree only with ones they do not. The bigger issue however is that in saying that government is the problem they in effect say that they themselves are the problem because in a liberal democracy we, the people, are the government.
Great I whole heartedly agree. “Less Government” conservative continually cry that government is bad and doesn’t work…the fact is that government can and does work, but if you have people running government who do not believe government can work and they do everything in their power to cripple government then of course government doesn’t work…
In my County for example, run by Republicans, we provide emergency housing for those in need through our Dept. of Human Services…the average cost for 1 person per day is about $100.00 so its costs our County $3000.00 to house 1 person in need for a month. The accomodatios provided leave much to be desired as they are sometime shelters, sometimes roach infested motels in the seediest sections of our Metro area…
so here is Conservative waste at work making the equation look like this…government spends too much on emergency housing…government doesn’t work in this area….cancel the government emergency housing program…
But wait…what if government negotiated the cost with the housing providers? hmmmm… One of the motels that it used for housing here charges a person $39.00 for a nights stay…but the County pays $61.00 more for the same service…if the government said we’ll pay you what everyone else pays you it could save taxpyers $1830.00 a month per person and still provide a much needed temporary service for those who find themselves homeless….
The Federal Medicaid program is another good exmple of government working well ~ Medicaid costs less, has less administration and less paperwork then any private insurer and it operates at a higher rate of efficiancy…
Government can work…we must make it work – after all as Greg said we the people are the government.
Government, in and of itself, is not the problem. Government is the problem when it steps in and removes individual responsibility and accountability and replaces them with the collective accountability; i.e., no *one* is to blame.
Governments were instituted by God for the benefit of man and can and do work when they stay within the prescribed boundaries. I take my clue from D&C 134: “no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.” Sadly, too many of both Republicans and Democrats are amnesiacs in regards to these principles. The purpose is to secure to *each individual* these rights. This is not a collectivist approach.
If it is a problem to see the government as the problem because, after all, we are the government, that seems to be an argument that *we* _can’t_ be the problem. Both history and scripture validate that *we* have been, are, and can be wrong, individually and collectively. Just because we transfer individual responsibility to the collective, does not mean that we individually are not to blame – it just makes it harder to pinpoint the guilt and conversely to reward the truly deserving.
The great judgement, as I understand it, will be an individual thing. Rewards and punishments will be appropriately dispensed based upon each person’s works. Man’s governments will not exist then. Therefore, God must dispense rewards and punishments to governments in this probationary time – again, look at history and scripture.
Chad:
How much of that extra $61 is eaten up in people who administer the housing program, the paperwork, the inspectors, the auditors, etc, all those things that are not the actual room rate? And, why can’t I get $39 – $100 per day for my housing from the county government? Why discriminate against the “homed” in favor of the “homeless”?
Mondo
“The great judgement, as I understand it, will be an individual thing. Rewards and punishments will be appropriately dispensed based upon each person’s works.”
Yup but judgement throughout the OT is also coporate – read the prophets Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah there is both corporate blessing and condemnation…it’s not just an individual thing & I am sure from what I have read in the BoM and D&C that there is a corporate element to the LDS understanging of covnenant and judgement as well.
“How much of that extra $61 is eaten up in people who administer the housing program, the paperwork, the inspectors, the auditors, etc, all those things that are not the actual room rate? And, why can’t I get $39 – $100 per day for my housing from the county government? Why discriminate against the “homed” in favor of the “homeless”?
The $61.00 in question is for the houseing itself not for administration – if the motel in question is able to pay it’s costs and make a profit w/ the $39.00 it charges regular guests then it can do so for the government also…(BTW I work for the Dept. in question so I have the facts & figures straight :))
“And, why can’t I get $39 – $100 per day for my housing from the county government? Why discriminate against the “homed” in favor of the “homeless”?”
You are kidding right? That is just a really bad question…
“removes individual responsibility and accountability and replaces them with the collective accountability; i.e., no *one* is to blame”
In many cases no one is to blame – loss of jobs, homes, families the list goes on. I cannot tell you how many stories I have heard and people I have had to help because they los by no fault of their own… are there scammers – yes – by the real people who are in need far out way those who wish to scam the system…
Recall that Joseph Smith stated (in the Wentworth letter) that the church would go forward “Boldly, nobly, and independent.” He didn’t say “boldly, nobly, and Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, or whatever. In keeping with this, I value the nonpartisan stance of the church and its refusal to get involved in endorsing parties, candidates, or specific agendas. If the church is what it claims to be, then it will stand on its own truth, merits, and testimony – not as an adjunct or prop for some particular party or agenda.
No political questions are asked in a temple recommend interview, and to my knowledge Harry Reid and Mitt Romney are both worthy recommend holders.
Incidentally I am speaking as a long-time Republican. I have serious problems with the Democratic party’s position on abortion, for example, but it is not my place to speak for other LDS church members in political matters. I recall reading that someone once asked Joseph Smith a political question and his reply -if I remember correctly – was something like “I haven’t received a revelation about politics and I haven’t asked for one.”
http://www.democratsforlife.org … promotes a “consistent life” ethic within the party. I personally know many Democrats who find themselves at odds with one or more planks in the party platform but find also that overall they share more values with the Democratic party than they do with the alternative.
As for what you quote about faith & politics I think that is great and I would find it abhorrent if a church set political limitations on converts and members…I agree you can be a faithful whatever no matter your political persuasion…thanks for those J.S. quotes
I’m of the opinion that government has no right to do that which would be illegal for the individual. If it’s not right for me to take a person’s money against their will, then it’s not right for the government to do the same. It’s theft when I do it, and it’s theft when the government does it, even if the intentions are good.
Go Ron Paul!!!
Gentlemen:
I too was raised a Democrat. My Grandfather was a Democratic State Legislator, a Democratic Justice of the Peace and a County Commissioner in Wyoming.
I left the Democratice Party because of their platform on allowing abortions and gay marriage. I cannot reconcile my beliefs in supporting such policies. I do not believe in Government administering free programs. The Democratic party thinks health care is a free government privilege and I feel it is something everybody should pay for.
Just look at the Illegal immigrants. They get free hospitalization and it is bankrupting some states. Nobody is refused, so why provide free care? They get it anyway.
The Government does most things in a poor way. Let the people do it.
K.D. Jenkins
Chad:
I thank you for proving my point: government is the problem. Why do *we*, as the government, allow a $61 overcharge on housing the homeless? That undisputedly is a problem. Also, those who are apparently overcharging the $61 are living off of the government’s largess which proves that some of us “we the people” are the problem. My life and my liberty, as symbolized by my property, is taken from me in the form of taxes to be misused by the government. I don’t have the option of not paying for this misuse.
And, actually, I am not kidding. Why do I not get housing assistance? Why does the government not give that to everybody? Doesn’t everyone need housing? I need housing. And, I do what I need to do to have it.
And, if the $61 extra *is* the room rate, then the real cost to me is greater than the $100 because I have to also pay, in part, for your salary as an employee of the Dept. in question, and all the other administrative costs. The farther away from the individual responsible for the payment, the greater the inattention to the costs involved. Nobody is more careful with my hard-earned income than I am.
GMK ~ Count me in! Go, Obama!!!
Would any of the socialists in this thread care to give me a current or historic example of the success of state socialism. I’d love to see what you think is so great about it.
This scripture comes to mind (not necessarily because it’s the best on this topic, but the most recent in my mind): D&C 134:2: “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”
Control Of Property. Socialism and anything begat of it (Marxism, Communism) is diametrically opposed to this concept.
Mondo
“And, actually, I am not kidding. Why do I not get housing assistance? Why does the government not give that to everybody? Doesn’t everyone need housing? I need housing. And, I do what I need to do to have it.”
C’mon now you know darn well that programs like these exist for people who are in need and cannot provide for that need…the word temporary in the program explains its goal – if you were to become homeless and did not have an adequate means to provide yourself shelter you would have access to the temporary housing support like anyone else. Don’t be ridiculous.
Your first point is exactly what I said a few comments up – government is broken only because we allow it to be…someone should be negotiating a lower rate for the temporary housing program…
“I have to also pay, in part, for your salary as an employee of the Dept.”
Unless you would like to add to your work day and take care of those in need yourself then be glad there are people willing to work for little money and quite a bit of stress to assist the poorest among us…Jesus said “the poor you will always have among you”…they’re not going away and someone has to do the job…
Taxes are fees for a service – for your taxes you get among other things, schools for your kids, roads to travel on, police to protect you, fire departments to save your life or property, military to protect the nation, libraries for learning and reading, and yes assistance financial or otherwise for people in need (of which you might be one at some point in your life)
Wow. What a debate! As a conservative republican, I have no problem with democrats or liberals. I think much of it has to do with perspective. I think the real problem we face as a nation is not which party is in control, but the overall lack of concern among the parties for the common welfare of the people! It’s scary to hear Hillary speaking of “taking on republicans” or to hear McCain speak about “fighting liberals.” Shouldn’t they rather be talking about “fighting for America and taking on the tough issues?” Perhaps they’ll be disagreement about how to do those things, but overall I see partisan politics as more damaging than anything else. I despise such politics and look forward to a day when politicians no longer serve themselves and their parties but start serving the people.
Andrew, “Shouldn’t they rather be talking about “fighting for America and taking on the tough issues?”
Depends on what kind of America. The America I (as a conservative) would fight for is the America the author of this post would fight against.
You’re right, it is perspective. But my America is his hell and his America is my Soviet Union.
And by the way, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard (nor, I’m betting , will I ever hear) John McCain say anything about “fighting liberals.”
Chad:
I do not begrudge you your occupation. I am confident that you give an honest day’s work for your pay. The thing that bothers me is that I have no option as to whether I participate in the aforementioned temporary housing assistance program. The “good” that I am doing – taking care of those in need of temporary housing – is forced upon me. Government is force. Taxes pay for government. Money is taken from those who have and given to those who don’t have. I have accepted the responsibility of providing shelter for myself and for the contingency of an unforseen loss of that shelter. In addition, about 4% of my take home goes for the poor, needy, and undereducated – voluntarily – not by force of law. So, in effect, I do spend part of my work day – voluntarily and involuntarily – taking care of those in need. I have a problem being forced to pay for something that is someone else’s responsibility. I don’t have a problem voluntarily doing so.
I’m taking a chance catching up on this ongoing conversation late at night. I’m a horrible speller when I’m awake so I you imagine how grammatically spectacular this post will be half asleep. 🙂
Greg:
“One of the issue I have is with those who treat government as the problem. In such cases they seldom seem to see it as a problem when it is supporting and promoting idea to which they agree only with ones they do not. ”
That argument could potentially cut both ways.
Chad:
“Great I whole heartedly agree. “Less Government” conservative continually cry that government is bad and doesn’t work…the fact is that government can and does work, but if you have people running government who do not believe government can work and they do everything in their power to cripple government then of course government doesn’t work…”
There are fundamental differences between a government bureaucracy and a private company functioning in the context of private markets. This isn’t just a case of people trying to cripple a government organization. The very underlying environment creates a very big difference in the way these two different entities operate which is why government programs are generally inefficient and even sometimes downright ineffective. The government programs are plagued with conditions that make it virtually impossible to undo. I don’t know how many years it took to get rid of some of the New Deal programs that were sucking life out of the economy.
Government programs operate under politically elected officials that come and go. They operate under politicians that make decisions based on political conveniences. Government programs also operate under sometimes intense lobbying pressures and agendas. They operate in contexts and environments that undermines the ability to effectively verify and manage the bureaucracy’s efficiency and in the event that it is verified it’s quite another thing for a government program to be quickly moved in a direction that resolves the problems.
New Deal programs are still under great scrutiny for whether not the great bulk of them did any good at all in the end to actually improve long-term standards of living. Social security is still a major debate issue today and something is generally a major debate issue if something isn’t going right. I am at an age where if I was free to put all my social security tax into a private index fund account or other investment vehicles I would be exponentially better off by the time I retired (I’m still a pretty young buck so the standard retirement age is still 40+ years away).
Sasha:
“Recall that Joseph Smith stated (in the Wentworth letter) that the church would go forward “Boldly, nobly, and independent.” He didn’t say “boldly, nobly, and Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, or whatever. ”
I, nor have I ever heard any authority, understand that comment to make the claim that he was talking about being independent in the context of politics. He was using it in a different context unrelated to political parties.
Brent:
I’m of the opinion that government has no right to do that which would be illegal for the individual. If it’s not right for me to take a person’s money against their will, then it’s not right for the government to do the same. It’s theft when I do it, and it’s theft when the government does it, even if the intentions are good.
That’s an interesting take on that…
In a somewhat related remark, I think the absolute genius of the Constitution are the fundamental freedoms which frees us from the government running our lives but allowing us to run our lives (We the People) in a framework which allows us the pursuit of happiness.
Under the existing framework of the Constitution you are free to get together with all other liberal thinking people. You could then form your own private organization, take all the resources from each other and equally distribute it among your members, create a universal health care plan for every member in a sense, get free doctors into the cause, provide housing for everyone and share all the land and goods taking away all private ownership. You could have your dream utopia in every sense of the Marxist word.
You are completely free to do this on your own. I’ve never seen any socialist liberal do this even though they are free to do so and create their own dream utopian community. Now, you might write that off as very naive but if it’s truly what socialist want, I don’t get why they just don’t organize in their numbers and do what they want to do. I mean it could be a high tax utopia of euphoria. 🙂
Kay D. Jenkins :
Again, interesting comment.
Tossman:
“Would any of the socialists in this thread care to give me a current or historic example of the success of state socialism. I’d love to see what you think is so great about it.”
I was actually going to ask this same question. I wouldn’t want to live in Cuba or Venezuela (beautiful country but no worth it to get land taken away).. Chile, it seemed, voted in a socialist/communist leader a few decades ago and found themselves in bread lines. Chile’s economy today is what you could consider a SA boom because of the principles of free enterprise. The government is no longer taking over private property. They are trading with the US. Their standard of living is increasing dramatically.
Chad:
“Taxes are fees for a service – for your taxes you get among other things, schools for your kids, roads to travel on, police to protect you, fire departments to save your life or property, military to protect the nation, libraries for learning and reading….”
Correct, there are in fact services that the government provides for infrastructure. They very wisely, however, employ the private markets to deliver the construction of the roads (it’s not a bureaucratic government worker doing the paving), police and fire also run on private markets solutions (everything from the transportation to communications and everything in between).
The policemen and fireman themselves are in fact employed by the government in order to fulfill a need in an economic public domain that a virtually total and complete citizenship of the USA would be in favor for. The military also uses private market solutions to build everything from the amazing jet aircraft to the technologies placed onto the soldier’s body for intelligence gathering and night vision, etc. etc. (Thank you to all those who serve in our military, I’m very proud of your service to our nation.)
Let freedom ring.
I’m going on too much here, I usually am not near this active commenting but I like the FAIR blog very much so I decided to participate a bit on this post.
Chad, I noticed on one of your replies you stated you are a self-guided investigator. I would seriously encourage everyone that is investigating the Church of Jesus Christ to make any decisions related to the church based on the core doctrines of the church. The church has an official politically neutral policy that is read to every congregation every election cycle. They also encourage the members to be engaged in civic matters as free citizens of this great country and that is why I choose to learn all I can and participate in the political discussion. I say that because I would hope you are not basing decisions of personal church membership based on political commentary and opinions but on the fundamental doctrines of this Church as the Restored Church of Jesus Christ.
Take care friends,
Darren
PS:
“China and India combined to produce nearly half the world’s economic output in 1820 compared to just 1.8% for the U.S. Our remarkable growth since 1820 has benefited from democratic institutions, a belief in capitalism, private property rights, an entrepreneurial culture, abundant resources, openness to foreign investment, the best universities, immigration and relatively transparent markets.”
http://www.kottke.org/remainder/08/01/14902.html
This is also a very interesting article which I recommend:
“Dubner and Levitt have an article in the NYTimes with three examples of the law of unintended consequences, the Americans with Disabilities Act made it more costly to hire people with disabilities and reduced their employment, ancient Jewish sabbatical law intended to help the poor has made them worse off, and the endangered species act has resulted in habitat destruction…”
“…The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences.”
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/01/the-law-of-unin.html
PS:
“China and India combined to produce nearly half the world’s economic output in 1820 compared to just 1.8% for the U.S. Our remarkable growth since 1820 has benefited from democratic institutions, a belief in capitalism, private property rights, an entrepreneurial culture, abundant resources, openness to foreign investment, the best universities, immigration and relatively transparent markets.”
kottke dot org/remainder/08/01/14902.html
This is also a very interesting article which I recommend:
“Dubner and Levitt have an article in the NYTimes with three examples of the law of unintended consequences, the Americans with Disabilities Act made it more costly to hire people with disabilities and reduced their employment, ancient Jewish sabbatical law intended to help the poor has made them worse off, and the endangered species act has resulted in habitat destruction…”
“…The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences.”
marginalrevolution dot com/marginalrevolution/2008/01/the-law-of-unin.html
I would first like to point out that I never said I was a socialist, only that my grandparents were. Second there is a big difference between Communism and Socialism. Communist usurped the term socialist in much the same way that the Nazis did in Germany.
Socialism is not the taking of either liberty or personal private property but rather the common control of select parts of the economy where private ownership does not work or where it would be morally suspect. These include defense, transportation infrastructure and welfare.
There are a number of liberal democracies which practice socialism to one degree or another these would include Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, most of western Europe, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and even the U.S.
As for not getting help with you housing your kidding right? You take the interest you pay on you home lone as tax deduction. You may have a mortgage which was made or underwritten by a governmental agency such as the VA. The home you live in is safe because of government issues and enforced building codes, your property is protected from someone building an industrial plant next to it by government enforced zoning regulation. For more than 70 years now we have had and extensive and wide spread government support of housing both public and private.
Darren
” I say that because I would hope you are not basing decisions of personal church membership based on political commentary and opinions but on the fundamental doctrines of this Church as the Restored Church of Jesus Christ.”
Thanks for the concern…rest assured that I have never based my judgement of a religious institution on the dominant political paersuasion of its members (or on political discussion by member on a board like this)…If I became LDS it would be because the doctrines of the church became convincing enough that I found truth & peace in the church that I did not find elsewhere….& I would still be the active and committed Democrat I am today 🙂
As for your fees for service response not sure what the private market has to do with my original comment – I simply said taxes are fees for a service…the government pays for the services with our tax dollars…it matters not that private industry builds the jets or euipment or the roads…the service is still for by taxes….
Also
“I don’t know how many years it took to get rid of some of the New Deal programs that were sucking life out of the economy.”
Read your history books the New Deal saved the Country.
Tossman – “And by the way, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard (nor, I’m betting , will I ever hear) John McCain say anything about “fighting liberals.””
You’re not listening then….
Andrew great comments – I agree – I have many a conservative friend whose ideas sound good to me and to whom my ideas are equally appreciated – we could get along I think and tackle the tough issues we all face regardless of ideology – we just need someone at the top who can bring us out of the divisive place we are currently in – Go Obama!
Thanks to everyone – I know we don’t all agree but this debate was fun.
By the way the biggest portion of our budget is spent not on helping the poor but on past and current military* costs about 51%.
*”Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($585 billion), the military portion from other departments ($122 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($20 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*
Don’t take that as me saying I do not support our military – just thought I would point out what our actual budgetary priorities are.
Tossman,
The argument that government efforts to reduce poverty are unjustified because they deprive people of their agency is unpersuasive.
Under our form of government, we are regularly asked to give up certain rights and liberties. I make this sacrifice so that social order can be maintained and societal interests can be met. This is the premise of the social contract theory. For instance, all of us forfeit the liberty to drive on the left side of the road or to kill, for obvious reasons. Under certain conditions, we even give up rights as fundamental as free speech or the free exercise of religion. Limits on our rights and freedoms are not foreign to our way of life. Were there no limits, chaos would ensue.
There are compelling societal reasons for eliminating poverty, just as there are for building roads, funding police departments, and building an army. Therefore, even though it may deprive me of the freedom to not contribute to these causes, I don’t believe it is an improper exercise of government to require me, as a citizen who enjoys the protections of the state, to contribute to them.
In my opinion, the more important issue is seeing that government fights poverty in effective, efficient ways. And I do not believe that such programs, for which I may be indirectly responsible, absolve me of the personal responsibility to care for the poor.
We had six years where the Republicans had control of the House, the Senate, AND the Presidency. Nothing significant regarding government welfare changed. Nothing.
Why should I think that electing a Republican again would lead to any of the changes that would eliminate the “big-slow-inefficient-government-bureaucracy” or end the tyrannical oppresive compulsion complained about.
Straining at gnats and swallowing camels if you ask me. Go Dems.
Thanks for the replies.
“Read your history books the New Deal saved the Country.”
Chad, I mentioned that about the New Deal programs because at the university I attend during an economics course we went through and analyzed the outcome of each New Deal program that was created. The professor of the course indicated that on an economic basis, the grand majority of those programs may have actually lengthened out the depression instead of contracting it. So those words aren’t mine, they are my professors and I would be happy to pass along any history books to him that you would recommend on the topic. The social security program is also a fruit of the New Deal which I wish I didn’t have to put my retirement money into because the long run returns are pitiful. It is estimated that my social security will pay for only about 10% to 12% of my retirement needs.
Chad, correct, there have been bipartisan efforts to increase military spending during wartime.
At a very basic economic level and generally speaking with very few notable and necessary exceptions, the free people participating in the free markets can more efficiently allocate the scarce resources of the overall economy. That has been proven using economic modeling in a number of cases. The exceptions to this confirm the rule in most cases.
If a democrat gets elected which is a possibility considering the political climate, everyone’s taxes are going increase on a very large scale (this is my humble opinion but maybe I am wrong) which in turn removes those resources from the private markets and places them under government control. I have been watching the democratic debates in the spirit of first seek to understand then to be understood. I may have missed it, but for the most part I haven’t heard how they are going to pay for the things they are talking about. Nor I have ever heard anyone tell us how much taxes are going to be raised and for how long. I could be wrong about that but if you have heard it let me know. I think it was Hillary that admitted her programs are too expensive for the government to paraphrase.
“There are compelling societal reasons for eliminating poverty, just as there are for building roads, funding police departments, and building an army.”
Steve, I agree wholeheartedly that ridding the world of the scourge of poverty is vital to society. We have been commanded to assist in this important undertaking. It’s not a debate about whether that should be done but rather what is the best method for eliminating it.
At the university business school I attend they have spearheaded various programs that are showing some very positive signs of helping eliminate poverty. You may have heard of some of these including micro-lending and micro-franchising (this is being spearheaded at the university I am in and it’s showing amazing signs of assisting in this problem in Africa right now). It is estimated that some 100,000,000 people have been lifted out of poverty due to the principles involved in these programs so far.
Each of these programs are similar in the way that the Perpetual Education Fund (church sponsored fund) works which is showing very positive results in assisting third-world returned missionaries to get an education and improve their lives. They take full responsibility for the money they receive to pay it back after their education. This is not a free handout (teach a man to fish, don’t just give him a fish principle). Each recipient maintains dignity and is able to better his life in a fascinatingly enormous way.
Take care,
Darren
It is acceptable to have differences of oppions on politics, and this does not necessarily have anything to do with our standing in the Church or in the sight of the Lord. I noticed that both Gunn MacKay and Wayne Owens were called as mission president’s right after finishing their terms in the U.S. congress. Both who were very much Democrats. I noticed President Hinckley spoke at Wayne Owens funeral and called him a “peace maker”. There have been dedicated servants of the Lord in the Leadership of the Church that favored both political parties. President Faust served as a Democrat in the state legislature of Utah. The reason the Church does not support any political party or platform is because they all both have their pluses and minus. A comment that I really like from Elder Dallan Oaks that I will need to paraphrase, He made the observation, That anyone who bases there understanding of the gospel purely from a conservative or liberal perspective will never be totally in harmony with all aspects of the gospel. Elder Oaks also said that he found wisdom in conservatism and wisdom in liberalism and much truth in intellectualism but salvation in none of them.
Hey Steve,
Thanks for that comment.
D
Ok one last comment
Darren
“The social security program is also a fruit of the New Deal which I wish I didn’t have to put my retirement money into because the long run returns are pitiful”
Social Security is not an investment program – it is in essence a group insurance program much as such I (as a S.S. tax payer) am currently paying for my retired parents and all other retirees, or disabled people collecting social security benefits…We are not however putting that S.S. tax into a retirement account that is a misunderstanding many people have…if we were to have access to the S.S. tax taken out of our income then millions of retired people would lose their benefits…I repeat S.S. is an insurance program not a retirement investment. And as such it has been the most successful social program this nation has ever embarked upon. Your S.S. tax is not being put into a savings account for when you retire, it is being combined with 2 other workers to pay for 1 retiree…it needs change and repair but over all it works and will be solvent (according to the Federal S.S. admin) until at least 2055.
Second…
“If a democrat gets elected which is a possibility considering the political climate, everyone’s taxes are going increase on a very large scale”
Yes taxes will be raised on those in the upper income bracket starting with the repeal of Bush’s tax cuts that were given to the top 3%-10% of our nations citizens – this will in turn put about $75 billion dollars back into the economy overnight – talk about stimulus – Republican tax cuts are always geared toward those higher income earners, Democrats tend to tax those higher incomes at a higher rate (see: Clinton economy successes at clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html)
In NY where I live – because I make less than 150k a year I pay 21% of income in taxes – those who make 150k or more pay only 16% – this was brought about during Republican Governor Pataki’s 12 yr administration…
So in the end the tax system under Democrats is a progressive one Republicans tend to be regressive (My Republican County Exec just tried to raise the sales tax in our County – that’s one of the most regressive forms of taxation and thankfully her efforst failed) so your statement that “everyone’s taxes are going increase on a very large scale” isn’t accurate…
Thanks Greg!! You are not alone.
What was the rate of that grievous tax imposed by the wicked in the Book of Mormon? How does that compare to tax rate today?
Darren,
I wholeheartedly agree that programs such as those you describe are more effective at lifting people out of poverty than no-strings-attached handouts. Maybe the debate should be about how the state should go about reducing poverty, rather than whether it has any business doing so in the first place.
The point of my earlier comment was merely that the argument that government should not involve itself in reducing poverty because it usurps the citizens’ free agency is unpersuasive.
Hi Chad,
Thanks for clarifying the personal Income Tax. When I think of tax I mean the whole scope of taxation including Corporate, Dividend, Capital Gains, Other forms of Sales tax, Estate (Death), etc. etc. Thats where I see significant tax increase also if the plans their are talking about are actually implemented.
As far as the Social Security goes that is how I was understanding that it worked. When reading your description it was reminiscent of a type of pyramid scheme (curiously, I looked that up I found that economist Thomas Sowell argues in his books and columns that Social Security is a pyramid scheme).
Is all I am saying on that issue is that I agree with Alan Greenspan that it should be privatized slowly over time. This may seem like a position of not caring for the older retirees when in fact its the opposite case. I understand you are saying it’s an “insurance” account. At the basic level, all I am saying is our parents or grandparents (and we too once we arrive at retirement) would have enjoyed much greater retirement and standards of living if that money was placed into a private retirement accounts as opposed to an insurance account that has questionable solvency ending in 2055 according to your information.
In response to Greg Kearney.
I too was reared a Democrat. My grandfather was a Democratic State Legislature and a Democratic County Commissioner and a Democratic Justice of the Peace in Star Valley, Wyoming.
So you see, my roots run deep. However, when I got married and moved to Utah I made a radical change in my politics. I became a Republican. What was the reason? The platform of the Democratic Party allows and accepts abortion. That alone made me switch, but there are more things too.
The Democrats don’t think the Republicans have a responsibility for other people’s welfare. They think that they and only they have that philosophy. They are wrong. I know more Republicans who are more compassionate than I ever know Democrats.
How can you be a Democrat and be pro-life? Especially to vote for and allow abortions as an acceptable philosophy within your own party? If you allow abortions you are destroying sacred life. (I do believe in some abortions, especially if if affects the life of the mother and maybe rape in some instances.)
His view on abortion is faulted to the extreme. When women who find they are pregnant and he calls it, their darkest hour in an unwanted pregnancy? Pregnancy is the result of their agency. Have you heard of abstinence? Is it better to take care of the unwanted, unborn or is it better to kill by abortion? He should read again the view of the Church because they do not believe in his theory of getting rid of an unborn child. Why not adopt rather than murder the unborn?
In paragraph five, is he suggesting he is against Proposition 8? By his suggestion that it is against homosexuals and him later tells me his view on the acceptance of a traditional definition of Marriage as instituted by God, himself. If we had let California’s thinking of marrying men with men and women with women that would destroy the traditional family and the marriage tradition.
He seemingly supports unions as being in the best interests of the working class. How about recently the Democrats trying to eliminate the secret ballot? That would strengthen unions and allow to target any union dissenter.
I am a Republican because I believe in keeping America strong and to take down a murderer such as Saddam Hussein is a service to all the people of Iraq. The Book of Moron tells us to be strong and in the days of Moroni even put to death those Kingmen who wouldn’t fight to protect their country. Would we do the same? I think not. I have read the Book of Mormon 474 times and the whole message is to keep America strong. He suggests that we have weakend our stature abroad because of the war. This is a typical Democratic response. He mentions torture. I don’t believe that our interrogation techniques are torture. Even thought most Democrats believe we should give the terrorists the same or more rights than our citizens. By spying on our citizens is suggesting that the laws we have set up to protect America are wrong. Again another typical Democratic response. If he thinks Amaerica under Bush tortures, then he should see what the Muslims do and how they torture any and all of their prisoners. I’m glad he would be unwilling to trade liberty for security because I think our liberty is most important and if waterboarding is torture he should talk to those in our military who know it is not torture.
I have found that the Republican party best reflects the values I hold dear and I find it hard to understand how accepting the Democratic platform condoning abortion could ever have place in my life. I think my Democratic grandfather would be a Republican today if he were alive.
I am a Republican today and proud of it.
I would suggest that one should be a member of a political party because of their beliefs and not just because their family has always been such a member. It is called the tradition of the fathers. I have found that most Mormons today are Republicans and not Democrats and I hold to that view. I have found that Republicans are for small government and Democrats are for large governments and governmant control. I want the control to be in the hands of the people.
Mr. Kay, your post makes it pretty clear that you became Republican for more than just the abortion issue. Your entire middle paragraph reads word-for-word like an excerpt from the Laura Ingram show.
It’s hard to believe you were ever a Democrat to begin with.
excellent work…
Hello. Great job. This is a great story. Thanks!
i dont usually comment, but after reading through so much info i had to say thanks
Very nice post, I share the same position about this.