JohnsonJones

I think someone mentioned it previously on these forums. I did not know what the 4b movement actually was or what it meant until your post though. If I had to gander what the downsides were, I'd guess that the No Marriage and No Children would be downsides for almost any society. Of course, I think much of this is to punish those who were doing things outside of marriage (and to be clear, 95% of the US population has been involved with fornication, so this is not really a democrat or republican thing, both have many immoral people within them today, as well as the US in general in regards to chastity) for their political choice in what they view (whether correctly or not) as the decision to eviscerate woman's health care rather than care about woman and woman's health. What was this in response to in Korea?

This is a start at least. It's not a bad suggestion. It may be easier though, for those who are not into fountain pens, to simply just have it known that there is a rule that no politics (and possibly religion, both of those can be bad topics at a dinner table with people of strong opinions) while there for the holidays.

Supply and Demand, basic capitalism. You increase supply enough and the Cartels, though they may still exist, will lose their ability to fund it via drug smuggling. Afterall, why buy from a drug smuggler when you can buy a safer, cheaper, and better option at your local drug store? PS: Just to be clear, I don't take drugs. Never have, and never will. Even in my old age I'm cautious about taking drugs. I've been blessed thus far not to need them that often (so medically, I don't have any prescriptions that are required, though they do prescribe some medications I normally don't take them. I have arthritis, but the hardest drug I take is aleve, and only when absolutely necessary).

I'm not sure if this is your opinion or not, but if it is, I actually agree with this idea. If you legalize and license drugs, regulate them, and tax it, you solve several problems. It will take several years to turn things around into a 180 of what they are now but in theory should work. You reduce the cost of the drugs and the government has more control over the drugs itself. This has the benefit of reducing the amount of unknown substances (Fentanyl crisis would be reduced most likely with regulation and such), and controlling who is selling. You make it so that it is available in places like drug stores and with wider availability and more of it easily obtainable you reduce the price. Reducing the price along with the regulation will drive the illegal drug market into not being able to compete. With no profit in the drug business the illegal market (similar to what happened with prohibition's alcohol gangs and smugglers) go out of business and cannot use that avenue as a source of income. They will either have to find other illicit activities or die off. Now, some people say prohibition did not work (and it did cause serious problems such as the illegal alcohol trade, etc), however, the usage of drinking alcohol actually went down during prohibition. The prohibition actually reduced those who drank and those who had alcohol addictions. It didn't get rid of it, but it reduced it. When it ended, drinking alcohol and getting drunk increased. I imagine if we legalize drugs, the same end result will occur (It could be interesting to see if this is reflected in the states that have legalized marijuana). Drug use would probably increase greatly. This could also cause a headache for those who have to deal with the increase problems these types of addictions cause (thievery to pay for the drugs would probably increase, driving or operating vehicles under the influence of drugs, and many other phenomenon related to drugs would probably rise). Crimes caused by those who are addicted probably would rise, even as those incarcerated simply for having drugs decrease. As those who are drugged up and causing crime may be more violent in the acts, this could be a consideration in regards to police safety and enforcement. I would be in favor of more stringent lock-ups for those who are doing drug related crimes. However, I favor less government intervention in trying to stop the flow of drugs. Reduce the government imprint overall by legalizing it and oversee their distribution and sales anyways, while taxing it (maybe at 100% so...lots of incoming money at first?) and you get a nice bonus for government spending. Use that to pay for the regulation of the drugs, and you may be able to reduce taxes in other areas (gas tax? property tax?) from the income generated from this.

If they end the Department of Education it would mean a very large difficulty for those involved with Special Education as in many states a majority of their funding for that program comes from the Federal Government. If I understand that question well enough. I'm probably more concerned if they do away with the CDC and the FDA or gut or destroy those programs. If you've ever been to some of the other nations out there you start to realize what a blessing these government agencies are. You don't have to worry about whether the next meal may be your last because we have some pretty strict regulation which ensure our food is safe, as well as other medical concerns which (though not as successful, far more than many other locations) which help to ensure that disease and other deadly things are kept more in check. I think doing away with the Department of Education is bad (don't get me wrong), but there are other things which are going to be having a larger impact more quickly than that. The ironic thing is that this won't save a ton of money. Getting rid of Welfare and Social Security as well as Military (the three mainstays of our expenditures) would probably do so, but if we get hit with something even as slight as a strong recession (no depression needed) you will have people starving in the streets visibly on the night time news. Walmart would also have a problem with that solution (as they depend on those three pillars to keep their employees paid and afloat, customers that are poor - but not too poor to keep coming in, and of course military floats all boats that are near their installations).

IUD in her arm? Aren't there patches or something like that which are used as birth control? Some women get shots these days (I'm not sure how long they last, I think it may be 3 months?), but others use a patch, which is sort of like a nicotine patch, but used to release hormones that are birth control instead. Is it referring to something like that (because I can't imagine something saying they literally have an IUD in their arm...how would they even get it to stay on or in an arm without surgery...which would be very painful and wouldn't seem to work anyways).

That Trump plan will probably never be accepted by Ukraine. Ukraine gains nothing and Russia gains everything. In addition, it lines things up for Russia to be able regroup, rearm, and then renew the War in a few years time. There would need to be something (and we are talking far stronger than the agreement the US and NATO basically broke with Ukraine when Ukraine gave up it's Nukes and we agreed that Russia would never attack Ukraine and we'd help defend it if they did) far stronger than last time...like two or three US bases on the border there so we get attacked first, and a couple NATO bases supplied by Europe as well so We are on the front line of attack this time. Basically telling Ukraine to surrender is probably not going to get Ukraine to agree to come to the bargaining table. Perhaps they will, but those terms given above...I don't expect it.

That's actually not true much of the time. When someone says something that they suddenly realize could be bad, even if they were serious, they try to laugh it off as all fun and games. If someone came up to you and said, I'm going to rob your home tonight with a bunch of guys with guns and there's nothing you can do about it... You might take them seriously. You may call the police. When the police come...and the person says... "It's just a joke. It's so clear we couldn't be serious. I don't even have a gun, how could the idiot think I was serious." Would you laugh it off and say...oh yes...they were joking. If your "joke" towards someone is to imply that they can be raped without having a say in the matter... That's not a joke and that is not funny. If Christians find that as funny or humorous or think this is acceptable... I can't believe some of the horrific things I've been reading in this thread and people just casually thinking it's okay. That statement this Mr. Miller made is not okay. Not in a joking manner, not in any manner. For more information and clarification on my stance: Of course, I'm one of those that isn't okay with most of the movies and TV shows (most of it is too violent, too indecent, and too filled with other unacceptable items these days. Most media is not uplifting. I find many PG and T Movies and shows are far too violent and have too much unacceptable scenes in them. (Some of the E rated TV shows and cartoons for children are even far too violent for what should be for chldren). I have commented on this before. These things are just not uplifting for me at all. I also know that there are those who watch these things, they have a much higher tolerance than I do. However, even with those higher tolerances, I have a hard time believing we, as Saints, would find such commentary and behavior as I've been reading as being acceptable! It boggles my mind!)

That may be or may not be the charge she is talking about. Recently an individual in the media released some tapes with Epstein interviews where Epstein went on about how close friends he was with Trump and some of what Trump did. (We do not now how truthful or untruthful Epstein was being in the interview. Some of the things Epstein claimed have been understated and pretty truthful of what he said, other things he has exaggerated what he said to make himself look or seem more important or influential). Some have taken this implication of Trump doing things with woman from Epstein for which Epstein has been made infamous for over the past half decade. That would also include implied statutory rape. Combining it with other things Trump has said (for example, intruding on teenage girls under the age of consent in a changing room, etc) has led some people to reinforce this accusation recently. It is just an accusation, and Trump has not been proven guilty in a court of law. However, it may not just be the incident you are referring to which caused her to make that statement. PS: Hadn't read up to the point of @Phoenix_person pointing out the Carroll case, but that's actually another salient point as well.

That statement by Nicholas Fuentes is Horrific. I can't believe it's just standing there. That implies rape or worse in some instances. Why would anyone think that was appropriate? I would think fathers with daughters would find that offensive and hopefully rush to defend their daughters against such people with these types of ideas. Husbands would defend their wives. That's a horrible stance for someone to have, and terrible thing for someone the say, much less be thinking.

The BYU and UofU game is probably the game to watch this weekend. It's a very sad day for UGA, but it was a good run. BYU is having a surprisingly good year it seems. Good job on both teams of the BYU/UofU game as it was a close game.

Let's say that Musk and certain Republican analysts are correct in their assumptions for a moment (I know you do always, but others don't). Studies show it's not necessarily a worker shortage, but a pay shortage. When employers are willing to pay enough money, that worker shortage they had, disappears. This is where the adjustment that Musk has talked about will happen. At first, there will be a great deal of pain. The reason is that the price of goods are going to skyrocket. Part (and just part) of this is because employers are used to paying someone $6000 USD a year to do a job, whereas an American worker want's something that people may call a living wage. The Median Wage is around 60K today, so let's use that number as the number that Workers in the US will be willing to work at the same job their Chinese counterparts are willing to work for. That's 6X the amount (and that's before insurance or other costs are factored in). Using that amount, and just that amount, if we look at a TV that you could buy for $298 today. A quick look shows I could get a 55" or 65" TV for that amount today. However, the price of if with the workers would increase. Let's say, the same percentage, so that TV now costs almost $3000. If we go back 30 to 40 years this is not a surprising price. It is sticker shock today. So, if I understand what Musk is saying, there is going to be a massive hardship with the economy at first. Eventually people and the economy will adapt and that will make things better, but it will be extremely hard at first. It's not that there is a worker shortage, but a shortage of pay. Pay what a worker feels they should be paid (or more) and you will get the workers. However, doing this will probably cause a general rise in prices overall in those categories. That's saying they are correct in their assumptions (and many are saying they are not correct). A bigger danger is a retalitory Tariff. In theory, the Tariff is put in place so domestic goods can compete with foreign goods. When we do that with farm goods, that has a deleterious effect on American farmers. Many of the independent farmers still operate on the Razor's edge. When other nations put Tariffs on American goods, foreign goods of the same type (such as Brazilian crops) get more attractive. Suddenly, American Farmers cannot sell their goods and there is a glut on the market. If we do away with subsidies and other things that help prop up the price of the crops they sell, than the price of those crops go down. This is good...one may think...this means food costs less. With some items, it probably will...at first. Until those farmers go bankrupt and their crops are no longer produced because there is no market that can sustain them. Then, as the price goes up again, but without as many there, with an overcorrection, it may mean the price goes higher than before and matches what would cost to export. Then foreign food is cheaper, we import food, and suddenly we are producing no food anymore and prices rise again because we have no way to combat it with out own farmers. It's a vicious cycle, and some economists are predicting that if we slap a Tariff on all goods coming to the US it will cause a Tariff war, and that will take a massive amount of adjustment to get used to.

That's just it. It won't have any power. All Musk will be is probably a scrape goat. Congress pulls the purse strings, not the executive. They can try (much like Biden has tried with student loan forgiveness and other things) but the ultimate power of the purse lies with Congress, not the President. I expect they'll do some reforms and changes. Trump will claim credit, but most of it will be via the Republican Control of Congress. As I said, if things go south, Musk is going to be an extremely convenient scapegoat for it. They aren't going to be able to make the drastic changes Musk is saying they can do, just because of some position he is being given (which spells D.O.G.E. ironically...I wonder who thought of that...actually...I don't have to think about that, it's pretty obvious) because that's not a power the executive has to that degree. PS: If I were Musk I'd probably be trying to get to be Secretary of the Treasury, that one actually has some real power and is not just a position given to someone to appease their ego.

Regardless of whether he would win the election or not (and I have to admit, I wasn't positive he would, but I felt he would), I felt Trump would end up, one way or the other, as the next President. I have been saying it for months. In fact, I felt it could even be fulfillment of prophecy, so it meant Trump had to be the next President somehow and in someway. I'm not so sure Trump is being foolish in this. I think he has some people advising him, and I think they may be pretty smart on this one. They are creating a new task force of sorts, with Musk in charge. Musk will have no real power to do anything. He can say whatever he wants, and suggest whatever he wants, but the Trump team doesn't have to do anything with that. I feel that they may have offered Musk this position to appease Musk's pride, but it's a position of no value in the long run. There is nothing of power or value, it's just a position that they can tell Musk he can have, that's it's important, and then lead him on without ever actually having to do anything about it or with it. If that's true, than Musk was just foolish enough to buy the ploy, hook, line, and sinker. The question is how long (if he ever does) it will take him to figure out that he's been had. It's a position in name only, he won't have the power to actually do anything with it except brag (or maybe that's all he really wants anyways). Trump Might use it as a scapegoat later on, if his plans for tariffs and other economic ideas go south. Musk would make a decent scapegoat in that case, someone to blame and take the flame off of Trump. Musk may get burned really bad by this deal. I'm not sure Musk has considered this. Musk is more of a stock manipulator than a political schemer.

I think they didn't take into account how many independents would simply be extremely upset with how they selected Harris as the candidate. I've seen them so busy pointing fingers and blaming things such as racism and mysogyny, to the idea that Biden would have done worse (I disagree. What I saw after that debate was Biden being absolutely backstabbed by his own party so hard that they didn't even go after Trump as hard. It was a concerted effort between the elites and the media to take Biden down. They lost the votes of Many independents because it was so flagrant and obvious, it turned a ton of them off. I imagine that they won't see this as a talking point or even a true consideration, but I think that moment [or more like two weeks] was where they lost the vote of many independents, enough to actually lose the election). It was as if those who were the actual party were absolutely inconsequential as well in regards to choosing a candidate, as opposed to the elites of the party who chose instead. This is a double whammy in regards to garnering support. That combined with what you mention, the absolute ignorance of the plight of many Americans, who were being chastised repeatedly in the media that their complaints were of no weight in regards to the economy also lost them a lot of votes that may have also been able to win the election. Being told the economy is going well doesn't matter to someone who can't afford housing, has lost the dream to ever be able to own a house due to how expensive it's gotten, and is worried about how expensive food is these days. The idea that this was to continue as it was, and being told all was fine with the food market, was probably a deciding factor for many young people (if not older people stuck on a budget). I know that of independents I know, as well as some young people, it wasn't that they liked Trump. In fact, some of them would never vote for Trump. However, they also couldn't convince themselves to vote for Harris. So, they chose not to vote for either. I think the numbers may show that fewer people voted in general, and it isn't necessarily that Trump got more votes than expected, but that Harris got fewer due to many choosing simply not to vote period, or at least vote for Harris or Trump. With the fingers pointing at each other and blaming people that it was misogyny, racism, or other foolish talking points instead of what I see as the very real reasons (I listed above) it may be that no one is going to change in the Democrat party. I think Bernie Sanders pointed out recently it isn't that the Working class left the Democrats, but that the Democrats left the Working class. Until they address issues like what I pointed out above in regards to the working class and their concerns, I think the Democrats may be in a tough spot...saying we ever get to have another election of course. PS: I also think JD Vance, as perhaps the youngest appearing individual probably appealed to a lot more people. His age may have been a factor, and that also countered how old Trump is. He served as an active duty (as opposed to Guard) in a War zone, and despite how much the Democrats decried what he said, he also is married to a wife that most would see as a minority. This has appeal across multiple spectrums as well, and probably made it that Vance was a wise choice as a VP selection. Walz was a particularly poor choice in my opinion. He didn't bring anything to the picture. Shapiro would have been a far superior choice and may have even brought in those crucial Midwestern votes. Harris had lost the palestinian vote (and it wasn't enough to really account for the losses she had this election anyways, they are a smaller group) in any case, and the selection as Shapiro as a Running mate as VP probably would have brought a LOT more to the table than choosing Walz. [edit: No offense intended in this. I know Walz is loved by you and Minnesota, but lets be honest, Minnesota wasn't ever going to be lost to Harris, and overall, didn't bring anything that she absolutely needed from elsewhere, such as PA, WI, and other locations].

For classified documents? That's actually a pretty long list. One of the things that burned a lot of people was the amount of classified documents (it wasn't just one or two, or even three or four...documents. There is no way this is an...ooops...I forget it in a pocket, or anything like that) he had. This was boxes worth. People have been jailed for a single document, much less boxes. We are talking Bradley/Chelsea Manning amounts of stuff, if not worse. Manning was pardoned, but they were definitely jailed for that. Assange didn't even steal the documents, and they went after him (though he did worse in some ways as he published them publicly, so a different crime than merely taking them). It has also been indicated (though this also is classified, so we don't know the full extent) that this information was sold to various groups and people. Most likely are the Saudi's who have instituted an interesting program with the technology that could have only come from the US...somehow..., and some suspect Russia was also given some of it. Alas, we probably will never know unless, or until, it's declassified...which if it is per standards [at least 50 years] will be long after I'm dead). The Classified documents is probably the most alarming of all the items he's been accused of as anyone who's ever had to deal with classified knows what normally happens to those who take those documents out of the specified confines in which they are supposed to be kept. That said, Trump probably won't be prosecuted. Even before he gets set as President, the cases now would probably have to go before the Supreme Court. They have ruled that in official acts the President is immune, and as he will soon be the President, by the time a case would get before the Supreme Court, I imagine he will be immune from prosecution. It doesn't make his companies immune from prosecution though, and judgements already leveled against him via corporate or other entities may go forward. We may also see something more akin to what happened to Biden as well, where they don't go after Trump directly, but after those related to him.

There is a point in a child's life that you have to stop interfering as much, or you become the abuser. If you want your child to be able to be independent as an adult, you cannot try to keep them forever as a child. One mistake I feel people make is the idea that when we say we are Children of our Father, that we mean that we are little children, such as you would find around the ages of 0-12. I feel this is a fallacy. We spent an eternity (or more) growing up already with our Heavenly Family. This is us getting to be the age of adulthood. When a child reaches adulthood, do you try to prevent them from buying a gun legally? What would you do to prevent your 20 year old child from buying a gun. Would you steal it from them and lock it in a safe? If you stole it, would that not be a crime and an illegal action by you? If you have two children that are murderously bent upon killing each other (which would be unfortunate), how would you stop them? Do you get between a 19 and a 21 year old with your own weapon and threaten to kill them if they don't listen to you? That itself is also a crime, and if you actually go through with it...well... We are at the age of inheritance. We are old enough that if we pass this test, we inherit. It would be as if you were the Owner of a very large, very rich, and powerful company. You have children that are now adults. Who do you give it to? Do you give it to all of them? What happens if they are frivolous and would just destroy the company? What if they would use it for evil? How do you decide which of your children should inherit, much less, control, the company? You cannot treat adult children the same way you can little children. It is a different dynamic. They are individuals and as adults, have the freedom (in many societies) to make adult choices. Bad parenting is to continue to try to force them to stay at home and treat them like little children (in my opinion). You can still help them (for example, perhaps one is a little behind on their rent, or one needs tuition money, or perhaps one needs some advice, or perhaps one has lost their keys in your house and wants to find them so they can leave...etc). However, there are some areas where trying to force them to do what you want would be seen as insulting, controlling, or even worse, abusive or criminal. You have to allow them to be able to make their own choices (plus, in many nations, legally you have to allow them to be able to make their own choices). They have to grow up and they have to be able to stand on their own. There comes a point where, as a parent, you cannot be that same protective force you were when they were little. If they are to be successful adults, they need to be able to make their own choices, and to stand on their own without your interference. If we are to truly be the heirs of our Father and gain all that he has, we too, must show that we are able to be responsible and worthy of that. In some ways, his test is even better than what we go through in this life when we become adults. We are guaranteed that, unless we absolutely reject him and fight against it, that we will once again at least have a place to reside. We will have a degree of glory. Nothing in this life, for the most part, as long as we accept his atonement, is permanent. It's more like a simulation to show who we are, than the reality of what will come next. If we show we are worthy in this temporary abode, we will gain a reward far greater in our permanent abode that is to come.

I believe I called it several months ago in what I called a prediction (almost called it a prophesy, but I wouldn't say I'm sure enough to call it that) that Trump would win the election. It's not absolutely positive now, but some news sites are calling it. Next step is when Russia gains power and influence (and most likely to defeat Ukraine due to the chain reaction of this, I can hope they won't, but their odds probably just went down). Also, as I noted then, the situation around Israel could be leading to a bigger war and more strife in the region. With an empowered Russia allying with some of the other nations in the region (Iran for example) it could cause a much bigger war leading to what we would see as things similar to what is predicted prior to the Second Coming. We just need a Temple rebuilt, Two prophets, and David to be called and we have the set up for the Second Coming in the very near future. Of course, I know most won't support my thoughts that leading to this is the idea that Trump is an Anti-Christ or THE Anti-Christ, but I feel that he is checking off a lot of the checkmarks for the role (if he wins the election I feel it qualifies for the beast that everyone thought was dead and then rises again miraculously. Afterall, who would have thought that Trump would come back even stronger this time around then he did ever before, probably even stronger percentage wise of the vote then he did in 2016 even. And if he doesn't win (several news sites are currently projecting he will) I imagine further chaos with trying to validate the election, that somehow it will be prevented and the case will go to Congress, and if not there to decide his presidency, to the Supreme Court where he will be declared President. PS: I would also say, that at the time I had a great deal of concern about this matter and was greatly comforted. If Donald Trump is the Anti-Christ, or even if his election is part of what leads to the chaos and destruction in the world, it is all part of the Lord's plan. It plays his part in moving us closer to the Second Coming of the Lord, and we should not be alarmed at the events that have been predicted for over 2000 years finally coming forth before our eyes. This isn't just in relation to Donald Trump, but to all the various conflicts and troubles that are happening in front of us and before us today and the continuing difficulties that will lead up to the Second Coming as well.

It's already happened. Doctors accused of murder when doing procedural items for an already dead fetus due to miscarriage. Its probably why doctors in Texas wrote a letter about it recently asking for law changes. Link to the letter that I can find Actual letter from what I gather Though it leaves off around another page or two of signatures. I found another link where I read the letter and saw all the signatures but linking doesn't seem to bring the letter up, so I'm unsure (not tech intelligent enough to figure out what's going on with that). Another article in the Texas Tribune says that you are losing many of those in Texas who would be practicing OB-GYN's due to the laws in Texas (though I would say this article is more supposition than the letters). Texas Obstetrics gynecology survey

111 OB-gyn write letter urging lawmakers to change abortion laws after reports on pregnant womans death Without as much of a paywall Reaction Texas Doctors condemn abortion law Do they allow non-doctors without degrees to be the president of An Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? Now, in the letter, of 111 of these doctors, there are 6 that are traceable to what @Carborendum would state would be the Abortion clinic doctors who are not "real doctors" among them, but the others appear to be actual practicing Doctors in the field currently.

I don't know where it is, or even if it has a where. I think Outer Darkness is where the Lord and his creation is not. It is beyond his creation. Since the Lord is the source of light (and thus energy and heat), it is a location without light, heat, or energy. It may lack the definitions that we have such as anything measurable. Is it a black hole? I have no idea. I don't know enough about black holes to say whether it is or isn't. I think energy and matter go into a black hole though (and cannot escape them, at least in our physical universe, but perhaps they are portals that can be used for transportation by beings of a higher order than we are) and that would indicate that matter and energy are located within. I would say that may still be within the realm of our Father's creation. I'd imagine, even though a Black Hole is probably pretty bad to be in, Outer Darkness may be worse. Outer Darkness is literally...nothing. The great nothingness. At least to my mind. No creation, no power, no energy exists there. If you get tossed in there, it's just you. Forever and longer. And whatever else gets tossed (or rather, out) with you.

For an individual. But, we are talking about someone who graduated High School and is married with kids (not a single mom). So, for a Dad, a Mom, and two children that is actually $31,200 (or approximately $15/hr) on the very link you produced. Average Rent in Provo Utah appear to be $1,189/month currently. That is approximately $14,268 a year. That's a One bedroom apartment. Ironically a studio apartment goes for more ($1193/month). For the individual, that you are talking about, that leaves around $1200 a year for utilities, gas, and food. I guess you survive on $20 a month in food, and use less than $50 a month in gas (which leaves $30 in utilities which is ridiculous as even my water bill is higher than that, but hey, we are talking fantasy land here). rent market trends, provo utah A family of four would probably want at least a two bedroom apartment. That averages to ($1,442) a month. This is ~$17,304 a year. They'll probably want to have water and electricity, which is probably an average of around $150 a month, so another $1800 a year. (it may be a little more, but we are giving you the benefit of the doubt). That brings us up to $19K in living costs a year before figuring out food or gas. Boiling down food costs is a little bit harder. I found that it says it's around $400 on average per person in the US, but Utah is not the US. This link lists the average costs in Utah per month, but only in SLC. Groceries are probably comparable between the two so around $359.65/person/month. average cost of food in the US That's around $4,315.80 per person per year. For our poor person above in poverty, that means they suddenly don't get enough food (14,268+4,315.80 = 18,583.80). That's before utilities and gas. However, we are talking about our married, high school graduate. They are going to need around $17,263.20 a year to feed that family. That puts their bill for housing and food (not utlities, no cable, no gas, no phone, etc) at $34,567.20 a year. That's more than the poverty level listed on the site. Here we have a married, high school graduate with a $15/hour job (and of course they aren't paying for the insurance with this job because...they can't even afford to feed their family) who has a family that has no power, no water, no gas, no phones, and still do not have enough money for food according to the averages. What do they need to live comfortably in Provo, Utah? According to the site I linked above before, rent market trends in provo utah , that should be something around $47,556 a year. The high school graduate should be making at least $22.87/hour to be able to live comfortably. cost of living in Provo Provo is ranking 79/273 cities in America. It is at 102% the cost of living, putting it almost at what it would cost most other locations to live (2% above average). Median individual income is at $16, 820. Median Household income (meaning 50% are lower then this) is $57,943. Yes, I did the math, did you? (Of interest, the cost of living for food is more expensive in Houston, which is closer to you, than it is in Salt Lake City). SLC is cheaper than anyplace around it with the exception of Cheyenne, Wyoming. It's the 6th cheapest City in the chart (linked above with food costs) in the nation.

You read the articles. It's not a classic straw man. It's reality of what is happening. Treating a miscarriage has been charged as doing an abortion. This is why sometimes doing an abortion saves lives. It's not the actual abortion, but procedures which can be associated with an abortion or miscarriage (such as a D&C). It's why doctors in some states are so afraid of doing these procedures. If you stand a chance of being charged with murder, even if it you feel you will eventually come out innocent, would you treat a woman who is currently undergoing a miscarriage? It doesn't matter what You think, it matters on the one who is bringing the charges against you (they do not have to be a doctor or have any medical training), and on what the government thinks (no medical training needed). Problems above were not caused by doctors not being able to treat the women, but due to doctors being afraid of being prosecuted for treating them. While being prosecuted you will not be able to provide for your family while you are under investigation (as long as you are granted bail, which is not a guarantee for someone being accused of murder), and you will bear court costs (whether insurance will cover it or not is another question, as it's still an unexplored territory of sorts). If you are really unfortunate you will be fired from your job (not just suspended until the investigation is over), and or worse, blacklisted as no one wants to deal with an individual that could bring that type of legal repercussions on them as well. Is that the type of thing you are willing to risk just to help a woman who is undergoing a current miscarriage but hasn't had it fully occur yet?

It is interesting then that you work within the Child Welfare System. You probably would not work in the Child Welfare system if it were not for progressives. I do not know if that is your primary form of employment, but if it is, without progressives you would not even have a job. The Child Welfare system (and in fact, most of the child laws that have been created over the past 100 years) have been created by a Progressive movement. It is curious one is so opposed to those responsible for the very system of which they work with. There are some Conservatives that think this system is evil and wrong. They feel that many of the things it is involved in should be done away with, and that discipline, parent's rights, and the respect children have for adults have been eroded by the very system you work within. I'm not saying this is a correct view, but it is curious how one works in the system, but is against those who made the system. This is easy to talk about to a degree. I have at least one of my children that are not wealthy, but not poor enough to qualify for food stamps, grants, and other items (for example, the ACA free healthcare, though they get insurance from work, as well as sometimes supplemented by parents). They know where their children's meals can come from, but school lunch in general has gotten so expensive it's too expensive for them to have their children buy it every day. Every so often a child forgets their lunch, and that's when there is no idea when that child will get their meal next. A parent can try to rush to the school and get their kid their lunch, but sometimes lunch will be over before they get there. When every child had free meals this wasn't a problem (though there was an incident with their kindergartner at the time crying because they didn't know meals were free and didn't know where to get food), this would be a difficulty today. This has somewhat opened my eyes and my opinion on whether schools should offer free meals regardless of economic situation. Once again, in reference to the family above, they don't qualify for ACA due to how much they make. They also get insurance from employment. They still only get 80% off of medical bills. This means if they ever have cancer (average cost is around 150K according to this site Average cost of Cancer Treatment ) they would still end up owing 30K or more. That is before other bills or if they lost their job or not. If they lost their job (and hence medical insurance halfway through, and even worse, they no longer have a source of income), it could very easily cause them bankruptcy, even if they got the ACA pretty quickly (as no money coming in means that even with insurance, they don't have a way to pay off any other bills). Even if it were available to them, they have not been educated in how to obtain the benefits of the system. I imagine in an emergency as above they would be desperate enough to figure something of the system out, but I still could see how they could easily go into bankruptcy in that situation (once again, no money coming in means they cannot pay bills they already incurred, as well as new bills that may happen). I think that for many, it is a matter of not understanding the system or how to obtain benefits in the first place. I remember some of that. I remember someone that area victoriously declaring that there were no more homeless in the city, or something similar to that. I think someone countered that claim almost immediately. At least Salt Lake City did better than they did in Prove/Orem for a while where their idea was simply to kick them out of the city. That cures the homelessness in the city (because you kicked them out) but doesn't actually solve anything except to make people's lives worse. Many of the items you list in your complaint list (regulatory hostility to suburban expansion, red tape, manipulation of the mortgage industry) actually are arguments I've heard about Conservative governments and why, even in areas which are not urban, there are housing difficulties and rising prices. The biggest problem with houses in the US I feel is that we started to see them as investments instead of a place to live. Take away any appeal they have to be investments (for example, though housing prices are far higher overall than in the US, they have kept them pretty decent in relation to population size and land available in comparison to similar scenarios elsewhere in the world and the US where you still have a first world society, Japan makes it basically something you won't invest in as houses decrease in price, similar to what used cars used to do) and you may help solve the housing crisis, at least as far as making it so that certain groups are being priced out of the market. The only other solution is to try what I think the Utah Governor is trying (and I use Utah a lot because I believe that is where you are from so you may be able to relate to it) which is to build more houses. The problem is not having enough builders to build fast enough (plus those builders probably want to make a living, so they want to charge money for that labor), and how much supplies are also running at (once again, people want to make a living, not build things for free and then die from starvation and exposure along with their families). Due to those external pressures I'm not sure how well his plan will work out or whether it will effectively make a long enough or big enough impact to change the direction of the housing market in Utah. I don't know what solution can be come up with that will solve it, except that we curb the greed in society and love our neighbors as ourselves, but that's not happening in society anytime soon (unless the millennium comes quickly).

The problem is not just a left/right problem. It's big corps and big money that pits people against each other that is the problem. It's the distractions the adversary has set up for us so that no matter what we choose, we will chose his way over the Lord's way. I don't normally favor one side or the other (actually, that's not entirely truthful, I actually tend to favor Libertarians and Republicans over the rest, and a lot of that is due to my own selfish ideas of right and wrong, for example, restricting the rights of some because I feel those things are immoral that they are trying to push through and to allow themselves to do, but that does not necessarily make it the correct thing for me to choose). Even more important things, as Christians, should we not be concerned with ensuring that all are fed, all are housed, and that all can then receive the gospel of Jesus Christ? We should be concerned more with helping people accept the gospel of their own free will. Forcing people to live the gospel was the opposite of the Plan of Salvation. However, helping our fellow man and trying to inspire them to accept the gospel and live it of their own free will can go very well with the gospel. When dealing with the general parties and their general trends of political impetuses...I feel that the Republicans today have very little in the realm of charity, mercy, or love. On the otherhand I feel that the Democrats have very little in the realm of Morality, Chastity, or Propriety. Both miss the bigger themes of which we, as Christians should be focused on. If we truly love the gay neighbor next door, we probably want them to be happy. When we make choices, will our choices make our neighbors happy or sad? If we want them to have freedom, shouldn't we allow them to have the ability to choose what will make them happy, even if we personally feel it is wrong? Or should we force them to live the gospel principals (which will probably just make them bitter and hate Christianity, or our particular brand at least) against their will? What is the right choice? Should it even Be a choice? Should that even be a topic of discussion. Perhaps the more important thing to notice is that our Gay Neighbor is currently starving due to not being able to secure a good enough job to eat correctly, is behind on their house payment, and is sleeping in the cold because they can't afford the utility bills that would come with heating their house. These are far more pressing issues, but instead of addressing those, we, and they are so concerned about fighting it out about morality or who is right and who is wrong that we ignore the bigger picture. We are too busy pointing fingers and accusing one another of being too far left, or too far right, to simply love each other enough to try to find the Christian solution to things that are far bigger than what orientation or gender someone is or is claiming to be. I don't think Christians are necessarily Republican or Democrat. I find that trying to define a Christian by political party is not something the Lord would want us to do. In fact, he may even be more of the mind of Washington who warned against us doing exactly what we are doing with our political system today in the US. It should not be a binary decision or choice. It should more be one where we consider what the Lord would do and how he would approach the matter. I of course, speak as a hypocrite because even I do not do this, but I understand (and perhaps that makes me even worse of a hypocrite than others) that he would want us to love and care about others just as much as we care about ourselves, and that is something neither party truly does completely. So, yes, I'm going to disagree with anyone who says it's all the Democrats doing bad things and the Republicans doing good things, or vice versa, because I do not see it in that fashion. It's not just you and accusing Democrats, it's goes multiple directions in what I would disagree. I can see the good that each party has done (but focused on the left in this case due to the direction of the discussion), but I also can see the bad. Neither are truly followers of Christ, but we, as Christians should strive to be, even if we already know we probably will fail (as we are imperfect humans and imperfect mortals).