Opposition to political parties?

[walterkellar]

FDR was the man for the time. Flawed but aren't we all? Plus it was the political era for the cult of personality.

[rameumptom]

It comes down to no economic system is perfect. If we seek an anarchic style government, then we would be ruled by robber barons, as in the late 1800s.

If we seek a strong federal government, then we risk another Stalin.

Neither looks very good to me.

[a-train]

"anarchic style government"?

anarchy = a state of society without government or law

What is an "anarchic style government"? How did we have one in the late 1800's?

We ARE ruled by the robber barons.

-a-train

[rameumptom]

In the late 1800s, the federal government became extremely laissez-faire. If they did get involved, it was to help business by breaking up unions and strikes.

It allowed for the slaughter houses of Chicago to be a death trap (I recommend Upton Sinclair's, the Jungle). It also allowed dangerous working environments, which left many people maimed (like on the railroads or in the mines), and no support for the families afterward.

Teddy Roosevelt's efforts to bust the monopolies and ensure rights to workers was an extremely important effort to ramp down corruption in business, and helped establish our middle class.

Breaking up Standard Oil's monopoly caused an amazing thing: it created a dozen companies, each bigger than the original! Same thing happened when we busted up Ma Bell, ca 1980. Without that, we wouldn't have cell phones, hi def television, DSL/cable internet, etc.

Of course there are reasons to have government step in on occasion. Achieving a good balance isn't easy, and we can easily tip either toward anarchy or fascism. Of course, the D&C suggests greater alarm toward anarchy (D&C 94).

[FunkyTown]

Yep. Rameumptom is correct. Here are some samples where government intervention helped:

1) "Load sixteen tons and whattya get? Another day older and deeper in debt." - The 'Work for credit' policy that companies developed, simply because companies could, had to be stopped. Government intervention created minimum wage laws, which helped a lot of people.

2) Child labour laws - Companies used children in dangerous situations, their parents desperate enough to send their flesh and blood in to horrid working conditions. Many died until child labour laws came in to effect that saved innocent kids from suffering on the altar of private greed.

3) Workplace safety laws - Workplace conditions were horrid in the 19th century. People were poisoned and maimed on the job at an alarming pace simply because big business wouldn't foot the bill for better conditions.

Those are just three examples of horrid excess -in the United States of America- that occurred when government refused to step in and regulate things. I'm certain the counter-argument will either be, 'But look at (insert stupid thing the government did here) during regulation? That hurt a lot of people.' in which case the counterargument would be 'Yes. Stupid laws result in stupid consequences, but good laws result in good consequences. Therefore, our argument shouldn't be for completely free capitalism, but rather fairly regulated capitalism. It's difficult, but something we should strive for."

Personally, I believe that socialized medicine is one of those things that are required for a fair society.

[Old Tex]

Hmmm...I don't buy this obtuse view.

GOD is actually opposed to any system / party that would destroy human liberty or seeks tyranny.

For the Church to say otherwise is WRONG.

I've never greatly disagreed with the John Birch Society, but I have disagreed with some of it's members. Many years ago when I was in a little Branch in Texas, two of the members joined the Birch Society and began to tell the other members how the Birch Society supported the Church and it's teaching.

After a period of time this got to the point that it caused a division in the members of the Branch. Many, including me, felt that the Branch should not be used to promote the Birch Society in the area, and it was coming close to that.

Finally, it tore up the Branch. Some folks went inactive and those the missionaries were teaching dropped out. That is the kind of situation that the Church is preventing by staying away from various political groups and I whole heartedly agree. I've seen first hand what can happen if it don't. We, as members, are charged to bring folks to Christ, not to bring them to some particular political point of view.

Your statement above is exactly the statement that was used by these two Birch members who tore up my little Branch many years ago.

[Old Tex]

Seriously, hemi. I agree. I mean we do the best we can. We stand for as much right as we can politically and I think all of us try to vote with our conscience.

And in this case....could we please vote soon? I mean this campaigning has been going on FOREVER! If I see one more political add, I think I might shoot myself or move to Canada. They have nice trees in Canada...quiet trees.....

I with you on this, Missy. Early voting starts tomorrow (Oct 20th) here in Texas and I'm going to go vote and then turn off the TV until someone is chosen.

[Truegrits]

Early voting starts tomorrow (Oct 20th) here in Texas and I'm going to go vote and then turn off the TV until someone is chosen.

Isn't that the truth! I voted last week. It is a done deal; too late to change, no matter what arises! Do not want to hear another word!!!

[Snow]

At the Church website, regarding "Political Neutrality":

"The Church does not: Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms..." (Emphasis Added)

Are we SERIOUS? Do we not oppose the Communist Party? Is this possible?

As a Church, we do not oppose the Communist Party, or any other political party that has, as its' goal, the abject destruction of human liberty?

SERIOUSLY?

Then, from the recent letter from the First Presidency (September 11, 2008, I can't stand the irony on this!):

"Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties." (Emphasis Added)

You have got to be kidding me? Are we saying there is good in the multitude of different political parties? REALLY?

I'm really floored by this. Maybe it is nothing to you, to me, it is monumental.

As a Latter-Day Saint I am opposed to the Communist Party. I am opposed to the Socialist Party. There is NOTHING of good or the gospel in either of them. They both advocate slavery.

Come on, this cannot REALLY be true?

Can you give me links to The Communist Party website and the website of the Socialist Party please.

What three or four things have each done in the last year or two that you find most troubling?

[a-train]

In the late 1800s, the federal government became extremely laissez-faire.

So you are saying that laissez-faire economic policy and anarchy are the same?

It allowed for the slaughter houses of Chicago to be a death trap (I recommend Upton Sinclair's, the Jungle).

Mr. Sinclair while an opponent to the Nazis, was a member of the American Socialist Party and ran for Congress more than once as a Socialist. His efforts in writing that book were to achieve government mandate minimum wage laws, he was actually unhappy with the strong emphasis on food and work condition safety.

Now I want to see prosperity and equality flourish here in America and throughout the world, and that is exactly why I support laissez-faire policy. According to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, less than 3% of American workers earn minimum wage. And, the biggest segment of those earn tips in addition to their wages. Why? Because market wages are HIGHER than minimum wage!

The only effect that minimum wage really has is to destroy the tiny segment of jobs that would function for the least productive workers. Instead of working for $4.50 an hour, a person will simply go unemployed.

Watch this.

Same thing happened when we busted up Ma Bell, ca 1980. Without that, we wouldn't have cell phones, hi def television, DSL/cable internet, etc.

Bell gained 6000 carrier competitors in 1894 when the original patent expired. So the first 15 years of monopoly were government enforced and as soon as that enforcement went away, thousands sought share in the emerging market.

Then, after years of trying to secure monopoly, the Kingsbury Commitment was made in 1913, wherein the Federal Government actually solidified a new Bell monopoly with some concessions. Still, this did not fully eliminate Bell's competitors until 1934 when the Communications Act of 1934 created the FCC, which actually re-established AT&T as a federally regulated monopoly.

The changes of 1984 came when Bell's attempts to use their monopoly to control aspects of the computer market brought new change. Competing investors in the new computer markets encouraged a DoJ antitrust suit. The suit was settled with Bell divesting certain local service companies in exchange for authoriation from the FCC to go into the computer business.

It was not free market capitalism at all that made Bell's monopoly and efforts to re-write history are futile. It was the Federal Government that made Bell a monopoly. It was the free computer market that caused it's loss of the monopoly. They caused the end of the monopoly that was created by government policy.

After going into the computer business, Bell failed miserably to compete with the computer companies and is now focusing on its old business base.

The vast majority of improvements in work conditions in the United States have not come through legislation, but through the competitive labor market. Employers wanting better employees have provided better work environments, often going far beyond federal minimum standards.

Most of the businesses hurt by various federal standards are not fat-cat-owned big corporations enslaving children as they sweat in shops infested with rodents. Rather, it is small business that is harmed. A close look at many of these regulations reveals that the fat-cats are the ones funding the lobbyists to push these regulations so they can gain market share.

-a-train

[rameumptom]

So you are saying that laissez-faire economic policy and anarchy are the same?

Mr. Sinclair while an opponent to the Nazis, was a member of the American Socialist Party and ran for Congress more than once as a Socialist. His efforts in writing that book were to achieve government mandate minimum wage laws, he was actually unhappy with the strong emphasis on food and work condition safety.

Now I want to see prosperity and equality flourish here in America and throughout the world, and that is exactly why I support laissez-faire policy. According to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, less than 3% of American workers earn minimum wage. And, the biggest segment of those earn tips in addition to their wages. Why? Because market wages are HIGHER than minimum wage!

The only effect that minimum wage really has is to destroy the tiny segment of jobs that would function for the least productive workers. Instead of working for $4.50 an hour, a person will simply go unemployed.

-a-train

A-Train, nice way to deflect my original comments. I didn't mention minimum wage, per se. I discussed how workers were treated as less than animals. I mentioned Sinclair's The Jungle, because it showed what was happening in the slaughter houses. Yes, the last chapter or so push socialism, but that is not what the majority of the book is about. Regardless of his desires, his book reached out in more ways than just a mandate for minimum wages.

It can be said that employment was very good in the baron robber days: especially for small children who were forced to work in the mines and factories in the most dangerous spots! That is what the laissez-faire inactions of government at the time caused.

Can it go too far the other way and destroy jobs? Of course. That is why I said there needs to be a balance. This current crisis happened because there was no one ensuring the greed of Wall Street AND Main Street were curbed. Yes, government was stupid in telling people to keep spending, when it should have told them to start saving. But capitalism works because of greed, not savings (just ask Michael Douglas). Time and again there have been failures on the markets due to greed. Yes, occasionally government regulation has made things worse, but it has almost always been as a response to initial conditions on Wall Street that threatened the economy.

I am not for heavy federal control. But I do believe federal government has a role to play. It needs to ensure that fair markets are established that are based upon long-term profitability, and not short term greed.

Were there no regulations whatsoever, this investment/banking collapse would still have occurred, and perhaps been worse.

Had it not been for SOME government intervention, our workforce may still be made up of small children darting in and out of dangerous environments. We would have the pollution levels of the early 1970s, where rivers and lakes caught on fire. We would have companies slashing forests and digging for natural resources without restoring the environment. Our land would be a cess-pool. As Joseph Smith once said of the wicked: before them lay a pristine wilderness... and behind them devastation.

[a-train]

especially for small children who were forced to work in the mines and factories in the most dangerous spots! That is what the laissez-faire inactions of government at the time caused.

If people are being forced to work, that is not a laissez-faire economic issue, it is a slavery issue.

I think we are muddling this all up, economic policy, slavery, crime, and so forth are not all one and the same.

I am not for heavy federal control. But I do believe federal government has a role to play. It needs to ensure that fair markets are established that are based upon long-term profitability, and not short term greed.

Now if that regulation is making activites such as stealing, murdering, putting forth false documents, and so on illegal, then I fully agree. That is not what I am asking about. That is not an issue of laissez-faire economic policy. I like the fact that you mention "fair markets". Is it fair for our government to give certain benefits to particular businesses, but not to others? Is it fair for them to mandate who the people buy from? or who gets to make a profit? This is the issue I am talking about. I want fair markets, free markets.

Had it not been for SOME government intervention, our workforce may still be made up of small children darting in and out of dangerous environments.

Now although this is yet another sidelining topic, let me ask you this: If there were no child labor laws, would you be sending your children out to work? Why or why not?

We would have the pollution levels of the early 1970s, where rivers and lakes caught on fire. We would have companies slashing forests and digging for natural resources without restoring the environment. Our land would be a cess-pool. As Joseph Smith once said of the wicked: before them lay a pristine wilderness... and behind them devastation.

This is not an issue of economic policy, but an issue of property rights. If I dumped my trash in your yard, or poured a dangerous chemical into your water supply, I would certainly be liable to you. We are again getting off the topic of economic policy. I have no problem with holding those responsible for pollution accountable, but that is not an economic issue. Countries with heavily regulated economies are still subject to environmental pollution.

The question is this: Should our government mandate that we should buy from certain individuals in order to insure that those individuals, rather than others, make a profit?

An example is a company that is struggling. It makes widgets and employs several thousand Americans. Energy prices in their area, real estate taxes, and some other factors have raised their costs, while poor designs and bad advertising has hurt their market share. Layoffs are looming and a shutdown is possible. Should the government bail-out this company? Should they pass regulations that would harm their competitors but not them in order to give them more market share? Perhaps the government could place new tarrifs on widget imports in order to buck off foreign competition. This is an issue of economic policy. No crimes have been committed, we are not talking about pollution, slavery, murder, theft, etc.

-a-train

Edited October 20, 2008 by a-train

[rameumptom]

The government back then supported business and did nothing to alleviate the sufferings and needs of the individuals. When people are paid slave wages, often they are forced to have their children also work, just to make ends meet. This is not force from the government, but by the companies.

Back then, some companies actually built their own towns. In order to work, you would have to agree to rent a house from the company town, and buy from the company store. Of course, their prices were monopolistic, and often higher than elsewhere, so people were screwed, once again. This often forced families to have children work, often in extremely risky conditions.

In some nations, children are sold off, simply because parents cannot afford to feed them. Why not? Because the companies do not pay survival wages, and/or cause them to pay high costs for rent and food. It is slavery, just under a different appellage.

[rameumptom]

Now although this is yet another sidelining topic, let me ask you this: If there were no child labor laws, would you be sending your children out to work? Why or why not?

Ram: It depends. If I had a family of 8 kids, and they were all starving on the wages I could make by working 18 hours a day, I would have no choice but to risk some of the kids' safety, in order to feed them. This is a reality that goes on in many countries, even now.

This is not an issue of economic policy, but an issue of property rights. If I dumped my trash in your yard, or poured a dangerous chemical into your water supply, I would certainly be liable to you. We are again getting off the topic of economic policy. I have no problem with holding those responsible for pollution accountable, but that is not an economic issue. Countries with heavily regulated economies are still subject to environmental pollution.

Ram: When I lived in Alabama, I bought a house in my last 5 years in the USAF, to live in and as an investment. After living there for 3 years, I found out that the State Dept of Transportation had been dumping THC and other chemicals into the ground water for decades. The cost to sue them was enormous, and would have been impossible, had it not been for state environmental laws. They had a lot more money than I had, and more patience, as well. As it was, I still lost out when I sold my house, losing several thousands of dollars on a nice home that stood over contamination. I would have lost much more without those laws, AND the Dept of Transportation would not have been obliged to spend millions to clean up the mess after I moved.

Had it been Exxon/Mobil next door and no environmental laws, I would have had no hope of ever collecting anything for at least 20-30 years. Countries with environmental laws to control pollution tend to have better quality air and water than those nations without environmental laws. Just compare the USA's efforts compared to China. I guarantee you that as polluted as Los Angeles is, Hong Kong and Beijing are much worse.

The question is this: Should our government mandate that we should buy from certain individuals in order to insure that those individuals, rather than others, make a profit?

Ram: If it is in the interest of our nation and society, yes. Should government mandate that we not purchase from Iran, North Korea, or other enemies? Yes.

If we have a choice of buying oil from Venezuela or oil from Alaska, I'd suggest we mandate oil from Alaska anyday of the week. You see, while I believe capitalism can work okay, I am not a capitalist. Capitalism does not require a free government or nation to work. It works just fine in China and Russia, for example. Of course, I am not a socialist, either. I do not see any benefit in a nation that owns the methods of production. It doesn't work, unless all people are wholly on board, as we shall have eventually in Zion, where people will not be coerced to share all.

An example is a company that is struggling. It makes widgets and employs several thousand Americans. Energy prices in their area, real estate taxes, and some other factors have raised their costs, while poor designs and bad advertising has hurt their market share. Layoffs are looming and a shutdown is possible. Should the government bail-out this company? Should they pass regulations that would harm their competitors but not them in order to give them more market share? Perhaps the government could place new tarrifs on widget imports in order to buck off foreign competition. This is an issue of economic policy. No crimes have been committed, we are not talking about pollution, slavery, murder, theft, etc.

-a-train

Ram: In this instance, probably not. As for foreign competition, it depends on whether it truly is free trade on both sides of the issue, as well as "fair trade." Do our workers have a fair playing field? Do our environmental and safety requirements push the price of our widget up to the level that we cannot compete with Chinese making 25 cents an hour in squalor and dangerous conditions? As for international economic competition, it is ALWAYS an issue of pollution, slavery, etc. If the Chinese are making American widgets in their prisons, from stolen trademarked plans, then where is the proper competition? If France heavily subsidizes their crops, then how do our farmers compete? If we keep our nation nice and green, but Chinese coal plants pollute the California coast (which they are), then how do we take them to court AND how do we keep our nation clean through all that extra expense?

Free markets only work under two conditions: 1) people are honest/have integrity. 2) conditions are similar/favorable for actual competition.

I spent 16 years in computers in the USAF. I worked on multi-million and one billion dollar projects in the USAF. I figured that at retirement, I'd be able to get a decent computer job. When I got out, I found that I wasn't just competing against young college graduates, but competing against Russian, Chinese, and Indian workers that would work for less than 1/4 of my minimum wage I expected. Company after company told me they'd love to have me, except they were moving overseas where it was cheaper. Our country has seen millions of jobs go overseas, because we've opened up markets too much, without demanding an equal playing field. The only people this has helped are the rich, who are international. This has worked to weaken our nation over the last decade or so.

Free markets cannot work when there is such diversity of ecnomic levels. The mantra that we'll get the new tech jobs that spring up is no longer true. The rest of the world is catching up in technology, but still paid 1/4 of our wages, and so we are soon to be a nation with no jobs, except McDonalds and Walmart. Either that or we're going to have to get used to the idea of being paid $30K a year for a computer programming job, just so we can compete globally - of course that is a major step down economically for the USA.

We are entering a world where we will soon have no middle class anymore.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Ram: It depends. If I had a family of 8 kids, and they were all starving on the wages I could make by working 18 hours a day, I would have no choice but to risk some of the kids' safety, in order to feed them. This is a reality that goes on in many countries, even now.

Ram: When I lived in Alabama, I bought a house in my last 5 years in the USAF, to live in and as an investment. After living there for 3 years, I found out that the State Dept of Transportation had been dumping THC and other chemicals into the ground water for decades. The cost to sue them was enormous, and would have been impossible, had it not been for state environmental laws. They had a lot more money than I had, and more patience, as well. As it was, I still lost out when I sold my house, losing several thousands of dollars on a nice home that stood over contamination. I would have lost much more without those laws, AND the Dept of Transportation would not have been obliged to spend millions to clean up the mess after I moved.

Had it been Exxon/Mobil next door and no environmental laws, I would have had no hope of ever collecting anything for at least 20-30 years. Countries with environmental laws to control pollution tend to have better quality air and water than those nations without environmental laws. Just compare the USA's efforts compared to China. I guarantee you that as polluted as Los Angeles is, Hong Kong and Beijing are much worse.

Ram: If it is in the interest of our nation and society, yes. Should government mandate that we not purchase from Iran, North Korea, or other enemies? Yes.

If we have a choice of buying oil from Venezuela or oil from Alaska, I'd suggest we mandate oil from Alaska anyday of the week. You see, while I believe capitalism can work okay, I am not a capitalist. Capitalism does not require a free government or nation to work. It works just fine in China and Russia, for example. Of course, I am not a socialist, either. I do not see any benefit in a nation that owns the methods of production. It doesn't work, unless all people are wholly on board, as we shall have eventually in Zion, where people will not be coerced to share all.

Ram: In this instance, probably not. As for foreign competition, it depends on whether it truly is free trade on both sides of the issue, as well as "fair trade." Do our workers have a fair playing field? Do our environmental and safety requirements push the price of our widget up to the level that we cannot compete with Chinese making 25 cents an hour in squalor and dangerous conditions? As for international economic competition, it is ALWAYS an issue of pollution, slavery, etc. If the Chinese are making American widgets in their prisons, from stolen trademarked plans, then where is the proper competition? If France heavily subsidizes their crops, then how do our farmers compete? If we keep our nation nice and green, but Chinese coal plants pollute the California coast (which they are), then how do we take them to court AND how do we keep our nation clean through all that extra expense?

Free markets only work under two conditions: 1) people are honest/have integrity. 2) conditions are similar/favorable for actual competition.

I spent 16 years in computers in the USAF. I worked on multi-million and one billion dollar projects in the USAF. I figured that at retirement, I'd be able to get a decent computer job. When I got out, I found that I wasn't just competing against young college graduates, but competing against Russian, Chinese, and Indian workers that would work for less than 1/4 of my minimum wage I expected. Company after company told me they'd love to have me, except they were moving overseas where it was cheaper. Our country has seen millions of jobs go overseas, because we've opened up markets too much, without demanding an equal playing field. The only people this has helped are the rich, who are international. This has worked to weaken our nation over the last decade or so.

Free markets cannot work when there is such diversity of ecnomic levels. The mantra that we'll get the new tech jobs that spring up is no longer true. The rest of the world is catching up in technology, but still paid 1/4 of our wages, and so we are soon to be a nation with no jobs, except McDonalds and Walmart. Either that or we're going to have to get used to the idea of being paid $30K a year for a computer programming job, just so we can compete globally - of course that is a major step down economically for the USA.

We are entering a world where we will soon have no middle class anymore.

I'm puzzled by your response here. At times you seem to be getting what a free market is then you almost "straw-man" it.

A free market is where commerce is free to proceed without government intervention. The appropriate function of government in a free market environment would be when, as you've said, there is unfair practice occurring. It is interesting to note that every unfair practice you list was created through government intervention and not the lack thereof.

In any event, the free market, when actually realized (and it is an ideal that is rarely realized), is the best economic ideology for mankind.

[rameumptom]

JBS,

The problem is, true free markets can only exist in a perfect world. As long as there are people/companies seeking subsidies or protections from their governments, as long as there is greed and unfair practices by companies/governments, as long as there there are reasons for companies to take advantage of the little guy - they will.

Neither companies nor governments are perfect. Both need to be watched carefully, to ensure they don't destroy society by stupid, greedy actions. If I overspend my credit limit, my impending bankruptcy is limited to harming a few creditors. If a multi-billion dollar company goes belly up because of poor money management and risks, then it impacts millions of people.

I support free markets, but am a realist. While I've studied at Von Mises' feet, I'm not so naive as to think that it will work perfectly in any environment, but a vacuum. Even Milton Friedman felt there was a purpose for government to be involved, by ensuring a steady supply of increasing funds to ensure continued capital into the system.

I'm a historian in schooling. I've studied all sides of many historic economic issues. I've studied the arguments, and am convinced that free markets work better than socialized markets. However, I also realize that there is no such thing currently as a free market. And it is foolish for us to jump directly to free markets, when everyone else is hedging their bets with government assistance.

And as it goes with commercial abuses, no one can doubt that much of our current economic problem is built upon greed. Government is messed up, because constituents have insisted on handouts, not the other way around. Constituents could at any time have tossed Barney Frank and Chris Dodd out on their behinds for their terrible handling of the financial committees of Congress. But they aren't throwing these two out, and they are only doing what their constituents expect of them.

Personally, government needs to do some regulation to protect us from the greedy, foolish and stupid in our society. Of course, we also need Americans to protect us from government by kicking the crooks and idiots out of office and electing decent people - regardless of political views.

[a-train]

So with all that said, upon what principles would you base sound economic policy versus unsound economic policy?

-a-train

[a-train]

Ram: It depends. If I had a family of 8 kids, and they were all starving on the wages I could make by working 18 hours a day, I would have no choice but to risk some of the kids' safety, in order to feed them. This is a reality that goes on in many countries, even now.

I had my first job when I was 9 years old. I have been employed ever since. Although it was illegal for me to work when I was 9, I thank God I was able to work. My father was murdered when I was six and my mother wasn't very good at managing money.

The truth is, America used child labor all the way up to the industrial revolution and nobody complained. They worked on farms and in agriculture. My Grandfather actually earned a substantial portion of his family income in his teens and into his twenties during the Great Depression.

Are we going to insist that other nations NOT be allowed to work their way out of poverty as we did? What are we going to do with these people? Do we mandate that their government pay their parents more money and if they don't we use sanctions? Won't that make everything worse? Isn't trade the best thing we can do for a poverty stricken people?

I found out that the State Dept of Transportation had been dumping THC and other chemicals into the ground water for decades.

So the GOVERNMENT was doing the dumping?!?!?!? Unbelievable.

Had it been Exxon/Mobil next door and no environmental laws, I would have had no hope of ever collecting anything for at least 20-30 years.

My ex brother-in-law paid for enough college to be an architect and had cash to spare from his share of the money his Alaskan family was paid from Exxon in a suit regarding the oil spill that effected his father's fishing business.

If it is in the interest of our nation and society, yes. Should government mandate that we not purchase from Iran, North Korea, or other enemies? Yes.

But what is going to bring peace? If we extend our hand in friendship and commerce, these people will not want to do us harm. Why does Iran fear and hate America? Well, we overthrew their government, we killed thousands of them, we hired Saddam to gas them, we use sanctions against them, we threaten them regularly with invasion, we demonize them with all sorts of falsehoods on international television, sheesh! If we were trading with them and treating them right, perhaps they would not wonder if today is the day the west invades. What would the U.S. government do if threatened with invasion? Build defense?

We are entering a world where we will soon have no middle class anymore.

And all because of bad government policy of intervention both domestic and abroad.

-a-train

[Prodigal_Son]

Joseph didn't let young Jesus work in the carpenter shop until he was 16. And then only part time.

[Snow]

You have got to be kidding me? Are we saying there is good in the multitude of different political parties? REALLY?

I'm really floored by this. Maybe it is nothing to you, to me, it is monumental.

As a Latter-Day Saint I am opposed to the Communist Party. I am opposed to the Socialist Party. There is NOTHING of good or the gospel in either of them. They both advocate slavery.

Come on, this cannot REALLY be true?

Can you give me links to The Communist Party website and the website of the Socialist Party please.

What three or four things have each done in the last year or two that you find most troubling?

[Islander]

Friends: You all have very strong opinions about the subject. I just would like to suggest that there is a significant difference between what the media reports, the opinion of the political pundits and what really goes on outside these (The US) borders.

I submit, for those that may not be in possession of all the facts, that in socialist and communist countries, this very discussion is grounds for arrest and incarceration. Socialism and communism have been a failed experiment for a good portion os this century. Communist regimes hsve killed more people in their own countries than both WW combined. Social medicine have crippled health care in Canada and Europe, by their own admission and socialist policies have kept Latin America stuck in the "developing world" without actually reaching developed status.

Free market theory is not ideal and perhaps not a very good economic framework. However, the alternatives to this day are even worse!!!

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

As someone who actually lives in Canada may I respectfully say that that health care is working fine in Canada.

In fact, we just voted Tommy Douglas, the man who introduced universal health care to Canada, our most important person in Canadian History.

Edited October 22, 2008 by YoungMormonRoyalist
Added a tid bit

[rameumptom]

The issue with health care in USA vs Canada all comes down to the idea of: if you can afford good insurance, you can get better and prompt service in the USA; while Canada offers health services to everyone, but you may have to be on a waiting list for an operation for a few months.

Once again, it comes down to the idea of the "me" generation. How long we insist on living and being kept alive, and consider it our right to do so. Does everyone have a "right" to basic health care? How about extensive health care? Where does one draw the line? Should we include sex change operations or breast enlargement surgery? Should it pay for Viagra and birth control pills? Or should it be kept to a minimal amount?

The US program is extremely inefficient in many ways, partially due to government regulation, law suits, etc. It is ridiculous to have people with the flu have to go to the emergency room for treatment, when there are other much cheaper options. It would be cheaper on my insurance if we just opened up walk-in clinics in Walmarts everywhere and have taxes pay the visit price for people. But should we also pay for the 85 year old woman to have heart surgery or a hip replacement?

Perhaps America's best hope lies somewhere in the middle: providing a co-pay system for everyone, based upon their ability to pay. But have it as a minimal service only. Those who desire better service, or more options could use an additional private insurance on top of it.

Of course, the very conservative will suggest we get out of the business altogether. And there is merit to the idea of not taxing ourselves into oblivion. Just how much tax is fair? I didn't hear Barak Obama tell me that. Then again, how much deficit spending is fair? If our workers and small businesses cannot afford health care, then how do we keep our businesses running?

There are neither perfect answers nor solutions, except perhaps the law of consecration. And of course, we know how easy that is to institute, don't we?

[Islander]

As someone who actually lives in Canada may I respectfully say that that health care is working fine in Canada.

In fact, we just voted Tommy Douglas, the man who introduced universal health care to Canada, our most important person in Canadian History.

Sorry. I hope I am not hurting your patriotic sensibilities. I also have Canadian friends here in CA and they echo the press in regards to the shortage of physicians and the delays in receiving care. I would not call that "fine" but again, I am not Canadian and you may be used to it so it may work for you.

[Moksha]

... shortage of physicians and the delays in receiving care...

Welcome to the world of today's urban hospitals and HMOs. Don't have to go elsewhere to find that.