Obama Creates Jobs? No!

[austro-libertarian]

I don't mean this to be shameless self-promotion but, since there has been discussion of Obama on this forum, I am curious as to what readers think of this article:

"Jobarama: Obama's 'Investment'"

Any thoughts?

[TeancumsSword]

It makes too much sense, Obama cult members will hate it.

[BenRaines]

From the announcements that have been made as far as staff and ideas to get us back on track I think he has moved more to the middle than the left. Will have to see if he stays there.

Ben Raines

[Moksha]

Alright! Our own Austo-Libertarian wrote the article.

Obama cult members? Hey, we just like to think of ourselves as a peculiar people! Like that other group.

[Elphaba]

Any thoughts?

Yes.

First, there is the use of the word "investment"—in true government Orwellian fashion—as a euphemism for government spending.

You are not looking at the big picture.

If the government invests in people by providing funds to pay the tuition of students who can't afford it, and to develop curriculum based on the needs of the area employers, the following are the results:

• the student will be qualified to enter the workforce immediately after he‘s completed his schooling/training.
• the student will make a good wage, which would never have happened without the government’s investment in him.
• because he now makes a good wage, he will also contribute money to the tax base.
• this money offsets the cost of his initial training.
• a well-trained/educated workforce attracts companies looking to relocate.
• the re-located company will hire employees who are already skilled in the positions it needs.
• if the company needs its employees trained in skills not available in the regular curriculum, the state’s custom-fit department will fund the development of this curriculum.
• this additional training can result in even higher wages, and an increased contribution to the tax base.
• because of the custom-fit training, the company will not be able to easily lay off anyone, because it needs people who knows to run the company's equipment and machinery.
• a well-trained workforce contributes to a company’s success, and if this re-located company is successful, it will add to the tax base as well.
• the government now has enough money to fund even more people’s training, and the cycle begins again.

Second, there is no non-arbitrary way to determine whether a government program makes a profit or a loss.

Yes there is. It is a matter of collecting and interpreting the data needed to determine the profit.

I used to be a department chair at one of Utah’s Applied Technology Colleges. Our funding came from both the federal government and the state.

We kept meticulous records from which we collected the data, including the average cost of training the students, as well as the increased tax revenue realized by the students who were immediately employed after completing their training.

The accountants crunched the numbers, and we always had a profit, which, after following an admittedly ridiculous amount of red tape, we could then re-invest into the college. This enabled us to purchase better training programs to meet the ever-changing technology needs of the companies.

it is true that neither governments nor entrepreneurs have any way of perfectly forecasting the innovations that will take place in the future,

Of course they can. We did it all of the time. You continually meet with companies to get their feedback on what kinds of training it is going to need in the future, including new products which require new equiptment to make the products, etc. Every company has an idea of where it is headed in five and ten years. If they didn't they would not be able to compete.

I'm talking about companies like Parker-Hannifan, PepsiCo, Autoliv and Kimberly Clark. These companies use high-tech robotics to make their products, and these robotics are always being replaced by better robotics.

Because we knew the various company trends coming up the road, we were able to develop turn-key curriculums to train the employees in house.

Additionally, we'd use the same curriculum on campus, and these students would walk out the door after graduation, and then walk through the front door of the company, where they often made $20+ an hour.

That is what an investment in education/training programs can do.

Elphaba

[a-train]

• the student will be qualified to enter the workforce immediately after he‘s completed his schooling/training.
• the student will make a good wage, which would never have happened without the government’s investment in him.
• because he now makes a good wage, he will also contribute money to the tax base.
• this money offsets the cost of his initial training.
• a well-trained/educated workforce attracts companies looking to relocate.
• the re-located company will hire employees who are already skilled in the positions it needs.
• if the company needs its employees trained in skills not available in the regular curriculum, the state’s custom-fit department will fund the development of this curriculum.
• this additional training can result in even higher wages, and an increased contribution to the tax base.
• because of the custom-fit training, the company will not be able to easily lay off anyone, because it needs people who knows to run the company's equipment and machinery.
• a well-trained workforce contributes to a company’s success, and if this re-located company is successful, it will add to the tax base as well.
• the government now has enough money to fund even more people’s training, and the cycle begins again.

How can we be so sure that the student will be qualified to enter the workforce upon graduation? Or that there is any job awaiting him/her? Or that he/she will make a "good" wage when hired? There are many Americans with degrees working in unrelated positions because of the marketability of their degree. Engineers, lawyers, and political scientists are selling cars, insurance, or managing a retail store.

A friend of mine who has nothing but a high-school diploma works for the same grocery store he started sacking at when only 14 years old. Today, almost 20 years later, at the age of 33, he makes a six-figure income in a management position and has a nice retirement in balance. His ethnicity is Latin and Native American. Not a dime of tax-payer 'investment' or any article of government regulation created this scenario for this individual of ethnic minority without any college education.

Further, there are many non-union, non-state, corporate programs that accomplish very efficiently the whole process being described. Fed-Ex, for example, gives $3,000 a year in tuition in addition to their pay to part-time employees who work only 18 hours a week. Thousands of Americans get their undergraduate studies through such programs while not placing any burden on the taxpayers.

Many of these are in certificate programs that allow people to go into fields such as firefighting, police work, or automotive service.

Many of the schools these students attend are already vastly funded by local, county, and state taxes. The only reason they even charge the students anything is to weed out the multitude of those not serious about their education and the costs are less than $3000 a year for full-time study.

The problem with education in America has always been and remains to be federal intrusion. The Washington bureaucrats are not educators and are completely out of step with market trends. They have no idea what current market demands are in education and thus are inept in supplying them. Head Start and No Child Left Behind have not proven anything but federal failure in the education of America.

My grandfather having nothing but a sixth-grade education, built airplanes that bombed Japan. He new trigonometry, he owned his own business, he manufactured clothing and golf equipment, his younger brother was a Texas millionaire who built roads and owned a rock quarry with no college education at all. Meanwhile, I sat next to students who suffered severe reading difficulties in my 12th grade high-school English class. The community colleges have math programs that teach long-division to high-school graduates.

Government involvement in American education has been nothing but the dumbing down of the curriculum and the awarding of diplomas/degrees to students of less and less capability.

Books once wildly popular in America, best sellers of the 19th Century, are practically unreadable to high-school students today. Students turn in math homework before leaving class as they are able to hastily complete the 20 math problems at passing levels. Meanwhile the rate at which new material is covered gets slower and slower to facilitate the passing grades of those who don't even turn in their homework.

What is incredible is that many Americans get a better education from google and the library than they got in school.

The problem with American education at all levels is not the lack of federal funding or oversight, but the existence thereof.

-a-train

[TeancumsSword]

Yes.

You are not looking at the big picture.

If the government invests in people by providing funds to pay the tuition of students who can't afford it, and to develop curriculum based on the needs of the area employers, the following are the results:

• the student will be qualified to enter the workforce immediately after he‘s completed his schooling/training.
• the student will make a good wage, which would never have happened without the government’s investment in him.
• because he now makes a good wage, he will also contribute money to the tax base.
• this money offsets the cost of his initial training.
• a well-trained/educated workforce attracts companies looking to relocate.
• the re-located company will hire employees who are already skilled in the positions it needs.
• if the company needs its employees trained in skills not available in the regular curriculum, the state’s custom-fit department will fund the development of this curriculum.
• this additional training can result in even higher wages, and an increased contribution to the tax base.
• because of the custom-fit training, the company will not be able to easily lay off anyone, because it needs people who knows to run the company's equipment and machinery.
• a well-trained workforce contributes to a company’s success, and if this re-located company is successful, it will add to the tax base as well.
• the government now has enough money to fund even more people’s training, and the cycle begins again.

Yes there is. It is a matter of collecting and interpreting the data needed to determine the profit.

I used to be a department chair at one of Utah’s Applied Technology Colleges. Our funding came from both the federal government and the state.

We kept meticulous records from which we collected the data, including the average cost of training the students, as well as the increased tax revenue realized by the students who were immediately employed after completing their training.

The accountants crunched the numbers, and we always had a profit, which, after following an admittedly ridiculous amount of red tape, we could then re-invest into the college. This enabled us to purchase better training programs to meet the ever-changing technology needs of the companies.

Of course they can. We did it all of the time. You continually meet with companies to get their feedback on what kinds of training it is going to need in the future, including new products which require new equiptment to make the products, etc. Every company has an idea of where it is headed in five and ten years. If they didn't they would not be able to compete.

I'm talking about companies like Parker-Hannifan, PepsiCo, Autoliv and Kimberly Clark. These companies use high-tech robotics to make their products, and these robotics are always being replaced by better robotics.

Because we knew the various company trends coming up the road, we were able to develop turn-key curriculums to train the employees in house.

Additionally, we'd use the same curriculum on campus, and these students would walk out the door after graduation, and then walk through the front door of the company, where they often made $20+ an hour.

That is what an investment in education/training programs can do.

Elphaba

Told ya, AL

"Whatever Barak says you will believe."

[Hemidakota]

At this point, in using some resemblance of the depression era, which Roosevelt used to bring back the failing economy, is better than nothing. However, the only thing that saved Roosevelt plan was World War II from collapse. Perhaps, a war with NK and Iran will save Obama’s economy?

[DigitalShadow]

Told ya, AL

"Whatever Barak says you will believe."

Sounds more like there is an anti-Obama "cult" to me.

Edited November 24, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[Bookmeister]

I didn't vote for Mr. Obama, but I'll give him a serious chance. I don't expect any single person to be able to effect great change (and I wouldn't have expected it of Mr. McCain, either) but at least getting out in front on some of these issues couldn't hurt.

But I'm not sure that starting any more wars is necessarily the best idea...LOL.

[Guest DeborahC]

The Authorities say we should support our President.

Can you tell me how this initial posting supports our President?

Just curious.

[Elphaba]

I'm sorry this is so long, but your questions can't be answered with yes and no. However, hopefully I've answered them enough so you can at least see the possibility that these programs are profitable.

How can we be so sure that the student will be qualified to enter the workforce upon graduation?

Like I said in my last post, we consistently met with area employers on a regular basis, who kept us apprised of the skills they needed the students to master so they could work for the company.

There are many Americans with degrees working in unrelated positions because of the marketability of their degree. Engineers, lawyers, and political scientists are selling cars, insurance, or managing a retail store.

With the exception of engineers, the others have no skills the market calls for.

Competent manufacturing engineers know how to solve and develop the high-tech parts, etc., the company can really use. One of the tools they use is called geometric dimensioning and tolerancing. If the engineer does not know how to apply these calculations, then he is of no use.

As far as lawyers and political scientists, it’s not impossible for them to land jobs that pay a decent wage. However, it is not guaranteed.

Or that there is any job awaiting him/her?

Yes. It is with the company we developed the program for.

Or that he/she will make a "good" wage when hired?

Again, as I said in my last post, these students walk into jobs where they make $20+.

Not all of our programs enable the student to make that much money. I address one of them later in this post.

A friend of mine who has nothing but a high-school diploma works for the same grocery store he started sacking at when only 14 years old. Today, almost 20 years later, at the age of 33, he makes a six-figure income in a management position and has a nice retirement in balance.

That is extremely rare in today's marketplace. To illustrate what the market calls for, let me give you the following example.

Parker Hannifin is a huge employer in Ogden, where I live. Parker makes hydraulic systems for airplanes. One of the companies it sells these hydraulic systems is to Boeing.

Parker always needs highly skilled people who know what they’re doing, because if they make a mistake in the hydraulics, that is a plane that could go down. I don’t know if you remember the plane that went down about 18 years ago when the hydraulics system failed. Those are the same hydraulic systems Parker manufactures.

So, to develop programs that would meet its needs, Parker’s staff and I worked to determine exactly what competencies Parker needs the students to master to work for the company. Some of these competencies include mastering the robotics systems at the company, geometric dimensioning and tolerancing, how to measure and keep parts’ tolerances to within a millionth of an inch.

Also, calculating the measurements to set and run the machine that uses lasers to cut steel, which must, again, be within millionths of an inchtolerance. Or run the machine that blasts the parts with water to cool them down so they won't expand out of tolerance.

And without exception they had to learn to read the complicated blueprints I’ve ever seen. (That was the most difficult course I ever developed.)

This is not the same thing as running a grocery store.

Further, there are many non-union, non-state, corporate programs that accomplish very efficiently the whole process being described.

I am sure this is true; however, I assure you, many of these employers are taking advantage of the applied-technology colleges to develop company-specific competencies.

This is because we can provide the same training, at least in some of the competencies, at a much cheaper price.

Fed-Ex, for example, gives $3,000 a year in tuition in addition to their pay to part-time employees who work only 18 hours a week.

I didn’t know that, but that is a company who knows how to invest its money in its employees, and it will see a return. I think it’s wonderful it invests in its part-time employees as well.

Thousands of Americans get their undergraduate studies through such programs while not placing any burden on the taxpayers.

Yes it does.

Taxes pay for the instructors’ salaries, administration, and all other personnel needed to run a college/university, which I'm sure you know can be thousands. It also pays for high-tech equipment used in programs like nursing.

Many of these are in certificate programs that allow people to go into fields such as firefighting, police work, or automotive service.

We have an automotive service program, which is also high-tech given the cars have so many computer systems in them. These students would make approximately $10 to $15 an hour after they completed this program.

Many of the schools these students attend are already vastly funded by local, county, and state taxes.

I assure you, the funding is never enough to meet the needs the programs require, but this is already too long, and I’ll leave it at that.

The only reason they even charge the students anything is to weed out the multitude of those not serious about their education and the costs are less than $3000 a year for full-time study.

Actually, universities make a lot of money on these students. For example:

The student pays tuition for the class, attends the class, and within a week or so realizes it’s going to be an exceptionally difficult course for him; however, it’s a requirement for his degree, so he will stick with it, even going so far as to hire a tutor for help.

About the sixth week or so, the student finally realizes s/he simply cannot finish the class, and goes to get a refund on his tuition. Unfortunately, by the sixth week he can only get a partial refund, or none at all. But because he still needs the class for his major, he will once again pay the tuition to retake the class, and the university has just pocketed his original tuition money. This happens a lot with the higher math courses.

The problem with education in America has always been and remains to be federal intrusion. The Washington bureaucrats are not educators and are completely out of step with market trends. They have no idea what current market demands are in education and thus are inept in supplying them. Head Start and No Child Left Behind have not proven anything but federal failure in the education of America.

Head Start is a very successful program. No Child Left Behind is not.

As far as the Washington bureaucrats, not all of them are as inept as you think. Our congressmen work very hard to secure funding based on our projections. We never got all we wanted, but enough to keep the college functioning and providing exceptional training.

My grandfather having nothing but a sixth-grade education, built airplanes that bombed Japan. He new trigonometry, he owned his own business, he manufactured clothing and golf equipment, his younger brother was a Texas millionaire who built roads and owned a rock quarry with no college education at all.

Then your grandfather had a knack for business and the skills needed to build airplanes.

Obviously, not everyone has his acumen, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It‘s just reality, and it doesn‘t mean we shouldn‘t invest in these students‘ training/education.

Meanwhile, I sat next to students who suffered severe reading difficulties in my 12th grade high-school English class. The community colleges have math programs that teach long-division to high-school graduates.

I agree. But that would not fly at the college.

Math is a requirement of the core curriculum; however, the program may require higher and applied mathematics. When you’re training students in the high-tech areas, there is no question they must master the math.

As I explained above, companies who manufacture products that must be in tolerance rely on the worker to make sure he stays within those tolerances. We would teach them the mathematics required to make these measurements. If the student could not master the math, he could not go forward with the program.

I assure you, the math required is not long division.

Government involvement in American education has been nothing but the dumbing down of the curriculum and the awarding of diplomas/degrees to students of less and less capability.

It depends.

The college is a state institution. Because we work with the area employees to determine their training needs, our programs do not dumb down anyone.

Books once wildly popular in America, best sellers of the 19th Century, are practically unreadable to high-school students today.

I agree. However, literature is not something a machinist needs to master to get a well-paying job out in the market. So we don’t offer it.

I have another example: I was developing a pharmacy tech program, and my subject matter expert was a pharmacist. He chose a competency-based text book, which I approved.

However, the textbook’s first chapter was on the history of pharmacy. I insisted he could not add that section to the program. He fought and fought with me. I finally asked him, “When was the last time you had a client ask you about the history of pharmacies?”

He was taken aback by that, but unfortunately, he would not budge. He wanted to develop a program that mirrored the pharmacy programs taught in the universities. This was not my goal: it was to develop a program that taught the students the competencies a pharmacy technician needed to master, and that’s all.

Students turn in math homework before leaving class as they are

able to hastily complete the 20 math problems at passing levels.

I agree, and this is a travesty. But again, if our students can’t master the math required by the respective program, the student cannot continue in the program.

Meanwhile the rate at which new material is covered gets slower to facilitate the passing grades of those who don't even turn in their homework.

This was not true for us, because we were constantly working with employers to discover new material, and develop programs to use it. In fact, if we didn’t get it working in a quickly manner, a few times the program was then out of date.

Gotta love high-tech.

What is incredible is that many Americans get a better education from google and the library than they got in school.

Not in our programs.

The problem with American education at all levels is not the lack of federal funding or oversight, but the existence thereof.

I could not disagree more.

The problem with education in America is that it does not train students to go out and make a good wage. It focuses on superfluous coursework that does not prepare a student for a job.

Of course, not all of our programs enable the student to make as much as the high-tech programs. For example, the pharmacy tech I mentioned above only makes about $10 an hour. But again, based on employers’ feedback, and also government projections, the health services is where the most jobs are. Prior to my leaving the college, we had a dentist begging us for more students. It is the one field where one will never be without a job.

Finally, I have seen it time and time again: People who are living on minimum wage enter our programs, and walk out the door properly skilled in jobs that make reasonable salaries.

Yes, these kids are eligible for all student finance programs available. But this is not the case for about a third of our students. They tend to make just a little bit more than financial aid will allow--and they are technically the working poor.

But again, the investment in that student means money contributed back into the tax base. In fact, we had some projections that indicated that, in some programs, it allowed two students to go through the same program instead of one.

This is what Obama is talking about. He is going to invest the money into these kinds of training programs that enable low-income people to qualify for jobs that not only pay higher wages, but also contribute money back into the tax base.

And it is a very good plan. Programs that teach high-tech jobs will be able to afford better and up-to-date equipment in their training programs. And again, the students who master these machines will get a job at a reasonable wage. And every person who gets a job with a reasonable wage contributes to the tax base.

So, it is not like Obama is going to give away $1 billion dollars with no return. If enough people are trained in higher-paying jobs, the return will be significant. This return then can be re-invested, allowing for better training programs, and the cycle continues.

There is no downside to this; rather, it changes people’s lives, for the better.

Elphaba

[austro-libertarian]

The Authorities say we should support our President.

Can you tell me how this initial posting supports our President?

Just curious.

Thanks for your post and curiosity. If you are going to say general statements to support your argument, it would help to provide a source or reference. This is a classical "anti-mormon" tactic of a general statement without any context or reference. But I'll respond anyway. There are some rather obvious responses.

Your "logic" puts us on a slippery slope: We should support the President, no matter what? If Obama turned Hitler, we should support him? Really? Well, of course not. There must be more to it than just blindly supporting the President. You are not talking about the President of the Church (whom we do not blindly follow either), but about the president of the US. Sounds like a slippery slope to hell.

Secondly, leaders do not say we should simply support the president. Here are some quotes (references are linked):

"As Latter-day Saints, we have a duty to be law-abiding citizens and to do all we can to help our governments operate according to moral principles." (Chapter 17: Being Loyal Citizens,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Heber J. Grant, 157.) (Emphasis added.)

The point here is we support moral principles, not just government. This is the problem with belonging to a political party instead of defending principles. To the extent Obama supports moral principles, we should support him--because we believe in moral principles, not because we believe whatever a US President says is right.

“As Church members, we live under the banner of many different flags. How important it is that we understand our place and our position in the lands in which we live! We should be familiar with the history, heritage, and laws of the lands that govern us. In those countries that allow us the right to participate in the affairs of government, we should use our free agency and be actively engaged in supporting and defending the principles of truth, right, and freedom” (Elder L. Tom Perry, Conference Report, Oct. 1987, 87; or Ensign, Nov. 1987, 72.) (Emphasis added.)

Again, we are defending principles. This means there may be times when we have to not support leaders who are going against those principles. It does not say we should be actively engaged in defending these principles unless the US President says anything else. I am actively engaged in defending these principles against Obama's (and Bush's) attempts to take them away.

“In the Church, we often state the couplet, ‘Be in the world but not of the world.’ … Perhaps we should state the couplet … as two separate admonitions. First, ‘Be in the world.’ Be involved; be informed. Try to be understanding and tolerant and to appreciate diversity. Make meaningful contributions to society through service and involvement. Second, ‘Be not of the world.’ Do not follow wrong paths or bend to accommodate or accept what is not right. …

“Members of the Church need to influence more than we are influenced. We should work to stem the tide of sin and evil instead of passively being swept along by it. We each need to help solve the problem rather than avoid or ignore it” (Elder M. Russell Ballard, Conference Report, Apr. 1989, 100–101; or Ensign, May 1989, 80.)

We cannot "avoid or ignore" evil and sin, as Elder Ballard says. We should expose it and defend truth. Blind obedience to a political leader is certainly not what General Authorities would advocate. The US would have never been founded had individuals not defended moral principles, truth, and natural, God-given rights--against a government trying to take them away!

I would appreciate a response to this.

Edited November 25, 2008 by austro-libertarian

[austro-libertarian]

There is no downside to this; rather, it changes people’s lives, for the better.

Elphaba

Tell that to "Peter." If government is robbing Peter (the taxpayer) to pay Paul (the guy who needs training), there is a downside. To understand this you must learn about the broken window fallacy. I will post it here (also see here):

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Government taking money for any "investment" is just breaking windows. It's a fallacy.

[Elphaba]

Tell that to "Peter." If government is robbing Peter (the taxpayer) to pay Paul (the guy who needs training), there is a downside. To understand this you must learn about the broken window fallacy. I will post it here (also see here):

You need to read your own references before you post them.

According to the Wiki page you linked:

Both of those interpretations can be seen as flawed: in a modern economy, the window owner's money (if the window was still intact) would either be spent on consumption, or saved for future consumption as an investment in the economy (in today's world, perhaps via a bank or brokerage account). Both of these options serve to increase GDP at a higher level of economic efficiency and utility than if the window is broken.

Sounds good to me.

Training people, who make low-end wages, to fill jobs where they will make higher wages, is not breaking a window, nor is it an accident.

Is this the the best you can come up with?

Elphaba

[Guest DeborahC]

A few reasons to sustain President Elect Obama:D&C 58: 21-22

21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

Then there is...

THE

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 134

A declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835. HC 2: 247–249. The occasion was a meeting of Church leaders, brought together to consider the proposed contents of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. At that time this declaration was given the following preamble: “That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present at the close of this volume our opinion concerning the same.”

1–4, Governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship; 5–8, All men should uphold their governments, and owe respect and deference to the law; 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers; 11–12, Men are justified in defending themselves and their property.

1 WE believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men baccountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in apeace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the bfree exercise of cconscience, the right and control of property, and the dprotection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require acivil bofficers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of aworship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to asustain and uphold the respective bgovernments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and crebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be ahonored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the blaws all men show crespect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all acitizens in the free exercise of their religious bbelief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be apunished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public bpeace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing coffenders against good laws to punishment.

9 We do not believe it just to amingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, aaccording to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has bauthority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all awrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in bdefending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

12 We believe it just to apreach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bbond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in cservitude.

And then there is the specific Article of Faith:

12 We believe in being asubject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

I apologize for any typos... I cut and pasted from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[austro-libertarian]

You need to read your own references before you post them.

According to the Wiki page you linked:

Sounds good to me.

Training people, who make low-end wages, to fill jobs where they will make higher wages, is not breaking a window, nor is it an accident.

Is this the the best you can come up with?

Elphaba

It is all I need to come up with, if you understand that broken windows are not good things. If you cannot, then there is not much I can say. In a previous post you mentioned the government could "perfectly forecast." I let that slide but I must question it now: The government can "perfectly forecast"? Are we in fairyland?

Your point--it is not an accident--only shows the government, sticking with the analogy, "breaks windows" on purpose. It is worse than the shopkeeper's son who broke the window accidentally. The government, in contrast, breaks windows on purpose--and tells the shopkeeper it is a good thing. And so are you. Now follow me here--you have misread the Wikipedia entry and quoted out of context. Here is what it says, and this again only proves my point (so HT2 Elphaba).

This is the first interpretation, which says the window is broken and is a good thing:

"A common interpretation of the gross domestic product is that increased GDP means the economy is healthier. Some would say that this interprets the proverbial "broken window" as a positive, and that some form of Genuine Progress Indicator would be a more realistic indicator of economic health.

This is the second interpretation, which says the window is not broken, but is also false in that it would be a bad thing for it not being broken (proving my point!):

"Another interpretation is that (in a more modern society) the money would not go to the baker or the cobbler, if the shopkeeper was doing well enough for that money to go into a vault that would not be used for a long time.

And, referring to those two interpretations:

"Both of those interpretations can be seen as flawed: in a modern economy, the window owner's money (if the window was still intact) would either be spent on consumption, or saved for future consumption as an investment in the economy (in today's world, perhaps via a bank or brokerage account). Both of these options serve to increase GDP at a higher level of economic efficiency and utility than if the window is broken.

Both of these interpretations is wrong. Believe it or not, broken windows are not good for the shopkeeper, Peter, or the economy.

Edited November 25, 2008 by austro-libertarian

[Elphaba]

Your "logic" puts us on a slippery: We should support the President, no matter what? If Obama turned Hitler, we should support him? Really? Well, of course not. There must be more to it than just blindly supporting the President. You are not talking about the President of the Church (whom we do not blindly follow either), but about the president of the US. Sounds like a slippery slope to hell.

Since you are so well-versed in arguments, I assume you know you've violated Godwin's law?

When one person resorts to comparing another person's comments to Hitler, the discussion is over, discrediting the person who made the comparison.

This usually only happens well into the discussion, but you pegged it in your first post.

Next time you want to criticize someone's comments, you might want to rethink your hyperbolic reference to Hitler.

Additionally, writing a one-page critical analysis of Deborah's benign post, is really bad form.

Elphaba

[austro-libertarian]

Since you are so well-versed in arguments, I assume you know you've violated Godwin's law?

When one person resorts to comparing another person's comments to Hitler, the discussion is over, discrediting the person who made the comparison.

This usually only happens well into the discussion, but you pegged it in your first post.

Next time you want to criticize someone's comments, you might want to rethink your hyperbolic reference to Hitler.

Additionally, writing a one-page critical analysis of Deborah's benign post, is really bad form.

Elphaba

Please... Godwin's "Law"? Here is the Wiki reference that points those using Godwin's Law itself in a fallacious manner (i.e., you); it is a law that deals with probabilities:

However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.

In other words, I used it because . . . it is a valid and appropriate argument/comparison. To throw out "Godwin's Law" as if the debate is over is ridiculous.

As far as the "one-page critical analysis," he was asking to see "how" the OP fits with what General Authorities say about supporting the President. The length was due to my attempt to explain the issue, not out of disrespect.

[austro-libertarian]

A few reasons to sustain President Elect Obama . . .

I apologize for any typos... I cut and pasted from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I was going to use D&C 134 to prove my point but I decided it was too long to copy and paste. Since you have (thanks!), I will point out a few things that are crucial caveats. I believe you have skimmed them over, perhaps without reading it? You may just be looking for evidence that supports your view instead of understanding what the scriptures are saying. I will highlight those caveats. (I would still like you to respond to my other arguments in my previous post regarding this issue.)

We should acknowledge that this is "belief" or "opinion," and was not received as a revelation to Joseph Smith. Indeed, he did not write it, nor was he around when it was voted on. He permitted it to be added nonetheless.

v. 1 WE believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

It is important to note we are accountable, no matter what we do, whether it is in relationship to government, our families, or anyone else. If we allow a government to go blindly down a path which destroys our rights--no matter the pretense!--we are held accountable. This shows the importance of acting to support those rights which benefit society.

v. 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.

The key here is that each individual must be able to exercise their conscience freely, have the right and control over their property, etc. A government which takes away your rights (I argue the current US government does; all governments for that matter) will not exist in peace. The empirical evidence is overwhelming and undeniable in this regard.

v. 5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

I agree that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming but this is while we are protected in our "inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments." Any government that attempts to take away rights that are inherent and inalienable (i.e., which come from God) are making themselves an enemy of those rights. We can't allow our God-given rights to be superseded by political partisanship, or in the name of "supporting our President."

The phrases in verse 5 which say "while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments” and “thus protected” show the importance of submitting to governments when they are peaceful and just. Remember, it wasn't long ago that the Revolutionary War had happened. Oliver must have been aware of this at the time.

The scriptures must be taken in context and understood using other scriptures and the Spirit. I maintain that the Lord would not have us blindly support world(ly) leaders.

[FunkyTown]

Sounds more like there is an anti-Obama "cult" to me.

Nnnnnooooo, DS! That would never happen. Austro would seriously consider logical, well thought out arguments against libertarian policies. He's open minded.

[FunkyTown]

I was going to use D&C 134 to prove my point but I decided it was too long to copy and paste. Since you have (thanks!), I will point out a few things that are crucial caveats. I believe you have skimmed them over, perhaps without reading it? You may just be looking for evidence that supports your view instead of understanding what the scriptures are saying. I will highlight those caveats. (I would still like you to respond to my other arguments in my previous post regarding this issue.)

We should acknowledge that this is "belief" or "opinion," and was not received as a revelation to Joseph Smith. Indeed, he did not write it, nor was he around when it was voted on. He permitted it to be added nonetheless.

It is important to note we are accountable, no matter what we do, whether it is in relationship to government, our families, or anyone else. If we allow a government to go blindly down a path which destroys our rights--no matter the pretense!--we are held accountable. This shows the importance of acting to support those rights which benefit society.

The key here is that each individual must be able to exercise their conscience freely, have the right and control over their property, etc. A government which takes away your rights (I argue the current US government does; all governments for that matter) will not exist in peace. The empirical evidence is overwhelming and undeniable in this regard.

I agree that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming but this is while we are protected in our "inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments." Any government that attempts to take away rights that are inherent and inalienable (i.e., which come from God) are making themselves an enemy of those rights. We can't allow our God-given rights to be superseded by political partisanship, or in the name of "supporting our President."

The phrases in verse 5 which say "while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments” and “thus protected” show the importance of submitting to governments when they are peaceful and just. Remember, it wasn't long ago that the Revolutionary War had happened. Oliver must have been aware of this at the time.

The scriptures must be taken in context and understood using other scriptures and the Spirit. I maintain that the Lord would not have us blindly support world(ly) leaders.

Actually, we've discussed this before on here. Basically, everyone knows that government associated programs are terrible. They are wasteful and oftentimes leave out people who desperately need it while helping those who abuse the system.

This is all true. We also recognize that before government programs, a lot of people starved and a lot of people lived in desperate poverty. More than there are now. However, the middle class tend to be taxed the most -in proportion to their income- in these cases, the taxes reduce -their standard of living.

All of these things are true. A-train was right in that the only answer is to live the law of consecration. Up until that point, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to leaders trying to make a difference.

[austro-libertarian]

Nnnnnooooo, DS! That would never happen. Austro would seriously consider logical, well thought out arguments against libertarian policies. He's open minded.

This goes along with what I am saying. I am not anti-Obama per se, just anti-Obama policies that are IMO wrong, harmful, and contrary to the gospel. I am "against" George Bush (policies) in the same way.

As far as the ad hominem attack goes, you are right: I am open to any "logical, well thought out arguments against libertarian policies," or any similar arguments on anything for that matter. Please don't keep me waiting too long though.

[a-train]

Elph,

Let it be understood that state funded trade schools and organizations are not under attack here. UCAT is not under attack here.

Also, the statement from the wiki you quoted pointed out the benefits from NOT breaking the window. The benefits you spoke of saying 'sounds good to me' are those that come through NOT breaking the window. Go back and take a look at the wiki.

The idea Bastiat is pointing out is that it really does NOT matter how or what we compel people to buy or from whom they are compelled to buy it. But so long as the state does so, it is harmful to all the parties involved.

It will not produce any overall positive effect for persons to be compelled to purchase an education because the purchase of educational services will not be truly market driven, just as breaking windows to stimulate spending on glass and installation.

While it seems at first apparent that the glass producers and installers are doing better and are thus able to spend more money in the economy and contribute to higher tax revenues, the artificial stimulation is akin to wrapping up our engines while in neutral: there is no net gain in the end. Other businesses which may have been much more effective in providing an overall benefit to society are not being funded because of the intervention.

The issue being discussed here should not be confused with the cooperation of educational entities with employers and programs designed to train current or prospective employees.

What is being discussed is the issue of government mandates that require individuals to purchase educational services. What goes wrong is that these funds would have been allocated to some other purchase or project of which we will never know.

What would these funds have been spent on? Has anyone even bothered to ask? We simply do not know. Perhaps these funds would have helped the victims of some disaster. Perhaps they would have been spent on education anyway. Perhaps they would have been spent in the research of a new life-saving medical procedure. We are automatically choosing door number one without looking behind door number two or any other doors for that matter. Plus, the care with which these funds are allocated is never as good as that in the hearts of those who worked so hard to earn it.

FedEx was not only one example, but UPS also offers the same tuition benefit. In fact, an adult parent (male or female) can work for FedEx part time and though they only work 15 hours during a week, they are automatically paid for the minimum of 17.5 hours at a starting rate of over $12 an hour, and they are additionally given $3000 for tuition, and they receive health insurance for the whole family with no deductions after 90 days. FedEx also gives information to its employees about needed positions higher in the company which help them in making educational decisions toward advancement. This is just FedEx, one company.

Bayer, for example, does very similar things, even putting students with no prior education in the field through college to work in biological, pharmacological, and other research and work. I worked in a Bayer research lab for a time and they approached me about such prospects, but my interests were otherwise.

My grandfather, as great as he was, was not some marvel among his fellows. A great many of those men working right next to him had no better education or training than he had. How did these men do what they did?

Take these businesses who simply tell a school what they are looking for and let tax payers fill them up with employees. Do you not see how this is welfare for that business? They don't have to pay to train their employees, they let the taxpayers do that for them. You and I are compelled to 'invest' in that business. The business takes little risk and gets all the benefits. And worse, a given individual is possibly LESS secure in his position there because there are a large number of possible replacements being trained by government mandate, a condition that may have not been otherwise without the subsidies.

FedEx does the real investing. While that other company out there relies on the heavily specific nature of the training provided by government funding to lock the employee in to their business, FedEx relies on the good feelings of its employees about working with such a good company to see long-term retention.

Imagine if after some major changes in an economy, a given state decides that the solution is to mandate the purchase of trench-coats. At first, the trench-coat business would boom like never before seen and the standard of living in that area would dramatically increase and job openings would be greatly enhanced. The training in the production and design of trench-coats would increase very dramatically. Perhaps an apparent economic growth would be perceived. But what would happen as the trench-coats piled high in the closets and attics around the country? They would become worthless wouldn't they? Is training for industrial labor any different?

Obama and Biden will create a transitional jobs program to place people with extreme difficulties getting and keeping good jobs into temporary, subsidized wage-paying jobs to gain necessary job skills before applying for unsubsidized jobs in the private and public sectors.

It really doesn't matter what skills these people are given, we are creating a surplus of those particular skills and thus devaluing them just like those trench-coats.

Do you see the problem being pointed out here?

-a-train

Edited November 25, 2008 by a-train

[Guest DeborahC]

I was under the impression that anything in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants, or Pearl of Great Price was to be considered "scripture."

But it appears you don't agree.

Well, do as you will.

I'll support our President and pray for his protection as well as praying he does the best job possible under the current horrible mess left him to sort out.

Also, please know, my support would also have been given to McCain, had he won.