Obama Creates Jobs? No!

[a-train]

On the subject of sustaining our government, did Jeremiah fail to sustain his king (king Zedekiah) when he counseled him about his policies? How about Moses and his counsels to Pharaoh? If we, the people of a government by the people, fail to converse and offer our counsel to our leaders, are we sustaining them or failing to do so?

When our leaders are advocating policies in which we see problems, are we sustaining them by NOT warning them of these dangers? How is it that we really sustain our leadership?

-a-train

[Guest DeborahC]

The BOM and D&C had not been written yet, I guess... when Zedekiah and Moses were alive...

[Moksha]

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

Elphaba

You notice things like this Elphaba, because you challenge ideology with evidence. That gives you an unfair advantage. :)

[austro-libertarian]

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.

I did not say it was not scripture.

I will also pray and have faith and works to try my best (since when does this become up to Obama?) to help sort out the mess. I believe government "investments" will not help. Therefore Obama will make the mess worse.

Saying that this is "his" mess to sort out shows how much faith and trust you are putting in one individual, or government for that matter.

Please respond to my other replies. Putting on the blinders and disregarding the scriptures (in context) will not help.

[austro-libertarian]

You notice things like this Elphaba, because you challenge ideology with evidence. That gives you an unfair advantage. :)

If you go back and re-read posts from a-train and me you will see she misread it! It gives her an unfair disadvantage! You have this exactly backwards: my evidence was correct and she stuck with her ideology instead of acknowledging it.

[a-train]

You notice things like this Elphaba, because you challenge ideology with evidence. That gives you an unfair advantage. :)

Elph did misinterpret the quote. Happens to the best of us.

-a-train

[a-train]

The BOM and D&C had not been written yet, I guess... when Zedekiah and Moses were alive...

LOL! Jeremiah and Moses were commanded by God to give the counsels they gave.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

Please... Godwin's "Law"?

Yup, 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:

Kiddo, do you actually take the time to read the information on the links you post?

1) Probabilities. First, let’s clear one thing up. You wrote the law deals with probabilities, plural, but it does not. It only specifies one probability, singular, as demonstrated by the following:

As a Usernet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.(emphasis mine)

and

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable.

and my favorite:

On October 20, 2008, Rachel Maddow, on The Rachel Maddow Show, proposed a corollary to Godwin's law that as the time a liberal candidate is believed to be winning an election or argument increases, the probability that they will be labeled communist or socialist approaches one.

In other words, each time the article uses “probability,” or a variation thereof, it is only saying it is probable that in a debate, someone will eventually bring up a Hitler comparison, and that it is all. There are no other probabilities outlined in the article.

2) Valid and appropriate comparison:

In other words, I used it because . . . it is a valid and appropriate argument/comparison.

I believe you think it is a valid comparison, but it’s not. According to the link you provided:

It [Godwin’s Law] does not apply to discussion directly addressing genocide, propaganda or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. (emphasis mine)

I’m sure you’ll agree with me that Obama has nothing to do with the Nazi regime, including the Holocaust. Therefore, when you compare Obama to Hitler, you are, indeed, violating Godwin’s Law.

3) Abusing Godwin’s law:

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.

In this example, “miscast” is the operative word.

Because you compared Obama to Hitler, and the comparison is invalid because Obama has nothing to do with the Nazi regime, I did not fallaciously miscast your argument.

Let me put it another way: Unless Obama creates a Nazi-like regime, including the Holocaust among his other atrocities, when you compared Obama to Hitler, you violated Godwin’s Law.

To throw out "Godwin's Law" as if the debate is over is ridiculous.

Hey, you violated it, not me. And by directing me to the Wiki article, you gave it credence.

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.

I don’t know many men named “Deborah.” I supposed it is possible.

The length was due to my attempt to explain the issue, not out of disrespect.

Nonsense. You’re trying to show off, and you were bullying her.

Elphaba

PS No comments from the peanut gallery about me being a show off!

[Elphaba]

Elph did misinterpret the quote. Happens to the best of us.

You're right a, I did misinterpret it.

My apologies to Austro for this.

Elphaba

[jadams_4040]

People have jobs; every body makes money; right now nobody has jobs; and the jobs that are had are an average 2000 dollars a year less wage than 8 years ago; tax breaks to corporations are useless at this point in time; Lets remember one simple principle that the entire world of human beings is founded on; "People need to work in order to buy things." We as of now have the highest number of unemployed people in 16 years. the highest number of home foreclosures in 25 years, the highst number of long term unemployed in 15 years, We have the highest weekly unemployement benefit filings in history, {526,000}. the list gos on and on and on. bottom line==people need to get back to work.

[Guest DeborahC]

LOL! Jeremiah and Moses were commanded by God to give the counsels they gave.

-a-train

I hear you laughing, but I'm not sure what your point is?

It appears to me that we are commanded by God to support our elected leaders?

Look, there is a LOT that I do NOT know.. but there are also some things that I DO know.

And one of them is that before President Bush went into office, our country was in good financial shape compared to what it is now.

We had money in the bank, not a HUGE deficit.

The Europeans loved us, they didn't hate us like they do now.

We were not in war brought onto us by LIES by our own government.

Then Bush swaggered along, and I supported him, as I was taught.

And man-oh-man, did he make a mess of things!?

Just think if we'd allowed him to privatize Social Security like he wanted... even MORE people would be standing outside in their shorts than are now!

At least this leader is WORKING on trying to find a solution... instead of playing golf or snickering.

Can Obama fix things?

Probably not - Bush and his friends dug too deep of a hole.

But at least he's trying...

I tried reading your article.

It didn't ring true to me so sorry... I won't respond further.

The President is elected.

I will support him to the best of my ability.

Edited November 25, 2008 by DeborahC

[austro-libertarian]

Yup, Godwin’s Law. Kiddo, do you actually take the time to read the information on the links you post?

Yes

1) Probabilities. First, let’s clear one thing up. You wrote the law deals with probabilities, plural, but it does not. It only specifies one probability, singular, as demonstrated by the following.

Okay. I am technically still correct but this is a non-issue for this discussion. If I am ever wrong on a point as minute as this one, I am happy to admit it and I would appreciate your help in pointing it out in the future.

2) Valid and appropriate comparison:

I believe you think it is a valid comparison, but it’s not. According to the link you provided:

I’m sure you’ll agree with me that Obama has nothing to do with the Nazi regime, including the Holocaust. Therefore, when you compare Obama to Hitler, you are, indeed, violating Godwin’s Law.

My original post regarding Obama and Hitler said, "If Obama turned Hitler . . ." I did not say Obama is Hitler, is like Hitler, or is part of a Nazi regime. I used the hypothetical "if." If common sense isn't making this obvious, perhaps you could substitute "If Obama turned Hitler" with "If Obama turned into a dictator who wanted to do evil things and kill lots of people." Then we do not need the all-powerful Godwin's Law. It is not "God's" law regardless.

3) Abusing Godwin’s law:

In this example, “miscast” is the operative word.

Because you compared Obama to Hitler, and the comparison is invalid because Obama has nothing to do with the Nazi regime, I did not fallaciously miscast your argument.

Let me put it another way: Unless Obama creates a Nazi-like regime, including the Holocaust among his other atrocities, when you compared Obama to Hitler, you violated Godwin’s Law.

Hey, you violated it, not me. And by directing me to the Wiki article, you gave it credence.

See above. It was not a comparison, but a hypothetical. In general, analogies can only go so far (i.e., they are not perfect); otherwise they would no longer be analogies. If someone had to be part of a Nazi-like regime and participate in a Holocaust to be like Hitler then we start to lose the analogy for any comparison purposes. In other words, the more specific we get, the less likely we are to find anyone resembling the analogy--it could only be Hitler if we took it to the extreme.

I don’t know many men named “Deborah.” I supposed it is possible.

Apologies Deborah. (Thanks for the crucial point Elphaba.)

Nonsense. You’re trying to show off, and you were bullying her.

Nonsense.

[Elphaba]

Before I begin, I want to explain why I am so insistent your choice of Hitler was not an oversight, and that it was, indeed, a comparison. This is not exactly proper procedure, but I thinks it’s warranted this time.

I had gone to your blog yesterday where I read the following:

One main difference between the Hitler Youth and Obama’s program is their doctrine. The Hitler Youth were mainly trained in physical and military training activities, as opposed to academic study. They were also trained in anti-semitism.

The organization of the program is where the two programs become more similar. Here are some quotes from Wikipedia which show the similarities (HJ=Hitler Youth):

The HJ was organized into corps under adult leaders, and the general membership comprised boys aged fourteen to eighteen. From 1936, membership of the HJ was compulsory for all young German men.

The HJ was organized into local cells on a community level. Such cells had weekly meetings at which various Nazi doctrines were taught by adult HJ leaders.

The HJ maintained training academies comparable to preparatory schools.

Obama’s program, just like the HJ, is targeted at youth between the ages of fourteen to eighteen who will be trained by older members at meetings on a community level. However, just because two things are similar and one is bad doesn’t necessarily mean the other is bad. In this case Obama’s program is still slavery, with the possibility of becoming more similar to Hitler Youth through its implementation . . . Obama Youth.

After reading this, and then when I read your post where you asked “what if Obama became Hitler,” I knew this was not a mere hypothetical to you. You seriously believe Obama could implement youth programs that have the potential to be as harmful as Hitler’s.

And then, I realized I have been wrong: You did not break Godwin’s Law, precisely because you do literally believe Obama’s programs could resemble Hitler‘s.

So, my apologies for this long conversation and my accusations that you violated G’sL. You did not.

My original post regarding Obama and Hitler said, "If Obama turned Hitler . . ." I did not say Obama is Hitler, is like Hitler, or is part of a Nazi regime. I used the hypothetical "if."

If common sense isn't making this obvious, perhaps you could substitute "If Obama turned Hitler" with "If Obama turned into a dictator who wanted to do evil things and kill lots of people." Then we do not need the all-powerful Godwin's Law. It is not "God's" law regardless.

See above. It was not a comparison, but a hypothetical. In general, analogies can only go so far (i.e., they are not perfect); otherwise they would no longer be analogies.

If someone had to be part of a Nazi-like regime and participate in a Holocaust to be like Hitler then we start to lose the analogy for any comparison purposes. In other words, the more specific we get, the less likely we are to find anyone resembling the analogy--it could only be Hitler if we took it to the extreme.

I disagree with some of your comments, but given you did not violate G’sL, I agree some of your other comments are accurate.

If you go back and re-read posts from a-train and me you will see she misread it! It gives her an unfair disadvantage! You have this exactly backwards: my evidence was correct and she stuck with her ideology instead of acknowledging it.

You keep telling me you read things. Elphaba's mistake.

Elphaba

PS: For those who want to see what part of Obama’s programs Austro is concerned with, here is the link.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/

[WANDERER]

Perceiving this as a very simple topic: money invested in training plumbers etc...these are essential services...if we invest in college educations we should also invest similarly in the training of tradies. This may or may not create employment...currently shortages of tradies exist in Australia...and good ones are hard to find. Believe me, it's something you will think about when your toilet backflows and you get told tomorrow or the day after tomorrow and they still don't show. You can then ponder the ironies of economic theory and idealism vs the reality...although you may not always get what you pay for ....you get what you don't pay for and this is a SURETY.

We can't allow our God-given rights to be superseded by political partisanship ...

You really believe it is in God's plan not to be able to find a plumber after going through 4 pages of phonenumbers....where does it say that again? What about when you're still adressing structural problems in your nice new house and can't get stuff repaired and it wasn't done properly in the first place. The word of the day is job market shortage.

Quite frankly I think this is absolutely necessary. While I think being critical of things is necessary whether it be the education system or how your taxes are spent...some things are no-brainers. You can take away the support for education and training...perhaps you will find greater life quality is achieved through experience on the job and learning by doing ...you know, sorta when the same tradie comes back four or five times to correct the job that wasn't done right in the first place.

Just throwing in the voice of experience...take it or leave it. Perhaps selling your birthright and sacrificing your first born might be an apalling trade to consider...but then again, what can I say, typhoid is just not all that appealing.

[austro-libertarian]

In regards to supporting our worldly leaders (blindly), I thought I would post this. I just came across it through studying (i.e., not necessarily searching for it).

Should Joseph Smith have followed Governor Boggs and submitted to the extermination order? Of course not! You can feel the passion with which JS treats this issue.

President Smith, in concluding his remarks, said that if the government, which received into its coffers the money of citizens for its public lands, while its officials are rolling in luxury at the expense of its public treasury, cannot protect such citizens in their lives and property, it is an old granny anyhow; and I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States; and if ever you turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of the Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life. Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 302-303.)

This is why I am passionate about these issues. It is our money politicians are taking! I cannot sit back and watch them "rolling in luxury" as JS says, all at our expense--at the expense of our liberties!

[austro-libertarian]

After reading this, and then when I read your post where you asked “what if Obama became Hitler,” I knew this was not a mere hypothetical to you. You seriously believe Obama could implement youth programs that have the potential to be as harmful as Hitler’s.

The use of the word "could" shows it is hypothetical. It is possible that Obama's program could become similar to Hitler's . . . but that isn't saying much. Many things could happen. Here we would want to know the probability or likelihood of it happening, and how to avoid it. I am trying to remain vigilant so that we don't entertain that evil, or anything like unto it.

You keep telling me you read things. Elphaba's mistake.

Elphaba--your apology was written after I had already posted the "If you go back and re-read posts from a-train and me you will see she misread it. . . ." post. I do read things, just haven't figured out how to do it in the future. I appreciate the apology nonetheless.

[austro-libertarian]

I just had to post this other great passage from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (p. 326-327).

It is one of the first principles of my life, and one that I have cultivated from my childhood, having been taught it by my father, to allow every one that liberty of conscience. I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution24 of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.

Although it provides that all men shall enjoy religious freedom, yet it does not provide the manner by which that freedom can be preserved, nor for the punishment of Government officers who refuse to protect the people in their religious rights, or punish those mobs, states, or communities who interfere with the rights of the people on account of their religion. Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. It has

but this one fault. Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.

The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment; and then the president of the United States would not say, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you,” a governor issue exterminating orders, or judges say, “The men ought to have the protection of law, but is won’t please the mob; the men must die, anyhow, to satisfy the clamor of the rabble; they must be hung, or Missouri be damned to all eternity.” Executive writs could be issued when they ought to be, and not be made instruments of cruelty to oppress the innocent, and persecute men whose religion is unpopular.

Listen to the Prophet's sternness: "The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment." Is he merely not following his leaders? No, he is spot on.

[a-train]

I hear you laughing, but I'm not sure what your point is?

It appears to me that we are commanded by God to support our elected leaders?

Look, there is a LOT that I do NOT know.. but there are also some things that I DO know.

And one of them is that before President Bush went into office, our country was in good financial shape compared to what it is now.

We had money in the bank, not a HUGE deficit.

The Europeans loved us, they didn't hate us like they do now.

We were not in war brought onto us by LIES by our own government.

Then Bush swaggered along, and I supported him, as I was taught.

And man-oh-man, did he make a mess of things!?

Just think if we'd allowed him to privatize Social Security like he wanted... even MORE people would be standing outside in their shorts than are now!

At least this leader is WORKING on trying to find a solution... instead of playing golf or snickering.

Can Obama fix things?

Probably not - Bush and his friends dug too deep of a hole.

But at least he's trying...

I tried reading your article.

It didn't ring true to me so sorry... I won't respond further.

The President is elected.

I will support him to the best of my ability.

OK. Let me break this down real simple. If we aren't critical of the policies suggested by our President, we are NOT supporting him.

Austro-lib and I are not even anywhere near the realm of Bush supporters so you don't have to pit us against him or the failed policies of his administration.

Also, if you feel that it is fine for you to criticize Bush, why is it not just as well to do so of Obama? If Obama is considering a bad program and the people having discussed it and brought to his attention the potential problems of this policy, he may indeed forego the policy and America would be all the better.

The point is that critical thinking of our government's policies is not the opposite of support of our leaders, but it is the essence thereof.

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

The problem, A-train, isn't that critical thinking is wrong. It's the histrionics. Since coming here, I've heard everything from "Obama will destroy the constitution" to "Obama will institute youth training programs to brainwash our children."

Critical thinking is vital and, honestly, when I hear some people I think "That's interesting. I wonder if it's correct?" and with other people, I think "Wow. The logic is spurious. He confuses correlation with causation and... Yes, yes... There's the Hitler argument."

I think the concern people have here is that there is a group of people who seem to think that "Anybody who disagrees with me is wrong." - This is normally bad thinking, but when it's coupled with histrionics, it's honestly mind-blowing. Disagreeing with the majority isn't wrong, but if you challenge the majority beliefs, bring evidence. You tend to do well with that. Others don't.

[Guest DeborahC]

OK. Let me break this down real simple. If we aren't critical of the policies suggested by our President, we are NOT supporting him.

Austro-lib and I are not even anywhere near the realm of Bush supporters so you don't have to pit us against him or the failed policies of his administration.

Also, if you feel that it is fine for you to criticize Bush, why is it not just as well to do so of Obama? If Obama is considering a bad program and the people having discussed it and brought to his attention the potential problems of this policy, he may indeed forego the policy and America would be all the better.

The point is that critical thinking of our government's policies is not the opposite of support of our leaders, but it is the essence thereof.

-a-train

You're right.

I'm wrong.

[a-train]

The problem, A-train, isn't that critical thinking is wrong. It's the histrionics. Since coming here, I've heard everything from "Obama will destroy the constitution" to "Obama will institute youth training programs to brainwash our children."

Critical thinking is vital and, honestly, when I hear some people I think "That's interesting. I wonder if it's correct?" and with other people, I think "Wow. The logic is spurious. He confuses correlation with causation and... Yes, yes... There's the Hitler argument."

I think the concern people have here is that there is a group of people who seem to think that "Anybody who disagrees with me is wrong." - This is normally bad thinking, but when it's coupled with histrionics, it's honestly mind-blowing. Disagreeing with the majority isn't wrong, but if you challenge the majority beliefs, bring evidence. You tend to do well with that. Others don't.

Perhaps there are those who are saying things like 'Obama will institute youth training programs to brainwash our children.' But certainly austro-lib did not do so with this thread or his article. He isn't offering a pooh on Obama parade. He is speaking to a precise issue and quoting the Obama proposals directly put forth in public announcements from Obama's campaign.

The introduction of the whole conversation of Hitler was austro-lib's quesiton: "We should support the President, no matter what? If Obama turned Hitler, we should support him?" This, of course, was not to say that Obama HAS 'turned Hitler' (meaning a fascist murdering dictator), but the poignant image is for the question of what is the definition of 'supporting our leaders' and how do we accomplish it? If any U.S. President HAS 'turned Hitler', it is George W. Bush.

There are some who would say that we support our president to a point and then once arriving there, our support goes no further. The idea is that they are willing to follow leadership even beyond moral principle, but there comes a point where grey fades to a black upon which they turn on the leader. This sort of support lacks definition and is ultimately arbitrary.

As austro-lib quoted, we have much better direction from Church leadership on the subject of supporting our political leaders. We stand up and support and defend the principles of truth, right, and freedom without bending to accomodate what is not right. We do so by first becoming informed and involved.

We can openly support the principles and policies of good government and criticize those that are bad. It matters not who invents them or promotes them. This is the very opposite of partisanship.

The approach is a principled one. We should not care about the race, gender, or party of a person seeking office, our concern is their principles, ideals, and approach toward government.

All the mud washed away, this whole thread comes down to this question:

Is it a good idea for the federal government to spend more tax-payer money on tuition for those designated by the federal government as worthy of such benefits?

Bastiat was referenced because his famous broken window fallacy speaks directly to this issue. What it demonstrates is that there will be no sustainable net economic gain (either collectively or individually) resulting from such a program. It's only possible effect is little more than plunder and claims that the general public is in some way benefited or that the individual recipients of the tuition are indeed enhanced are unsubstantiated. In fact, the program smells like welfare for the rich as companies seeking to defer costs associated with training employees to the taxpayers are probably the ones behind these ideas.

-a-train

Edited November 26, 2008 by a-train

[Elphaba]

The use of the word "could" shows it is hypothetical. It is possible that Obama's program could become similar to Hitler's . . . but that isn't saying much. Many things could happen. Here we would want to know the probability or likelihood of it happening, and how to avoid it. I am trying to remain vigilant so that we don't entertain that evil, or anything like unto it.

Does that lipstick come in "Wacky Pink?"

Elphaba--your apology was written after I had already posted the "If you go back and re-read posts from a-train and me you will see she misread it. . . ." post. I do read things, just haven't figured out how to do it in the future. I appreciate the apology nonetheless.

Yes, I can see how that would have been a problem.

I just assumed that because you wrote posts subsequent to my apology, and because you hadn’t admitted you were wrong when you wrote: “she stuck with her ideology instead of acknowledging it,“ that you hadn’t read it. My bad.

Elphaba

[WANDERER]

Oh okay...will the money for training result in training..or just another one of those govt funded exercises where there are mass training programs with very few quality training programs.

The thing is...do we really need to add to the highly sought immigrants lists various trades? International job poaching certainly is one way of adressing not having the policies in place that are needed to adequately resource the future aka our imported fruit pickers scenario.

I would probably look at this as a temporary/short-term need government policy e.g. the scene of higher education and government support has changed over the decades in Oz from the scholarship program, to free education for those that fulfil a list of expectations related to academic and income, to the HECS contribution scheme of everyone pays if they qualify for entrance academically regardless of income whether now or later and this will probably evolve into less government *encouragement*towards intake increases for certain areas of training where there is an oversupply or lack of demand or a failure at the university level to produce the qualifications that are demanded in the workplace.

[FunkyTown]

Perhaps there are those who are saying things like 'Obama will institute youth training programs to brainwash our children.' But certainly austro-lib did not do so with this thread or his article. He isn't offering a pooh on Obama parade. He is speaking to a precise issue and quoting the Obama proposals directly put forth in public announcements from Obama's campaign.

The introduction of the whole conversation of Hitler was austro-lib's quesiton: "We should support the President, no matter what? If Obama turned Hitler, we should support him?" This, of course, was not to say that Obama HAS 'turned Hitler' (meaning a fascist murdering dictator), but the poignant image is for the question of what is the definition of 'supporting our leaders' and how do we accomplish it? If any U.S. President HAS 'turned Hitler', it is George W. Bush.

There are some who would say that we support our president to a point and then once arriving there, our support goes no further. The idea is that they are willing to follow leadership even beyond moral principle, but there comes a point where grey fades to a black upon which they turn on the leader. This sort of support lacks definition and is ultimately arbitrary.

As austro-lib quoted, we have much better direction from Church leadership on the subject of supporting our political leaders. We stand up and support and defend the principles of truth, right, and freedom without bending to accomodate what is not right. We do so by first becoming informed and involved.

We can openly support the principles and policies of good government and criticize those that are bad. It matters not who invents them or promotes them. This is the very opposite of partisanship.

The approach is a principled one. We should not care about the race, gender, or party of a person seeking office, our concern is their principles, ideals, and approach toward government.

All the mud washed away, this whole thread comes down to this question:

Is it a good idea for the federal government to spend more tax-payer money on tuition for those designated by the federal government as worthy of such benefits?

Bastiat was referenced because his famous broken window fallacy speaks directly to this issue. What it demonstrates is that there will be no sustainable net economic gain (either collectively or individually) resulting from such a program. It's only possible effect is little more than plunder and claims that the general public is in some way benefited or that the individual recipients of the tuition are indeed enhanced are unsubstantiated. In fact, the program smells like welfare for the rich as companies seeking to defer costs associated with training employees to the taxpayers are probably the ones behind these ideas.

-a-train

You are absolutely right, A-train. "I was just following orders" didn't work for the Nuremburg trials and it shouldn't work here. Instead, I will point to specifics in his original article that suggest simple emotional attacks without substance:

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

Orwell's use of doublespeak was to take a word that is a positive thing and alter its meaning so that people were more compliant. Let's see if that's the case with Dictionary.com's version of Investment:

1. the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.

1) The government, through taxes, will provide moneys to training agencies.

2) Those training agencies will train people who are currently a drain on the economy and provide them useful skills.

3) Those with useful skills will then provide greater taxes to the government and will provide more to the country itself.

In this case, money is being used to provide hopefully a greater return. He could have claimed it was a stupid idea that wouldn't work, but instead chose to use -this- as the definition for Investment:

"Investment signifies an accumulation of savings through lower present consumption, which will then be used to achieve (potential) profitable returns in the future."

He added 'Accumulation of savings through lower present consumption', which does not exist in any dictionary on earth. Ironically, he was the one engaging in Orwellian doublespeak.

Here are some more items I disagree with:

Government's solution to government failure is consistent with Mises's theory of intervention: government meddling seems to require more government involvement (and more money).

In this case, he simply makes a statement without recourse to saying -why- he believes this. It's just rhetoric unbacked by facts. If he wanted to convince me, he would quote sources from the last time something like this happened: The workfare programs under Herbert Hoover. Since that's the closest thing to Obama's proposal, discuss it. Talk about the historical correlations between the two.

Here's another piece:

"Standards of living will decrease as there will be a shift from private production and exchange to political demagoguery, as well as taxes levied on the more efficient to subsidize the less efficient, but privileged, group. "

He then goes on to talk about why this is bad. This is frankly just poor logic. You can't make sweeping statements without proving it and then basing an entire paragraph on the consequences of an unproven statement makes for poor reading. And as for "Standards of living will decrease", is that correlative or causative? Since these programs tend to be brought out when the economy is at its worst, is it happening -because- of these programs or -in spite-? Please quote sources when saying these things. Again, it's simply self-serving non-logic backed up with no facts. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying I can't take the logic seriously. It's just poorly put together.

Here's a direct quote he uses that's, honestly, embarassing:

"T]he government can only blunder along, blindly "investing" without being able to invest properly in the right fields, the right products, or the right places. A beautiful subway will be built, but no wheels will be available for the trains; a giant dam, but no copper for transmission lines, etc. These sudden surpluses and shortages, so characteristic of government planning, are the result of massive malinvestment by the government."

Is he honestly saying that the government has created a subway with no wheels for the trains or a dam with no copper for transmission lines? Has this in the history of government -ever happened-? It's poetic license. I understand that. It's poetic license in what is essentially disguising itself as logical. The problem is that this isn't logical. It makes sweeping, grandiose statements and doesn't back it up. It's poorly written and illogical.

Oh, and the fact that he brought up an article that he himself wrote and quoted it without telling us that he was the one who wrote it? That was poor form as well.

[austro-libertarian]

You are absolutely right, A-train. "I was just following orders" didn't work for the Nuremburg trials and it shouldn't work here. Instead, I will point to specifics in his original article that suggest simple emotional attacks without substance:

Here are some more items I disagree with:

Oh, and the fact that he brought up an article that he himself wrote and quoted it without telling us that he was the one who wrote it? That was poor form as well.

FunkyTown,

Feel free to address me directly--and not through a-train. However, as this is the first time that someone has really addressed what I wrote, I thank you for that. I will have more time later to respond to your specific critiques but I thought I would clarify your last one (since it's the quickest).

Here is the OP, written by me:

"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:"

The "shameless self-promotion" bit was meant to signify that I wrote it by myself, not someone else. I thought that was clear.