Why do you still believe...?

[LittleWyvern]

President Obama openly declared that he wants a left wing government, he is a socialist, and he wants the NWO to happen.

Obama a socialist? Not even close. Go take a trip to Europe, they're way more socialist than Obama is. And... Europe isn't even very socialist anyway, they're more social democratic (or "socialism lite," you could call it).

See, I think our disagreement is that we both look at the same events and derive different conclusions from those events. You see Obama and see the devil's government, I see Obama and see a gamble for the sucesses of the New Deal. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree unless one of us can change how we fundamentally view the world.

[enolam]

hey... you know that many states are acting against Obamas "Marxist" methods... according to their own words... what does that tell you?

[Just_A_Guy]

The economy is setting up as the white horse prophecy of joseph smith and the dream of George Washington. Check this sight out.

Just to clarify, Washington's Vision is a fable invented by a nineteenth century newspaper reporter. See here. There are also serious problems with the actual provenance of the "White Horse Prophecy". Portions of it are substantiated by later church leaders, but not all of it.

[trulykiwi]

Obama a socialist? Not even close. Go take a trip to Europe, they're way more socialist than Obama is. And... Europe isn't even very socialist anyway, they're more social democratic (or "socialism lite," you could call it).

Obama has declared he is Socialist before he was elected, so don't say he isn't, why would you say he isn't, when he says he is!!!???? How else is the NWO going to be brought about. If government isn't socialist then it can't be!

Europe is more ahead to being socialist than USA, but they are both swiftly headed there!

Edited March 3, 2009 by trulykiwi

[Just_A_Guy]

2009 appears to be shaping up as a good year for some good old-fashioned schadenfreude.

See here.

And here.

[LittleWyvern]

hey... you know that many states are acting against Obamas "Marxist" methods... according to their own words... what does that tell you?

It tells me some people think Obama is Marxist, nothing more. I personally don't have that opinion (Obama would have to go a looooong way to please Marx). In other words, it doesn't sway me one way or the other at all, this whole "but everybody else is doing it!" argument doesn't work for me.

Obama has declared he is Socialist before he was elected, so don't say he isn't, why would you say he isn't, when he says he is!!!????

Could you source this please? I've never heard of this.

Edited March 3, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[trulykiwi]

It tells me some people think Obama is Marxist, nothing more. I personally don't have that opinion (Obama would have to go a looooong way to please Marx). In other words, it doesn't sway me one way or the other at all, this whole "but everybody else is doing it!" argument doesn't work for me.

Why do they think that? Why would everybody think he is a marxist? States have declared sovereignty over this! Wow I wonder if he could be a marxist. Of course he is!

Could you source this please? I've never heard of this.

Here's a link to what I believe paints the picture on how socialist he is. Unfortunately youtube have removed the video of his speech on the matter(ooops communism begins).

[LittleWyvern]

Why do they think that? Why would everybody think he is a marxist? States have declared sovereignty over this! Wow I wonder if he could be a marxist. Of course he is!

Whoa, since when did "some people" turn into "everyone?" I have yet to see anything near what Marx would want at all (the workers haven't revolted yet, for starters), and I really think you're embellishing this consent by popularity to push your point.

States haven't declared sovereignty, they've simply asserted their 10th Amendment powers (I've seen the house bills).

Here's a link to what I believe paints the picture on how socialist he is. Unfortunately youtube have removed the video of his speech on the matter(ooops communism begins).

One piece of commentary from a far-right source is hardly definite in my view. I really should have expected WND though.

EDIT: one more point. True Marxist socialism can only come from a revolt of the workers and a total overthrow of the current government system. It cannot come from a singular source of power in that government that according to Marx must be overthrown. The only countries that have truly done this are Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, and The People's Republic of China (although China has shied away from it's socialist practices for the past few years). North Korea doesn't count: it's a dictatorship and Marx would not approve.

Edited March 3, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[Moksha]

Tell me what you mean by the difference between Pres Benson's 'views' or 'the person'????? It may well be one in the same! I don't think he had one view as a 'PROPHET' and another as a 'PERSON'.

Cheers!

I cannot speak for LittleWyvern, but I do know how I would answer it. Part of it was in post #29, the rest is here.

Are the Church Authorities speaking 24-7 as the Seers, Revelators and Prophets of God? I have never heard that claimed. What I have heard are the Apologists for the LDS Church continually emphasizing that many times our leaders are speaking solely as men, and as such are subject to mistakes. If you will look at LDS.org's website on the part addressed to the news media, they make this point abundantly clear. As a matter of fact, it is unfair to the Church of Jesus Christ to try and pin someone's political philosophy upon them. Politics change, but our need for God does not. Why try to box the Church into a position where only those with a certain political viewpoint would be willing to affiliate with them? What you are talking about are the things that are best rendered unto Caesar, not God.

[enolam]

You are quick to put down far right supporters LittleWyvern and seem to defend far left supporters... and if thats where you are, then thats your choice, of course... thats your viewpoint... but you know there is more than one way of doing things to reach the same goal, just because its not to the letter of the law according to Marx, doesnt mean its not going in the same direction... nor can you discount something only because it hasnt happened yet... and you know, people can lie... but their fruits never lie... it doesnt matter what a person intends as much as what their fruits produce... and the fruits of the USA federal government is going socialist no matter what your justification is... and any body who actually knows what socialism is, can see it as plain as day.

Edited March 3, 2009 by enolam

[enolam]

Are the Church Authorities speaking 24-7 as the Seers, Revelators and Prophets of God? I have never heard that claimed.

When the brethren are speaking in General Conference, they are speaking as Prophets, Seers and Revelators, because words spoken there are official church doctrine... but your argument can be had in examples like media interviews, or books that are not official publications of the church, and so forth... but not General Conference.

[LittleWyvern]

You are quick to put down far right supporters LittleWyvern and seem to defend far left supporters... and if thats where you are, then thats your choice, of couorse... thats your viewpoint...

Bwuah? When have I ever said (or when, rather, have I ever acted like) that I'm far left (I personally identify my self as a slightly right-leaning centrist if you care)? Just because I don't march rank in file with what WND says doesn't mean I'm far left. There are far more shades of purple than you realize.

but you know there are more than one way of doing things to reach the same goal, just because its not to the letter of the law according to Marx, doesnt mean its not going into the same direction...

Certainly. There's Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism (although one could argue that Maoism is just Marxism with a Chinese name because Mao wanted to feel special)... but even with these, the US is far from realizing the core initial goals of socialism, one being a violent overthrow of the existing government. That's the same no matter who's philosopies you follow.

nor can you discount something only because it hasnt happened yet...

Nor can you assume it's true just because it hasn't happened yet.

and the fruits of the USA are going socialist no matter what your justification is... and any body who actually knows what socialism is, can see it as plain as day.

I r so dumb.

[enolam]

I personally identify my self as a slightly right-leaning centrist if you care

No offense intended. I was not accusing, I was indirectly asking. lol. Whatever your political persuasion is, its none of my business to be fair... and I agree about there being many shades and colours, and after all, left and right is not a true picture of the political spectrum, left and right should be more like northwest to southwest, and on the other side is freedom (to put it into one word anyway for the sake of time).

Nor can you assume it's true just because it hasn't happened yet...

You are right... accept what the Prophets have said.... in other words what God has said through the Prophets, then you can know.

Now, when that workers overthrow happens that your talking about, thats when Communism begins. Socialism is the process of establishing Communism, at least thats the way I understand it. I can not tell if the USA will get to that point or whether it will be saved before hand, or whether parts of it will or wont become socialist... I believe that it wont be Socialist in Zion.

Edited March 3, 2009 by enolam

[blusun7]

thanks just_guy

[bytor2112]

I see Obama and see a gamble for the sucesses of the New Deal.

Success and New Deal......oxymoron. You do realize that the "New Deal" extended the great depression?

[bytor2112]

This is off- topic a bit, but I often ponder over why so many members of the church identify themselves politically as conservative and/or Republican. Religious people in general seem to. I admit that I am a "right-winger" ........not very happy with the Republican party, yet they are the only party that somewhat represents my values that could actually win an election. My guess is that many see the Democratic Party as a group that embraces things that religious people morally oppose, like abortion and gay marriage. I think they are also seen as the anti religion party....especially the Christian faith. Add to that my strong dislike for big government, hence my disdain for Republicans a well, and the uber love of higher taxes for funding wasteful pork and government programs that either have out lived there usefulness or were never useful to begin with and the incessant race card and class warfare tactics and the Democratic Party has no appeal to me and most religious people and other conservative types. No offense to Democrats, if that's how your wired...... but many of us right wingers struggle to get past these issues.

[LittleWyvern]

Success and New Deal......oxymoron. You do realize that the "New Deal" extended the great depression?

Well... the New Deal boosted GDP, massively reduced unemployment, leveled off the national debt (well, it was level until WWII hit)... can you argue this, or is this something from WND too? Maybe this would go better in its own thread.

This is off- topic a bit, but I often ponder over why so many members of the church identify themselves politically as conservative and/or Republican. Religious people in general seem to. I admit that I am a "right-winger" ........not very happy with the Republican party, yet they are the only party that somewhat represents my values that could actually win an election. My guess is that many see the Democratic Party as a group that embraces things that religious people morally oppose, like abortion and gay marriage. I think they are also seen as the anti religion party....especially the Christian faith. Add to that my strong dislike for big government, hence my disdain for Republicans a well, and the uber love of higher taxes for funding wasteful pork and government programs that either have out lived there usefulness or were never useful to begin with and the incessant race card and class warfare tactics and the Democratic Party has no appeal to me and most religious people and other conservative types. No offense to Democrats, if that's how your wired...... but many of us right wingers struggle to get past these issues.

Again, just because I don't agree with everything the Republican party says, doesn't mean I'm anti-religion, or that I have an "uber" love of higer taxes... or, in general, that I'm a Democrat. I personally cannot relate to either party.

[bytor2112]

Again, just because I don't agree with everything the Republican party says, doesn't mean I'm anti-religion, or that I have an "uber" love of higer taxes... or, in general, that I'm a Democrat. I personally cannot relate to either party.

Reply With Quote

LW, the comment was intended for the general audience.........not an attack on you or anyone else for that matter.....you sound offended. I surely wasn't aiming for that.

[LittleWyvern]

LW, the comment was intended for the general audience.........not an attack on you or anyone else for that matter.....you sound offended. I surely wasn't aiming for that.

Sorry, the subject aimed at me has been a common topic in this thread.

[bytor2112]

Well... the New Deal boosted GDP, massively reduced unemployment, leveled off the national debt (well, it was level until WWII hit)... can you argue this, or is this something from WND too? Maybe this would go better in its own thread.

Not sure what WND is....... Is CATO suitable for you?

How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People

by Jim Powell

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).

Added to cato.org on December 29, 2003

This article appeared on cato.org on December 29, 2003.

Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today.

Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities.

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).

More by Jim Powell

New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.

The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.

Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.

What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.

For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.

Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).

Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation.

FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.

[LittleWyvern]

I'd rather not have a copy/paste war with you. Can we just agree to disagree here?

[bytor2112]

I'd rather not have a copy/paste war with you. Can we just agree to disagree here?

Sure.

[rameumptom]

When the brethren are speaking in General Conference, they are speaking as Prophets, Seers and Revelators, because words spoken there are official church doctrine... but your argument can be had in examples like media interviews, or books that are not official publications of the church, and so forth... but not General Conference.

This is true today, but has not always been so. There was a time, pre-1980s, when the Brethren often speculated and spoke on many diverse issues. Brigham Young once spoke in Gen Conference all morning long. After lunch, he returned and said, "this morning you got to hear the words of Brigham Young on this topic, this afternoon you get to hear the voice of the Lord on the same subject."

So, just because it is found in Gen Conf, does not make it doctrine.

Since the mid 1980s, the Church has refocused the teachings of the Brethren to Pres Packer's consistent message of "teach the doctrine." You'll note that no one speaks about political issues anymore, for instance. Why? Because they are teaching the necessary things for our salvation - the doctrine.

[rameumptom]

While there are prophecies of the last days given (White Horse prophecy), for instance, we need to be careful as they weren't always recorded accurately. Several General Authorities have warned us about such prophecies before.

I believe America will experience what the Nephites did in early 3 Nephi. Two major events occurred prior to the Coming of the Lord in Glory to them. First, they were surrounded and almost overpowered by terrorist groups/nations (Gadianton Robbers). Only by becoming united did they escape that destruction.

Second, their government fractured into several large tribes. I foresee these things happening to America. Such fracturing will create chaos, and in the chaos I imagine many cities will collapse into mobocracy and violence. At such a time, the Saints will have to gather together into their own "tribes" or stakes for protection, and those who dwell among the wicked who will not lift up their swords to fight "must needs flee to Zion for safety" (D&C 45).

Great upheavals from war and nature will occur. Only those who totally turn to Christ and seek to establish Zion with all their hearts will have any protection whatsoever.

[Moksha]

FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened.

The Republicans of that time branded FDR as a traitor to his class. So, is what you are saying some type of Alternate World History? (Hey, did you see the Action Comics issue where Super-Bizarro made a square Earth with his imperfect copy raygun?)