Liberals in the Church


JojoBag
 Share

Recommended Posts

Entitlement programs in the USA - a short historical summary:

 

In the year 1960 the most complete census ever in all of history was taken in the USA.  One discovery from that census by progressive liberals was that a transfer of 2% of the gross national product in the USA would eliminate poverty.  The conservatives did not have a good argument for ending poverty so with a Democratic President and control of congress the Democrats  launched a brave new experiment in economics called "The Great Society" - this title was later changed to "The War on Poverty" and by the mid 1960's legislation was passed that was intended to redistribute 2% of the gross national product to the poor to end poverty forever.

 

But it did not quite work out.  The argument presented by the progressive liberals is that the rich still had too much and the poor too little.  The solution was to increase taxes (primarily on the rich) and expend programs for the poor increasing the 2% redistribution.

 

Over the more than 50 years of economic experimentation - the progressive liberals have continued to increase taxes as well as broader programs for the poor.  What has been the result of this economic experiment to end poverty?

 

#1. The current redistribution of wealth had been increased 6 fold (600%!!!!!) - Six times what was initially argued as the max needed (not the minimum) to completely end poverty in the USA.

 

#2.  There has been no decrease in poverty - in over 50 years there is no measurable decline in poverty - In fact it can be argued that poverty is worse today than it was in 1960.

 

#3.  The middle class has been devastated.  The disposable income reported for the middle class in the 1960 census has decreased by almost 90%.  The middle class is being phased out of existence and being forced into near poverty levels.  The largest single cost of living increase to the middle class has been health care costs.  Health costs were so low in 1960 that fewer than 40% of the middle class had or thought health care insurance as a necessary cost.  over 95% of the middle class that had health care insurance - it was only provided as a benefit through through their employer.  On average a family of 4 paid less in health care than what is paid out as co-pay or deductibles today.   This is not in dollars but percent of a families income.  We can go deeper into this abyss if we calculate the health care costs compared to the gross national product.

 

#4.  The gap between the middle class and the wealthy class has increased.  In short the rich are getting a lot richer and the middle class is stuck - forcing the lower middle class into poverty.   I find it interesting that progressive liberals are even arguing that the minimum wage needs to be increased because it is the wages of poverty and that a person starting out in semi skilled labor force has been so devastated by stagnant economy that they are forever stuck in poverty - despite the fact that they are working as much as 80 hour weeks.

 

 

So my question to those that support any of the programs to help the poor over the last half century - how bad do these programs have to fail the poor and devastate the middle class before you will admit that the economic experiment is a failure?  The so called liberals are only making matters worse - and their only excuse (which is valid BTW) is that the conservatives really do not care that much about the poor.  It is true that for the most part conservatives do not care at all for the poor - but the programs of the progressive liberals are such a failure that the poor are just as well off or perhaps even better off with conservatives that do not give a crap about them - and it appears that the middle class is too stupid to realize that their standard of living is rapidly disappearing into a liberal economic experimental abyss.  As bad as all the programs are - no one has the intelligence to say - it is time to end all (let alone even one) of the programs that do not work and are a complete failure! 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we are Libertarian.  I'll have to learn more about that.

On this matter, I would vote that you are libertarian. Many other libertarians would say no.

Libertarians adhere to the "non-initiation of force" principle: no one (including government) has the right to initiate force against anyone else. He may protect himself, he may retaliate, but he may not start the fight.

Aside from that, there is no central philosophy that defines libertarianism.

If you believe it, that's you.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this matter, I would vote that you are libertarian. Many other libertarians would say no.

Libertarians adhere to the "non-initiation of force" principle: no one (including government) has the right to initiate force against anyone else. He may protect himself, he may retaliate, but he may not start the fight.

Aside from that, there is no central philosophy that defines libertarianism.

If you believe it, that's you.

Lehi

 

 

Quick question... For Libertarians how do the handle the issue of broken contracts or agreements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Quick question... For Libertarians how do the handle the issue of broken contracts or agreements?

That's the big thing. Speaking just for myself, that's why we have courts. To enforce contracts. 

in my dream world, that's strictly what government would do. Enforce contracts, level a small land tax for police/judges/etc, and that's it. I admit it's a dream. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are basically two schools of thought on what a libertarian is.

 

1) Non-initiation of force.--You have a right to do whatever you want as long as you do not initiate force against anyone else.

 

2) Natural Rights.--Apply the golden rule to the rights that a child knows he has.  

       He knows someone else should not harm him physically.

       He knows someone else should not take or otherwise molest his property.

       He knows someone else should not inhibit him from doing as he pleases.

       He must learn that if he doesn't like someone messing with him, he has no right to mess with anyone else.

 

Either of these philosophies then must have contracts (common societal understandings and/or governmental laws or actual contracts express or implied) to determine how people are to interact.

 

Laws must be written to protect rights from being violated.

Laws must be written to punish one party who has violated another's natural rights.

Laws cannot be such that it violates one person's rights over the other -- only punishment pursuant to due process.

 

The problem with truly having such a society is that in order to accomplish this with fallible humans is that a government must be formed to enforce such laws.  And to form a government, you have to collect taxes.  Since taxes 99% of the time have to be mandatory, the very institution of government runs counter to the principles of libertarianism.  And other problems arise for implementing a purist idea of libertarian government.

 

Thus I call myself a Constitutional Libertarian.  This allows a small amount of flexibility in allowing for the smallest amount of violation of these rights that would be necessary for a functioning government.  But it must be based on the general principles outlined in the US Constitution.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question... For Libertarians how do the handle the issue of broken contracts or agreements?

There are two general answers to this.

1) Government exists to protect rights. When a contract is breached, the injured party would apply to government to enforce the terms of the agreement.

The folks are government minimalists.

2) The injured party should hire a private enforcing and arbitration agency. Loser pays for the breach (if it existed) and the entire cost of enforcement.

These are anarchists.

There are a myriad of other options, but they fall into one or the other of these classes, or somewhere in between.

Lehi

P.S: "Libertarian" is not the same as "libertarian". The upper-case "L" indicates membership in the Libertarian Party. Lower-case "L" indicates a political/economic philosophy. The two overlap, but they are not synonymous. LS

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A breech of contract is a violation of property rights. If I said I'd build a house for you if you paid me $1MM.  You pay me and I don't build it, it is the same as if I stole the $1MM.  Thus that is a violation of rights.

 

You'll find that all other rights that you can think of that can be breached or any crimes committed are essentially subsets of one of the three main categories: Life, Liberty, & Property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question to those that support any of the programs to help the poor over the last half century - how bad do these programs have to fail the poor and devastate the middle class before you will admit that the economic experiment is a failure?  The so called liberals are only making matters worse - and their only excuse (which is valid BTW) is that the conservatives really do not care that much about the poor.  It is true that for the most part conservatives do not care at all for the poor - but the programs of the progressive liberals are such a failure that the poor are just as well off or perhaps even better off with conservatives that do not give a crap about them - and it appears that the middle class is too stupid to realize that their standard of living is rapidly disappearing into a liberal economic experimental abyss.  As bad as all the programs are - no one has the intelligence to say - it is time to end all (let alone even one) of the programs that do not work and are a complete failure! 

 

 

Care to substantiate the part in bold?  My experience has been that conservatives care very much about the poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Care to substantiate the part in bold?  My experience has been that conservatives care very much about the poor.

Oh of course the right does. Oddly, when I work at soup kitchens I don't see atheists and hardcore leftists. 

Spot on my Jedi friend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh of course the right does. Oddly, when I work at soup kitchens I don't see atheists and hardcore leftists. 

 

And when my 1997 Saturn with a chunk missing out of the fender stranded me 60 miles from home at 10:30 at night, none of the three people who stopped to help (impressively, a retired mechanic, a brand new mechanic and a woman who is as much of a gearhead as I am...too bad she had a wedding ring on) had any pro-Obama stickers on their trucks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Awesome! (I assume you realize that I don't actually agree with myself in this and was being tongue in cheek...)

 Yup, I knew that. I think.

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh of course the right does. Oddly, when I work at soup kitchens I don't see atheists and hardcore leftists. 

Spot on my Jedi friend. 

 

Well, in Australia that's who you would see most of working at soup kitchens - the Lefties are the bleeding hearts, the ones who will get involved in causes for the underdog.  My son-in-law is an atheist and he wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone down and out - but that doesn't mean we can tar all atheists with the same brush. I know plenty of caring and compassionate atheists, particularly those who work in the science industry. If we don't like being negatively stereotyped and labeled, we should try and avoid doing it to others. even those 'Lefties'. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Well, in Australia that's who you would see most of working at soup kitchens - the Lefties are the bleeding hearts, the ones who will get involved in causes for the underdog.  My son-in-law is an atheist and he wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone down and out - but that doesn't mean we can tar all atheists with the same brush. I know plenty of caring and compassionate atheists, particularly those who work in the science industry. If we don't like being negatively stereotyped and labeled, we should try and avoid doing it to others. even those 'Lefties'. :rolleyes:

 It's not pejorative, it's descriptive. If you lean toward the left in your views, you are a leftie. If you lean towards the right, you are a righty. It's hardly an insult. I call myself a whacky little libertarian all the time. It's not stereotyping in the least. 

And study after study shows that conservatives tend to volunteer and give more to charity. That's also not pejorative. 

Yes, there are wonderful atheists and crummy believers.  

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to substantiate the part in bold?  My experience has been that conservatives care very much about the poor.

 

One of the great aspects of being LDS is access to revelation.  Also - one thing about the poor that stands out in history is that poverty will not solve itself.  There are a few historical examples of the way and means to end poverty but these examples are rare and the necessary details are somewhat hidden and not as obvious as some pretend.  The best example I am aware of from scripture is King Benjamin and the best era was for a couple of hundred years following the appearance of Christ among the Nephits.

 

There are a lot of pretenders when it come to caring about the poor.  Many like to volunteer at soup kitchens or get involved in fundraisers so that they can have the outward appearance that they are charitable and care about helping the poor.  But these are in essence smoke screens intended to create an appearance of caring and a feel good for doing something.  The reason I say smoke screen is because such efforts are so ineffective. 

 

I was raised in a home of a King Benjamin.  I know how to take care of and actually help the poor.  Sadly I am not the person that my father was.  I am not rebellious as was Laman and Lemual but I am not a King Benjamin.  I am selfish enough to keep myself out of poverty but I lack the charity spoken of in scripture as the pure love of Christ.  But I have walked enough in conservative circles as well as liberal circles to know that few are involved in the kind of charity that is the pure love of Christ (necessary for helping the poor) any more than I am.  From time to time I come close knowing specific circumstances of certain individuals suffering unnecessarily poverty that they do not deserve at all.  But in general - I have great difficulty getting past the impression that so many suffering financial difficulty are for lack of better description - fat, lazy and selfishly foolish.  And that any effort to awaken them to the possible of loving labor and contributing to their own good health and financial stability is interpreted as hateful at worse or not caring at best.

 

My problem is when help is offered (which is learning how to fish rather than being handed a cooked and prepared fish to eat) and treated in return with a response of disdain and scorn for such help - I am of the nature - that they and everybody else would be better off if they starved.  And that I know is not the charity that is the pure love of Christ.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when my 1997 Saturn with a chunk missing out of the fender stranded me 60 miles from home at 10:30 at night, none of the three people who stopped to help (impressively, a retired mechanic, a brand new mechanic and a woman who is as much of a gearhead as I am...too bad she had a wedding ring on) had any pro-Obama stickers on their trucks.

Is this how you regularly look for dates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this how you regularly look for dates?

 

Not intentionally.

 

Speaking of rings, I guess that's what I'm going to be doing with my next bonus.

 

No, not the fun kind.  The oil control ring in the number 4 cylinder seems to be shot.  At 306k miles, I'm probably due for the valve cover, intake and head gaskets to be changed out anyway, so I'll be most of the way to the rings already.  Definitely need to swap the motor mounts while I have the motor somewhat lightened anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share