Mormon vs Trump

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

I think you're right to say we need to do something better for those who can't afford to pay for health care. But Obamacare is not the answer. From it's inception, my own monthly medical premium went up from $200 to $500.  And I know many low-income and middle-class families who got hit even harder than that.

I fully agree with you that obama care is not the answer.  My premium also went up.  On this we certainly agree.  I had high hopes the Republicans would actually get off their full of hot air butts and do something about the situation.  They didn't.  My health care costs are higher than ever and the current Republican party sucks and deserved to lose the house.  That said, I am not happy the Democrats have it either.  

[JohnsonJones]

Ah, forget it.

I think by posting or trying to educate here it would just succeed in poking people rather than educating.  It's not worth it.  Causes more contention than helps.  Editing away most of my post...

For another understanding of Christian Communism or Communal living as practiced in the Early LDS church I did find a link that may be acceptable to some here...

https://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/theunitedordermovement.html

@Godless is right in that many see early Mormons as practicing socialism.  The reason I lean more towards communism are the ideas behind them...

The reason I lean more towards the early Saints practicing Communism rather than Socialism relies on how we see each working...from

Difference between Communism and Socialism

Quote

In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need. Nothing is obtained by working more than what is required.

While Socialism is

Quote

Like communism, socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production. Workers receive what they need to produce and survive, but there’s no incentive to achieve more, leaving little motivation.

Under Communism everything is controlled (or all the communal property) by one entity.  In religious communism it is normally a religious leader or religious council that delegates property to people.  In socialism it can be any number of things.

I see that in the Early Mormon church they members had all property as the Lords and was distributed among them as per need by the Church.  The property itself was communal and no one really owned it except the church (example of the commune in this case, or community). 

[I should add] In support of @Godless statement though, during the time of Joseph Smith and later in the 19th century many of the ideas of socialism were taking root and gaining support.  In this view, some would see Joseph Smith having latched onto some of these ideas into integration of the Law of Consecration (from a secular point of view, of course) and it's management via the United Order.  In this, there would be seen a closer relationship between the rising socialism movements of the 19th century and the programs instituted by Joseph Smith and later practiced in part under Brigham Young.

Today, the US and UK are probably Socialist type societies, or at minimum have many Socialistic tendencies.  In some ways you could view the USSR, China, and others today as being more Socialist governments (far more extreme than the US or UK) than communist, depending on who you talk to (definitely not the Chinese) and your perspective.

[adding] In fact the USSR blatantly stated they were not yet a communist government in the early 60s, but instead a dictatorship under the proletariat on the first stage to developing into a Communist nation eventually (something that never happened).  I would attribute it to the idea that for a true communist nation to exist it relies on the virtue of individuals of the community to act in a virtuous manner (more likely with a religious group) rather than the greed that drives society in reality.

On the otherhand Capitalism relies on the greed of individuals as a reason why it can thrive, as people will work to better their OWN individuals.  Virtue relies on them wanting to help others more than self, while greed relies on them seeking their own personal gain.  Hence, why we have seen far more success in relation to Capitalism with the natural man than anything dealing with communal property or community owned and run property in the 20th and 21st century.  Even China has a more capitalistic economic system today than communistic or socialistic.

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[mirkwood]

You can call the sky  pink all you want, that doesn't make it so.  

Edited November 29, 2018 by mirkwood

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, Godless said:

How much traffic did your websites have on opening day? How many government agencies did your websites communicate with? How secure were your websites and their interactions with external websites? 

I'm not saying $2.1B isn't a lot of money. It definitely is (and as far as I can tell, it's an accurate figure, to be fair). But the server space and level of encryption needed to maintain healthcare.gov ain't cheap. Neither is the payroll for the army of programmers you need to build and maintain such a thing.

I work for an international company.  Our websites are international with a B2B audience.  It is part of a Web Project to FORECAST site traffic and size accordingly.  For a website with a specific audience not to have prepared for the traffic... AMATEURS.

And... you don't design any transaction-based websites - especially international ones with proprietary technology -  without security.

Secure server space is not millions, let alone billions.  Healthcare.gov is a standard-sized site.  Eve Online is a GINORMOUS site.  Eve Online would not cost anywhere close to $2 billion.

Edited November 29, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Really?  you want me to believe your statement above?  Not happening.  While I'll agree that the website had issues and probably cost more than it should, I don't believe for a minute that you could have done the obamacare website all by your little lonesome.  And just because something is not as "data complex" doesn't mean that it was expensive to create.

And nor do I believe for a second that the government spent $2.1 billion on coding the website.  Perhaps you could dig a little and see where that $2.1 billion went.  I personally think Obama care is awful.  But at least I have some understanding of why the website cost $2.1 billion....  It wasn't for the computer programmers.  There was a lot more that went into it than that and there isn't a chance on this planet that you could have done the obama care website by yourself even if you had a lifetime to do it.

You think I build websites by my lonesome.  How cute.

I happen to work for an international corporation.  And no, we're not in the gaming industry.  I wish I work for one but, alas, I work for a more stiff-shirt data management endeavor.

And see... that's why you think government is very efficient.  You think spending $2.1 billion on a government transactional website is reasonable.  And that's why I can never trust you with my tax money.

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think by posting or trying to educate here 

I've used these words too, but a friend told me It could be condescending when someone says something says it. In fairness, they were right-saying you are going to "educate" someone does sound obnoxious. Who are you (generic!) to educate anyone, and what makes you think you are right? 

It's like walking into a room and saying "I'm smarter than everyone here." Well, you might be, but congratulations-you've made everyone immediately dislike you.  

And like I I've said, I've done it to. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

It's like walking into a room and saying "I'm smarter than everyone here." Well, you might be, but congratulations-you've made everyone immediately dislike you. 

Yup.  I've been on both ends of that.  And yeah.  There's backlash.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Yup.  I've been on both ends of that.  And yeah.  There's backlash.

Generally speaking the one who thinks they are the smartest person in the room is lying. To themselves. 

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Generally speaking the one who thinks they are the smartest person in the room is lying. To themselves. 

Yeah.  I wish that were true of myself.  (Kidding).

[Guest MormonGator]

The other interesting point-if you really are smarter/more skilled in a area than everyone else, you don't feel the need to say it. You simply accept it. When I meet a surgeon, he or she never says "Guess what, I'm a better surgeon than you." They don't have to. When I meet a musician, they don't say "I can play bass better than you can." They don't have to either. By saying "I'm smarter/more educated than you" it reeks of insecurity/fragility/stupidity. 

And again, I've done it too, especially as a younger person. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The other interesting point-if you really are smarter/more skilled in a area than everyone else, you don't feel the need to say it. You simply accept it. When I meet a surgeon, he or she never says "Guess what, I'm a better surgeon than you." They don't have to. When I meet a musician, they don't say "I can play bass better than you can." They don't have to either. By saying "I'm smarter/more educated than you" it reeks of insecurity/fragility/stupidity.

I'm reminded of a TV show where a goofy guy was trying to one up his friend's boss, trying to find SOMEthing that he was better at.  Everything he tried was just a disaster.

Finally the two men made peace, but he still decided that "I know at least one thing that I'm better at than you. -- Tap dancing."

Now, the boss was played by actor/performer Gregory Hines, who, as we all know, is a world class dancer whose signature style is tap.

The goofball showed his tap dance routine which was decent.  And for as goofy as this guy was, it was pretty good for him.

Hines just said,"Wow.  That was great.  I sure can't match that."  They shook hands and the goofball went away.

Then the friend who had witnessed all this gave a look to Hines who asked,"What?"

"Are you kidding me?  ... 5, 6, 7, 8."

Hines then broke out into a tap routine to wow the audience.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm reminded of a TV show where a goofy guy was trying to one up his friend's boss, trying to find SOMEthing that he was better at.  Everything he tried was just a disaster.

Finally the two men made peace, but he still decided that "I know at least one thing that I'm better at than you. -- Tap dancing."

Now, the boss was played by actor/performer Gregory Hines, who, as we all know, is a world class dancer whose signature style is tap.

The goofball showed his tap dance routine which was decent.  And for as goofy as this guy was, it was pretty good for him.

Hines just said,"Wow.  That was great.  I sure can't match that."  They shook hands and the goofball went away.

Then the friend who had witnessed all this gave a look to Hines who asked,"What?"

"Are you kidding me?  ... 5, 6, 7, 8."

Hines then broke out into a tap routine to wow the audience.

That's awesome. 

[Vort]

16 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I don't own a bump stock.  They are stupid accessories.

Plus you don't need them. Forward pressure with the supporting hand and a stiff trigger finger can accomplish the same thing.

[Vort]

14 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

full of hot air butts

Not an image I care to start the day with.

[Vort]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think by posting or trying to educate here it would just succeed in poking people rather than educating.

Does it occur to you that, just maybe, YOU'RE the one in need of education? That maybe the wisdom you're so generously ladling out isn't the nectar of pure truth you think it is?

[Lost Boy]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You think I build websites by my lonesome.  How cute.

I happen to work for an international corporation.  And no, we're not in the gaming industry.  I wish I work for one but, alas, I work for a more stiff-shirt data management endeavor.

And see... that's why you think government is very efficient.  You think spending $2.1 billion on a government transactional website is reasonable.  And that's why I can never trust you with my tax money.

 

The way you put it, you claimed to be able to do it yourself.

And again the government didn't spend 2.1 billion on the website itself.  I couldn't care less about obamacare.  it sucks.  but at least I am willing to dig into what is being spent on what and not just taking numbers off of some right wing website.

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

The way you put it, you claimed to be able to do it yourself.

And again the government didn't spend 2.1 billion on the website itself.  I couldn't care less about obamacare.  it sucks.  but at least I am willing to dig into what is being spent on what and not just taking numbers off of some right wing website.

The government spent $2.1 billion ON THE WEBSITE.  You got google.  You can look it up yourself.

And I will forgive you your silly understanding that complex transactional websites are built by individual developers with firmware falling from trees as it is my impression that you don't know much about building websites.

But the fact still remains.  You are in no position to decide what to do with my tax money.

Edited November 29, 2018 by anatess2

[Lost Boy]

29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The government spent $2.1 billion ON THE WEBSITE.  You got google.  You can look it up yourself.

And I will forgive you your silly understanding that complex transactional websites are built by individual developers with firmware falling from trees as it is my impression that you don't know much about building websites.

But the fact still remains.  You are in no position to decide what to do with my tax money.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwikyJGkofreAhXJyVMKHeTGDhgQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fcorner%2Fhow-much-did-healthcaregov-really-cost-more-administration-tells-us-veronique-de-rugy%2F&psig=AOvVaw25rA1UOKSgCtq1D33bWJaY&ust=1543603501132862&cshid=1543517100798

Yeah, the government didn't pay 2.1 billion for programming the website. 

And I never said I was in a position to decide where your tax money goes. Why you brought that up is beyond me. Do you have a habit of putting words in other people's mouths? 

And it was you that made it sound that you could do Healthcare. Gov by yourself.  I know quite well what goes into websites and that is why I called you out on your boasting. 

[anatess2]

41 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwikyJGkofreAhXJyVMKHeTGDhgQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fcorner%2Fhow-much-did-healthcaregov-really-cost-more-administration-tells-us-veronique-de-rugy%2F&psig=AOvVaw25rA1UOKSgCtq1D33bWJaY&ust=1543603501132862&cshid=1543517100798

Yeah, the government didn't pay 2.1 billion for programming the website. 

And I never said I was in a position to decide where your tax money goes. Why you brought that up is beyond me. Do you have a habit of putting words in other people's mouths? 

And it was you that made it sound that you could do Healthcare. Gov by yourself.  I know quite well what goes into websites and that is why I called you out on your boasting. 

FACT:  ONE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE COST AMERICAN TAXPAYERS $2.1 BILLION.

Find anywhere in my posts where I said anything about "programming a website" or "programming by myself".  You are the one putting words in my mouth.

And yes, you did not say you are in a position to decide where tax money goes... Except you want a government voted by you to decide where tax money goes who has the stupidity to spend $2.1 billion on a website that did not function on launch day and you're defending the expenditure.

Edited November 29, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

40 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwikyJGkofreAhXJyVMKHeTGDhgQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fcorner%2Fhow-much-did-healthcaregov-really-cost-more-administration-tells-us-veronique-de-rugy%2F&psig=AOvVaw25rA1UOKSgCtq1D33bWJaY&ust=1543603501132862&cshid=1543517100798

Yeah, the government didn't pay 2.1 billion for programming the website. 

LB, did you read your own link? What more damning evidence do you need? anatess said nothing about "programming the website". Putting up a website has other (ostensible) expenses beyond paying someone to produce the HTML.

41 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Do you have a habit of putting words in other people's mouths? 

...ironic...

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

LB, did you read your own link? What more damning evidence do you need? anatess said nothing about "programming the website". Putting up a website has other (ostensible) expenses beyond paying someone to produce the HTML.

I'll give him a pass.  @Lost Boy doesn't know me.  So, I don't blame him if he thinks my company is comprised of just me "producing the HTML".  But, I don't give him a pass for thinking $2.1 billion to BUILD a website is defensible.

Edited November 29, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

Want even more government inefficiency that cost billions?

I'll give you a list.

1.)  2003 Federal Government Financial Report shows $25 BILLION worth of unreconciled transactions.  This is money that got spent that the auditors couldn't figure out what for, where it went, or who signed the check.

2.) And what about our good old Medicare program... in 2000, Medicare spent $1.9 BILLION more for pharma drugs than what it would have cost for the same drugs if purchased by the VA.

3.)  But that's nothing compared to Medicare's yearly $12.3 BILLION ticket that goes to deliberate fraudulent administrative errors and contract fraud that went to somebody's pocket.

And that's just a sampling...

 

[Lost Boy]

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, you are wrong here.

The government spent $2.1 BILLION just to build ONE WEBSITE for Obamacare.  ONE WEBSITE.  Do you know how many websites I've built that are more data and functionally complex than Obamacare?  Hundreds.  Do you know how many of those had a Project Cost that exceed $1 Million?  ZILCH.  NADA.  Yet you have a government that can spend way more than 200 times the amount on a website that... FAILED ON OPENING DAY.

 

So here you are saying that you..  not your company.... you...  have built websites far more complex than healthcare.org....   Not only that, you have built hundreds of them that are more complex than healthcare.org.  Not your company...  you.

And this is what I am calling you out on.  Total rubbish.  It took a team of programs two year to program and test it.  I don't believe for a second that you could do it by yourself.  And you said you have done hundreds.   So I figure you have probably been doing this for 15-20 years...  200 project / 20 years...  means 10 per year...  means you are claiming it would take you a little over a month to build healthcare.org, have it all tested and working...  connecting up to all the government agencies, insurance companies etc.  Provide all the training.  And do it all for less than a million dollars.

And then you basically call me a liar when I call you out on it..  Whatever..   At least what you wrote is out there for all to see.

[Lost Boy]

59 minutes ago, Vort said:

LB, did you read your own link? What more damning evidence do you need? anatess said nothing about "programming the website". Putting up a website has other (ostensible) expenses beyond paying someone to produce the HTML.

...ironic...

She said it cost 2.1 billion to make it and she could have done it for less than a million by herself.  I know the 2.1 billion was for much more than programming.  But she said she could have done it for less than a million.    But whatever.  

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

She said it cost 2.1 billion to make it and she could have done it for less than a million by herself.  I know the 2.1 billion was for much more than programming.  But she said she could have done it for less than a million.    But whatever.  

Do you think she meant she would have done it all herself? When Werner Von Braun claimed he could get the US to Mars by the mid-1970s, do you think he meant that he was going to build the rockets himself, with his own hands?

I understood Anatess to say that if you had handed her a million dollars, she could have had the site built and reliable and still made a healthy profit. Hyperbole? Probably not. But even if it were hyperbole, her point stands. Two billion dollars for a web site consisting pretty much of your vanilla front end UI and business logic that references an abstracted database set, is built every day all over the world. Even adding in security hardening requirements, this is not anything approaching a two billion dollar job.

LB, are you seriously trying to argue that the Obamacare web site was not a vast boondoggle that shamelessly overspent its need by a hundred times if not a thousand?