Sign in to follow this  
Vort

Joe Biden bravely and openly proclaims his own damnation.

Recommended Posts

You have to admire a guy who's willing to tell it like it is, even when it's exceedingly and eternally bad news for himself.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democracy-2020-digest-bernie-panic-spreads-inside-the-party

Hours earlier, on a Wednesday night conference call with supporters and donors, a fired-up Biden said: “I'll be damned if we're gonna lose this nomination, particularly if we're gonna lose this nomination and end up losing an election to Donald Trump.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden is Jeb Bush 2.0 A relic from another time that has long passed. I feel sorry for him. 

Cool story- the bishop in my former ward up north was a  Congressmen from NH. His Facebook is flooded with pictures of him and Biden, whom he recently endorsed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.  Colorado law allows unaffiliated voters (such as myself) to vote in either the Dem or Rep caucuses.  Imma vote for Bernie.  That way, America will have one of the most real choices for president in my life - a clear cut case between capitalism and socialism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think Bernie Sanders may be able to win against Donald Trump.  I feel he has more of an active support overall than Clinton did in the previous election.

If anything, Donald Trump being selected as the nominee and then winning the election shows that extremes on a side CAN win the election if enough people want change.  Donald Trump was not the middle of the road choice...but he WAS the general party's choice (as in the individuals of the party choose him rather than super delegates or the elite of the party).

If they try to do a Hillary again, they'll lose the vital support of the party itself (which I feel was a primary downfall of Clinton, they disenfranchised a LOT of their party base by having the elites choose and be biased for her rather than what the party itself was wanting) and I think that WILL lose them the election.

I think Biden probably would do better in the election than Sanders...BUT ONLY if chosen by the party.  Without the party base to support him, he may find winning is harder than Clinton found it (and she lost by not winning enough electoral votes, even if she had a slight edge with the popular vote...Biden might not even with the popular vote if he abandons the party desires or is not what the party wants, even if the elite want him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I actually think Bernie Sanders may be able to win against Donald Trump.  I feel he has more of an active support overall than Clinton did in the previous election.

That's the risk I'm taking, but I figure he does not. I have hope that a Trump vs. Sanders race would have people voting out of a winning economy first, and a growing awareness of the evils of socialism second.  

I'm more worried about Buttigeg.  For people who want a return to sanity, a quick visit to his wikipedia page almost sold me.  Plus, a Trump vs. Buttigeg race would have a ton of low-information useful-idiot 20-30-somethings both pushed away from Trump's odious meanness, and pulled towards the woke ability to vote for a gay guy.  Scary stuff.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I actually think Bernie Sanders may be able to win against Donald Trump. 

I don't think he would.   He's too far left to appeal to the moderates and independents.   

The problem is that a moderate won't be chosen by the party and Bernie doesn't really appeal that much to the moderates and independents.

I don't like Trump, but I think he's going to win.   The democrats really aren't offering much in the way of candidates; certainly no one I am excited about.  

Even if Bernie did get elected (and the chances of that are extremely slim in my opinion), it will be unlikely that he would be able to get his proposals through.

There are really only two types of people who will get excited about voting for Bernie.  Those would be the far left and those who really aren't voting for Bernie because they believe in his policies, but only will vote for him because he isn't Trump.   That just isn't enough to get elected.

Bennet is the only one I can see that could appeal to the general public, other the voters mentioned above, but I doubt that he would be the one selected as the Democratic candidate.  Plus he's a really unknown as far as the nation goes.    Obama was too, but in the first election at least, Obama mostly won because people were voting against Bush's former policies, rather than for Obama.   This time around though, it won't be enough to tip the election.

As least that's my prediction and take.

As for me, if I'd like to see someone similar Mark Udall run as the Democratic candidate.   He is one of the few politicans that I do have respect for.   I guess that is a moot point though since he isn't running.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Plus, a Trump vs. Buttigeg race would have a ton of low-information useful-idiot 20-30-somethings both pushed away from Trump's odious meanness, and pulled towards the woke ability to vote for a gay guy.  Scary stuff.

A nearly perfect encapsulation of my own feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Joe Biden, I figure the Dems will consider him Hillary part 2, and not take the risk.  Another rich old white guy who thinks he's better than everyone else?  Doesn't sound like something the Dems want. 

Besides, the impeachment hurt someone politically, and it wasn't Trump. 

image.thumb.png.f543362f7ecbaead22958fb91da3f85d.png

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't think he would.   He's too far left to appeal to the moderates and independents.   

The problem is that a moderate won't be chosen by the party and Bernie doesn't really appeal that much to the moderates and independents.

I don't like Trump, but I think he's going to win.   The democrats really aren't offering much in the way of candidates; certainly no one I am excited about.  

Even if Bernie did get elected (and the chances of that are extremely slim in my opinion), it will be unlikely that he would be able to get his proposals through.

There are really only two types of people who will get excited about voting for Bernie.  Those would be the far left and those who really aren't voting for Bernie because they believe in his policies, but only will vote for him because he isn't Trump.   That just isn't enough to get elected.

Bennet is the only one I can see that could appeal to the general public, other the voters mentioned above, but I doubt that he would be the one selected as the Democratic candidate.  Plus he's a really unknown as far as the nation goes.    Obama was too, but in the first election at least, Obama mostly won because people were voting against Bush's former policies, rather than for Obama.   This time around though, it won't be enough to tip the election.

As least that's my prediction and take.

As for me, if I'd like to see someone similar Mark Udall run as the Democratic candidate.   He is one of the few politicans that I do have respect for.   I guess that is a moot point though since he isn't running.

 

I think people underestimate Bernie Sanders and his ability to get others out there to vote for him.

He's not as far left as the media wants to paint (and both left and right ends of the media don't like him). 

He's about as socialist as your moderate European.  Now, I understand in the US there are many conservatives that feel Europeans are all socialists and communists (and yet, oddly enough, still our allies in our capitalistic society).  However, much the US feel similar to Europeans in growing numbers.  Though there are few of them my age or those even half my age, among the youth the numbers are growing.  The youthful generation normally do not show up in great numbers during the elections, but if Sanders energizes them, that could be a turning point.

If he does that, I see the election going his way.

On the otherhand, I agree that if he got elected, it is VERY unlikely that he would get most of his proposals through, even if the entirety of Congress was 100% democrat.

I think some of his ideas are hitting a nerve among those who are not as financially well off, or fearful of not being as financially well off (at my age, medical bills are a VERY big concern to me.  Democrats did not do me any favors with the ACA.  I used to have a platinum plan where ALL my medical expenses were covered.  Now, because of the ACA, that was no longer an option and I was forced to go to a "silver" plan which only covers 80% of my medical costs.  If I ever have a million dollar hospital bill...I'll still owe 200K!!  Ironically, as the costs have gone up with medical insurance, I am still paying the same amount for that Silver plan as I was for my platinum plan before the ACA).

Discussing ways to make the costs go down, if that can be successful is a BIG plus in my book.  I'd also like my grandkids to go get a university education, but where I used to think I'd be able to help cover most of their costs, it's getting to the point these days where I'm not so sure that will be able to be done even for 1 or 2 of them.

There are some things that ring very much with me (and others that do not, I'm absolutely against what appears to be the push for open borders) and I think appeal to others that some say are socialistic, but to me make sense as I don't like the idea of being bankrupt simply because we are so married to the idea that everything has to be capitalist (and even then, it's not really capitalistic anymore when we have corporations as big as they are, health insurance are local monopolies these days...and monopolistic corporations are not really capitalism as something else) without any other social graces to balance out corruption and greed in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think people underestimate Bernie Sanders and his ability to get others out there to vote for him.

 

Yup. I'd never vote for Sanders, not even at gunpoint, but the guy has a legit chance to win, and it scares me to death. Hopefully he'll be kept in check by the senate and the courts. If not, I'm buying a yacht and will spend my time bouncing from Caribbean island to Caribbean island. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Yup. I'd never vote for Sanders, not even at gunpoint, but the guy has a legit chance to win, and it scares me to death. Hopefully he'll be kept in check by the senate and the courts. If not, I'm buying a yacht and will spend my time bouncing from Caribbean island to Caribbean island. 

If you can afford a yacht, you’ll be one of the first people Bernie comes after.

(Unless your name is Greta.  But I digress . . .)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Yup. I'd never vote for Sanders, not even at gunpoint, but the guy has a legit chance to win, and it scares me to death. Hopefully he'll be kept in check by the senate and the courts. If not, I'm buying a yacht and will spend my time bouncing from Caribbean island to Caribbean island. 

A lot of people made promises/threats like that about Trump winning.  I hope you keep your word better than they did :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think people underestimate Bernie Sanders and his ability to get others out there to vote for him.

He's not as far left as the media wants to paint (and both left and right ends of the media don't like him). 

He's about as socialist as your moderate European. 

Even if that were true, just the fact that he calls himself a socialists will turn off a lot of voters that aren't far left.  

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Discussing ways to make the costs go down, if that can be successful is a BIG plus in my book.  I'd also like my grandkids to go get a university education, but where I used to think I'd be able to help cover most of their costs, it's getting to the point these days where I'm not so sure that will be able to be done even for 1 or 2 of them.

I think it's eventually going to come down to that (maybe not yet, but sometime down the road).  There is no reason for costs with either of those items to be as high as they are.  

Eventually healthcare cost are going to be the #1 concern among voters, or at least that's my prediction.  

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

(and even then, it's not really capitalistic anymore when we have corporations as big as they are, health insurance are local monopolies these days...and monopolistic corporations are not really capitalism as something else) without any other social graces to balance out corruption and greed in society.

I agree with you there.    The health insurance companies are just government sanctioned monopolies.   So are the coal and oil industries.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Discussing ways to make the costs go down, if that can be successful is a BIG plus in my book.  I'd also like my grandkids to go get a university education, but where I used to think I'd be able to help cover most of their costs, it's getting to the point these days where I'm not so sure that will be able to be done even for 1 or 2 of them.

There are some things that ring very much with me (and others that do not, I'm absolutely against what appears to be the push for open borders) and I think appeal to others that some say are socialistic, but to me make sense as I don't like the idea of being bankrupt simply because we are so married to the idea that everything has to be capitalist (and even then, it's not really capitalistic anymore when we have corporations as big as they are, health insurance are local monopolies these days...and monopolistic corporations are not really capitalism as something else) without any other social graces to balance out corruption and greed in society.

I wonder if it were 1939 that Bernie would have a greater chance with LDS voters?

I'm curious as to how many people here https://www.amazon.com/Priesthood-Church-welfare-quorums-Melchizedek/dp/B0008944XM

41dyjPyTo1L._SX315_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


The book was written under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Preface was written by Rudger Clawson, President of the Council of the Twelve.


I heard of this book from a facebook post below claimed to be from the book above:

But since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance and the profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result. . . . Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socializing of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon ability to pay . . . taking the bulk of their [captains of industry] profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually free medical aid and hospital service. . . . The average family may not have much more money, if any, to spend under such a system than now. But . . . then the meagre family income can be devoted entirely to the necessities of life, plus some of the comforts now enjoyed by the higher income classes. To finance all of this, of course, will necessitate huge sums of money And it will also require a carefully worked out tax system so that everyone will contribute according to his financial ability. Inheritance and estate taxes will become progressively higher, until the present system of permitting large fortunes to be passed on from generation to generation will become extinct. And incidentally, the so-called idle rich who have been living off the earnings of past generations will be no more."

So how does this fact check?   Is it just cherry picked and out of context?   I was curious in finding out.

Here it is in its entirety, word for word, without just providing the cherry picked parts .    This is long and wordy though, but interesting.   I added the underlining and coloring, just in case the rest of the post was too long for people to want to read.

Chapter 10
Distribution of Wealth and Income


“A noble income nobly expended, is no common sight. It is far more easy to acquire a fortune like a knave, than to spend it like a gentleman. If we exhaust our income in schemes of ambition, we shall purchase disappointment; if in law, vexation; if in luxury, disease. What we shall lend, we shall most probably lose; what we spend rationally, we shall enjoy; what we distribute to the deserving, we shall enjoy and retain.” –Colton.

Connection of Wealth and Income Inequalities. In Chapter 8, the inequalities of wealth and income among the people of the world, particularly in the United States, were briefly discussed. We found that the so-called capitalistic system as it works today in American and in most European country has been unusually efficient in the creation of wealth. It has encouraged a high degree of specialization, extreme division of labor, and has fostered private initiative.

But since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance, and profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result.
Since no solution to the problems arising out of such a situation were included in the discussion in Chapter 8, perhaps it might be well for us to consider next, how we might preserve the desirable features of this very efficient super-economic organization and yet bring about a more equitable distribution of the products of the system.

In other words, how can we reduce unemployment, eliminate extreme poverty among the lower classes, and secure greater economic welfare for the less fortunate members of society, without destroying the moral fibre of those who receive aid, or the individual initiative of those who create wealth?

Would it be advisable to divide the wealth among all the people, even if it were legally possible? Could the economic machinery continue to operate as effectively, divided up into so many units or even into so many ownerships? In the United States the amount of wealth per capita would be worth approximately $3,000.00 and much less in other countries.

Assuming that such a division of wealth would greatly impair the productive efficiency of our economic organization, then what alternatives are there that might improve the situation?

Progressive Taxation. Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socialization of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon the ability to pay. In other words, to let such captains of industry, and financial geniuses as the Mellons, the Morgans, the Fords and the Rockefellers, continue to produce wealth and provide employment in the future, much as they have in the past, but through a scientifically worked out tax system, taking the bulk of their profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually free medical aid and hospital service.

Such a program, introduced step by step, is in fact nothing less than a panorama of the social reforms that have taken place during the past hundred years and that are on the agenda for legislative consideration during the decades immediately ahead of us.

Diffusion of Benefits. It will be remembered that when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were practically no free schools, no state road systems and no community health clinics. The Mormon Church established the first school in Utah. They (the Mormons) provided secondary education for their young people through Church supported academies, until the tax-supported (free) high schools came into existence. Following the same policy, the L.D.S. Church established Brigham Young University and junior colleges in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona.

But, with few exceptions, the Church has withdrawn from the secular education field, as fast as the state and local governments have established tax-supported systems to take their place, as they logically should do.

Thus we see how the Mormon Church, through the wisdom and foresight of its leaders has led the way in this movement toward a greater diffusion of the benefits of our economic progress. They have set the pace for a greater realization of the Christian ideal of the brotherhood of men, through a wider distribution of economic and temporal things as well as in religious and spiritual blessings.

Steps Towards Brotherhood. The ultimate outcome of such a proposal may not differ greatly from the plan advocated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, where each person is assigned economic responsibility according to his respective ability, and where all surplus production is turned over to the Bishops to be used in providing for the economic, social and spiritual needs of the entire Church membership, including aid to the less fortunate members, be they young or old, able-bodied or crippled, leaders or lay members.

Under such an economic system the profit motive for private gain and personal aggrandizement will become less important, necessitating other incentives for achievement and other measures of success. The opportunity for leadership and for service in the betterment of mankind may become more significant as the amassing of wealth becomes more difficult and more futile. Greater economic security will take precedence over exploitation, speculation, and “get rich quick” schemes generally.

The average family may not have much more money, if any, to spend under such a system than now. But if education can be provided free, regardless of the number of children; if police protection, health and sanitation inspection, recreational facilities and other social welfare services, can be had without cost, then the meagre family income can be devoted entirely to the necessities of life plus some of the comforts now enjoyed by the higher income classes, and perhaps even a few luxuries eventually—if the system is progressively extended.

For if hospitalization, medical and dental care, music and art education are added to the to the list of free services; and then if old age benefits, unemployment insurance and similar social reforms are also provided for those in need, out of the tax receipts, surely the average family income will be greatly augmented. True, the income may not appear in the weekly pay check, but the total goods and services available to the family in the form of education, medical care, and social security benefits, if paid for on a cost basis, would amount to a surprisingly large cash income.

To finance all of this, of course, will necessitate huge sums of money. If will require an extremely efficient economic system to turn out all of the desired goods and services. And it will also require a carefully worked out tax system so that every one will contribute according to his financial ability. Inheritance and estate taxes will become progressively higher, until the present system of permitting large fortunes to be pass on from generation to generation will become extinct. And incidentally, the so-called idle rich who have been living on the earnings of past generations will become no more.

However, it will always be possible for anyone who is energetic and thrifty to accumulate a substantial competence to care for his own retirement period, without having to depend upon the Government old age program. But he would probably not be permitted to leave an inheritance worth millions of dollars for his children to quarrel over. The major part of his surplus would revert back to society when he died.

QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

1. How can we reduce the inequalities of wealth and income and still retain the qualities of individual initiative?
2. If we eliminate the profit motive will we destroy individual initiative?
3. What incentives do Church workers have to spur them on to maximum achievement?
4. Is it not wrong to take wealth away from people after they have struggled so hard to acquire it? What if the wealth is acquired through inheritance?
5. Is there a difference between confiscating wealth and taxing the income from the wealth as it is produced?


Chapter 13
The Role of Government


“We are more heavily taxed by our idleness, pride, and folly than we are taxed by the government.”—Franklin.

Government and Economic Welfare. Any plan for improving our economic security or social welfare must take into consideration the increasing role of government in human affairs. There was a time when governmental functions were very few and simple. They offered protection from enemies, looked after the legal affairs of state, and settled the major disputes among their constituents. But, today, there is scarcely a phase of our life with all of its complexities that government does not touch in one way or another. And the trend seems to be toward even more government; more regulation; more supervision; more operation.

Government, and Economic Burden or Expense? Some persons have peculiar notions about our Government, its activities, services and costs. They look upon the cost of government as a burden upon society. Taxes are considered evil and something to be avoided (or evaded) if possible.

In reality, the expense of government is no more of a burden than the cost of telephone, transportation, or postal service. For example, if a business concern should purchase a truck for delivery service, that would be a legitimate expense. But if the same business is asked to pay a gasoline tax to help construct and maintain a hard surface road over which the truck is to operate, that would probably be regarded as a burden, because it is a governmental function.

Likewise the typical taxpayer considers his payments for fire insurance an ordinary expense. But he “knows” that his payments in the form of taxes to keep a trained and well-equipped fire department to protect his home and property are not an expense, but a burden. Similarly, the cost of his summer cottage or his country club is not a burden, though the cost of public parks is a burden; the education of his daughter at a private musical conservatory is merely an expense, but payments through taxes for their education in public schools is a burden.

Demand for Increased Governmental Services. In spite of this inexplainable attitude toward taxes and government, people continue to press for more governmental services. The question is not one of expense, if we really want the service; it is merely a question of who can render the service best at the least cost. If the Government can build our roads, provide public parks and educate our children more effectively and efficiently than we could do it ourselves, then the people are justified in shifting such functions from private service to public or governmental service.

Some of the more recent fields of governmental intervention are along the lines of economic and social welfare. Considerable labor legislation, including minimum wage laws, compensation and insurance laws, eight-hour day laws, child labor laws, and laws requiring factory and mine sanitation have been enacted in recent years.

Public health is being promoted through clinics, hospitals, publicity, and medical supervision. Community recreation is provided through public parks and supervised play grounds. Pure food laws regulate what we eat and drink.

In many respects the government has become an agency of social reform. Censorship decrees the clothes we wear, the literature that we may read, and the theatrical entertainments we may see. Of course, not all of its policies are wisely formulated. But in general, the weight of government influence has been cast decidedly on the side of social betterment.

We must recognize, too, the manifold productive functions of government in our complex world. By preserving the rights of private property, by maintaining the freedom of contract, by defining and enforcing the terms of free competition, by extending the sphere of government ownership and operations where expediency demands, and by conserving the natural resources, the government exercises important economic functions that could not be performed so effectively by private agencies.

Apportioning the Cost of Government—Taxation. But of course, all of these added functions of government cost money, and they must be paid for by the people in the form of taxation. The big problem, therefore, is to apportion this governmental burden as fairly and as equitably as is humanly possible among the beneficiaries who have the ability to pay.

Thus taxation has come to be an important element in every family budget; in every business venture. And as governmental functions expand, governmental expenses will increase. To pay for these added services will require a larger and larger share of the family’s income to be turned over to the government in the form of taxes, of one kind or another.

Originally the general property tax, with a very moderate levy, provided all the revenue required for the simple functions of government. At that time, most people lived on farms, and their ability to support the government could be measured fairly well by the amount of property a man owned. For example, if one man owned 100 acres, he might be assessed $10 per year as his share of the governmental expense; whereas, his neighbor, with 200 acres, would be asked to pay $20 for governmental services.

The amounts were small, and the measure of taxable ability seemed fair enough then, but as more and more people moved into cities and earned their living from wages, fees, and commissions, or from interest, rents and dividends, then the amount of tangible property owned was no longer an accurate measure of ability to support government.

Consequently, new forms of taxation had to be devised to supplement the general property tax, and to bring in the additional revenue requires from year to year to meet the expanding needs of government. Thus we now have the income tax, the sales tax, the tobacco tax, the beer tax, the gasoline tax, the excess profits tax, the gift tax, the inheritance tax, and many others. They are so many and varied that no matter what one’s occupation is, in what form his wealth exists or in what state he lives, or dies, he must contribute his share to the government treasury—according to his financial ability, as measured by these varied and numerous pipe lines into his income and expenditures.

To be sure, our present tax system has many defects. Assessment practices are far from perfect. Some governmental agencies are woefully inefficient. As a result, many persons and businesses become proficient at shifting the tax on to some one else, or in evading it entirely. Students of taxation, legislators, and tax officials are constantly studying the problems and constantly modifying the laws and methods of assessment and collection.

Some taxes are too expensive to collect for the revenue they yield. Some tax the poor proportionately too much. Others hit the home owner, the wage-earner or the farmer too hard. Still others tend to retard business enterprise unduly, and thus reduce economic output.

But if we want governmental services, they must be paid for; and in a capitalistic system, where individual initiative and freedom of enterprise is preserved, taxation in one form or another is the only way these expenses can be met. The only alternative is a socialistic system, where the government owns and operates all forms of productive wealth.

So if we want to preserve our present economic system, and still have the many governmental services it is trying to perform, we shall have to get used to taxation and plenty of it. Of course, we shall try to perfect these devious ways of collecting revenue for the government, but it must be collected one way or another.

Increased Governmental Services Mean Increased Taxation. However, we must also be conscious of the fact that each new governmental service will require additional funds, which means heavier taxation. Consequently, if we are getting concerned over the amount of our tax “burden”, we shall have to curtail our demands for increased governmental service. We simply cannot continue to add new forms of education, public health service, unemployment insurance, old age pensions and work relief projects, without taxation to pay the bills. If they are necessary, and if we can afford such services, if that is the wisest way to use our surplus income, then the new program is justified—and we should not complain at high taxes, if we are paying no more than our just share.

But if the tax load really is becoming a burden, perhaps we are becoming a little governmentally extravagant, just as any other luxury expenditure, beyond our financial ability, would be considered extravagant. The problem is for each citizen to ponder over, to study carefully, and to vote on intelligently when the opportunity presents itself.

QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

1. How does the governmental sphere of activity of one hundred years ago compare with the numerous services of today?
2. In what fields of activity has the Government expanded most?
3. How do the governments of European countries compare with ours in scope and effectiveness?
4. One writer maintains that our tax system is antiquated. What are its major defects?
5. What reforms in taxation would be desirable?
6. What difficulties arise in devising a more perfect tax system?
7. What principles should guide our efforts?
===============================================================================================================================
 
I know that the dramatized Church History from 1977 discusses some of the above (in a positive way).  Since then however, it seems that several Church leaders and members have gone the other way, but to me at least, it seems that slowly it might come back to full circle.  Anyway, I thought it was interesting and hope that you do too. 
Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scott:  the short answer to your question is “probably no”.  

A longer answer might engage with the manual’s discussion of necessity and affordability, and point out that the 2020 process of administering roads, schools, medical care, and retirement is both less efficient and staggeringly more expensive now than it was in 1939.  Moreover, the yardstick for what constitutes an “acceptable” level of service in each of those fields has changed substantially over time.  Many doctrinaire conservatives would be thrilled to pay *only* what it would take to have government maintain a system of primarily dirt roads with no interstates, one-room schoolhouses with no administration and with teaching aids limited to a chalkboard and a Bible and McGuffey’s Reader, medical care that only funds treatments and procedures and equipment that existed in 1939, and monthly retirement benefits of $22.34 in 1940 dollars (or about $420 now) beginning at a “retirement age” that just happens to also be the average life expectancy age for women (who as we all know, live longer than men.  Approve a “retirement system” that was intentionally designed so that fully one-half of American working men will pay into the fund but never get a dime from it?  Suuuure!!!).

But I don’t think modern Americans would be very happy with the limited services provided by such a scheme.  And it would be kind of dishonest for Berniecrats (or their apologists) to pretend that all they want is a regimen that a Church course hypothesized, as an intellectual exercise, some eighty years ago (and aspects of which, by the way, the Church’s highest leaders explicitly warned against before, during, and after the duration of that course).

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But I don’t think modern Americans would be very happy with the limited services provided by such a scheme.  And it would be kind of dishonest for Berniecrats (or their apologists) to pretend that all they want is a regimen that a Church course hypothesized, as an intellectual exercise, some eighty years ago (and aspects of which, by the way, the Church’s highest leaders explicitly warned against before, during, and after the duration of that course).

Do you have any sources as to warnings before and during the duration of the documents in question?   I am aware of ones after, but not before and during, thus I am curious.

Brigham Young seems to agree with a lot of the above.   I don't think I have read or heard anything Brigham Young said concerning capitalism that wasn't negative.   He seemed to have a very negative view of it and was one of his main topics of discussion in his sermons (and no I am not saying that Brigham was a communist-he was not, but he had an overall negative view of capitalism).  

It seems the big change towards attitudes happened in the 1960's and (especially) the 1970's, though there was another blip during the New Deal, though the it was only with a minority of Church leaders.

Which ones are you referring to that happened before 1939? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@Scott:  the short answer to your question is “probably no”.  

A longer answer might engage with the manual’s discussion of necessity and affordability, and point out that the 2020 process of administering roads, schools, medical care, and retirement is both less efficient and staggeringly more expensive now than it was in 1939.  Moreover, the yardstick for what constitutes an “acceptable” level of service in each of those fields has changed substantially over time.  Many doctrinaire conservatives would be thrilled to pay *only* what it would take to have government maintain a system of primarily dirt roads with no interstates, one-room schoolhouses with no administration and with teaching aids limited to a chalkboard and a Bible and McGuffey’s Reader, medical care that only funds treatments and procedures and equipment that existed in 1939, and monthly retirement benefits of $22.34 in 1940 dollars (or about $420 now) beginning at a “retirement age” that just happens to also be the average life expectancy age for women (who as we all know, live longer than men.  Approve a “retirement system” that was intentionally designed so that fully one-half of American working men will pay into the fund but never get a dime from it?  Suuuure!!!).

But I don’t think modern Americans would be very happy with the limited services provided by such a scheme.  And it would be kind of dishonest for Berniecrats (or their apologists) to pretend that all they want is a regimen that a Church course hypothesized, as an intellectual exercise, some eighty years ago (and aspects of which, by the way, the Church’s highest leaders explicitly warned against before, during, and after the duration of that course).

On this I'm going to disagree, but based on thoughts from what I've read somewhere (but can't recall exactly where).

80 years ago (which is right around when that book was published) the Saints were STRONGLY Democrat.  They had been for decades.  Brigham Young had felt such a strong leaning towards one party was a BAD thing and split the Mormons up, assigning some to be Republican and some to be Democrats.  Didn't take that well and before you know it, Utah Territory was still a strong Democrat stronghold.  Brigham Young felt we needed to have differences and equal representation of both sides of the political spectrum...didn't matter.

Mormons remained Democrats.

If Bernie Sanders had been around then, it is plausible that if he won the Democratic nomination to run for President...Utah would be in the bag.  He'd have it nailed...at least for the State of Utah and maybe Arizona, Idaho, and Nevada too!

Democrats and the Church had a good relationship back then as well.  Much of the original inspiration for the Welfare program in the U.S. came from the Church's systems at the time and after.  Of course, that system Roosevelt instituted was different than what we have now.  You were expected to labor for whatever you got with welfare, even if they could only have you dig a hole in front of the welfare office and then fill it in again.  In addition, they had ideas regarding welfare that still exist today, but they weren't exactly called welfare.  Instead, they developed many government jobs (and with it created many national reserves, forests, and parks) which were basically made to give people work and to feed them, rather than a necessity (though some would disagree today about forestry and others services) of government operation.

You start to see a change in the next few decades between political parties but I think the thing that strongly changed the members minds in the church from Democrat to Republican were the divergences you start to see with the Democrat political ideas from the Church's.  Prior to that, many of the Democrat platforms were aligned with the Church's, but after that you start to see them separate.

At first it was more over racial issues where the Democrats were pushing for equal rights including interracial marriage being allowed, Civil rights to allow equality in some areas where more conservative elements did not feel comfortable.

It came even more strongly when Democrats supported ideas such as Equal Rights in regards to the Women's movement and the ERA, abortion (big one there), birth control, and in more recent decades, LGBT issues. 

This seemed to separate the Saints at first in regards to moral grounds (rather than economic or social matters), but over the decades as the Saints have gone more and more towards the Republican party it's changed to economic and social matters as well.  Today, Utah seems as strongly Republican as it used to be Democrat.

Going back in years though, I think if Bernie Sanders was the Democrat Party nominee for President in the 1940 he would have won Utah.  Maybe not as much as Roosevelt did (it was a complete landslide supposedly), but I think he'd still have eke'd out a win considering how strongly the Mormons supported the Democrat party at that time.

The numbers show the support Roosevelt's plans and Roosevelt himself had in Utah as well as the Democrats.  [Correction - Grant was a Democrat but WAS opposed to FDR], but Utah was a Democrat Stronghold.  The church itself espoused many ideas which we may say are socialism, and today Republicans might list as socialism, but were not seen in the same light as what some are presenting.  They WOULD be socialistic ideas.  What they were fighting against was Communism, which at the time was also considered a form of socialism.  One BIG problem was that the Communism spread by the USSR was ATHEISTIC and promoted atheism.  This type of socialism was an anathema to the Church and anyone who was Christian.  At the time there was seen a BIG difference between the Communism of the USSR, the Socialistic parties of Northern Europe, and the smaller scale socialistic ideas of the Church welfare and Roosevelt's system that were being instituted in the West.

On an even more ironic note, today if Roosevelt was alive and had the same opinions and pushings he had back then, though he may have been in favor of public medical or government paid medical...most of his morals and leanings would place him STRONGLY in the moderate to Far Right camp of the Republican party (things to make one think about how far we as a society have changed).  Something even MORE interesting, I feel that if he were LDS, he would probably feel the Church today has gone FAR too the left in the changes it's made in the past few years.  Even the Democrats and the more liberal ones (from the 1930s-1940s) would be shocked at how far to the left the Church policies have gone (and obviously, would probably die from heart attacks in consideration of the rest of society and what they do and believe today) today.  Even more stuff to make one think about the shifts in society and what we consider liberal and conservative today.  In that light, I'm not sure if Bernie Sanders would have even been allowed to be in the Democrat party with some of his views.  He may have been kicked out and barred (as would have been some of the other Democrats today most likely).  The Democrats today are not the Democrats of yesteryear (and neither are the Republicans).

That said, once again, I think whoever the Democrat nominee in 1940 was going to win Utah hands down.  If it had been Bernie Sanders somehow...well...I think he would have won in Utah (though whether it would have been a near win, or a landslide is another debate).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Adding a little more to the items I already wrote. and some corrections of incorrect ideas I wrote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

On this I'm going to disagree, but based on thoughts from what I've read somewhere (but can't recall exactly where).

80 years ago (which is right around when that book was published) the Saints were STRONGLY Democrat.  They had been for decades.  Brigham Young had felt such a strong leaning towards one party was a BAD thing and split the Mormons up, assigning some to be Republican and some to be Democrats.  Didn't take that well and before you know it, Utah Territory was still a strong Democrat stronghold.  Brigham Young felt we needed to have differences and equal representation of both sides of the political spectrum...didn't matter.

It was Woodruff rather than Brigham Young who assigned members to be Republicans.  I don't think Brigham Young ever said anything positive about Republicans and usually would refer to them as "black hearted Republicans" (especially in Church sermons).   He was a life long Democrat (though he did feel betrayed by some democrats).   The closest thing I ever read about him as saying something that wasn't negative about Republicans was that the Gospel was also for Whigs and Republicans.

(The below is from memory, so I'm probably missing a lot of details):

Continuing, George Q Cannon approached Woodruff about assigning some members to be Republicans.   Woodruff made the comment along the lines as no self respecting Mormon would ever be a Republican.  Woodruff changed his position because he feared that the Republicans would block statehood (Republicans were against giving Utah statehood) so sent George Q Cannon out (1893 I believe; Utah became a state in 1896) to divide congregations during church and assign them to be Republicans because church members did/would not do so voluntarily.   So the story goes at least, in one congregation family members were sitting near the center of the pew and he divided the pew into right and left sides.  When one husband asked what he was supposed to do now because his wife was in the opposite party, Cannon (jokingly) proposed the solution that they should refrain from talking politics at the dinner table.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott said:

It was Woodruff rather than Brigham Young who assigned members to be Republicans.  I don't think Brigham Young ever said anything positive about Republicans and usually would refer to them as "black hearted Republicans" (especially in Church sermons).   He was a life long Democrat (though he did feel betrayed by some democrats).   The closest thing I ever read about him as saying something that wasn't negative about Republicans was that the Gospel was also for Whigs and Republicans.

(The below is from memory, so I'm probably missing a lot of details):

Continuing, George Q Cannon approached Woodruff about assigning some members to be Republicans.   Woodruff made the comment along the lines as no self respecting Mormon would ever be a Republican.  Woodruff changed his position because he feared that the Republicans would block statehood (Republicans were against giving Utah statehood) so sent George Q Cannon out (1893 I believe; Utah became a state in 1896) to divide congregations during church and assign them to be Republicans because church members did/would not do so voluntarily.   So the story goes at least, in one congregation family members were sitting near the center of the pew and he divided the pew into right and left sides.  When one husband asked what he was supposed to do now because his wife was in the opposite party, Cannon (jokingly) proposed the solution that they should refrain from talking politics at the dinner table.

Good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MormonGator said:

the guy has a legit chance to win, and it scares me to death. Hopefully he'll be kept in check by the senate and the courts. If not, I'm buying a yacht and will spend my time bouncing from Caribbean island to Caribbean island. 

Shotgun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 6:07 PM, Vort said:

You have to admire a guy who's willing to tell it like it is, even when it's exceedingly and eternally bad news for himself.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democracy-2020-digest-bernie-panic-spreads-inside-the-party

Hours earlier, on a Wednesday night conference call with supporters and donors, a fired-up Biden said: “I'll be damned if we're gonna lose this nomination, particularly if we're gonna lose this nomination and end up losing an election to Donald Trump.”

No matter whether you’re left or right, I’m just gonna come out and say it:  Joe Biden is too stupid to be president of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 10:04 PM, mrmarklin said:

No matter whether you’re left or right, I’m just gonna come out and say it:  Joe Biden is too stupid to be president of the US.

The whole thing is a joke... Imagine THIS to be the POTUS representing the USA on the other side of the table as say... Khomeini.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 10:04 PM, mrmarklin said:

No matter whether you’re left or right, I’m just gonna come out and say it:  Joe Biden is too stupid to be president of the US.

I am not someone who thinks "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid", but Biden doesn't seem terribly bright to me either. However, he proves something I've always thought. How you deal with people matters more than your intelligence, your work ethic, your education, etc.  I see this all the time. 

Like him or hate him, he's been an immensely successful politician. Yes, even if you disagree with him, he's been a better politician than you (generic, generic, generic) could be. That requires a certain amount of charisma and the ability to get along with people. Attributes that few of us have. 

And no, I wouldn't vote for him at gunpoint. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I am not someone who thinks "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid", but Biden doesn't seem terribly bright to me either. However, he proves something I've always thought. How you deal with people matters more than your intelligence, your work ethic, your education, etc.  I see this all the time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this