How's it really going Americans?

[LDSGator]

I was in the Navy during World War One though. Fighting hellfish. 

Edited September 4, 2024 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

46 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I happen to know that Gator has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. My belief that he could rearrange my face if he felt so inclined is an evidence-based one.

I think I could take him. 

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think I could take him. 

You could. 

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

The critics of the Great Society were right that you can't make a problem go away simply by throwing money at it. We were slow to learn that lesson, but we've learned. That's why a lot of government programs have shifted from a system of free handouts to systems of social support and work placement. Teach a man to fish, and all that. It's a lot easier to teach someone that has a roof over their head and food in their belly.

 

I happen to know that Gator has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. My belief that he could rearrange my face if he felt so inclined is an evidence-based one.

Nah. It just sucks.

It is my belief that you just do not get it.  All the principles of the Great Society are still 100% being utilized – both in regards to the poor and solving environmental problems.   There is a joke about how many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb.  Answer – it only takes one, but the lightbulb has to want to change.   The great lesson of the universe is that nothing happens without incentive.   If it was not for the incentive of gravity – water would not flow downhill.  I really think you have it backwards – someone without a roof over their head or food in their belly is going to be much more motivated to learn about how to get a roof over their head and food for their belly.  If they are not interested or will not pay attention when they have the problem – they will be less interested if the roof over their head and food for the belly is no longer their problem.

I believe that ever one should pay taxes – even the poor and especially pay taxes on money or benefits coming from the government.  This little principle would change the thinking about government spending, and it would become more obvious that government spending is seldom a solution.  We will all have a better understanding of government if we all have skin in the game.

Quote

The realistic goal is reducing poverty, not eliminating it. The fact that we can't help everyone isn't a reason to not try to help as many as we can. 

Have you looked at breakdowns of entitlement spending? Here's a good one. 18% of healthy non-elderly employed people are on benefits. That's over 55 million people, many of them full-time workers at companies that underpay them and screw them over on benefits while their CEOs are taking trips to outer space. The biggest drain on our economy isn't income support. It's food and medical support for underpaid employed people and the elderly. 

 

The problem with federal government involvement is that their attitude is and has to be - one size to fit all.  I have done a great deal of service with people in poverty and have learned that there are at least 5 very big categories of impoverished people.  You may know more.

1 chronic substance addiction

2 Mentally or physically handicapped or incompetent.

3 The Hobo – someone that has chosen poverty as their preferred way of life

4 People living on the economic edge of poverty.  These are what many point to as needing help and assistance from the government.  They can survive but and illness of accident (or other form of bad luck) pulls them under.

5 The elderly that are in the final stages of their life cycle.

Sadly, many in poverty qualify under more than one of the above categories.  For example, for whatever reason there is a strong correlation between #s 1 and 2.  Only those uniquely of only the #4 category can successfully be helped out of poverty.

 

My point in all this is that we need to trash all of the current poverty programs coming out of the failed Great Society – I am glad you have at least an inkling for this.  I am concerned that your chart is misleading.  I do not like the idea that the age 65 and up are getting entitlement benefits.  We have screwed over Social Security to the point of using SS funds for the millions coming across our borders claiming asylum (among other Great Society ideas).  This points to another big problem I have – you are not being charitable if you are using someone else’s money.  It is extremely rare that someone that contributes to SS gets more back than they paid in.  The only reason that SS has had problems is because someone in government has provided SS funds to individuals that never contributed.

Your other concern about people being underpaid magically goes away with Milton Friedman’s negative income tax (so does minimum wage).  If the wage is not worth the work required (underpaid) they can quit and live on their negative income tax. The wonderful thing here is that people get to choose for themselves what works best for them.  Without the labor the rich CEO’s would very quickly figure out they need to pay labor more just to compete.  We would have a self-correcting system that provides incentives to both sides of the equation.   The other sad truth is that anyone that has started up their own business knows that they will work for years without even earning minimum wage – I know this because I have started up more than one successful business.  It is not unlikely that you will work for yourself for free.  One business I worked for free for 12 years – when I sold the business the government took more than I was able to keep.

If you deprive the rich of their sweat equity – the economy and ingenuity of this country will collapse.  One thing I very much dislike about the Democrats (or just about anyone in a power position of government) is that they think that their thinking is the only thinking that matters.

 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I was in the Navy during World War One though. Fighting hellfish. 

WWI?  You are a lot older than I thought.  How are you still breating?  You should be studied in a lab.

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

My phone ate my really long response, so I'll try to summarize. 

1) Poor people are allowed to have nice things, and it's no business of yours why someone on food stamps is wearing $300 shoes. I sat on my $12 couch earlier and played an $800 guitar. That's my nice thing. I set aside money for months for it, like my conservative LDS parents taught me to do 30 years ago. 

2) Medicaid and a lot of other social programs that receive federal funding are managed at the state level, and some of those funds even trickle down to county and municipal budgets. That's why local elections are so important. The federal government decides how much money goes into social programs. For the most part, it's state and local governments deciding how that money is spent. Because you're right, the solutions for poverty aren't one size fits all. 

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

For example, for whatever reason there is a strong correlation between #s 1 and 2. 

It's not a mystery. People in pain, both physical and mental, tend to use drugs to help ease it. That's why access to affordable health care and mental health services is such a crucial weapon against poverty. 

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

Only those uniquely of only the #4 category can successfully be helped out of poverty.

That is blatantly false. It can be very difficult for people struggling with mental illness and/or addiction to turn their lives around, but it happens all the time. 

Edited September 4, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

14 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

What's the argument against increasing the tax burden of our wealthiest citizens to improve access to health care and affordable housing for our poorest citizens? I have yet to hear a good one, tbh.

 

The argument: We've been consistently doing it since the '60's, and yet the poverty rate has bounced between 10-15% no matter how much we spend. 

 

 

Quote

The critics of the Great Society were right that you can't make a problem go away simply by throwing money at it. We were slow to learn that lesson, but we've learned. That's why a lot of government programs have shifted from a system of free handouts to systems of social support and work placement.

Yeah, the Great Society/New Deal stuff was replaced by the War on Poverty in the '60's, with it's Medicare, medicaid, food stamps/SNAP, and growing emphasis on improving education and job training.

Result: Spending grew, poverty rate bounced between 10-15%.

In the 1990's, The War on Poverty morphed into Welfare reform, which did things like replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) coupled with work requirements and time limits on benefits.

Result: Spending grew, poverty rate bounced between 10-15%.

Now in the 21st century, lots of initiatives like the Earned Income Tax credit, job training, and trying to link benefits to work.  We're now 20 years into the third major shift you describe. 

Result: Spending grew, poverty rate bounced between 10-15%.

@Phoenix_person, if 40 years of shifting to social support and work placement while spending more and more money hasn't dented the poverty rate yet, isn't it time to start drawing some conclusions?  At the very least, can you understand why folks might be opposed to the next latest-and-greatest plan to increase the tax burden of our wealthiest citizens to improve access to health care and affordable housing for our poorest citizens?

Quote

The realistic goal is reducing poverty, not eliminating it. 

It's a noble goal, and one that government has utterly failed at for 6 decades, no matter what we try.

10 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

People in pain, both physical and mental, tend to use drugs to help ease it. That's why access to affordable health care and mental health services is such a crucial weapon against poverty.

Agreed on all counts.  And no matter how much the government pours into healthcare, including the generation-inspiring Obamacare/ACA, the government has utterly failed for 6 decades to make a dent in the poverty rate. 

10 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

It can be very difficult for people struggling with mental illness and/or addiction to turn their lives around, but it happens all the time. 

Agreed.  And the government has utterly failed to dent poverty in 60 years, despite changing/growing/evolving into new and better programs, and increasing the amount of money poured into those programs.

At what point can we conclude that government isn't going to be a solution?

At what point does @LDSGator's oft-repeated wise definition of insanity finally apply?

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

Here's what makes an enduring difference in lowering poverty rates, across history:

Instead of advocating for taxing the rich and pouring money down the eternal hole, you should be advocating for people to get married before having kids.   As a bonus, if you're big on the problems of historically marginalized peoples, you can even be happy that such advocacy would have a disproportionately larger positive impact on those communities:

 

[Phoenix_person]

You make a strong point about the lack of impact government spending has had on poverty. When looking at those numbers, it's important to factor in inflation and population growth. A million dollars doesn't go as far as it did 60 years ago. Meanwhile, the percentage of our population living in poverty has gone down, but the number of people in poverty has increased by several million. I hate looking at large populations in terms of percentages. It irked me during COVID, and it's unhelpful when discussing poverty. 1% of the US population won't make much of a dent on your graphs, but that's over 3 million Americans. If increasing the tax burden of our wealthiest citizens can help 3 million Americans, I say tax away.

HHS has a document available that has some very good breakdowns of the war on poverty over the last 50 years. This graphic in particular stood out to me.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf

Makes you wonder how much the "in poverty" number would increase if we abandoned our social safety nets.

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here's what makes an enduring difference in lowering poverty rates, across history:

Instead of advocating for taxing the rich and pouring money down the eternal hole, you should be advocating for people to get married before having kids.   As a bonus, if you're big on the problems of historically marginalized peoples, you can even be happy that such advocacy would have a disproportionately larger positive impact on those communities:

How would you approach this from a policy standpoint?

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

My phone ate my really long response, so I'll try to summarize. 

1) Poor people are allowed to have nice things, and it's no business of yours why someone on food stamps is wearing $300 shoes. I sat on my $12 couch earlier and played an $800 guitar. That's my nice thing. I set aside money for months for it, like my conservative LDS parents taught me to do 30 years ago. 

2) Medicaid and a lot of other social programs that receive federal funding are managed at the state level, and some of those funds even trickle down to county and municipal budgets. That's why local elections are so important. The federal government decides how much money goes into social programs. For the most part, it's state and local governments deciding how that money is spent. Because you're right, the solutions for poverty aren't one size fits all. 

It's not a mystery. People in pain, both physical and mental, tend to use drugs to help ease it. That's why access to affordable health care and mental health services is such a crucial weapon against poverty. 

That is blatantly false. It can be very difficult for people struggling with mental illness and/or addiction to turn their lives around, but it happens all the time. 

Sorry about your phone.  Since I am retired and no longer require a dependable hot spot my wife wanted me to switch to a Chinese phone (iPhone) – I now have enough experience to understand your frustration.  If you have an Android – it was not your phone that lost your long response.

 

There is a difference between “nice” things and expensive things – anyone that can afford expensive things is not poor and should be paying the same tax rate as everybody else that is rich and can afford expensive things.  There is a very big difference between someone in poverty and someone that that spends foolishly.   You should read the book “The Richest Man in Babylon”.  Pay particular attention to Arkad’s Seven Cures of Poverty (or how to generate money and wealth).  I was raised by an extremely wealthy man that grew up with 13 siblings raised poor in a 3-bedroom house without running water, central heat or electricity.   When I reached the age of 8, I was expected to have a job outside of our home and family and pay for my own clothing, school supplies and leisure activities.

Most of our food we grew ourselves.  We raised rabbits and chickens for meat – we hunted and fished not for fun but to have enough to eat.  I am dyslexic and had great difficulty with school subjects that were not logical (most of them excluding math and science).  I also have difficulty with emotions – especially in relationships.   For me kindness or cruelty should not be based on emotions (like revenge) but rather on logic and what I consider intelligence (the ability to learn and alter one’s behavior).   I do not understand the emotion of attachments to things that naturally decay.   I very much regret that our society measures wealth by the accumulation of things.  If we view economy in such a manner, we will fail at every attempt to end poverty and increase lasting wealth – regardless of if it is for ourselves or someone else.

 

The only way to help the poor is one on one – something that government (local, state or federal) is incapable of.  Bureaucrats are incapable of helping anyone – they are only capable of following some set of rules and showing others how to follow those rules.  Everything in government is instituted through bureaucrats.

Jordon Peterson makes a very good point about helping others.  First begin with taking care of yourself.  If you can succeed with that, you can start to take care of those closest to you.  When you get good at that you can start to teach other how to do what you have learned.  My father would always say – if you want to learn something never consider learning it from someone that has only failed at doing it.  Learn from the most successful person at doing what you want to learn, that you can find.  If you can take care of yourself and teach other to take care of themselves – you and your friends are rich.

The most successful system I have found to diminish poverty is capitalism and a strong middle class.  I believe if a government comes up with any idea that in any way diminishes capitalism and/or a strong middle class – you will fail badly, and poverty will expand until either a different way of achieved or the middle class is destroyed resulting in a system of the very rich living off the very poor.  There is no example in history of diminishing poverty without a strong middle class.

 

The Traveler

Edited September 4, 2024 by Traveler

[Carborendum]

21 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf

Makes you wonder how much the "in poverty" number would increase if we abandoned our social safety nets.

I'm not sure that this graphic tells the story that you're offering.  It says that the number of those in poverty has remained fairly constant. (The Census Bureau disagrees with these numbers). But what is NOT mentioned is much more telling.

Here is the overall picture from the Census Bureau.

The blue line represents the total number of people in poverty (in millions).  The orange line represents those in poverty as a percentage of the population.

I have one data point from my searches online.  But it was not from the same set of data points as the Census Bureau.  So, I didn't put it on the graph.  But here it is:

Throughout the 1950s the population of those in poverty was flat even while the overall population was growing.  So, the percentages were going down.

So, did The Great Society really do anything?  It seems like it stopped our progress that was already underway. We can argue that we're at a theoretical minimum poverty level.  But there really isn't any analysis from this data that can justify the claim that Nanny State policies actually did any good at all.  The best you can claim is that it didn't hurt all that much.

Edited September 5, 2024 by Carborendum

[JohnsonJones]

On 9/3/2024 at 5:51 PM, Traveler said:

I will give you two.  First – it is an idea that has never worked has whenever tried it has made poverty more abundant.   A prime example is the Great Society established under President Johnston.  It was argued that by taxing the haves (just 2% of the GDP) and transferring through government regulation the money to the poor that poverty would be eliminated.   Currently through taxation the government is regulating money to the poor, that is almost 30% of the GDP and poverty today is worse than before the grand idea of the Great Society.

The argument is always that with just a little more taxes on the haves we can overcome poverty.  In light of history – I am of the mind that money (economy) is not the root cause of poverty in our modern society and money alone is not a solution.

The second reason – is the problem of entitlement.  Those receiving government subsidies begin to think they are entitled to those subsidies – perhaps even more.  I am more in favor of Milton Friedman’s concept of “Negative Income Tax”.  It is somewhat similar to guaranteed income but with a very important caveat.  It must be established in a manner that whatever an individual is able to earn by their own labor – they will always end up with more income.  Thus, there is always an incentive to work to increase one’s income rather than to petition more from the government or think the government can solve the problem on its own – that is truly an argument with no merit or example.

 

The Traveler

 

To Counter that I'll give some examples of when they DID work (but also note, that in at least two of these examples, it was enforced by the death penalty.  In otherwords, you have money and DON'T give it over...well...you die).

The First establishment of it was after the death of our Lord and under the direction of Peter.  It is also how we know that those who held some back or didn't give up their goods were killed.  Interestingly enough, they weren't killed by men, necessarily, but struck dead by the Lord.

An even more famous example of it working (and it worked for over 100 years, possibly as long as 200 years...which is longer than most economic systems work without a massive crash or change) was on the American Continent among the Nephite people (which is where I got the phrase, no rich or poor among them). 

A third attempt, though not so successful for various reasons was in Missouri.

Another attempt, with some areas being massive successes while others floundered was in the Utah Territory under Brigham Young. 

The biggest difference is that these systems were driven by the Lord (and, in some cases the death penalty.  Even under Brigham Young, refusal to adhere to the system had extreme penalties in the areas where it was successful.  Either you adhered to the system or you had some pretty dire punishments, some of which probably did lead to people dying). 

I don't think members today realize just how these systems worked (I see constantly the illusion here that if we ever went back to the Law of Consecration and the United Order everyone here would get to keep their stuff and be appointed "stewards" over it...which just isn't how the system worked (sure, you are a steward over what is given to you for your needs...but that's not going to be anywhere close to what you have today.  Most probably can't even imagine how little of an amount of riches, money, or stuff it actually would be).  Its not how it was designed.  You want to know what actually was expected...the Lord laid it flat out to the Rich man in the New  Testament and it was obvious his apostles had the same creed of leaving everything and relying soley on the Lord for sustenance and subsistence like the birds and others). 

All the money and riches were then redistributed...and the members were NOT the ones who got to decide who got what.  It was the servants appointed by the Lord who were led by the Lord, and it was meted out according to NEEDS...not wants. 

I imagine that IF we ever go back to it and how it worked in those times listed above...the Church would probably lose 70%-80% of it's membership over this issue because members are too far into their own wealth...OR...too far into their own political beliefs as their religion rather than the lord's religion to actually DO as the Lord tells us to do. 

While, at the same time calling the poor members in Africa, Asia, and South America the same thing people call the poor in the US who use some of the few social programs that exist (lazy, sponges, etc).

It is interesting that the LORD spoke more highly of the poor than he did of the wealthy (and have no mistake, comparatively to much of the world, people in the US are HIGHLY wealthy), or even those who were relatively well off with property and comfort.

I don't know how I would fare if it was re-instituted.  At least I'm honest about it though to say I may have difficulty.  The greatest difficulty I would have would be with many of my books.  To the collector some are worth thousands of dollars, but under the Church I expect they would either be dumped in the trash, or sold for pennies.  They are of little worth to those who don't treasure what is between their covers, or is trained to know what they are worth. 

However, NOT being connected to treasures or riches in this life is better for us.  It is better if we lived the law and HAD to give away all we had and LEARN to live with the bare necessities which the church gave us back to live with (and you want to know what necessities may be...Joseph F. Smith grew up in a log cabln smaller than my living room along with all his brothers and sisters after coming to Utah.  They had FAR less than almost any member in the US lives with today.  And THAT was for a larger family than most members have today.  Most members, if forced to go into that...would throw fits about what they FEEL is needed vs. what the LORD feels they need.

However, when we do NOT place value on the riches and treasures we find on this earth, we may refocus on what is TRULY important in this life...which is the things of the Lord and that which he treasures.  I think that's the true message of the Law of Consecration and the United Order.  That instead of putting our love of what we have in earthly treasures, we put it towards the Lord instead.

Edited September 5, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[tomasgreenro]

On 9/4/2024 at 8:40 PM, Traveler said:

Sorry about your phone.  Since I am retired and no longer require a dependable hot spot my wife wanted me to switch to a Chinese phone (iPhone) – I now have enough experience to understand your frustration.  If you have an Android – it was not your phone that lost your long response.

 

There is a difference between “nice” things and expensive things – anyone that can afford expensive things is not poor and should be paying the same tax rate as everybody else that is rich and can afford expensive things.  There is a very big difference between someone in poverty and someone that that spends foolishly.   You should read the book “The Richest Man in Babylon”.  Pay particular attention to Arkad’s Seven Cures of Poverty (or how to generate money and wealth).  I was raised by an extremely wealthy man that grew up with 13 siblings raised poor in a 3-bedroom house without running water, central heat or electricity.   When I reached the age of 8, I was expected to have a job outside of our home and family and pay for my own clothing, school supplies and leisure activities.

Most of our food we grew ourselves.  We raised rabbits and chickens for meat – we hunted and fished not for fun but to have enough to eat.  I am dyslexic and had great difficulty with school subjects that were not logical (most of them excluding math and science).  I also have difficulty with emotions – especially in relationships.   For me kindness or cruelty should not be based on emotions (like revenge) but rather on logic and what I consider intelligence (the ability to learn and alter one’s behavior).   I do not understand the emotion of attachments to things that naturally decay.   I very much regret that our society measures wealth by the accumulation of things.  If we view economy in such a manner, we will fail at every attempt to end poverty and increase lasting wealth – regardless of if it is for ourselves or someone else.

 

The only way to help the poor is one on one – something that government (local, state or federal) is incapable of.  Bureaucrats are incapable of helping anyone – they are only capable of following some set of rules and showing others how to follow those rules.  Everything in government is instituted through bureaucrats.

Jordon Peterson makes a very good point about helping others.  First begin with taking care of yourself.  If you can succeed with that, you can start to take care of those closest to you.  When you get good at that you can start to teach other how to do what you have learned.  My father would always say – if you want to learn something never consider learning it from someone that has only failed at doing it.  Learn from the most successful person at doing what you want to learn, that you can find.  If you can take care of yourself and teach other to take care of themselves – you and your friends are rich.

It's hard to tell the difference between those who really struggle and those who make bad financial decisions. I also learned the importance of learning from those who have succeeded. Speaking of studying, I'm currently trying to improve my academic writing skills and I found https://edubirdie.com/annotated-bibliography-writing-service here this helpful annotated bibliography writing service. This is great for those who need a little extra support with their schoolwork. In any case, it is true that personal responsibility and smart choices can make a big difference in a person's life.

The most successful system I have found to diminish poverty is capitalism and a strong middle class.  I believe if a government comes up with any idea that in any way diminishes capitalism and/or a strong middle class – you will fail badly, and poverty will expand until either a different way of achieved or the middle class is destroyed resulting in a system of the very rich living off the very poor.  There is no example in history of diminishing poverty without a strong middle class.

 

The Traveler

I completely agree with the importance of personal responsibility and learning from successful people. It's really helpful. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Edited September 10, 2024 by tomasgreenro

[NeuroTypical]

23 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

How would you approach this from a policy standpoint?

 

First of all, it's SO NICE to be able to just have a plain old civil conversation with the other side of the fence.  So much polarization and anger and fear and ignorance from all sides, and we just end up shouting past each other.   I am not blameless, and my favored side is certainly not blameless, but it's cool we can do something better here.  So thank you @Phoenix_person for holding up your end of the civility deal.  Your posting style makes it easier for me to hold up my end.

 

Anyway, your question I believe illustrates one of the foundational differences between right and left, or maybe progressive and conservative.  Me and mine do not believe in social change through government policy.  At it's most harmless, it's a liberty-reducing and expensive way to unfairly enrich a tiny select few while corruption rules the day.  At it's worst, when everyone is trying their best to use government to force change, we end up with stuff like Stalin's purges and millions of dead Ukrainians and consequences from China's one child policy and the Khmer Rouge killing fields and the Mormon settlers almost going to war with the US over polygamy.   

For me and my house, the church basically co-leads all of Christianity with a pro family message.  And we're having to drag some pretty reluctant denominations, and fight some all-out resistant ones.   We're out trying to baptize the whole world as fast as they'll allow it.  Probably the best solution (although probably not gonna happen any time soon) to both fatherlessness and poverty, is to have everyone willingly consent to becoming a Mormon.  Our welfare system is second to none.

You think it might be a worthy endeavor of government to promote intact family units?  In the past we tried structuring the tax code to favor married couples with children.  The left loathes it because it "forces single parent households to remain in poverty".   Our institutions like the Public Broadcasting Service and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have been similarly neutered for similar reasons.  

How to approach this from a policy standpoint?  I guess if you, a leftie, find value in having both parents in the home, I suppose your best course of action would be to clean up your own backyard.  We're all just a google away from an endless tsunami of leftist activism trying to redefine the family, or make the word redundant.  Quick and easy example: The Atlantic's 2020 article "The Nuclear Family was a Mistake".  There are literally millions of other examples, from all segments of left-of-center thought.  The Black Lives Matter website as the riots started had 'eliminate the colonizer's patriarchical family structure' as one of it's stated tenets.  That bullet point came off the website as they started making money, because it was an obstacle to making more.  Kendi's How to be an Anti-racist book is utterly silent on the problem.  

So before you can even think about government policy, it's looks from here, that your first task is to retool leftist thought on the matter.  So what can you do?  I learned allyship and messaging and social change strategies from you folks.  You tell me - how can you make the left no longer so anti-marriage, anti-nuclear family, anti-husband, and anti-man?

If you've got something I can do to help, let me know.  Just understand that I'll tend to be skeptical of a government solution, as long as I can follow my principles.

Edited September 5, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

First of all, it's SO NICE to be able to just have a plain old civil conversation with the other side of the fence.  So much polarization and anger and fear and ignorance from all sides, and we just end up shouting past each other.   I am not blameless, and my favored side is certainly not blameless, but it's cool we can do something better here.  So thank you @Phoenix_person for holding up your end of the civility deal.  Your posting style makes it easier for me to hold up my end.

Amen. 

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

To Counter that I'll give some examples of when they DID work (but also note, that in at least two of these examples, it was enforced by the death penalty.  In otherwords, you have money and DON'T give it over...well...you die).

The First establishment of it was after the death of our Lord and under the direction of Peter.  It is also how we know that those who held some back or didn't give up their goods were killed.  Interestingly enough, they weren't killed by men, necessarily, but struck dead by the Lord.

An even more famous example of it working (and it worked for over 100 years, possibly as long as 200 years...which is longer than most economic systems work without a massive crash or change) was on the American Continent among the Nephite people (which is where I got the phrase, no rich or poor among them). 

A third attempt, though not so successful for various reasons was in Missouri.

Another attempt, with some areas being massive successes while others floundered was in the Utah Territory under Brigham Young. 

The biggest difference is that these systems were driven by the Lord (and, in some cases the death penalty.  Even under Brigham Young, refusal to adhere to the system had extreme penalties in the areas where it was successful.  Either you adhered to the system or you had some pretty dire punishments, some of which probably did lead to people dying). 

I don't think members today realize just how these systems worked (I see constantly the illusion here that if we ever went back to the Law of Consecration and the United Order everyone here would get to keep their stuff and be appointed "stewards" over it...which just isn't how the system worked (sure, you are a steward over what is given to you for your needs...but that's not going to be anywhere close to what you have today.  Most probably can't even imagine how little of an amount of riches, money, or stuff it actually would be).  Its not how it was designed.  You want to know what actually was expected...the Lord laid it flat out to the Rich man in the New  Testament and it was obvious his apostles had the same creed of leaving everything and relying soley on the Lord for sustenance and subsistence like the birds and others). 

All the money and riches were then redistributed...and the members were NOT the ones who got to decide who got what.  It was the servants appointed by the Lord who were led by the Lord, and it was meted out according to NEEDS...not wants. 

I imagine that IF we ever go back to it and how it worked in those times listed above...the Church would probably lose 70%-80% of it's membership over this issue because members are too far into their own wealth...OR...too far into their own political beliefs as their religion rather than the lord's religion to actually DO as the Lord tells us to do. 

While, at the same time calling the poor members in Africa, Asia, and South America the same thing people call the poor in the US who use some of the few social programs that exist (lazy, sponges, etc).

It is interesting that the LORD spoke more highly of the poor than he did of the wealthy (and have no mistake, comparatively to much of the world, people in the US are HIGHLY wealthy), or even those who were relatively well off with property and comfort.

I don't know how I would fare if it was re-instituted.  At least I'm honest about it though to say I may have difficulty.  The greatest difficulty I would have would be with many of my books.  To the collector some are worth thousands of dollars, but under the Church I expect they would either be dumped in the trash, or sold for pennies.  They are of little worth to those who don't treasure what is between their covers, or is trained to know what they are worth. 

However, NOT being connected to treasures or riches in this life is better for us.  It is better if we lived the law and HAD to give away all we had and LEARN to live with the bare necessities which the church gave us back to live with (and you want to know what necessities may be...Joseph F. Smith grew up in a log cabln smaller than my living room along with all his brothers and sisters after coming to Utah.  They had FAR less than almost any member in the US lives with today.  And THAT was for a larger family than most members have today.  Most members, if forced to go into that...would throw fits about what they FEEL is needed vs. what the LORD feels they need.

However, when we do NOT place value on the riches and treasures we find on this earth, we may refocus on what is TRULY important in this life...which is the things of the Lord and that which he treasures.  I think that's the true message of the Law of Consecration and the United Order.  That instead of putting our love of what we have in earthly treasures, we put it towards the Lord instead.

I will take a little exception.  First off what you have referenced were all voluntary conditions.  In the case with Peter and the death that was brought – it was not quite as you have expressed.  The reason for the death was for lying to G-d through lies to his servant.  There was no edict to become a disciple of Christ – that was all voluntary.  I personally am not sure that it was because they held back but rather that they lied and said that they had given.

In all cases that I am aware all forced “charity” by government has failed.  I do have some personal knowledge about the United Order because my great grandfather was the executive secretary (CEO) of a United Order in Utah.  No one was forced to join the order.  I published a while back on this forum all the rules of the United Order from a copy that hung in his office.  It was common for new individuals (families) to join or leave.  Any death penalties were either exaggerated or for crimes subject to public laws outside of the Order and not according to Order rules.

I thought to offer other examples because I know of a United Order that was purchased by a family when the Church divested itself.  But the real issue is the Principle of Agency – which I believe was the prime directive of our pre-existence and still a most important principle.  Which brings me to one final very important principle – the people under the conditions you referenced were one.  It was not just the matter of the wealthy making a sacrifice – there was a change of attitude at all economic levels.  Scripture tells us that they were all of one mind and heart.

With all this in mind – take note who in a ward regularly shows up for various service opportunities like physical facility clean up or welfare assignments or disaster relief projects.  In my mind these are the only ones that would actually work out well in a City of Enoch or United Order type of society.  It is my personal experience that most of this category are at the lower levels of the economic ladder.  I say most because there are always those few exceptions.

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You think it might be a worthy endeavor of government to promote intact family units?  

I think many conservatives would agree (for different reasons) that it's not the government's place to define a family. I would also argue that dangling tax incentives over the heads of fracturing families has likely acted as duct tape holding together marriages that probably should have been put to pasture. A healthy family unit is a powerful thing, yes. Ending a marriage isn't an easy thing, but it's also not the end of the world. My marriage ended because my ex-wife and I became toxic towards each other. We created a toxic home. We have our financial struggles now, but we both are in a better mental and emotional state to raise our son in loving environments. I watched several of my friends, including a few LDS ones, struggle immensely with depression and substance abuse because there was no love in their home. I don't think we should be encouraging people to perpetuate those situations. 

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So before you can even think about government policy, it's looks from here, that your first task is to retool leftist thought on the matter.  So what can you do?  I learned allyship and messaging and social change strategies from you folks.  You tell me - how can you make the left no longer so anti-marriage, anti-nuclear family, anti-husband, and anti-man?

The left (as a monolith) isn't anti- any of those things. We recognize that families come in a variety of different forms. Yes, a nuclear family works the best, if you can make it work. A lot of people can't make it work, and there are many cases where a parental split is the best thing for the kids. So where does that leave us? We can go full China and regulate who has kids and how many, or we can support families where they are to the best of our ability. 

Edited September 5, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

I totally get every point about fractured and toxic marriages.  I have zero judgment when folks get divorced.

And yet, every study I see, across decades, give the same clear link between poverty and 'broken home'.

From what I can tell (and I'm always willing to read more), it's good defense against poverty to keep even the broken and toxic together.   Kids who grow up in an intact 2 parent home continue, across decades, to have lower rates of the bad stuff like alcoholism, teen pregnancy, incarceration, drug abuse, experiencing abuse.  And higher rates of the good stuff like life expectancy, lifetime income, high school/college graduation, not experiencing poverty, staying out of prison, etc.

Again, I have no judgment to offer someone who divorces.  But my parents fell into the category of toxic/borderline abusive.  But they stayed together, because that's what the WWII generation did.  My dad was on his 3rd wife by the time my mom came along, and my older half-sister's family absolutely has poverty/education/mental health issues that I don't.  

A blunt way to put it: Looking at the big picture of demographics, it's better for kids if their parents stay together even though there's toxic or horrible happening that never gets resolved. 

It feels like my dad's generation was the last one to say that out loud.  My generation might be the last to think it.  You're right - no shortage of conservatives or anyone else who divorce earlier and more often than older generations.  It's just that if you want to put a dent in poverty levels, there's a way to do it.  It's a valid place to ask "yeah, but at what cost?"

[Phoenix_person]

Speaking of families, look what came up in tonight's fall campaign launch and narrative training.

[NeuroTypical]

You almost had me, but then I looked closer:

 

Only commies use macs.  This is widely known.  I bet the owner also speaks out against God's favorite pizza topping, the pineapple.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

14 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Speaking of families, look what came up in tonight's fall campaign launch and narrative training.

"Strongest values to emphasize are families and freedom"

As I thought about it, it dawned on me this needed a serious response.    What do you think "families" mean to the presenter and everything in the room?  Ten bucks says if you had asked for clarification, you would not have heard "oh, we're referring to the traditional nuclear family of two married and committed parents and their children".   It would be more like "a family is a small group of people who are committed to each other and share living expenses".  If you asked why a single person living alone was being excluded by the definition, I'm guessing maybe a 50% chance they'd include a single person living alone in the definition of family.

In other words, the only person on the left interested in reducing poverty by increasing the number of 2 parent households is you (and maybe or maybe not you).

I mean, tell me if you disagree.  Anyone, please tell me if anyone disagrees.  

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

"Strongest values to emphasize are families and freedom"

...

I mean, tell me if you disagree.  Anyone, please tell me if anyone disagrees.  

On "Freedom", I tend to think that most Democrats believe freedom is only for them and Republicans just have to suffer intrusions on their rights so liberal policies can be had. 

I draw a line between "freedom" and "liberty".  Freedom is really anarchy.  Liberty is the understanding that with every right/freedom, we each have a responsibility attached to it.  When a right is exercised without acknowledgment of the responsibility associated, it is really anarchy in disguise.

As far as family, I'm not certain that most people fully understand the depth of a human being's connection with family.  I'd tend to think that the average non-activist Democrat does believe in the traditional nuclear family.  But they would never verbalize it at a political rally.  I wish they could simply admit that to themselves.

Unfortunately, people don't really know what the traditional nuclear family really means anymore.  I'm not talking about definition.  They don't realize the power/strengtj of the traditional nuclear family.  I recently just came across a study that was completed after 75 years of studies and continuous data-gathering.  The findings are both encouraging and discouraging.

• There is a measurable benefit of an intact two-parent biological family.  While this is the ideal, we all know that this system can and has fallen apart in so many families (death, divorce, abuse, etc.) But when it is allowed to work (and it really does work a lot more often than we see on the news) it is a wonderful source of joy for the individual and a blessing to society.
• Adoptive and stepfamilies do have great potential for filling in gaps where the biological family fails for one reason or another.
• As an adoptee, myself, I was interested to find that adopted families are not as "ideal" as biological families.  While we do the best we can, there are biological realities that the social construct of adoption can't fully substitute.
• Adoptive and stepfamilies have a higher incidence of abuse and neglect than biological families.  But, thankfully, the "higher incidence" is barely above the "statistically significant" level.  That said, any abuse is too much.
• The "found family" is also a substitute that can provide some emotional support.  But it scored lower than adoptive or stepfamilies based on the data.
• Two-parents who were not cisgendered fared worse than stepfamilies.  Unfortunately, there was not nearly as much data for this system as the full 75 year study gathered for 1 male+1 female parents.
• SPECIAL MENTION: Those who find "family through religion" seem to come closest to the benefits of an intact two-parent biological family.  Believing that we are children of God, and He will always love us and want what is best for us, and guide us to do the right thing, that tends to bring people out of poverty, mental instability, emotional instability, and much more.  God comes closest to making up for the deficiencies of lacking a fully-intact biological family than any other social construct we've come up with.
• In studying the happiness/fulfillment level of people throughout the study, the single greatest variable throughout all 7 decades of the study was family ties.  And the data became even more clear with the destruction of the traditional nuclear family in the past couple of decades.  There were greater and greater correlations between societal ills and lack of traditional family interaction.

The people who put together this study had no ideas or expectations of what the study would show.  And they didn't even know that family ties were going to be a big variable.  They just gathered as much information that they could and found patterns where the data pointed to.  It was a surprise to the team who completed the study, that family played as important a role as it did. 

And they were even more surprised that biological families were more effective than adoptive families -- even when the adoption occurred within one year of birth.  So, it seems that biology plays a larger role in family bonds than previously believed.

This isn't something that we simply give lip service to.

Sometimes I hear people tell me that family isn't that important.  As long as you have friends who love you and watch out for you, that's the same as family.  Apparently not.  There is a reason that the doctrine of Eternal Families is so close to the center of our everyday application of gospel principles than anything short of the worship of the Godhead.

Edited September 6, 2024 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

I will take on your reference – rather than depending on religious notions, I will start with scientific notions.  In science one of the critical notions of life is the ability to reproduce.   This definition is not necessarily a singular notion but as a species or type of life. In labs there have been various scientific experiments to duplicate life but the conclusion is that if chemical reactions are incapable of rejuvenating offspring – it is not life.

Human life is the most advanced intelligent species we have ever encountered.  The propagation of the human species is only accomplished through heterosexual relationships.   Traditionally we have attempted to define this heterosexual relationship that successfully produces offspring in successful societies as a family.

Some have suggested that it takes a community to raise a child.  But if that community is operating under the notion that a child does not need to respect heterosexual relationships and heterosexual families as the necessary element of sustaining that community – then that society (community) is pursuing a unstainable theory of families that sustain communities.

We have concluded by scientific studies that preferences are controlled by various areas of the cortex part of the brain.  Because preferences are controlled by the cortex we know that preferences are learned or acquired.  We also know that executive level capabilities of learning are not fully developed in the cortex until a child reaches the age of 25.  Sexual preferences are known in science to be learned preferences along with all the other preferences learned in humans.  The teaching or allowing the teaching of unsustainable sexual preferences to individuals under the age of 25 must be forbidden is a society is to be sustainable.

Science and logic clearly demonstrates that LGBTQ+ families are unsustainable.  Logic clearly indicates that including a definition of LGBTQ+ as family friendly will reduce the rate of reproduction in a society and if rate of reproduction drops below an average of 2 per heterosexual couple that society is doomed unless attitudes are changed (sexual preferences altered).

Our current society in the USA has crossed the threshold of sustainability.  Currently the only way our society can continue is to either change the teaching of sexual preferences or import populations from other societies – which will change the fundamental dynamics of our society.

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

"Strongest values to emphasize are families and freedom"

As I thought about it, it dawned on me this needed a serious response.    What do you think "families" mean to the presenter and everything in the room? 

I think "family" can mean a variety of things to a variety of people, and that's kind of the point. I think there's a false notion that helping non-nuclear comes at the expense of nuclear ones, but there's no reasonable basis to think that. Shaping policy to fit ALL families includes nuclear families.

Most of the people in the room last night were there to support a school funding referendum that will be on the ballot in November. The rest of us were there to support our org's three endorsed city council candidates, two of whom won their primaries (the third candidate came a very close second in the council president primary race, so he'll get another shot in November). So it's safe to say the room was filled with people who care very much about their local community and the education of our children. It's also worth noting that a lot of our local organizer membership is made up of teachers and senior citizens who are very active in their church congregations. Not exactly the blue-haired, tattooed transexual caricature that some conservatives like to paint us as (though one of our school board members had pink hair the first time I met her 😱). Most of them will talk your ear off about education and affordable housing, then invite you to their church potluck. 

Our biggest local priorities for this election cycle are school funding and affordable housing. I think those things, like many of the other policies we promote, have a lot of potential to help families of all different shapes and sizes. Policies like paid paternity leave benefit nuclear families WAY more than single parent households, and guess which political party generally pushes those policies? PFML wouldn't have made it to Walz's desk without our organization AND a DFL majority, and that has equal potential to benefit nuclear and single parent households. From where I sit, it's historically the conservative camp that always comes out against policies that not only benefit nuclear families, but encourage them.

Do you know why so many of us hate capitalism? Because it's created a society that values people based on their labor potential above all else. I'm worth no more to a CEO than my ability to make/keep him rich. Without government intervention and unions, we wouldn't have to force impoverished Chinese citizens to assemble our iPhones because we'd have our own homegrown sweatshops hiring kids like my 11 year-old son. The labor movement is one of the most pro-family movements in the political arena, and guess who always gets their endorsement?

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

In other words, the only person on the left interested in reducing poverty by increasing the number of 2 parent households is you (and maybe or maybe not you).

I mean, tell me if you disagree.  Anyone, please tell me if anyone disagrees.  

I would say that promoting nuclear families is a very realistic side effect of our agenda, but not a driving cause. I believe that our policy agenda can benefit all sorts of families in ways that will improve the quality of life for nuclear middle and working class families and maybe remove some of the stress factors that causes families like that to fracture. As our local organizers and electeds like to say: "We all do better when we all do better".

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I will take on your reference – rather than depending on religious notions, I will start with scientific notions.  In science one of the critical notions of life is the ability to reproduce.   This definition is not necessarily a singular notion but as a species or type of life. In labs there have been various scientific experiments to duplicate life but the conclusion is that if chemical reactions are incapable of rejuvenating offspring – it is not life.

Human life is the most advanced intelligent species we have ever encountered.  The propagation of the human species is only accomplished through heterosexual relationships.   Traditionally we have attempted to define this heterosexual relationship that successfully produces offspring in successful societies as a family.

Some have suggested that it takes a community to raise a child.  But if that community is operating under the notion that a child does not need to respect heterosexual relationships and heterosexual families as the necessary element of sustaining that community – then that society (community) is pursuing a unstainable theory of families that sustain communities.

Is there a shortage of het couples reproducing in our society? Heck, even over here on the leftist side, I know a lot of Millenials who are out here having kids and starting families. And last I checked, adoption clinics and foster homes didn't have a shortage of kids passing through them. 

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Science and logic clearly demonstrates that LGBTQ+ families are unsustainable. 

And what business is that of the overwhelming hetero population that continues to procreate? By your logic, they should have been bred out of existence long before we had Pride parades and legalized same-sex marriage.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Logic clearly indicates that including a definition of LGBTQ+ as family friendly will reduce the rate of reproduction in a society and if rate of reproduction drops below an average of 2 per heterosexual couple that society is doomed unless attitudes are changed (sexual preferences altered).

Can you break down that math like you're talking to someone who barely passed high school algebra? Because I'm not seeing how 10-20% of the population is an existential threat to the rest of us.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Our current society in the USA has crossed the threshold of sustainability.  

No we haven't. We're approaching avoidable thresholds of sustainability, but not for the reasons you think. We're eventually going to hit a crisis of resources that will have global ripple effects. Population growth at the current rate will eventually become unsustainable. And again I ask, which political ideology has the better track record when it comes to managing our natural resources and promoting sustainable renewable energy?

Edited September 6, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

38 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

As our local organizers and electeds like to say: "We all do better when we all do better".

In the battle of competing wise sayings, I've found this one is much more powerful and accurate:

"You get what you pay for."

The more money you pour into single mother families, the more single mother families you'll get.   The more you pour into homelessness, the more homelessness you'll get.  

Yes, we can carefully craft programs tied to metrics like work, or completing rehab or counseling.  So there are ways to actually reduce the problem instead of growing it.  

Fun story: I've been a finance clerk for 5 bishops now, and helped each one of them administer fast offerings to our needy folks.  4 of them have been your standard bishops following the program. The fifth was one of the most giving caring people on earth.  He spent a lot of energy finding the financial needs in his ward, and offering church assistance to folks.  Four of the bishops, I write maybe a check or two a month.  One bishop, I'd do 2-5 checks weekly.  Dude was helping people make car payments.  We were paying rent for several people.  We were paying for a teenager's iPhone bill so he could "look for work and stuff".  Probably half a dozen or more folks with constant needs lasting 6 months or longer.  In my dozen years of finance clerking, I've only seen one case of fraud - and it was at the hands of this charitable bishop.  A family of professional scammers sniffed him out, and now they're all mormon, and somehow they never have the correct paperwork, but the bishop wanted to help so badly he'd always approve an exception.

That bishop presided during a period that wasn't marked by recession or hard times or high unemployment or anything like that.   He just got what he paid for.  Word got out that the purse strings were open with no strings and no judgment, and suddenly I'm the busiest finance clerk in 5 stakes.

The next bishop showed up, and it all dried up.  He talked with me about teen with the cell phone.  He told me he took this take:

"One of our older sisters lives on a fixed income, and literally goes without food so she can afford to pay her fast offerings.  She lives in the subsidized apartments.  She has to plan carefully for every single dollar.  Can you look me in the eye and tell me that paying for your cell phone is the best use of the funds she consecrates to the Lord for supporting the needy?"

"Well, um, no, I guess not."

I assume he had similar discussions with others, because within 3-4 months, I was back to my usual check-writing cadence of a couple times a month.  It's like word got out the new bishop was a tightwad, and suddenly all the "needs" dried up.  Or some folks got forced to live within their means.

Yeah, you get what you pay for.  Local beats federal.  Private beats government.  And tying aid to hoops that must be jumped through is critical to ensure you're not just growing the problem. 

You can tell your people I said so.  

Edited September 6, 2024 by NeuroTypical