Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Yup, I said it. Apparently Karl Marx thought that Socialism leads to Communism (as is the USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) or Naziism, which was headed the the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. But the opposite seems to be true. Both Naziism and the Soviet Union have died, although certainly Vladimir Putin is trying to get Russia back to the the “good ole’ days” of the Soviet Empire.
But the fact of the matter is there is a big difference between tyrannical socialism and democratic socialism. Sanders is more of the latter, and there are many countries in Europe that seem to be pretty good examples of not falling for Soviet or Nazi tyrannical socialism. For example, the top 3 happiest countries, according to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) are social democracies:
Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively.
The US? As expected, the United States failed to make the top 10 but ranked among the highest for obesity and child poverty. Americans spend less than half the amount of time eating as the French, but have three times the obesity rate. “This tells us something about slow food, I think,” Simon Chappele, editor of the report said in an interview with NPR.
The report also showed the United States has the lowest mean age for women when they first gave birth, at 25.1 years old.
Also, the United States still ranks among the highest for child poverty rates, with one in five children living in poverty. This was only exceeded in Poland, Mexico and Turkey.
Truly this tyrannical socialism is for the dustbin of history, but maybe we have something to learn from Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands if they are so doggone happy. Why are they happier? And why does the US rank next to Poland, Mexico, and Turkey with regards to childhood poverty? Is that something we should be proud of, or ashamed of?
Sanders went to Liberty University a few weeks ago because ” I believe from the bottom of my heart that it is vitally important for those of us who hold different views to be able to engage in a civil discourse.” (A full transcript of his speech is found at the Washington Post.)
Of course there are issues that Sanders and conservatives disagree with, and he pointed those out immediately. “I understand that the issues of abortion and gay marriage are issues that you feel very strongly about. We disagree on those issues. ” But he felt there are areas in which he felt that he aligns well with conservatives.
[L]et me respectfully suggest that there are other issues out there that are of enormous consequence to our country and in fact to the entire world, that maybe, just maybe, we do not disagree on and maybe, just maybe, we can try to work together to resolve them.
What are these issues?
it would be hard for anyone in this room today to make the case that the United States of America, our great country, a country which all of us love, it would be hard to make the case that we are a just society, or anything resembling a just society today.
Do you think we live in a just society here in the United States? Sanders makes his point.
In the United States of America today, there is massive injustice in terms of income and wealth inequality. Injustice is rampant. We live, and I hope all of you know this, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world.
But most Americans don’t know that. Because almost all of that wealth and income is going to the top 1 percent.
You know, that is the truth. We are living in a time — and I warn all of you if you would, put this in the context of the Bible, not me, in the context of the Bible — we are living in a time where a handful of people have wealth beyond comprehension. And I’m talking about tens of billions of dollars, enough to support their families for thousands of years. With huge yachts, and jet planes and tens of billions. More money than they would ever know what to do with.
But at that very same moment, there are millions of people in our country, let alone the rest of the world, who are struggling to feed their families. They are struggling to put a roof over their heads, and some of them are sleeping out on the streets. They are struggling to find money in order to go to a doctor when they are sick.
Now, when we talk about morality, and when we talk about justice, we have to, in my view, understand that there is no justice when so few have so much and so many have so little.
There is no justice, and I want you to hear this clearly, when the top one-tenth of 1 percent — not 1 percent, the top one-tenth of 1 percent — today in America owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. And in your hearts, you will have to determine the morality of that, and the justice of that.
In my view, there is no justice, when here, in Virginia and Vermont and all over this country, millions of people are working long hours for abysmally low wages of $7.25 an hour, of $8 an hour, of $9 an hour, working hard, but unable to bring in enough money to adequately feed their kids.
And yet, at that same time, 58 percent of all new income generated is going to the top 1 percent. You have got to think about the morality of that, the justice of that, and whether or not that is what we want to see in our country.
In my view, there is no justice when, in recent years, we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires, while at the same time the United States of America has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth. How can we? I want you to go into your hearts, how can we talk about morality, about justice, when we turn our backs on the children of our country?
Does Sanders make a point here? Is it just to have ” the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth” while at the same time “a handful of people have wealth beyond comprehension…. 58 percent of all new income generated is going to the top 1 percent.” Is this a just society that does this? Is this a consecration society? Is this in keeping with what Jesus
clearly stated in Matthew 7:12, and it states, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them to do to you, for this sums up the war and the prophets.” That is the golden rule. Do unto others, what you would have them do to you. That is the golden rule, and it is not very complicated.
Is our society living the golden rule? And if it is not, even if you do not agree with Bernie Sanders approach to government, what should be done to make our society better live the golden rule? Is there any validity to what Sanders is saying with regards to the inequalities manifest in our economy? Would Joseph Smith or Brigham Young support the inequalities in our current society? Is it time for Christians to get behind this message? Do you think these income disparities are in heaven? Are they good for us in this life?
Bernie concludes
Money and wealth should serve the people. The people should not have to serve money and wealth.
Agree or Disagree?
Australia is one of those social democracies Sanders refers to. I have had many a conversation with my American friends about one example of how socialism (I meant universal health care) works in our country.
No system is perfect, but wow, there are massive differences. I work in the area of mental health service provision. I have done numerous ride alongs with the LAPD, driven down skid row, south central LA and visited many county hospitals. In each of those locations I could have easily been in hell. The worst we have to compare in our country would not equal 10% of what I saw there. One guy we saw in a county hospital had schizophrenia and fled his home state of Tennassee for California as that was the only place where there were services like decent soup kitchens, hostels etc… He had been taken to hospital due to a suicide attempt and was being literally kicked out of the door with NO referrals to care providers NO help at all….he is probably dead now…
The extremist capitalist philosophy of the USA is hard for me to understand. My American friends tell me that if you don’t have a job – bad luck – go out and get one. Mental illness – bad luck – get better. Hard times – bad luck you’re not going to get a job sitting on your bum. Sick or injured – bad luck, make it work. They’re not being horrible, or nasty – that just seems to be the culture.
My own feeling – like it is in Australia – is that those with money rule… Politicians are mostly pawns. Money is king. More money = more power.
Give me a social democracy every time. I know I benefited hugely as a child growing up in Britain.
It pains me that so many British church members seem to swallow the US conservative rhetoric, which for them would appear to part and parcel with church membership.
A democracy requires an educated society and do I need to comment on the dumbing down of our society? A consecrated society requires a righteous society. We are not even close.
I don’t find money, I earn it.
The clever get rich and the rich get richer.
I’m gonna pull a Jared and quote scripture.
4 Nephi 1:3
Sounds just like America to me.
“Does Sanders make a point here?” Yes he does. But we cannot change it with our current two-party system. It is the difference between Coke and Pepsi. It doesn’t matter who gets into office on either side, the oligarchs and money will rule.
I fear we are at the point where only hitting the reset button (i.e., revolution) will actually do something. And that means it will get worse before it gets better. Either that, or a third of the U.S. – mostly the southern-type thinking part(notice I didn’t say only the southern region) – will secede. Fine with me; best of luck to them. I don’t want to live the way they do and visa versa.
Democratic Socialism is a good model, but we are going to have to get rid of unfettered Capitalism too if anything else is going to have a chance. There are different forms of Capitalism, but the one we have in the U.S. and most of the world is dangerous and predatory.
Me:
1 Warren
2 Sanders
3 settle for Clinton 😦
I’ve been interested to see most Mormon left support sanders except for people of color, who seem to be disappointed with all of their choices.
After thinking and researching some of the work done with liberation theology, I think the scriptures provide great basis for social justice (socialism). But we all proof text the scriptures to support our positions, eh?
I love the way Sanders is helping people challenge their thinking, something that has been absent in the political leadership of the left in the UK for a long time now. I actually think that most people would respond to messages of social equality if they were led by people who respected them with a little aptitude for compassion. Instead people are scared into voting conservatively by a scarcity mentality from both parties that plays off the needs of one section of society against the other guy. It’s divide and rule. Sigh.
Meanwhile I pay my taxes reminding myself that this is the price I pay for civilisation.
Has anyone read Lionel Shriver’s novel, ‘So Much For That’? A wonderful account of the price we pay for the american dream, and deeply challenging.
And this story is true. My husband and I once visited Paris and sat down to lunch at a low end restaurant, where one generally has to share a table. An oustandingly beautiful couple joined us, she with long blonde hair-wife three or four I presumed as he was older but tanned and taut. As we spoke we discovered that she was indeed wife three, he’d had a lucrative job with an iconic U.S. brand and made a great living, they lived ,of course, in California. He must have been in his late fifties.
This trip was their last one to Europe, he told us, as the rest of his fortune would now be spent in managing his bone cancer, which he knew would kill him before long. He knew that this would consume all his assets, and his children and wives would be picking over his relatively young bones for whatever was left. He said to us, that this was the underbelly of the american dream, and for him, he knew, it would be a nightmare from then on in.Insurances, paid lifelong, would not cover his treatments.
And up to that point, I’d really had no idea.
I grew up with the political view that socialism was a stepping stone to communism, and the best way to avoid becoming communist was to limit socialism as much as possible and embrace capitalism. It seemed self evident.
My paradigm was challenged by a professor who said that socialism was a strategy to avoid communism because it tempered the excesses of capitalism and reduced the likelihood of revolution. When there is no social safety net, when all capital is concentrated in the hands of a few, when income inequality is ever-increasing, it creates a very unstable political system. But if you have a system of welfare, disability benefits, health care, unemployment benefits, public education, etc., you don’t have the type of despair and resentment that leads to revolution.
I’m not sure why socialism has such a negative stigma, given how socialist American society already is.
The problem with this discussion is that you are comparing countries with very small populations with a country with 33O million people with a large portion that have embraced free market economy.
Every situation where large populations have tried socialism is has failed. Every one has or is close to bankruptcy.
So Ken, how do you make capitalism pay closer attention to the Golden Rule? I’m all ears. How can we make the United States the kind of place that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wanted with the Law of Consecration that you have covenanted to follow?
MH–you’re not supposed to enforce the Golden Rule. That’s not how it works.
The idea is to peacefully persuade others by preaching, and let God change their hearts.
While I agree with Sanders on just about everything he said, Ken also has a point. The socialist first world would have collapsed if not for the economic engines of less generous societies. The US wouldn’t be the economic powerhouse it is without the profit motivation. Clearly the income disparity in the US is unjust, but many of the socialist “fixes” aren’t. I read somewhere that if you total up all the money spent on Medicaid, food stamps, grants, charitable services (free clinics, soup kitchens, elderly assistance) etc. and divided it by the total number of people living in “poverty”, it comes out to around $60,000 per person. For capable people, it would be much better to just give them the money. Obviously, many (most?) aren’t capable and need to be babysat. But for those that are capable, what they need most is an opportunity to make their own destiny. I just don’t feel that opportunity is there like it used to be, because you can’t support yourself well enough making minimum wage to be able to improve your circumstances. Personally, I’m thinking about half our social programs ought to be dumped, and the minimum wage ought to be raised to $12 an hour, maybe even higher over the next several years. So many people can’t afford to work because they can’t support themselves on their own, yet they’d earn too much to qualify for whatever programs they’re on. I’m afraid Sanders is the type that would double both social programs and minimum wage, the rich would protect their assets (as they always manage to), and the country would be bankrupted.
Heretic – all you’ve presented is yet another “flava” of the Liberal “Kool-Aid”, but still laced with the same poisons:
(1) Envy in general and class envy in particular
(2) Attainment of wealth is of itself deemed an evil
(3) Not ONE, ONE mention of personal responsibility
(4) Finally, and WHO shall decide WHAT is “fair”, and on what basis?
As Ken pointed out, EVERY “large” country (his definition) that embraced socialism and/communism (Hitler managed to embroil Germany in a manically-destructive war before the inevitable slide into financial ruin, so I don’t get to cite National Socialism as an economic failure) has flunked Econ 101. The small countries which you seem to believe “got it right” managed to do so under the benevolent nuclear umbrella of the USA, so they didn’t, following WW2, have to devote an inordinate portion of GNP for national defense. I’d have liked to see the Dutch, with their extensive seafaring traditions and robust economy, build even ONE “Boomer” (Ballistic Missile Submarine with a slew of at least Intermediate Range MIRVed missiles (2nd gen Polaris on). We “heartless” Americans built FIFTY-NINE (count ’em, 59!) nuclear ballistic missile subs, including 18 of the Ohio-Class, which, for all practical purposes, have first-strike capability against hardened targets. This is part of the fruits of raw, unfettered capitalism…the ability to stimulate intellectual prowess and raise money.
Sanders may be the best the Democrats can put up, which isn’t saying much…then again, 20 years ago, at this time, most pundits were all but burying Bill Clinton. The Republicans, as they are wont to do, then managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating Bob Dole, who acted as if his nomination was an entitlement. Judging by the current crop of yahoos that are stumping for the GOP nomination, history could yet repeat itself.
Sure, I’ll stump for and vote for the Libertarian nominee, and maybe this time (s)he will get TWO million votes, but the same sad stat where it counts: A “Goose Egg” in the Electoral College. And come Nov. 9, 2016, I’ll likely be saying, “don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!”
This is a complicated topic, far more than a simple claim that somehow a democratic socialist government does a better job at following the golden rule. If you go to the OECD website, there is a lot of information on the member countries, their approaches, their strengths and weaknesses. The report cited is actually from 2009. They have current trends that make for interesting reading. There is no one single “best” way, and there is an ebb and flow to all of the parameters. However, I think the US can do better. I’m not sure I like the idea of government attempts to equalize and redistribute wealth. Strong national economies and low unemployment tend to make people feel the happiest.
This is one of those arguments that you can’t win. Most conservatives do not know enough about anything other than the indoctrination they receive from Faux news about how government should function. They don’t understand the different types of government, the pros and cons, how they work in other place in the world and that the US has so much socialism already, we are practically socialist.
And lastly they fail to see how the wealth in this nation has systematically gone to the rich, who do not spend it, and, as a result, the economy falters. Put that same money in the hands of the lower and middle class and our economy would go through the roof.
We are a consumer-led economy.
Martin – you mentioning increasing the minimum wage. I agree.
We do not tip in this country (Australia) and I’ve always had a philosophical issue with it. The money I bring into the USA has been taxed at about 30%. A significant proportion of that goes to welfare assistance. Then when I buy a meal I’m meant to pay another 20% of that to a citizen of your country because your country doesn’t pay them enough.
Jeff Spector wrote: “And lastly they fail to see how the wealth in this nation has systematically gone to the rich, who do not spend it, and, as a result, the economy falters”.
Jeff, frankly, I’m surprised at you. The economy falters b/c the “rich” (definition not supplied but likely we agree pulling down considerably more coin than you or I) aren’t spending their dough as fast as they rake it in? Gee, I thought part of what’s troubling America is that there’s no SAVING going on. A once popular theory, since well discredited, is that the Great Depression largely came about b/c people with money wouldn’t spend it. And yet the same liberal types that have bought into the Keynesian BS are quick to rail against conspicuous consumption. Ya can’t please everyone, so ya gotta…(you know)
In truth, and c’mon, Jeff, surely you really DO know this, no monies earned are “idled”, unless the rich guy is stuffing his mattress with greenbacks. If monies aren’t spent on personal consumption, they’re INVESTED in some manner. This, if wisely carried out, is actually far more productive in the long run. Particularly, if the ‘rich’ are putting monies into the stock market, then the rising tide does lift ALL boats as so many of us with retirement plans and/or mutual funds see our portfolios fattened as “rich guy bucks” are used to buy them. Of course, there’s just one little problem with even THAT idea…that assumes that collectively the “rich” have that degree of influence on the overall economy. And methinks you’ll find that just isn’t so, that the combined wealth of the “rich” makes little difference overall.
I’d be a lot more impressed with the Scandinavian Socialists if any of them had a higher population or greater cultural diversity than Northern California.
Indeed, a lot of the success that Social Democrats have had in Europe can just as easily be attributed to their right-wing nationalisms that exported any sense of multiculturalism out to the United States all the way through WW2. The right-winger can very easily see a vindication of their own politics in this exact same data.
Personally, I don’t think the data supports anything at all for the US. The country is so large, populated and diverse that trying to model anything on any of the Scandinavian countries would be absurd.
“So Ken, how do you make capitalism pay closer attention to the Golden Rule?”
I would suggest making votes likes shares in a corporation. Those who pay more taxes would have a more proportionate vote. I think this would best achieve doing unto others, what they have done for you in terms of paying a larger share of services that benefit all of us.
Free market capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. The economic engine fueled by the free market has created wealth here in the United States; it has also created enormous wealth in China, Japan, Germany and many of the Scandinavian countries you mentioned as the US is, or at least was, the consumer for their exports.
I would add countries that have failed social programs have the greatest income disparity. The Kim family in Korea lives high on the hog, while most of the population lives in poverty; same with Castro’s in Cuba; and, the communists in China & Russia. When the latter two moved more to a free market economy is when the people started to obtain wealth.
“The idea is to peacefully persuade others by preaching, and let God change their hearts.”
That’s exactly what Sanders is trying to do. Why do you think he went to Liberty University anyway allquieton?
Martin, if you took all the money spent on Defense, Apple, Exxon, Microsoft, etc and divided it among all the people, I’ll bet it would be a lot more than $60,000 per person. Complaining about social programs (trying to help the poor) while ignoring the fat cats of the government and other commercial monopolies is just more politicking for the rich at the expense of the poor.
IDIAT, well said.
“Those who pay more taxes would have a more proportionate vote.” Oh yes, let the rich run the country even more than they are. That absolutely has the scriptural basis of “all are alike unto God, rich and poor, bond and free.” PUHLEEZ.
“Free market capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.” This perfectly explains why the US has child poverty rates similar to Mexico. MEXICO!!!! Nice try there Ken.
You didn’t even address the Golden rule, unless you are trying to say that those you get the most gold, make the rules. (rich get more proportional votes–you like oligarchies. What in the world would Joseph Smith say of your proposal Ken? Seriously, give that some thought and please try to justify this cockamamie reasoning to say this somehow supports the Law of Consecration! This is the ultimate BS.
Ken, repeat after me. “Oligarchies are not Consecration.” “Oligarchies are not Consecration.” “Oligarchies are not Consecration.” “Oligarchies are not Consecration.” “Oligarchies are not Consecration.”
“” This perfectly explains why the US has child poverty rates similar to Mexico. MEXICO!!!! ”
If you have a social system, like the US, that pays people to be poor. Well, then you will have poor.
God equals agency, nothing he does includes dominion or compulsion. The social programs on this earth are based on compulsion. In stark contrast, the law of consecration is 1) completely voluntary 2) is intended ONLY for those who can live a celestial law
Ken if child poverty rates are worse in the US tham Mexico why are so many Mexicans risking thir lives to come here? For that matter why are immigrants from all over the worlf clamoring to come here?
World. Oops.
M,
I was responding to the comment by MH. That was not my quote
As it says in the OP
So Yes, it is worse in Mexico, but the U.S. “the wealthiest country in the history of the world” is just 1 notch ahead of Mexico. Ken thinks this is a just society, and if we could just eliminate the safety nets, somehow these poor children are magically going to start becoming wealthy. I can’t seem to follow that logic. But thanks for sidetracking the discussion.
Bernie Sanders thinks the wealthiest country in the history of the world can do better with regards to the poor. How can we do that? How can we create a more just society?
I’m afraid this is a truly fruitless discussion, and I haven’t heard any ideas that will create, as it says in 4 Nephi “there were not rich and poor.”
Instead we hear “give the rich more votes”. Seriously??? You think that they will suddenly do as Jesus said and give all they have to the poor? Seriously???? Or will they go away grieved, as the young rich man in the parable?
I hear “Attainment of wealth is of itself deemed an evil.” Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.
“Not ONE, ONE mention of personal responsibility” King Benjamin condemned such thinking.
I’d like to keep this in keeping with the scriptural admonitions, not spouting non-scriptural platitudes that clearly violate scripture. Please?
The Nephites had no poor nor rich. How do we get there? Do we simply give up as impossible? I thought “With God, all things are possible.”
I thought you guys covenanted to live the Law of Consecration in the temple. It seems like you’ve given up and say, “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” in the unfairness. Well, you’ll get your just rewards.
“God equals agency, nothing he does includes dominion or compulsion. The social programs on this earth are based on compulsion. In stark contrast, the law of consecration is 1) completely voluntary 2) is intended ONLY for those who can live a celestial law”
Ken, let me share with you my favorite story about the United Order.
Doesn’t exactly sound like it was voluntary, but sounds a lot more like compulsion….. I don’t know that they were all living the celestial law, but they were sure trying!
“Ken thinks this is a just society, and if we could just eliminate the safety nets, somehow these poor children are magically going to start becoming wealthy”
Where did I say that or anything remotely along those lines?
“Bernie Sanders thinks the wealthiest country in the history of the world can do better with regards to the poor. ”
We are NOT the wealthiest country, not by a long shot. Highest GDP? Yes, but 18 trillion in national debt and similar personal debt and unfounded obligations, kill our “wealth”
“Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.”
You have completely butchered what Jesus meant. Most of the Apostles are in that 1% you condemn. Keep in mind, you are in the 1% if your income exceeds 350 K per year.
“King Benjamin…”
He was speaking to us individually NOT collectively. In other words, it is a directive to us as individual NOT the government
“I thought you guys..Law of Consecration..”
Again, it is a voluntary law. It failed with Joseph and Brigham because it was forced and because it is intended SOLEY for a celestial audience. Clearly these people were not ready.
MH–
“The idea is to peacefully persuade others by preaching, and let God change their hearts.”
“That’s exactly what Sanders is trying to do. Why do you think he went to Liberty University anyway allquieton?”
No. Sanders is trying to persuade people to pass laws which will force people to do what he thinks is right. That’s very different from trying to persuade people to go out and do what is right, and to let God change their hearts.
MH–“I’m afraid this is a truly fruitless discussion, and I haven’t heard any ideas that will create, as it says in 4 Nephi “there were not rich and poor.”
Did the people accomplish this by passing laws to redistribute wealth? No. They did it by preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. So what do you think of that idea?
“Keep in mind, you are in the 1% if your income exceeds 350 K per year.”
Uh Ken, I’m in the 99%, not the 1%. I’m not even close to the 1%. Now we know that the 1% is clouding your views of scripture. I’m done with you, as I can see this discussion is pointless.
allquieton,
“Did the people accomplish this by passing laws to redistribute wealth? No.”
How do you know? Please point to that scripture for me, as I’ve never seen it.
Furthermore, you seem to imply that passing laws banning gay marriage or abortion is outside the laws of Moses or the Constitution. Are you saying that we should simply preach the gospel, and let laws allowing abortion, gay rights stand without “imposing” our Christian beliefs on others? Are you so libertarian in your beliefs that we should allow legalization of marijuana, and prostitution, and simply preach the gospel?
In what was a rather politically incorrect movie, my favourite part of The Dictator was his final speech. Whilst there is broader application to the USA, I think his comments are of some relevance here.
Why are you guys so anti-dictators? Imagine if America was a dictatorship. You could let 1 percent of the people have all the nation’s wealth.
You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes and bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health care and education. Your media would appear free, but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wiretap phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections. You could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group and no one would complain. You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests. Etc etc.
Whatever you think of Sander ‘ s policies you have to admire his appearance at Liberty as an example of positive civil discourse. You also have to give credit to the LU students and administration for their side of it too. If all political discourse looked more like that than say the last GOP debates we would be in a far better place.
The point that Ken and co can’t seem to grasp about whether you loose your agency, and are compelled, when the Government helps the poor or redistributes wealth, is that in some countries (usually the happier ones) the citizens all agree that the Government is the collective will of the people, and the people agree that the poor should be cared for by the Government. It is not compulsion because it is agreed by the community.
They do it because they believe it is right, and makes for a better society – we should also recognise it is a more loving and Christlike society. Which is why the people are happier.
It is amusing/sad that the religious right are the least Christian in their views. Christ taught Love and caring for our fellow man.
Amen Geoff!
Allquieton, I can’t help but notice your gravitar is of Abraham Lincoln, the man who literally forced the South to bend to his will regarding slavery.
To quote your comment 28, Lincoln did not “persuade people to pass laws which will force people to do what he thinks is right.” He issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in the South immediately. Then he went to Congress to “force” the south to accept a Constitutional amendment banning slavery. He also led the most deadly war, compelling the South to stay in the union. This was the utmost of compulsion over the South.
Maybe you should get a new gravitar if you think compulsion shouldn’t be done by the government. Your buddy Lincoln certainly forced people through compulsion, and is responsible for the bloodiest war in US history. I find it the utmost irony of your argument against compulsion to show Lincoln as your supposed hero.
MH,
We both know I was referring to the Apostles, most which are or have been in the 1 % financially. Ucthdorf was a high level executive at Lufthansa and was in line to be the CEO. Lufthansa begged the church not to call him. Begged him. Eyring, Holland, Oakes and Bednar were university presidents with highly paid book deals. President Nelson was a prominent heart surgeon.
I have been at and/or golfed near several of their homes. They are extremely wealthy.
I haven’t even gotten to the 70’s, there are numerous millionaires along with several Billionaires.
“We both know I was referring to the Apostles, most which are or have been in the 1 % financially.”
No Ken, I didn’t know you were referring to apostles, nor did I know they are mostly in the 1%.
“I haven’t even gotten to the 70’s, there are numerous millionaires along with several Billionaires.”
No wonder the church looks like it’s run as a for-profit business instead of by a bunch of pastors who care for the poor and sick. No wonder people are looking at Julie Rowe and Denver Snuffer when the church is run by a bunch of CEO’s instead of pastors.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Perhaps this is a condemnation of church leadership that builds malls instead of the kingdom of God.
It feels weird to go all Jared this week, but Ken, please read these scriptures.
Deut. 15:7:
If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
Lev. 19:19
Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.
1 John 3:17
But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won’t help him–how can God’s love be within him?
Prov. 14:31
Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God. Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.
Luke 3:11
“If you have two coats,” he replied, “give one to the poor. If you have extra food, give it away to those who are hungry.”
2 Cor. 9:9
It is as the Scriptures say: “The godly man gives generously to the poor. His good deeds will be an honor to him forever.”
Isa. 58:7
I want you to share your food with the hungry and bring right into your own homes those who are helpless, poor, and destitute. Clothe those who are cold, and don’t hide from relatives who need your help
Luke 6:20-21
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
Prov. 22:9
He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
Ezek. 22:29,31
“The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice… Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.
James 5:1-6
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. …Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.
Wow, allquieton, nice gravatar change! I didn’t think you’d change it that quick! I guess my comment touched the right nerve after all!
Geoff,
I understand what you are saying, but I think you have missed what I have said.
When the majority vote for a certain system, there is still a minority that don’t want the system. Thus, for them at least, it is done via compulsion.
In contrast, ONLY those that CAN live the celestial law will practice the law of consecration. No one will be forced to live the law. If you cannot, or chose not to live the law you will not receive celestial glory
MH—All I said was you should persuade people to follow the golden rule—not force them by law to obey it. Of course I don’t believe this applies to everything! I think abolishing slavery by force is awesome.
Also, keep in mind that I can admire someone for certain characteristics without approving of every single action they took in life. Well, I got a new gravatar. What do you think?
allquiteon, I think abolishing wealth inequality is awesome. I doubt Ken would like to live in a world where “there were not rich and poor.” He’s too busy pandering to the 1% and thinks that’s godly, and seems perfectly happy to join the minority 1% when it’s to his advantage.
Damn the poor! They’re just a bunch of lazy morons who will inherit the earth, while rich Ken down here spends his way right into Hell. But he who dies with the most toys wins! Keep sucking up to those millionaire and billionaire 70s Ken. I’m sure you’ll get your just rewards in heaven. Who wants to live celestial laws anyway, especially here on earth? (Why would we want to live them in heaven if we don’t want to even try on earth anyway?)
I’m sorry, but I really don’t understand how the law of consecration applies here. Nowhere in the law does it say give all your money to the earthly government. The law of consecration is to give all your resources to the Church. It seems like governmental redistribution of wealth is counter to the law of consecration. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t help the poor, but the law of consecration has nothing whatsoever to do with governmental redistribution of wealth.
MH wrote: “Allquieton, I can’t help but notice your gravitar is of Abraham Lincoln, the man who literally forced the South to bend to his will regarding slavery.” And after I thought you were all wet, you actually pulled a thoughtful one out of your (pocket). Excellent point. The so-called “Civil” War wasn’t a terribly “civil” affair. In terms of portion of adult male population, it was the bloodiest war this nation ever suffered. Regardless of WHICH side, if any, one thinks was ‘right’, Old “Dishonest Abe” ensured that might made right…and John Wilkes Booth, with one round from a Derringer, ‘answered’ back. Violence begets nothing but further violence.
No one would dispute that there’s an ‘obligation’ for those of us that have been blessed with so much to likewise impart of it VOLUNTARILY. Else the words of the hymn that read “because I have been given MUCH I too MUST give…” would ring hollow. Not merely for the needs of the less fortunate, but for the good of the giver (e.g., there is as much a ‘need’ to give as to receive, if not greater).
Bringing this concept into the realm of politics, however, doesn’t translate, for one simple reason: Government, by definition, is FORCE. Now, “Force”, like fire, isn’t “bad” of itself, in fact, can be very good if properly and LAWFULLY applied. Few could argue the ‘good’ and the necessity of the US 45th Infantry Division (“Thunderbirds”) liberating Dachau on 29 April 1945 (as obviously much evil had been visited upon its inmates), nor the justice in bringing the principals involved, all the way to the top, to trial, conviction, and sentence for their crimes against their fellow human beings. Though I’m not even remotely suggesting that liberals are comparable to National Socialists (thankfully), there is that common element of the (mis)use of FORCE to invoke THEIR vision of “Utopia”. Even though someone like Sanders may have benevolent intentions (the darling of the ‘overaged hippie wearing a ponytail’ crowd’), history, even recent, shows how easily it gets out of hand with often tragic consequences (“There was twenty [square] meters of living space in that room” as Dr Zhivago was evicted by the ‘committee’ from his bedroom).
Great comment EBK
A point that should be made about those ‘rich’ GAs…it’s b/c of their ability to have cushy pensions, lucrative book deals, impressive investment portfolios, etc. that allows them to devote their sincere efforts to serving the Lord’s interest, usually at an age when most of their contemporaries are enjoying their “golden years” with lives of well-earned leisure. No golf course for the LDS GAs! And we, the rank-and-file, whose “widow’s mite” they greatly appreciate, can be assured that no one is living ‘high on the hog’ on our respective sacrifices.
One should be reminded about the story of an jar full of expensive ointment (called “SpinkeNard”), worth at the time a working man’s annual wages. It was used by Mary, Lazarus’ sister, to anoint the Savior’s feet (in unanticipated need of His burial). One of the apostles pointed this out as an unnecessary extravagance, complaining openly that the bottle should have been sold and the proceed donated on behalf of the poor. Sound familiar? The complaining apostle’s name? Judas Iscariot.
So, by this argument EBK, we are doomed never to create Zion, even if non-members are pure in heart. Only the endowed can participate in a Zion society.What an utterly negative view of human potential
But OK, now I get it.
God help America.
Handlewithcare, etc.
It is your assumption that socialism will create wealth is what I (and others) disagree with. I firmly believe free market principle create wealth for ALL. It is not a perfect system, but it is far better than any other system here on earth .
MH and others condemn me for defending the wealthy. I am not defending all of them, but there are a large percentage of the (like most of the 12) that do tremendous good with their wealth.
By the way, there are the 1% I strongly disagree with — Sanders, Warren, Clinton and Obama
Handlewithcare,
I am not necessarily opposed to wealth distribution, but I disagree with MH saying that we have to believe in it because of the law of consecration. He continually asks what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would think. I highly doubt that either of them would say that what they had in mind regarding the consecration covenant in the temple was for each of us to give all our money to the US government. If we’re going to argue that the gospel supports Bernie Sanders ideals, let’s use arguments that make sense.
Not to mention there seems to be thinking here that the government is the only institution capable of taking care of the poor. If I donate my money to charities rather than vote to give it to the government is that somehow not following Jesus’ admonition to take care of the poor? I just don’t understand the logic. If you want to argue that the government has the best resources to take care of the poor so they are the best option to give our money to, I may disagree, but at least the logic is sound. To argue that anyone who is republican is opposed to helping the poor just makes no sense.
#49,50 – It’s called DEMAGOGUERY…it’s not supposed to make sense, it’s supposed to inflame and get people to make important decisions based upon emotion (usually negative) rather than reason.
As much as I damn liberals for engaging in this despicable and sneaky behavior, it doesn’t mean that so-called Conservatives haven’t done it too. In fact, I see more often than not many conservatives, invoking moral panic, spewing inflammatory remarks and generating more heat than light, especially whenever “Family Values” are brought up. As the fictional Sarek of Vulcan would say…”So Human”.
Among the many great shorts and documentaries that Disney produced back in “Dubya-Dubya Two, Da Big One”, is this little gem that specifically addresses how emotions can be easily manipulated. It was intended to counter Axis propaganda and show how the Nazis employed manipulation tactics. The hell of it is that such a production would never pass muster in today’s hyper-sensitive, politically correct environment.
MH,
I have read them, taught them, agree with them and practice them to the best of my ability. Since you have thrown the accusation, I will defend myself. I personally spend at least three hours every day helping the poor, needy and disabled. Last year I personally donated 14 percent of my income to charity and this year it will be closer to 30 percent. I sit on the board for a charity that helps troubled youth and adults that struggle with addiction. Last year, I personally raised $317,645 for this Charity.
I would encourage you to read section 101 of the D&C where the Lord established THE Promised Land, or America with the free market principles. He knew it would create wealth. He knew it would be the economic engine to lift millions of his children out of poverty. He knew it would be the standard of freedom for the world.
Ken, I applaud you for your donations to charity, as well as the time you’ve spent helping poor and needy. That is to be commended.
But you fail to convince me that “section 101 of the D&C where the Lord established THE Promised Land, or America with the free market principles.” Not free market principles, but CONSECRATION. Joseph Smith did not like free market principles. The Depression of ~1810 caused by free market excesses caused his father to move from Vermont to New York. He was trying to create God’s economy via Consecration, not free market principles. It is completely wrong to read “free market principles” into ANY section of the D&C. The words simply aren’t there, and neither are the concepts.
Having said that, let me quote Bernie Sanders again.
Now it is great that you are donating 30% of your income to charity. However, wouldn’t it be a much more just society if you and the other 1 percenters didn’t hog 58% of wealth? You’re not giving 58% of your income to charity. That’s what it would take to “break even” for the abysmal wages of the McDonalds or Walmart worker who make $9/hour, and are encouraged by “human resources” to get on food stamps and Medicaid because wages are so low that their employees can’t afford health insurance, get sick, it leads to pneumonia because they can’t seem to afford a $5 prescription, and they don’t vaccinate their kids because they can’t afford the copay. How are you helping the working poor?
Donate 58% of your income and I’ll be impressed. Better yet, encourage the other 1% to donate 58% and I’ll call you an angel, and ask you to run for president. I’d even vote for you.
Now, getting back to EBK, I agree with your sentiment. “If you want to argue that the government has the best resources to take care of the poor so they are the best option to give our money to, I may disagree, but at least the logic is sound.”
The government may not the best resource out there, but I will argue that Walmart, McDonalds, Apple, and Exxon aren’t donating 58% of their income to lift people out of poverty. If that were happening, then yes, the government doesn’t need to be involved. But when Walmart, McDonalds, Apple, and Exxon are sending lobbyists to Congress to get even bigger tax breaks from the government, then the government needs to say “No. You’re people. You need to pay your fair share.” I don’t think any of these “corporate people” are paying their fair share, and I’m more concerned about them than I am any apostle in the 1%. “Corporations are people my friend”, as Mitt Romney would say. Let’s get them to start donating 58% of their wealth and we won’t have to elect Bernie Sanders to “compel” people to give to charity. It’s a great solution, but somehow I don’t think Walmart, McDonalds, or Exxon are going to think this is a good idea (nor Ken.) And let’s keep Apple from moving to Ireland for tax avoidance reasons.
In absence of the corporate giants from donating even 30% to charities, I know of no other option other than government to fix the problem. Ken, how are you going to convince Apple to donate to social programs by simple persuasion?
First off, I agree with the law of consecration. Totally. It is God’s law. I hope I am worthy to live it one day. But, here in reality, free market principles are the best plan.
Look at what God said about the Constitution of the United States. Which, by the way, calls for private ownership of land and labor. The pursuit of life and liberty requires freedom. Please read 77-81.
“According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the Day of Judgment.
Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”
“And let’s keep Apple from moving to Ireland for tax avoidance reasons.”
Unfortunately, you have identified the solution and the problem. The more you tax these corporations, the more they will want to move offshore.
The (almost) paranoid fear of the government I hear from comments made by EBK and Ken stagger me. The worship of the free market is, in my opinion, a form of idolatry. I’m all for competition but to allow private companies to have virtual complete control over something as important as my health – well, they can go and get stuffed. I, and all tax paying Australians, pay a couple of percent of our taxable income to the pool of money that takes care of all of us. Some will go to me, some to others less fortunate. You call that socialism, however, it appears closer to the law of consecration, if that’s the comparisons we are making.
I have no paranoid fear of the government. I do think that they are definitely not the most efficient institution in America (meaning they are possibly the most inefficient). I can see where MH is coming from that we can try to inspire individuals to donate money, but it’s harder to get corporations to do so. While they are individuals for financial and tax purposes, not so much for salvation purposes. I have no problem being taxed to help those less fortunate than myself. My only problem with this comments section is the argument that the law of consecration=higher taxes. It’s just not true. Use a different argument if you are in favor of higher taxes and more social programs. There are plently of good arguments out there. I am also opposed to the argument that anyone who doesn’t support more government social programs must hate the poor or think the poor deserve what they have. It’s just ridiculous. While some people may believe that, others may just believe that the government isn’t the best tool to use to help the poor. Your response to my comments is evidence of my concern. If people don’t support social programs they all have a paranoid fear of the government, don’t want to help poor people, don’t want any of their money going to help someone else. It’s not a good argument.
Geoff,
There is no paranoia of Government planned economies, it is just an inferior system.
There are almost no advancements in technology, science, communication, etc..that come from a planned economy. In stark contrast, almost every major advancement (tv, radio, computer, medication, smart phones, air travel, automobile, software and on and on and on) come from a free market system where there is a PROFIT incentive.
People above are talking above how great thing would be if we could redistribute the wealth better. The problem is that wealth was created by someone who was motivated by profit. If you take that incentive away, you will have less wealth to distribute,
Too me, you are the paranoid one, you are afraid to allow people to govern themselves.
Ken – I think you meant to direct your comments to me – the other non American socialist.
If you think that the system of government I’m talking about – such as here in Australia does not let us govern ourselves then you are both paranoid and ignorant.
The small amount of wealth that most contribute to the Medicare system allows me the ability to govern how I spend the $15,000 extra I get per year than if I lived in a system that is like that in the USA.
For all the failings of both systems, of both counties – I know where I’d rather be if I was sick.
LDS_Aussie – judging by WWII casualty stats, more specifically, American versus Soviet (for them, call it the “Great Patriotic War”), I’d know which system I’d be more confident to have served under (e.g., odds of survival). As a further point, we sent the Soviet Union some 4,500 diesel-engine Shermans under Lend-Lease, and they issued these beasts to their so-called “Guards” units…who preferred the Sherman over their own T-34/85, much to Stalin’s chagrin.
“Ken – I think you meant to direct your comments to me – the other non American socialist.”
My apologies to Geoff.
I do understand Australia is not a planned economy. Like the US, it is chiefly based on free market principles with heavy social programs. It sounds like they are better managed in your country that ours.
Those who bring up the United Order as justifying their respective leftist/socialist positions might want to consider what various Church leaders have said on the subject.
First, this little gem from J. Reuben Clark in 1942, and Clark, as I best recall, was considered quite liberal for his time:
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-united-order-vs-communism/
And this missive from the fairmormon website:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Communism_and_the_United_Order
A Googling will reveal yet more citations, peruse them if you care. I think it’s safe to say that though I would always encourage even the most die-hard liberal to vote his/her conscience regardless of what yours truly thinks of it, methinks I stand on solid ground when I tout a laissez-faire system that keeps as much of the productive means in the hands of those that actually produce, so they can decide for themselves what to impart to the less fortunate. As I’ve said before, I hope they’re generous, I’m sure the Lord expects it of those that claim to follow Him.
Not sure if I want to wade into this mess again, but a few thoughts.
Nice there Ken. “life and liberty requires freedom.” Except for black slaves. I remind you that slavery was still very much legal in 1833 when the Lord declared those verses you cite.
While I don’t mind saying that the Constitution was an inspired document, and a massive improvement over monarchy, it certainly had a number of flaws. #1) slavery. “All men are created equal” sounds like an inspired statement. It’s too bad that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both slave owners didn’t believe it, and some ~70 years later left it to Abraham Lincoln and the loss of millions of American lives to rectify that situation. God inspiration wasn’t there. YOu’re right “”life and liberty requires freedom”, but the Constitution didn’t guarantee that, so it’s hard to follow your logic there. I guess life and liberty requires freedom only for white men (not women.)
#2) “All men are created equal.” Obviously women have no standing in that phrase, and it took more than a century to allow them to vote.
#3) The founding fathers disregarded the Constitution when it suited them. Thomas Jefferson knew it was unconstitutional to initiate the Louisiana Purchase, but did it anyway. I doubt anyone (including Ted Cruz) wants to give half the United States back to France, so cut the crap about presidents being unconstitutional. Lincoln violated the Constitution with the Emancipation Proclamation. Ted Cruz isn’t complaining about that either. Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus, one of the most important doctrines in the Bill of Rights. Cut the crap on breaking the constitution. Lots of presidents have done it and we don’t complain about it.
#4) The Constitution has been amended 27 times, so certainly it was not perfect in 1793.
Yes it was inspired, but no it wasn’t perfect. Quiz idolizing the imperfect document. It enshrined slavery and women couldn’t vote. It could definitely use some updating and has 27 times already. For heck’s sake Donald Trump wants to do away with the 14th amendment. I’d just like to have a regulated militia that doesn’t shoot up public spaces 142 times since 2012. We’d never allow our military do that. Why do we defend bad guys with guns?
EBK,
You’re taking some of my statements way too far. I never said “that we have to believe in it because of the law of consecration.”
I also never said “consecration covenant in the temple was for each of us to give all our money to the US government.”
I do “continually asks what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would think.” All I’m saying is that in a consecration society, we give of our substance freely.
I highly doubt that either of them would say that charging $750 a pill for a 66 cent pill was a godly practice, and they frequently complained of “profiteering gentiles.”
I would just like a more fair economy that has some principles of consecration. I never said to give all to the government (although with Utah’s theocracy, church=government and was considered godly.) I’m just saying that if we have covenanted to live consecration, the least we can do is complain about market abuses (such as this drug that has gone sky high) instead of claiming that this is just a wonderful example of free market principles in action. It’s an embarrassment.
And Ken, I hope you enjoy paying $750 a pill for your drugs when they should cost 66 cents. Being in the 1% sure has its benefits, because you can afford these ridiculous prices! Who needs affordable health insurance when you’re in the 1% anyway?