Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Rethinking democratic values in an LDS framework

Comments

Return To Article
  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 24, 2012 8:49 p.m.

    "So, congress under a split control debt rises by $2.3 Trillion ($287 Billion/yr).
    Under Democrats it rises by $8.79 Trillion ($732 Billion/yr).
    Under Republicans it increased by $3 Trillion ($300 Billion/yr)."

    Ok Redshirt... so what is your point here. You can't claim the President isn't responsible only some of the time (when he\she is a Republican), but in the case of Obama, he is responsible. How does that work? I am not sure I am following the logic here.

    Either Congress is Responsible or the President is. You don't get to flip back and forth to suit yourself and what ever agenda you are promoting.

    Pick one, stick with it.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Sept. 20, 2012 6:38 p.m.

    Frugality in LDS land? So many can't use their own garages for all the toys they buy. Foreclosures were high in Utah because the people over spend. Mormons I see are not frugal tho most are cheap.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 3:53 p.m.

    I know a person who considers herself to be a good Mormon and a Democrat.

    She is, by the way, both a good Mormon and a Democrat.

    I asked her what she would do if she was given $5,000,000 (lottery etc.).

    Would she give half of it to the government?

    Would she keep all of it to share with those she chose?

    BTW, she chose the second option.

    What would you choose?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 20, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    re:SSMD
    Federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

    But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely George Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

    For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

    1973-1979: 2.7%
    1979-1990: 1.8%
    1990-2000: 3.2%
    2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

    Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
    (Paul Krugman)

    So what exactly did Republicans do between 2001-2007?
    I believe this is my last post.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 2:29 p.m.

    To "JoeBlow" you are wrong.

    From 1981 to 1987 Congress was split and the debt increased by $1.3 Trillion
    From 1987 to 1995 Congress was controlled by Democrats and increased by $2.6 Trillion
    From 1995 to 2001 Congress was controlled by Republicans, and the debt increased by $849 Billion.
    From 2001 to 2003 Congress was split and the debt increased by $991 Billion
    From 2003 to 2007 Congress was controlled by Republicans and the debt increased by $2.19 Trillion.
    From 2007 to the 2011 budget estimate congress was controlled by Democrats and the debt increased by $6.19 Trillion.

    So, congress under a split control debt rises by $2.3 Trillion ($287 Billion/yr).
    Under Democrats it rises by $8.79 Trillion ($732 Billion/yr).
    Under Republicans it increased by $3 Trillion ($300 Billion/yr).

    So, judging by 30 years of history, the greatest increases to the national debt occur when Democrats control congress.

  • SSMD Silver Spring, MD
    Sept. 20, 2012 2:02 p.m.

    Truthseeker,
    Your post makes one wonder why liberals hated Reagan so much.
    Reagan's 1981 tax cut cut tax rates substantially. The 1982 TEFRA reduced loopholes, did not increase tax rates, so the average wage-earner was spared. were not increased. Federal revenues nearly doubled.Reagan's appointment of Volker to the Federal Reserve whipped inflation and stagflation. The economy boomed.
    The defense spending did increase the deficit. One can debate the worth of that, but (as part of the Navy during that time) I think it was worth it. The Soviets were not able to keep up and threw in the towel.The resulting peace dividend contributed to the boom of the 1990s.
    Reagan got the formula right, but the Democratic Congress refused to reign in entitlement and social welfare spending.

  • swetgras South Jordan, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 1:49 p.m.

    It's amazing to me the hate I see here. To we democrats, we simply can't provide everything to everyone. Doing things to get votes has to stop. There are practical ways to raise the level of decency and self reliance without bankruptcy. While all or nothing seems good at the point there is enough power to pass laws without consensus, it isn't a good idea to do so.

    To conservatives, especially you religious types, start acting the way you preach. Saying "no" because affirmation brings some good to the opposition is not ok.(this goes for democrats as well. Have guts to say yes when it means we can take a step forward. We're not asking you to jump to the top of the stairs. Just recognize that part which is good and worthy to consider and move along.

    To all of us..." are we freakin nuts??" isn't there some part of the climate in our country that makes sense? Can't we just work together for a few minutes?

    Oh yes, and being frugal is not a Republican ideal. Just read history.

  • chancy Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 1:49 p.m.

    Why would anyone vote Republican with all the moral decay that has happened in their party? Can you be a good Mormon and a Republican in Utah? How long do we, as good people, put up with this corruption in our State? Now is the time for accountability.
    Moral decay and wickedness means breaking any and all of God’s laws. Moral decay includes lying, stealing and cheating the public: It is not defined by gay rights and abortion.
    Watching the politics in this state over the years, I have come to realize the Republican Party has become the party of hypocrites, self-righteousness, and everything in between.

    When President Clinton had an affair in the White House, the Republicans wanted to impeach him and kick him out of office. They did impeach him mostly down party lines. They wanted everyone to vote Republican to teach him and the Democrats in Utah a lesson that the public was not going to stand for it. But here in Utah, when Republican politicians have been inappropriate and immoral in their actions, they have still been supported and given a standing ovation, as if nothing happened. Isn’t this still moral decay?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 1:46 p.m.

    Who increased the defict by 50% in four years?

    Who took $49 BILLION out of the treasury and gave it to the unions at G.M.?

    Who gave an illegal $39 BILLION tax credit against future earning to G.M.?

    Who allowed felons to vote in Minnestoa to swing the vote from Republican to Democrat in their last senata race?

    Who called a midnight vote on Obamacare as soon as Al Franken (illegally elected) was sworn in?

    Who offered bribes to get senators to vote for Obamacare? (Mary Landrieu, Page 432 of the Reid bill, $100 million)

    Who is telling students that they shouldn't have to pay for their college tuition?

    Who is forcing an establishment of religion to provide birth control and to pay for abortions?

    Who will not enforce DOMA?

    Who will not enforce immigration laws?

    How long does the list need to be before people see that Democrats have failed to uphold our laws and to abide by our laws?

    No person professing any religion could not, in good conscience, vote for "more of the same".

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    re:SSMD
    The boom and improvement in the budget deficit preceded what was done in 1997.

    Reagan (with Democrats in Congress) raised taxes 11 times.

    Reagan signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

    Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (opposed by Republicans) raised the salary cap on Social Security.

    The federal deficit ballooned under Reagan, primarily due to tax cuts and increases in defense spending.

    re:MikeRichards
    The govt. and LDS church are the largest employers in UT.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:54 p.m.

    Re: "I wonder what . . . moderate Republicans who were either defeated or chose to leave office have to say about the freedom within the Republican party."

    Whatever they say, it merely proves my point. They were allowed to serve and continue to influence party politics.

    In my own [Democrat] party, however, can you imaging a Zell Miller or a Larry Echo Hawk -- or me, for that matter -- being allowed to run for national office as a Democrat? Or to serve on the DNC Steering Committee, Platform Committee, or as a finance and tax-policy adviser?

    Even Harry Reid, the most hard-line leftist Mormon I've ever met [and that's saying something -- I've met many Mormons in countries whose governments are officially leftist] is required to suppress what must be his real beliefs, and advocate laughably erroneous, even palpably evil positions on a number of issues in order to serve in Congressional Democrat leadership.

    Democrat "freedom" to believe and espouse one's views is much more closely aligned with Taliban "freedoms," than with actual freedom.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:35 p.m.

    Who was it that said;

    "Ask not what your country can do for you,
    but what you can do for your country."

    A: John F. Kennedy - DEMOCRAT

    Who said 47% of Americans are dependant victims, unwilling to work or take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
    or
    My kind of People, the Have's and the Have's More.

    Mitt Romney - Republican
    George W. Bush - Republican

    And who's playing class warfare, pretending to be frugal, and working for ALL Americans?

    Turn off your AM radios, and listening to the little white Millionaire liars hiding behind the curtains and telling you what to think.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    Read the post by PGVikingDad (7:41 a.m.) and then do what he suggested.

    We have fifty states that serve as a testing ground for all government policies. By looking at the fifty states and comparing what happens when different ideologies are tried, it is easy to see what works and what does not work.

    Utah is in fiscally good shape. It is the most Republican state in the nation.

    Without spoiling the "ending", see for yourself which states are in trouble and which states are fiscally in good shape.

    No amount of arguing from Democrats will ever change reality. They can tell us how great their ideas are. They can call us names and tell us that we are just as bad as they are, but they can't rewrite history.

    See for yourself, and then let's argue WHY some states are in trouble and others are not.

  • SSMD Silver Spring, MD
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    Truthseeker says:"On the other hand, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader can be a Mormon, whose stance on abortion matches the LDS church position."
    -----------
    On the other other hand, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader can be a Mormon, whose stance on gay marriage does NOT match the LDS church position.

  • SSMD Silver Spring, MD
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:19 p.m.

    Truthseeker:
    Nice try. However you are conveniently overlooking:
    The Republican congress passed in 1997 a bipartisan balanced budget measure, packed with several critical Republican tax relief items, including middle-class tax cut.Congress also reduced the tax on capital gains from 28 to 20 percent, decreased estate taxes, created the Roth IRA. Clinton signed these.
    Income tax revenue soared, and the capital gains tax reduction generated billions of dollars more. The Social Security Trust Fund was beginning to overflow, due in large part to enactment of proposals by the Reagan created Greenspan Commission. The end of the Cold War, courtesy of Ronald Reagan, also permitted hefty cuts in military spending.(Paraphrased from reporter Alan Rhyskind.)

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    re:procuradorfiscal
    "While Republicans may be headed for another extreme, rank-and-file members are still much more free to believe and advocate as they choose, even to serve in national-level Party or political positions."

    Really?
    Up is down, black is white.

    Only someone with blinders on would agree with your comment.
    I wonder what Bob Bennett, Mike Castle (DE), Tom Davis (VA), Richard Lugar (IN), and many other moderate Republicans who were either defeated or chose to leave office have to say about the freedom within the Republican party. Republicans have even come up with a name--RINOS.

    On the other hand, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader can be a Mormon, whose stance on abortion matches the LDS church position.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 20, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    Blue, You win. I misread your post.

    We are arguing the same thing. Namely that in the last 50 years, GOP administrations HAVE caused a larger rise in the deficit than democrats.

    It never ceases to amaze me how Obama and/or the dems get blamed for things that the GOP did also.

    And will add my new favorite line " It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did."

    Now, I am not giving the Dems a pass. They are big spenders. What I take exception to, as you did, is the notion that our deficits are largely caused by dems. Facts don't support that.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    Re: "There are no moderate Republicans any more, but there are moderate Democrats . . . ."

    Only a radical Party apparatchik could make such a laughable assertion with a [no-doubt, well-rehearsed] straight face, at least about the organizational Party.

    At national levels, you could count them on one hand, since Larry Echo Hawk left. And there are certainly none within the currently-serving Congressional leadership or DNC hierarchy.

    Therein lies the problem. Though real-people moderates comprise the bulk of Democrat Party membership, Party leaders and organizational hacks/flacks are nearly all extreme libertines, hard-line leftists, radical environmentalists, unapologetic Big Labor, professional re-elect-at-all-cost panderers, or anti-American internationalists. And they exercise such rigid "party discipline," no normal person is allowed to influence or serve in the Party, at least at national levels.

    While Republicans may be headed for another extreme, rank-and-file members are still much more free to believe and advocate as they choose, even to serve in national-level Party or political positions.

    Look at Mitt Romney.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    JoeBlow:

    Yes, I'll happily take that bet.

    Google a Washington Post analysis, "Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama."

    Here's the summary:

    "Since President Obama became chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the financial crisis, the continuation of past policies and other effects? For this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to attach a price tag to the legislation passed by Obama and his predecessor. George W. Bush’s major policies increased the debt by more than $5 trillion during his presidency. Obama has increased the debt by less than $1 trillion."

    I urge you to read the entire analysis.

    Bush's tax cuts and two unfunded wars are the primary cause of most of the debt incurred in the past few years, not Obama's presidency.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 20, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    re:SSMD
    Nice try. However you are conveniently overlooking:

    1. Clinton's first year, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (which raised taxes) without a single Republican vote and was a key factor in balancing the budget.

    2. Republicans dominated all 3 branches most of Bush's tenure in office.

    "The truth is that the federal surpluses resulted from specific legislation enacted in 1990 and 1993 that virtually every Republican opposed. In particular, taxes were increased and tight budget controls were put in place that prevented taxes from being cut or spending increased unless offset by tax increases or spending cuts. These budget controls are commonly referred to as “paygo,” for pay-as-you-go.

    In 2002, Republicans got rid of paygo so that they could cut taxes and increase spending without constraint.

    Thus we have a perfect test of two economic theories: one (Democrats) that says raising taxes and imposing binding constraints on spending will balance the budget, which was successful, and another (Republicans) that says cutting taxes will starve the beast, which failed spectacularly."

    (Bruce Bartlett, held senior policy positions in the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations).

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    Liberals, Democrats, don't care about self-reliance and frugality? Are you kidding me? Those are absolutely central values for the national Democratic party. I know some of you don't believe me, but it's absolutely true. The idea that Democrats want everyone to be beholden to government, or some other such nonsense, is a canard invented by right wing media.
    Food stamps? A necessary bridge for people in desperate circumstances; the average food stamp recipient receives them for four months.
    ADC? We FAVOR strengthening work requirements, only President Obama does want governors to have some flexibility, state by state, in implementation. But let's get real; a single Mom with small children needs help with child care. Again, TEMPORARILY!
    Education: who wants to spend more money on education? Who is calling for higher standards? Democrats!
    You want to hear a Democratic success story? A young couple, desperately poor, going on welfare for a short period of time while finishing an education. Then going to become very successful. Like, for example, George Romney did.
    Ignore Republican spin. It's Democrats who have a realistic plan for job creation and deficit reduction. Without cutting taxes for rich guys.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    The difference between republicans and democrats is mainly the opinion of equal opportunity.

    Republicans seem to believe that equal opportunity ends at birth. Everything after that is the results of one’s actions.

    Democrats would like to move the boundary of equal opportunity further along the path of life, to include education, health, and general welfare. Even to the point where all the survival needs are met and further progress is totally dependent only on the persons actions.

    If life were a footrace would we want all runners to start at the same starting line or would we allow some to start further down the track because of their wealth, race or other nature?

    Do Mormons believe that God wants all to have equal opportunity or does he favor some.

  • SSMD Silver Spring, MD
    Sept. 20, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    LDS Liberal says: "They SAY they don't like spending, but as ECR so sell ponted out -- Bill Clinton was the ONLY one who cut spending, cut the Decifiet and Balanced the Budget."
    -------------
    As per the Constitution, it is Congress, not the President, that cuts spending, cuts the deficit, and balances the budget. Clinton had a Republican congress that did those things during his presidency. That he went along with it speaks well of him, but it was the Republican congress that held his feet to the fire.
    Although it is convenient to discuss history in terms of presidencies, Congress and its legislation often have much more impact.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 10:05 a.m.

    It takes a bit of lawyering to ignore the values espoused by democrats that are present in the bible, but people manage to do it.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    Frugality is a wonderful concept. But let's look at reality. We have an aging population, many of whom will soon retire and require help from Social Security and Medicare to live in dignity and comfort in their declining years. There's not anything we can do about this fact. But we can and should reform these two programs, including means testing.

    We could also cut defense spending by a rather large sum over time. For instance, do we really need 700 to 800 military bases in foreign countries? Do we need 75,000 military personnel in Germany or 40,000 in Japan and in Korea?

    In spite of these items, spending is not really our main problem. Rather, we have chosen to pay for necessary government services with debt rather than tax revenue. Taxes, particularly on the wealthy, are at historic lows. The nonsense about penalizing job creators is political rhetoric. If we want to bring the deficit back to earth, we must increase revenues. And we can afford it.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    @Wonder
    There was ONE moderate Republican in the primary- Jon Huntsman. But, unfortunately, Jon was too rational, sane & open to ideas for today's Republican party copmprised of right wing whacko's & extreme religious zealots.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    It's letter and comments like these from the radical right --
    That let me thank God Almighty that MOST Latter-Day Saints are not Republicans, Not in Utah, and not even Americans!

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    Mrs. Young-Otterstrom sounds like a good, kind, decent lady. But she's naïve or in denial if she thinks that today's Democrat party supports the values she claims to hold as a member of the LDS Church.

    The Democrats' "support" for many of her listed values is in reality a corrupted version -- one which results in the exact OPPOSITE effect. The Democrats implement many of her listed values through a form of government FORCE which runs roughshod over individual freedom.

    This coercion destroys private property rights, wealth, and the honest incentive to work hard and be self-reliant. It also goes against the very free agency that Mrs. Young-Otterstrom probably claims to believe in as a member of the LDS Church.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal -- I'm not a Democrat for any of the reasons you mentioned. I used to be a Republican and I left the party when it became clear that the candidates I liked were deemed to be RINOS by the current crop of Republicans. My disillusion with the party began when I heard Rush Limbaugh call 12 year old Chelsea Clinton a dog and I thought, this isn't a nice guy. Then he became the de facto leader of the party and all Republicans began to genuflect to him and his radical, mean brand of politics. That isn't me. I don't like the rhetoric and I don't like the Ayn Rand worship that I see in the party. I also saw that Republicans ran up debt when they were in office, but railed against debt as a means to obstruct when they were out of office. When the neo-cons started pushing for wars against everyone in the middle East, it was the last straw. Republicans just don't represent me. There are no moderate Republicans any more, but there are moderate Democrats, so that's what I am.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    Procuradorfiscal: I'm a democrat because I'm mormon. Not because family tradition (all republicans), not political necessity (I'm not a politician), and my job does not depend on me being a democrat (defense contractor)
    But there are other reasons, like you said: I want what's best for this country, I know that supply-side economics is a dismal failure, and I prefer the small gains in employment and the economy over the huge losses from the result over the Bush years. There are lots of other reasons I am a democrat!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 8:02 a.m.

    Repubicans? Frugal?

    HaHa, hardy har-har!

    Holy Cow!

    Look at the out of control spending of every single Repubican President going back to Nixon...

    They SAY they don't like spending, but as ECR so sell ponted out -- Bill Clinton was the ONLY one who cut spending, cut the Decifiet and Balanced the Budget.

    Obama COULD have, but for 2 reasons....

    1. Bush played a Nero - light the economy of fire and fiddle as it burned to the ground.
    2. The Republicans in Congress has ONE goal, and One goal ONLY for the last 4 years --- Trash AMERICA and make Obama a one term President. [Treason as far as I'm concerned].

    Save the schtick about Repubicans being frugal for AM radio programs.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 20, 2012 7:51 a.m.

    "Honest LDS Democrats admit the Party has simply lost its way."

    I think that is a given. The question is can honest Republicans also acknowledge that their party has been equally been hijacked? It is for that exact reason that you now see that the largest single voting block, even in Utah, are independents. It is not they these people, I am including myself here, are wishy-washy can make up their mind types. Rather it is that neither party represents their core values. Most people, if they will honestly look at either party, will find areas that they don't agree with.

    Yet in today's world of "RINOism" and I am not sure whet it is called on the left-ism, you are excluded from the parties processes if your don't support the parties most stringently defined platforms. And therefor, many, like myself decide to lend their support to neither. When the parties start accepting a duplicity of people, stop insisting on signing "packs", stop always voting along party lines, then they will again see a vibrant American government again... of the people, by the people - not a a single party.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 20, 2012 7:48 a.m.

    Blue writes
    "and overall growth of the total federal deficit among Democratic vs. Republican administrations during the last 50 years."

    Admittedly, I have not gone thru and done the math. i assume that you have.

    But I would bet that if you take out the last 3.5 years that your whole premise goes out the window.

    Would you take that bet?

  • PGVikingDad Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 7:41 a.m.

    The surest test of what works and what does not work: Research the relative financial solvency of the states with largely Republican leadership versus those managed by Democrats. I won't give you the answer. Find it for yourself.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Sept. 20, 2012 7:33 a.m.

    Regardless of the party affiliation, it all boils down to which candidate delivers the goods needed by the state or by the nation. Right now Mr. Obama has overwhelmingly been all talk and no action as evidenced by the last four years. Let's get real and go with the best evidence we have to work with if we want to save America. Mr. Obama has such a far left agenda he could not undo the damage he has done. He neither wants to nor has the ability to undo the disaster America now faces created by his far left big government and big spending record. Mitt has the track record and he will fix the disaster he must tackle. As Governor he did what was needed, with the Olympics he did what was needed, at Bain he was amazing. You may not like ridding a company of dead wood. That's just how it goes. As Governor, his state had the highest rated education performance in the nation. America must go there in order to catch up. Mitt will get it done.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 7:25 a.m.

    "Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value."

    If Republicans value frugality, their actions sure haven't proved it. Both parties like big government, when they are the one in power. Both parties clamor for smaller government when they are the minority.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    Nate, if you're looking for "fruits" to use as a metric for belief, then look at the job growth rates of Democratic administrations vs. Republican administrations.

    Also, compare rates of growth in overall federal spending, and overall growth of the total federal deficit among Democratic vs. Republican administrations during the last 50 years.

    Democrats choosing to invest in national infrastructure, our children's health and education, tax fairness and the well-being of our nation's poorest citizens _is_ in fact an act of frugality, because we know that failure to invest in those things is a guarantee for a very expensive and extremely unpleasant future.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 6:59 a.m.

    Re: "The line about Democrats 'strengthening families, helping the poor reach self-reliance, etc.,' caused me to ask myself if Democrats really believe and strive to practice those things?"

    It's not that LDS Democrats don't believe those things -- most do -- it's that the Party doesn't. The spin required to convince themselves and other people that the Party will stand up for things they believe in is what makes it so difficult for LDS to be Democrats.

    Honest LDS Democrats admit the Party has simply lost its way. We wait patiently for the day it can be shamed back into reality, but, in the meantime, we vote something other than Democrat -- particularly on national issues and candidates.

    Whenever you hear an LDS Democrat mouthing the old saw, "I'm a Demcrat because I'm a Mormon," you can rest assured he/she is a Democrat for some other reason -- family tradition [my excuse], political necessity [can't get elected other wise], economic necessity [job depends on being Democrat], etc.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 6:52 a.m.

    Being "frugal" doesn't mean you throw the poor under the bus to save the cost of their transportation.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 20, 2012 6:51 a.m.

    I assume the Democrats do the same as the Republicans, hold their noses at things with which they disagree.

    I cannot recall any Republican candidate with whom I have been in 100 percent agreement. Same with the national platforms. So, I assume my Democratic brothers and sisters will do the same.

    Will it be easy for them? Probably not in some cases.

    But, especially in a year in which there is an LDS candidate on the Republican side, showing a little diversity in political views is probably healthy for the church and for its image (that we are not all in some sort of lock step).

    So . . . I wish them well. Perhaps it can also lay some groundwork for increased dialog and cooperation in the future. We will need that.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 6:47 a.m.

    I personally know Crystal and her husband and family. You couldn't ask for kinder people. If all of the democrats I knew were like them, then I would be supporting their efforts more. Work on weeding out the ones that have hijacked the party with their extremists views, and you would see the party gain traction.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 20, 2012 6:04 a.m.

    Dale - frugality isn't a "republican" value alone either. It is the prioritization of where to spend, and where not to that the two don't agree upon. There are both Red and Blue states that have balanced budget requirements, that were created under the framework of both parties control. The city I live in because it is highly influenced by higher education is a left leaning city. But at the same time, the city spends huge amounts on attracting business to the city.

    It is about balance, who should burden the cost, and who should sacrifice the cuts. At the national level, while the Republicans run constantly on a platform of reduced spending, the reality has been more an anti taxes platform rather than a reduction in real spending platform. No Republican administration has actually reduced spending nor balanced a budget.

    The differences are less so the "what" , but are in the "how". Even on the issue of abortion, more than 70 percent of Democrats are against abortion on demand, and more than 50% against liberalizing abortion rights according to Pew research.

    The fringes (ie Barney Frank, Limbaugh) like to amplify the differences to promote themselves, not the country.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 5:37 a.m.

    News Flash: Republicans love Big Government too. They have found it works for them. They are also not frugal.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Sept. 20, 2012 3:16 a.m.

    "I was disappointed that one LDS value, that of frugality, was missing. "

    It was under a Democratic president that we last balanced the budget and began to pay down our vast debt, which was then about $5 trillion. But then a Republican took office and claimed this money to be "your money" and started giving back tax revenue, especially to his wealthy friends. That same administration increased spending as much as his Republican mentor did twenty years earlier which returned us to the borrow and spend tactics of the 80's that got us where we are today. That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats, regardless of what their stated platform is.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:38 a.m.

    Democrats may at times give lip service to LDS values, but until I see them embrace and promote self-reliance, I can't take them seriously. Just saying the words "self-reliance" in this forum is enough to make some Democrats howl.

    In the same way, I can't believe Republicans when they talk about fiscal responsibility. When they had the presidency and both houses, they spent like drunks.

    "By their fruits ye shall know them." If you want my support, you're going to have to show me you really mean it.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:16 a.m.

    Republicans talk a good game about fiscal responsibility whenever Democrats are in power. When
    Republicans are in power the slogan changes to: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"--Dick Cheney