The most ironic -- Those who condemn the redistrubution of wealth,
and praising the very corporations for doing so.[sending good
paying jobs to China, India, Brazil]It's building th eCommunist
China, while killing America.
The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles under Brigham Young
issued a statement read by local church leaders to the Latter-day Saints in 1875
that discussed the continuation and expansion of ZCMI. The brethren strongly
condemned income inequality and focused on the Mormons becoming strong
economically by being united and by cooperating for the good of all. Parts of
that letter were quoted by Open Minded Mormon. In 1875 there were very few
checks and balances on capitalism, a very small proportion of society was middle
class, and the transcontinental railroad had reached Utah, bringing with it
monopolistic influences. This statement was made before the start of The
Progressive Era; when there were no anti-trust busting legislation or laws nor
protections for workers; when children were made to work long hours and when
many accidents occurred (and if they did the laborer was automatically fired and
made destitute); when there were a few men who owned most of the wealth,
capital, land and raw materials in such things as steel, oil, railroads, or in
monopolies and trusts; and when society believed in Social Darwinism -- the
false idea that "my hand hath gotten me this wealth."
@RedshirtMITOh sure, let Romney's tax rate fall to near 0 (almost all
his income is from capital gains from investments he says he has little
influence on what's done with them, so basically you want him taxed near 0
on income he did next to no work to get).
In the Obama world...every kid makes the basketball team and plays
equal time even if he or she can't even dribble a ballevery
high school drop out makes at least $15 an hour and companies are forced to hire
themevery wealthy person - whether they sacrificed and earned their
wealth or not - must surrender that wealth to the Federal Government up to 75%.
The feds will then distribute that money to those who will take the money in
exchange for their votes. I wish I was being sarcastic here but
believe it or not this how "Barry" Obama thinks...inside the mind of a
re:bungalowYou are correct that the US is getting passed by China
and India and other countries as far as skilled - educated - labor. There is no
question about it. America is obsessed with entertainment and high school kids
in most American schools don't even come close to the same in other
countries as far as math - science scores. America must compete in the global
market and we can't just isolate ourselves and expect to prosper. Obviously
there needs to be a fundamental change starting in high school but what are the
chances that is going to happen. What has Barack Obama done in 6 years to change
that? Nothing!! Obama is not a deep thinker and he certainly is NOT innovative.
Giving more hand outs does nothing ....it only worsens the deficit of ambition
America currently has. America is looking to Obama for solutions but Barack is
nothing but an empty suit. I have said this a hundred times - America has a
LEADERSHIP vaccumm in the White House and until that changes our children's
future will be dim.
LeBron James has a nearly 200 million dollar contract for playing basketball.
Joe the Plumber makes 40k per year. It's called the free market -- FREE
--is the key word here. If you want more money then stop complaining and go to
college and work toward a job that pays more instead of expecting the government
to make it all better for you. Put your big boy pants on - get off the couch -
put the beer down and use the God given abilities you have been blessed with.
Will it be long and hard? Yup. Guaranteed. Is there a 100% chance of success?
Nope. But just be thankful for the chance. In Communist countries you don't
even get the chance. You are stuck on government cheese and housing for the rest
of your sorry life and the high walls with barbed wire will make sure you never
get the chance at the FREE MARKET.
To "Commodore" the funny thing is that if you compare the income
distribution of Japan to the US, they are roughly the same. Sweden is close to
the US for distribution, but still is more top heavy than the US.Nice thoughts, but maybe you should look to economists that believe in
capitalism rather than socialism.
Perhaps the real issue here isn't what a rich man should do with his money
but rather who is asking.The social contract with government is broken.
Congress has single-digit approval ratings and a rather disturbing combined rap
sheet of felonies and infidelities.Government scandals abound. Civil
servants are overpaid and benefits are wasted.In short, government has no
moral authority to confiscate and wisely use our money to relieve the suffering
of the poor.The situation notwithstanding America's wealthy are
@ CletusYou are only willing to accept the consequences because its
obvious they do not affect you personally or you do not realize the tremendous
burden they are to society. Watch the TED video then lets talk.
"...we must all support less income inequality or face a plethora of
horrific social consequences."I'm willing to accept the
plethora of horrific social consequences of which you speak of here in
America.In our capitalistic nation, the typical person in the bottom
5 percent of the American income distribution is richer than 68 percent of the
world's inhabitants, and they pay no Federal income taxes. Almost half the
world, over three billion people, live on less than $2.50 a day. I bet many of
these people wish they were poor Americans with our plethora of social
consequences.Should we create more on massive social welfare
programs for poor Americans? In 1960 we spent $445 per person in poverty
programs. We now spend $7,741 per person, yet the poverty level has remained
fairly constant. Perhaps there are better solutions than the same
old tired arguments of punishing CEO's, raising taxes, or creating more
massive social programs?
@ RedShirtCalTechYou said, "Income inequality is proportional to
the size and power of the central government." That is not always true. I
point out to you that Japan and Sweden are ranked extremely low compared to
other Western Industrialized Nations. Japan does not have a huge and powerful
central government, but Sweden does.
RedShirtMIT,Those tax cuts from the Reagan era are still in place
today and what has happened to the distribution of wealth in this country for
the last 30 years. They wealthy have done incredibly well and the middle and
lower class have done incredibly poor. Trickle down economics maybe provided a
short term bump in the economy, but Reagan tax policies have been a major
contributor to the problems we have today unless of course you are in the upper
10% economically, then it has been a very good 30 years for you.The
idea of Reagonomics was that the wealthy would take the money recieved in tax
breaks and poor it back into their businesses, hiring more employees, paying
better wages, producing more products. It was not meant to be a way to
accumulate and sit on large sums of cash, and move business off shore to third
world countries and creating sweatshops around the world. I would
think if Reagan were alive today I would be the first to admit that his policies
did not work as intended, and were actually counter productive to the people he
wanted to help.
There is an excellent TED video on Income Inequality and the horrific impact it
has on economies, health, and other important social factors. Its 15 minutes
long and well worth the watch. Google "richard wilkinson ted
inequality". There are two ways to really reduce income inequality: Option
1- massive taxation and social welfare programs. Option 2- Limit total Executive
pay to 10 times that of your lowest paid worker. Both options require government
intervention and this because unrestrained capitalism - meaning no or little
government intervention - grinds the worker under its heel while sending
exorbitant profits to the upper echelons of society. Its fascinating
to look at Mr. Wilkinson's data and see how Japan and Sweden are very low
in income inequality, yet they are completely different societies. Sweden is a
social welfare state and Japan is not. Whatever your political
persuasion, we must all support less income inequality or face a plethora of
horrific social consequences.
To "viejogeezer" I don't think you paid any attention to the
1980's. Reagan dropped tax rates, and we ended the stagflation. Reagan
ended the failure that was Carter's policies.As for the Bush
tax cuts, those expired 3 years ago. You should be asking why Obama's
efforts at spending our way to prosperity haven't worked on a recession
that ended in July 2009.
Thank you viejogeezer, your right and they will not answer those questions
because it shows how the republican trickle down has nearly worked to pile the
money into a few hands while they trickle less and less to the proletariat.1 in 3 Bank employees are on some kind of public assistance, while the
banking industry is paying million dollar bonuses for failure?Worshiping the wealthy as a precious commodity isn't a virtue. The
virtue of selfishness by Ayn Rand is not a religious doctrine.
Tad:I didn't see where Weber advanced the view of
"parasites seeking to take your 'hard-earned' wealth from you"
as you say. Rather, I thought he said that "To hold the value that
"what's yours is mine" is a parasitic position." From what I
read, that's a far cry from what you imply is his view and a gross
over-generalization in and of itself. Go read his post again carefully.The fact is, there are many people who believe "what's yours is
mine" and to call that out as a destructive view isn't based upon a
limited perspective -- it's the truth.
Redshirt:Why shouldn't capital gains be taxed the same as other
income(Ronald Reagan made it so in 1986), it is still income. Real corporate
tax rates are only 13%( see USNews 4/4/12)and many large companies pay no tax at
all through corporate tax dodges. Frankly, I would support a zero tax rate on
worldwide income for corporations and pass all income through to shareholders to
be taxed as ordinary income. Foreign tax credits mitigate double taxation. As to wages, in 1940 5% of Americans held BA degrees and 25% were high school
graduates. In 2009 25% held BA and 80% were high school grads and yet real
wages have been stagnant for 30 years since Reagan started reducing marginal tax
rates. BTW Reagan's and Bush's tax rate cuts haven't resulted in
economic growth.Lost:15% income tax plus 15.3% FICA equals 30%. How
do you document the failure of anti poverty programs? Some might say without
them things would be much worse. Some documentation please.
@Weber, thank you for acknowledging that your view of the morality is "your
opinion." I did not say that I thought the opposite view any more valid than
yours, merely that the argument could be made. Nor did I ever say that I thought
government redistribution of wealth was the solution. In an earlier post, I
pointed out that our society redistributes opportunity as well as wealth as part
of the process of providing security. it is much easier for the wealthy to
overcome the bars to entry in their investments than it is for the less affluent
to do so, and therefore the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I have come
to believe that neither your view of "parasites seeking to take your
'hard-earned' wealth from you," nor the view that "the rich
got their wealth by stepping on the backs of the poor" are valid, but are
gross over-generalizations created by limited perspectives. I fully
agree with you that more government isn't the solution. I tend toward the
Consider a small example of government exacting a life time financial
penalty.If one did not previously sign up for drug coverage because
ones health did not need the insurance and what little medicine/drug needed, one
could easily pay the cost. However, now that the new government mandated health
insurance has, under a tax provision, become law, many if not all, must find a
different insurance carrier that includes drug coverage. But because drug
insurance had not been previously acquired, the person is penalized for the rest
of their lives by a monthly penalty that increases health insurance costs.This one example, among many, of our government strangle hold on its
people that lessens one income and freedom.
Becoming financially secure is a combination of intelligence, timing (luck) and
work ethic. In studying people of means I've found all three of these
things in varying percentages. But rarely will you find a wealthy person who
lacks one of the three, unless he/she simply inherited the money. That said,
90% of millionaires in America today are FIRST GENERATION millionaires. The
notion that most rich people inherited their money is not validated by the data.
Great, I agree. I just don't agree with Pres. Obama making the statement.
He has turned his back on supporting traditional marriage for political points.
Out of wedlock births are the main cause for poverty in the US. Talk is cheap.
LDS lib,You mean privates wear the same uniforms and get the same pay as
lieutenant generals? I don’t think so. Please be honest in you
analogies, if you can.Metacoug,Don’t hold your breath
waiting for lib.Viejogeezer,Sure, LBJ (D) instituted a failed
war on poverty, installing the federal government into more and more aspects of
our society. Since then, the wealth gap has increased and poverty has become a
generational thing. LBJ and JFK before (who initiated tax cuts) were NOT
members of the GOP.And where do you get that labor is taxed at a
minimum of 30%? 47% pay NO federal income tax. Well, maybe in the
people’s republic of CA, they get taxed that high.
To rephrase is Biblical terms, Envy and Covetousness are the
defining challenges of our times.
To "viejogeezer" the bigger question is why should capital gains be
taxed at all? When I buy stock in a company, and that company makes a profit,
they are taxed on their profits. Now, when that same company distributes the
profits to all of their stock holders it is taxed again. Why should profits be
taxed twice?As for wages, why should a worker who is doing the same
job for 30 years be paid more than a new worker who adds the same value to the
end product? The middle manager has had to improve and expand his knowledge
base simply to remain up to date with government regulations and mandates. What
has the average worker done? During Truman's time there were more people
getting college degrees. Since the 1980's, fewer people have been getting
college degrees. Don't you think it is possible that the statistics you
are referring to are influenced by the fact that the percent of the US with
college degrees is dropping because the number of people enrolling in college is
not growing at the same rate as population?
The "income gap" only insures social programs like medicare, medicaid,
social security, food stamps and Obamacare will continue. Make no mistake these
are all transfers of wealth to ease the pain and soothe the masses. Without
them, there would be civil unrest and the wealthy would have no where to flee.
Holy moly said: "I believe the french used the guillotine to solve economic
class inequality."This is correct. As I have listened to the
every increasing babble about "income inequality," my thoughts hark back
to the French Revolution. It didn't work out so well for the French --
their oppressive, noble elite were replaced with oppressive, degenerate
plebeians.I know few think it can happen here, but I can see it
Perhaps someone can explain to me why return on capital(dividends) should be
taxed at a maximum of 15% while return on labor(wages) is taxed at a minimum of
30%. Or why your burger flipper working on his feet all day still has the same
real wage he had in Truman's administration or the average worker
hasn't had a real wage increase in 30 years while the middle manager,
sitting in his air conditioned office, has had a 300% increase. It seems to me
that certain politicians who derive power from large corporate contributions
maintain that power by touting social issues (like abortion, school prayer, and
gay marriage) about which they don't really give a fig in order to dupe
people who care about those issues to vote for them while in reality they cater
to their corporate masters.
Isn't the idea that the rich get richer a natural evolution. It is natural
that someone who is able to invest a large amount of capital is going to make
more money. Those with no capital will remain stagnant. I don't think
labeling classes as lazy or greedy solves this. It's natural that money
travels upward.In America, the rich appear to influence politics
through lobbying more effectively than someone with no money, thus helping their
cause. Everyone may have an equal vote, but only the rich appear to be able to
control the person those votes elect.I think this may lead to a
split in classes where we label each class (Ten Percenter). Once we are labeled
we can take sides. I believe the french used the guillotine to solve economic
class inequality.If the best way to make the rich richer were to
have them invest in the working class, then we may see a better distribution of
wealth. It seems like the biggest tax breaks come from deregulating Wall Street,
thus the rich money goes there. Is that a benefit to the worker? Some say it
causes job creation. I dunno...
The hypocrisy of the left is breathtaking. The very thing that would motivate
wealthy people to take more care for the poor, to limit their own wealth by
providing better livings for their "hirelings", is the very thing that
the left goes out of their way to limit and castigate, namely religious belief.
The basic underlying factor behind the growth of greed, is that people, in
general, no longer feel accountable to a Higher Power. If the left wants to
have more equal distribution of wealth, they should embrace religious-based
teaching of basic morality. Jesus Christ taught this stuff.
It is not income inequality that brings about tyranny, it is the concentration
of power. Such was the case throughout the Book of Mormon, and such is the
clearly observant reality in the white house today.I serve alongside
a man who's grandparents fled here from a nation imposing "pay
equality", because they sought the education and labor to succeed and exceed
in life, and not to be "burdened by much taxes" that they would have
little to no more than those who openly chose not to work at all.Seek the words spoken by the modern prophets of God of the matter;
they've not but condemned socialism as a poor counterfeit of the
adversary's. Outside the curch, we've spent almost the entire life
span of the United States watching the free market burst with innovations and
production, while communist nations have inevitably brought its people down,
@TadIt is not "immoral to argue that one has a 'right'
to another's possessions simply because that person has more."Yes, it is. To hold the value that "what's yours is mine" is a
parasitic position that is indeed, in my opinion, both immoral and offensive and
will ultimately lead to the downfall of a society. You are correct...it depends
on your idea of morality. And yes, it comes down to a question of values. People make the mistake, as you have, of equating the right to private
property with an inability to "eliminate human suffering." They are
independent of each other. As I said before, there are countless ways to
eliminate human suffering and elevate the economic condition of the poor without
infringing upon the property rights of another. This is what proponents of
modern social justice theory simply don't understand. Or if they do, they
are unwilling to consider such options.Also, using government as the
sole arbitrator of what it considers "fair" is nothing more than
feudalism with a different mask. The only difference is that government elites
replace the role of the feudal lords.
We focus too much on the concept of redistribution (which is really
confiscation) and not enough on the word "wealth."Even the most
generous of the rich (like Jon Hunstman Sr.) have nice homes, grand pianos,
swimming pools and luxury cars. Who are we to say they have an excessive
lifestyle? How can government even pretend to claim what is excess?Once
you dictate what someone must do with THEIR money, you take away the incentive
to create wealth.
Pandering to the ultra liberal base. This philosophy won't work in a free
society. People need a hand up not a handout. Obamas approach has bred
malcontent, jealousy and misunderstanding. We can do better.
The misunderstanding of the United Order here is astounding. The United Order
has nothing in common with Socialism and or redistribution of wealth. It has
nothing in common with Crony Capitalism nor compulsion, which is at the absolute
core of our current laws and system. No where in the United Order is compulsion
a part of it. How one can talk about the United Order and Democratic principles
of minimum wage, etc. is appalling and an affront to God. I'm all for the
United Order, but when any person applies any man made laws to solving our
current problems, I cringe. Ignorance of the Lord's law of consecration is
no excuse for replacing it with greed and envy! Free markets and living not
supporting the Kingmen in Washington are what will change the course of this
country. When people are ready to live the law of consecration, it will work.
Until then don't equate government power and control over my life with
God's method of charity. If you want to change this country, change
yourself and don't delegate that responsibility to a government
bureaucracy. It come from within. Liberty doesn't rely upon compulsion!
Ultra Bob,You are talking about recycling. Money does recycle as
well: you earn a dollar, you spend it at a store, that store spends it, it might
even eventually make its way back to your employer and your paycheck.Say No to BO is talking about redistributing. Using your water cycle analogy,
redistributing would be like saying that Seattle gets far too much rain and Las
Vegas gets not nearly enough rain, so let's spread the rain clouds evenly
over Washington and Nevada so that both get a more equalized amount of
precipitation. The redistribution of wealth-- taking from the rich to give to
the poor so that all have equal wealth-- is not a sustainable economic model in
Say No to BO.“Would someone tell me where in the world this
utopia of redistribution works?”When you step outside for a
breath of fresh air, do you ever wonder if that air was ever the disgusting
noise that a dinosaur made?When you drink that pure clean water, do
you ever wonder where it’s been? If water didn’t
redistribute by evaporation, how long would the dry spell with no rain last? Closer to home, if your blood wasn’t used over and over, how long would
you live? Is there any thing in the world that is not redistributed
and used over and over and over…
One misconception is that the "rich" are the Republicans.Where do we find the biggest gaps of income inequality? In places like Boston,
New York, Chicago, LA, and Washington, DC? Or in places like Ephraim, UT?And are the residents of Boston, New York, Chicago, etc. more likely to
vote Democrat or Republican?When you hear "super rich" do
you think of places like Draper and Alpine, or places like Beverly Hills? I bet
if you were to look up the richest zip codes in the nation that most of them
voted for Obama. I invite everyone to look at a map of election results by
county and think "does this place have a high or low income
disparity?"@ Open Minded MormonA huge difference
between the brethren and Obama is that the brethren are not causing the income
inequality. Obama speaks of helping the poor, but he is not helping them.As somebody once commented on a DN article: "Obama so loved the poor
that he created millions more".
Trust Logic Brigham City, UT, 00@LDS LiberalYou are absolutely right. It does work in all of those places (although
I'm not sure how things work in the Celestial Kingdom). The difference is
that they were all voluntary!4:14 p.m. Dec. 4, 2013======= So is living in America.I'll sight the Utah motto:If you don't like it, leave.It's a free country, you can leave and there is nothing to stop you.
Can someone tell me how the shifting of 50% of middle class wealth to the top
20% since 1980 as a result of republican tax policies isn't government
redistribution of wealth? Or how is the requirement that insurance companies
provide honest value policies and freeloaders purchase medical insurance from
private companies considered socialized medicine? And lastly, why on earth do
ordinary hardworking people whose real incomes haven't increased in 30
years support tax policies that have resulted in the top 20%'s incomes
rising 300% in the same time frame?Maybe someone can explain it to me,
Dear LDS lIberal:There are important differences between what the US
government is doing and the scriptural examples you cite. Can you tell me what
@LDS LiberalYou are absolutely right. It does work in all of those
places (although I'm not sure how things work in the Celestial Kingdom).
The difference is that they were all voluntary!
@LDS LiberalThat was helpful.Your suggestions are out of this world.
@Dave D~Those talks you reference are within the aspect of the
church, not the government. When the "Proclamation of the Economy" was
written, church leaders were the government leaders. Communal living and
cooperation was necessary for survival. The Church welfare system today helps
the poor and teaches people how to be self-reliant, but it doesn't just
give a free hand-out. That "proclamation" is never used now and is not
church doctrine.If you want to see higher wages, then you want
smaller government. The company my husband works for will start paying the
"Medical Device Tax" come January. Do I expect he will see a raise
anytime soon? Nope. The money is going to the government instead. Equal outcome
for everyone takes away the incentive to work hard and enables people to become
lazy. This leads to a bigger, more powerful government, which inevitably becomes
corrupt. There are good talks about this from:Howard W.
Hunter: The Law of the HarvestEzra Taft Benson: "The Proper Role of
Government" and "Freedom and Free Enterprise"Marion G. Romney:
Is Socialism the United Order?David O. McKay: Two Contending Forces
Say No to BOMapleton, UTWould someone tell me where in the world
this utopia of redistribution works?2:41 p.m. Dec. 4, 2013The City of EnochHeaven========== Dave DSpring Creek, NVAgreed!and "Families" are
Socialists.[BTW - I'm a veteran as well, another good example
of Socialism. same pay, same food, same housing, same 'uniforms'
-- just like in the Temple :-) ]
All through history, bad people have made good people look like villains. It
happens in societies, and our personal lives.Problem is, a high
percentage of people believe the lies, and just a few are wise enough to see
through it. This is why, most societies through history, have lived in bondage,
and poverty. They believe in bad people.Our country was founded by
good, and wise leaders&people. America is great, because the people are
good.We must not cease to be good, or our country will not not be
@VSTBountiful, UTWhile your ilk quotes "dead" Ezra T.
Benson out of context daily?====== Say No to BOMapleton, UTWould someone tell me where in the world this utopia of
redistribution works?2:41 p.m. Dec. 4, 2013OK -- Enoch and the City of Enoch,The City of Zion, The Celestial
Kingdom.In our individual Families [if we are living it
correctly.]It's in the scriptures, It's in the
This is a subject which troubles me.Suppression of the poor is a
recipe for disaster, but giving handouts is not the solution either.I think Dave Ramsey has the right idea. Step 7 of his baby steps is to build
wealth and give.Another topic related to this is how much money
influences politics today.
A couple of things:VST writes concerning the 1875 Proclamation on
the Enonomy, "This Proclamation is not even referenced today on LDS.org
because it no longer applies."I disagree. If there were ever a
need for cooperative economies that emphasize a "no poor among them"
approach, it is now.And banderson assumes, "Dave D and others: I
am almost certain that you and all the other progressives out there advocating
for redistribution of wealth don't even know the difference between the
United Order and Communism."I should state I feel fairly
comfortable on this issue as it was largely the subject of my masters thesis. I
recognize that the Law of Consecration is not communism. I also recognize that
whatever we as Latter-day Saints are collectively living now does not come close
to resembling Zion. There are LDS kids in the world who literally starve to
death because of the unjust system of which they are a part (I speak of the
global economic system and the church welfare system). I do think we
have more in common than you might think, banderson. So let's not go
creating a straw man when we agree on the problem.
He’s the one who has given us trickle-up poverty – he’s NOT
the one to try and fix the problem.The GOP house voted to keep the
government open, harry reid and the dem-senate voted to shut it down.Open minded, RanchNOTHING BO has proposed would address the problems
mentioned in the old LDS statement or scriptures you quote. His policies
encourage the evil of the dole and those who are idle eating the bread and
wearing the garment of the laborer (one of a few, you forgot that one). They
encourage covetousness.Funny you should mention gadianton
considering the absolute lack of transparency from the BO misadministration and
his stonewalling on fast and furious and Benghazi, etc ad naseumIf
the burger flipper wants the same wage as the CEO, he should improve his
qualifications. I’m truly sorry for you if you cannot discern the
difference between the skillsets required for the two very disparate jobs.RiverofsunPlease tell us how Romney has thwarted BO since he has
not held office in years. BO had two years with carte blanche from congress and
things got worse.
Mr. Obama wants to give Socialism one more try. Reward for hard work will be
removed and there will be no wealth to redistribute. Obamacare (socialized
medicine) is just the first giant step.
Would someone tell me where in the world this utopia of redistribution works?
As I recall Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" spent the last third of
the book warning that if unchecked capitalists would behave anti-competitively,
run roughshod over everyone else and that government needs to regulate business
carefully. I remember forward looking business management experts like Peter
Drucker describing the relationship between management and labor as a
partnership. In today's corporate capitalism labor is simply another
commodity, like iron ore or fuel the cost of which needs to be ground down as
much as possible. This, combined with rampant corporate welfare, reduced
marginal tax rates and taxing dividends as capital gains have resulted in
increasing wealth and income inequality. Beware when it gets too bad. Remember
the French, Russian, Mexican and Chinese revolutions. But when the poor cry for
bread we can always just let them eat cake.
Dave D and others: I am almost certain that you and all the other progressives
out there advocating for redistribution of wealth don't even know the
difference between the United Order and Communism. The United order had
property rights and was based most of all on choice. Anything the government
does now or in the future, whether it be minimum wage laws or otherwise, is
based on compulsion. If you want to help the poor remove greed from your own
life and do what will truly help the poor, a free market and enforcement of
Constitutional laws and God-given rights. As long as you support the kingmen in
Washington, as well as the collusion between the rich, the corporations, and
government, it will only get worse, much worse. There would be nothing that the
rich, the government, and the corporations would like better than to have the
Democrats and Republicans come to some agreement to "help" the poor by
making minimum wage laws higher! Come on people, figure it out!
IF Obama and the RINO's in congress are successful in passing amnesty, the
results will be MUCH LOWER wages. Especially in the lower-paid non-skilled
jobs. We can't add 20 million "new" workers to the workforce
without depressing wages, especially on the lower-end of the pay scale.How will the amnesty that Obama desires HELP the problem of income disparity?
Come on people, quit masquarading your greed as charity. If you want to help
the poor, break up the Kingmen that run Washington and allow the free market to
dictate the future, rather than the collusion that exists between the rich, the
government, and the corporations. Until you understand basic human nature, as
well liberty, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the middle
class will carry the load!
@ open minded mormonTo say that a CEO is a non-Laborer is false.
His Labor is simply different from a burger flipper. Not only are the labors
different but responsibilities vary too. While a burger flipper may only be
responsible for the burgers at that restaurant for a particular time frame, the
CEO is responsible for the success of the company as a whole which may cover
hundreds of restaurants. Plus you must also take into account the prior
experience. The CEO has gone to more schooling and may have had previous
positions that show he is capable of running the company. What has the burger
flipper done to show he is worth the same pay as a CEO, nothing.
@Weber: It is not "immoral to argue that one has a 'right' to
another's possessions simply because that person has more." Your
position is based on Locke's view that possession of property is a right,
but this premise is not universally accepted. One might as easily argue (and
some do) that it is immoral to argue that one has a right to his possessions
when another has insufficient for his needs. It comes down to a question of
values: which do we value more? Property or elimination of human suffering?
Locke's view, properly stated, is that property in the natural state is
held in common until someone improves upon it, at which point he accrues a right
to it through his improvements. The extreme of your position is Feudalism, the
extreme of the other is Socialism. Fist century Christianity and 19th Century
Mormonism both espoused holding of property in common for the community.
The sad commentary here is not that there is an ever widening gap between the
rich and the poor, no one disagrees with that or the fact it has been widely
exacerbated by our current president, it is the delusion that more government
monopoly over the economy will solve it! IT WILL ONLY MAKE IT WORSE. The real
delusion is that the rich and the band of gadiantons know exactly how to
manipulate those who believe in foolishness. The collusion by government and
corporations and the evil intentions of both insure their survival. The basics
rudiments of free markets are just that; they are free and will produce more
wealth for everybody, but if you empower the Kingmen with collusion in their
places of power,they will enrich themselves at the expense of the poor. Free
markets help the poor, but Democrats and Republicans don't want free
markets; they want power. President Obama's words and actions have made it
much worse for the one group that he probably wanted to help the most, the black
Americans. Figure it out, people!
Obama, Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are all wealthy people.How will this
inequality going to be fixed?
I believe that there is a significant concern expressed here. Severe income
inequality is sign that there is a problem with our society! But, it was
created by our society, not the government! And no policy or law can ever fix
it, because the root of it is selfish motivations. The greed of the rich AND
the envy of the poor. Government can never force changes in motivation. They
can only sometimes influence it (usually with the risk of unintended
consequences).The only solution is if we as a society change. Argue
less. Help each other more. Give willingly. Buy with motivations other than
the absolute lowest price or national trends. Only when WE choose to close the
gap will it work. I think that is what all of those quoted scriptures and
apostles are trying to say. They are not government policy suggestions.
I too would like to see the reference to Open Minded Mormon's quote.We live in a global economy. The higher we push up wages for flipping
hamburgers and digging ditches, we then will see a ripple effect in
manufacturing asking for high rates. During the 70's increased wages drove
manufacturing costs up. That along with the failure to modernize drove
manufacturing out of the US to other countries. If we had closed borders, then
perhaps raising wages wouldn't drive business to find cheaper locations to
manufacture or establish call centers.India is experiencing this
issue now. From 2000 to 2010, in companies I worked for, where offshore IT work
was sent to India, we experienced 10 - 15% rate increases annually from India.
Now Romania, Lebannon, and other countries are under cutting India's
prices. The real answer lies in people willing to get an education
in marketable areas including the trades. A HS diploma doesn't work
anymore. This means sacrifice, which too many people are not willing to do.
Look at how many immigrants start with 2 and 3 generations in one home so that
they can scrimp to build. Sacrificing short term desires for long
term results is the answer.
@Ranch---the laborer has the same opportunities as anyone else.Some
people take the risks, and investments to build success. What do you think it
takes to become a dentist? The schooling, dental equipment, assistants, etc,
are expensive. Takes more effort than being a laborer, or burger flipper.Is it a sin for a dentist to earn more than a laborer?
Those wanting the reference for the quote by Open-minded Mormon (my kind of
Mormon, by the way), here it is:"Excerpts from the Apostolic
Circular on the Economy 1875," authored and signed by Brigham Young, Daniel
H. Wells, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards,
Brigham Young Jr., George A. Smith, John taylor, Orson Hyde, Charles C,. Rich,
Erastus Snow, George Q. Cannon, Albert Carrington.The historical
context of the document shows a resurgence in emphasis of the United Order.
Brigham Young and other church leaders of the time emphasized the ideals of a
Zion community, hence the formation of cooperatives such as ZCMI.Church leaders today still speak out against inequality and our fundamental
responsibility as disciples of Christ to do something about it. Recent examples
include: D. Todd Christofferson, "Come to Zion"; H. David Burton
"The Sanctifying Work of Welfare"; and Dieter F. Uchtdorf,
"Providing in the Lord’s Way."
For those that prefer to live by the scriptures:For if ye are not
equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things.
D&C 78:6But it is not given that one man should possess that
which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. D&C 49:20
When we create regulations (EPA, FDA, OSHA), licensing requirements (doctor,
lawyer, remodeling contractor, plumber), impose facility requirements (impact
fees, zoning requirements, building permits & codes), provide tax incentives
(energy development, specific technology investments), or allow collective
groups to set prices (labor unions, guilds), we create economic bars to entry
into markets that are easily overcome by the rich and difficult to impossible
for the less affluent. Each of these bars serves a purpose in ensuring the
security of some group or "the public," but at a cost. The principal
differences between the two political policies lies in which bars they favor and
which they would do away with. Who knows how many burger flippers are budding
Andrew Carnegies with their paths blocked because we've decided some
group's security is more important that his opportunity.
@RanchThanks for willingly misrepresenting my position...how very
Christian of you.My position is that those with less are not
"entitled" to that of another. It is immoral to argue that one has a
"right" to another's possessions simply because that person has
more. Any assumed "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation
of rights at the expense of another, is the antipathy to authentic social
justice.This position is independent of your labor argument.Regarding labor, in a free society, the laborer is only
"entitled" to that which he earns according to the voluntary employment
agreement in which he freely enters and based upon the contractual obligation of
the employer who is willing to pay for that effort in return.There
are countless ways available to elevate the economic condition of the poor
without perpetuating ignorant hostility against the affluent or proposing silly
governmental action to redistribute wealth.
Let see where have I heard message line before .... Oh I remember!"Income Inequality a challenge for modern day Russia (1917)" - Lenin.
"Obama did not propose any new policy initiatives in the speech, sponsored
by the Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the White
House." Another empty speech from an empty suit. He can't
propose anything because he is clueless -
Folks, I'm not an economist, but I do understand the law of supply and
demand. The reason that wages are low and getting lower is because of the
supply of workers available to any employer. If our unemployment rate was
reduced to around 3 to 4 percent, then the worker would be in the position to
demand more for his services. Right now, with the 7 to 8 percent territory, the
workers value is less and an employer can pay less to get workers. That's
what happens in our type of economy. Now, if you think that the government
should do something, (besides minimum wage laws) then what is it? Force
employers to pay more? That is essentially upping the minimum wage law. Be
like San Francisco and make the living wage law something like 12 or 15 dollars
an hour? You think the seller of product and service would not increase their
costs accordingly? To stop that you would have to pass a wage/price freeze law,
(like Nixon did). Welcome to socialism. If that's what you want.
I'll bet that's what Obama wants.
Without poor people the Democratic party would cease to exist.Democrats like to pretend that they represent the underprivilaged, but, at the
same time, they want to make certain that they STAY poor.
Open-minded, Why would you think Obama is in harmony with the
Brethren?"Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W.
Bush" Huffington Post, 4/11/12.It is humorous that you keep
referring to the "Proclamation on the Economy" (1875). You didn't
mention the purpose was to get the Saints to invest in Z.C.MI. The History of
Salt Lake City says, "It was a statement by the Church relative to Z.C.M.I.
as an established success of the Mormon people in co-operation, and to stimulate
the community to perpetuate its existence." It's never been published
as official Church doctrine, nor is it ever mentioned by the Church.However, there is great financial advice in an official Church publication,
"One for the Money": "Complete as much formal, full-time education
as possible, including trade schools, and apprentice programs...Acquire some
special skill or ability that could be used to avoid long term unemployment...We
should not allow ourselves, when out of work, to sit back and wait for our
'type of job' if other honorable interim employment becomes
available." (#8)In other words, don't plan on flipping
burgers or count on welfare your whole life.
Californian:Read D&C 49:20; I am sure you will find it in
perfect accord with prophets and apostles of previous ears, including the quote
from 1875 (from Everett) which you were trying to discredit.
To "Open Minded Mormon" that is a great quote, but you and your ilk
often miss the source of the problem. Income inequality is proportional to the
size and power of the central government.As an extreme example, look
at North Korea. Their income distribution is largely 2 groups now. The super
rich, and the super poor. There is little inbetween.Another
example, closer to home is the US itself. Since 2009, when the recession ended,
the government has been scooping up more power, and the incomes for the
middleclass and poor have dropped. See "US Household Income Down 4.4
Percent in 4 Years" in the LA Times.If you want to make the
income distribution more equal, you need less government and regulation and more
capitalism.Who says that the CEO doesn't labor too? The CEO
has to make decisions that can destroy or boost the company. Why should he be
paid the same as the guy who's biggest decision is to decide if they are
working the window or the register. This does not run against the "law of
the harvest". Look at the parable of the talents.
I for one am thankful that our President, The Pope and our LDS Church Leaders
have reminded us that we have an obligation to look out for those less fortunate
than ourselves. It is not a sin to reap the rewards of the harvest, but those
rewards need not be way out of line with the wages of the average working man or
woman. I don't think people like the President and The Pope for one minute
are suggesting that the poor shouldn't work for a living if they are able
to. They are just saying that there should be reasonable income for working
people - such as a reasonable minimum wage. The income disparity in American is
rapidly becoming a disgrace and an offense to fair minded people everywhere!
Since Open Minded Mormon is out of responses, I looked up the Proclamation on
the Economy by the Church. It goes back to the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham
Young. That was a little (purposeful in my opinion) bit of knowledge left out
by OMM. One can hardly compare what was going on in the days back then to what
is happening in todays world wide economy. Open Minded Mormons point was a
terrific example of comparing "apples and oranges". I'd like to
see just what the LDS Church leadership would say today if they put out a
current Proclamation on the Economy. Somehow I think it would emphasize staying
out of debt (17 trillion for instance) And not voting for politicians who add
to a debt that big. 7 trillion for Obama alone. Plus, it would talk about
working if you can and not depend upon the public resources as a reason to not
get a job. In other words I think it would be based upon "conservative
individule responsibility" first.
Billy Bob:Do you even bother to try to keep up on what is going on?
It would not take much research for you to see that your statement about the
rich earning what they take is completely false. In a cursory search you will
see in fact that all the profits have been flowing to the top one percent for
decades now while productivity has increased substantially and labor's
wages has in fact been stagnant and even declining in the last decade. In other
words redistribution of income has been occurring, but just the opposite of what
you think -- all the money has been flowing to the top 1% (money the masses on
the bottom in fact earned through greater productivity). I wish some dolts would
inform themselves on obvious facts before they spout off to clearly expose their
blatant ignorance of contemporary society -- do a little reading before forming
your opinions, and especially before publicizing them.
The times with the worst income inequality were 1928 and 2007 in this nation.
What happened the following year? Economy tanked. Nobody's asking to make
burger flipping wages the same as being a doctor, we're saying that the
economy works best with a strong middle class and that increasing income
inequality is THE sign that the middle class is weak.
SCfan...How can you make such a statement?The Republican leaders in
our government and big money(Koch brothers, Romney and others) have said
"NO" and fought EVERYTHING President Obama has been trying to do to make
the changes necessary to improve life for the citizens of our country. He has
especially tried to help those less fortunate individuals amongst us.Do
you seriously believe that America was without problems and evil before
President Obama ever beat John McCain in 2008?Do you feel the same anger
towards the Catholic Pope and others both here in America and throughout the
world who are trying to help our world become a more kind, generous, and loving
It isn’t necessary to do away with private enterprise capitalism to regain
the proper balance of income distribution in our economic system. But it is
necessary that we bring the rules of the game up to date that have given process
by which people can transform their energy into life sustaining wealth. The notion that “I did it all by myself” is wrong. Yet many
profess that it is as true today as it was in the Middle Ages. In America, more
so than the rest of the world, the success or failure of a business operation is
more dependent on society where it operates than just the efforts of the
investor. Technological has caused an imbalance in the
distribution of income that if uncorrected will bring the entire system to a
halt. Or at least put us back into the Middle Ages. Income must be
available to the whole of society previously obtained by mere physical and
mental labor which is not longer needed. Their share must now use the last
thing in their arsenal. That being their existence in America and a part of the
If liberal democratic policies are so incredible, then why did Charles Barkley
say "The biggest misconception is that the Democratic Party does so much to
help poor people. In a whole lot of cases, the Democratic Party keeps people
poor." He goes on to say that nearly every person in his hometown is a
Democrat, and their lives are no better than they were 20 years ago. Obama is a failure and there is not one thing he has done that has been
successful as President!Economy worseUnemployment worseJobs
worseforeign Policy worsehealthcare worsespending worsedollar worsewelfare worse (more people are now on welfare than ever
before)rich are richerpoor are now poorer and all this from
the Obama who in five years has said he wants to spread the wealth
The "First Presidency quote" from Everett 00 was dated in 1875. I
prefer to read the scriptures and listen to the living prophets.
If Obama is opening his mouth, hold onto your wallets.
And guess what his (Obama's) solution is? SOCIALISM. Socialism
(government)bridges and narrows the gap and income inequality. This is a
president that has and will undermine - if not kill - the American spirit of
hard work, innovation, entrepreneurship, social mobility, etc., No wonder why
the recent polls say that he cannot manage government. He's a community
organizer. And he was voted for two terms? C'mon America!!! Let this
president be the greatest lesson in voting for the better candidate - voting
with your heart and BRAIN!
People who work for a living are being overwhelmed by people who vote for a
Oh, also the problem with income inequality isn't the rich getting richer,
since most of them are earning it. The problem is that the poor and the middle
class are hurting and are not keeping up with the growth in income that the rich
are experiencing. This generally is the result of liberal policies that
democrats and other liberals claim will do just the opposite. Liberal economic
policies hurt the poor and the middle class.
I'm no rich person, just part of the working middle-class. I do not live
off of others (ie, welfare or other social programs). I'd be far more
concerned about income equality if those who choose to live off the government
and have the ability to do for themselves would stop taking advantage of welfare
programs. You know there are many who do it. Let those who are poor use
opportunities available to get themselves out of poverty. I'd be all for
helping those who want to work for it.
Ironic how Obama and his policies have made the wealth gap worse. Maybe
"ironic" isn't the right word. More like "predictable" for
anyone who really understands Obama and his policies.
Has anyone considered the possibility that it is government's policies
which are creating and/or contributing to income inequality?
Open Minded MormonEverett, 00Great input. Please give
Doesn't it strike any of you as an important fact that the times when the
wealthiest one percent are getting the wealthiest is during the Obama
administration? The wealth gap has grown the most in these recent years? In
other words, the guy who was supposed to come along and "fix" these
things, is the one who is not changing anything. How does that make you who
voted for him for this reason feel. You can't be happy. And you
can't blame it on anyone else now, not after 5 years. Frankly, this speech
by Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carters "malaise" speech, which pretty much
signaled the end of his Presidency.
Open Minded MormonWould you please give the reference to that quote
you say is from the LDS Church leadership. Name of who said it, place where it
was said, and date. Thank you.
"The president cited the pope's question of how it isn't news when
an elderly homeless person dies from exposure, but news when stock market loses
two points."======= God bless our Prophets! [for the
LDS Proclamation on the Economy saying the same thing.]God bless the Pope!
[for bringing this to our attention.]God bless the President! [for
agreeing and echoing his statements.]God bless Aemrica! [and pray we wake
up to the Gadianton's on WallStreet who have over taken us].
If we learn anything from history we should know that such inequality will not
stand. So just get ready for the chaos.
No--income inequality is not the gravest concern. The greatest challenge this
country faces is proper education of the next generation and creating a business
environment that encourages more wealth creation by more people.
@Weber State Graduate & worf;Your position is that the laborer
does not deserve a living wage for his daily labors, but the owner/CEO should
get it all.How very "Christian" of you. I'm sure
Christ would agree.
@Weber State GraduateClearfield, UTThe real question is: How many hamburgers did the CEO of McDonald's flip?The
PRODUCT and Production comes from the LABORER, the PROFIT seems to only be
going to the NON-Laborer.That runs diametrically opposed to
God's Law of the Harvest.The Gadianton Robbers and Master Mahon
economy 1010 is what we are witnessing in Corporate America.Read the
Book of Mormon.It WILL be our ruin.Just like I quoted form our
Is this the mind set of people?* A burger flipper should receive
equal pay of a dentist. * Entitlement, and receiving!
America's most cherished "value".* People at the top
didn't build on their work, someone else did it for them.*
It's a sin to work, and be successful, because others are struggling.* Political leaders give over half their wealth to equalize the
poor.* If someone is poor, it's another persons fault.* The brethren take millions of tithing payers money for lavish
vacations, and are in harmony with Obama.
The real question is: Should the people at the bottom demand what
those have at the top, even if their labor did not actually contribute to what
those have at the top?It's simply a red herring to claim that
most people at the top callously "took" what they have off the backs and
labor of those who have less...this is simply not true and does nothing more
than promote bitter jealousy and hatred. That's the problem with social
justice and class envy...the idea that because someone has more, they must have
obtained it unscrupulously. And those who have less are owed and entitled to
something that is not theirs.James 4:2-3 "You desire and
do not have...You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not
have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask
wrongly"James 3:14-15 "But if you have bitter jealousy
and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the
truth."Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your
neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or
his...donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."
@Weber State Graduate;The real question is: "Should the people
at the very top take all the rewards for the labor of those at the
bottom"?3.1 Timothy 5:18 “Do not muzzle an ox while
it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his
wages.”Ecclesiastes 5:11-13 (in Context) Ecclesiastes 5 (Whole
Chapter) Other Translations 10.Malachi 3:5 “So I will
come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against ..., against those
who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless,
and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says
the Lord Almighty.
The true aim is to encourage envy and hostility against success and champion the
idea that those with higher incomes somehow owe a portion of their wealth to
those with less. A focus on "income disparity" is nothing more than code
for social justice. After all, social justice dictates that those with more are
not entitled to what they have and must share simply because a
"disparity" exists. Envy is a potent human emotion and is
another form of greed...the demand that others give what is unearned. And
it's easy to whip up hostility against those with more with a play on words
such as "greed" and cloak class envy under the pretense of
"fairness." Rather than focus on upward mobility and create
opportunities for those with less to improve their condition, it's simply
much easier to prescribe action for redistributing wealth at the top in order to
fit the progressive model of equality. Of course, a powerful progressive tax
structure is the supreme instrument for promoting social justice. Unfortunately, the President's progressive objective for equity always
involves a "government" solution...and it doesn't have to be.
Greed. America's most cherished "value".
Google and watch: Wealth Inequality in AmericaThat your eyes
might be opened, and never decieved...
The 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:THE EXPERIENCE
OF MANKIND has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom
wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are
the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least... ONE OF THE GREAT EVILS with which our own nation is menaced at the present
time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few
individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly
and courageously... are endangered by the monstrous power which this
accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful
corporations. ...were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our
form of government. It threatens the entire country. If this evil should not be
checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of
riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and
want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for,
according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure
precursor of ruin.=========== Looks like Obama is in
harmony with the Brethren.
Yep, try and change the subject to anything away from his ongoing disasters.
Obama needs to learn to govern more and to speak less and to quit stuffing
people behind him on camera. The more he talks at this point, the more damage
he does to himself. Set the good example and talk less and stay home for