OLB wrote:

loopycoug wrote:

And this has what to do with BYU sports?

That is why this thread is in the "other" portion of the Forum.

sorry guys, this thread is my fault. I had some sincere questions about your perspectives on where the republican race is at now that romney is gone, and it's spun out of control . I do think it's important to discuss these issues though.

Hengst wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

First, if you want higher wages, then remove government intervention and remove the minimum wage. Ask anyone trained in real economics (not social economics) and your eyes will be opened. (Quinns first law of liberalism : Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.)
Second, I grew up in Laie, going to Kahuku High School. One of the poorest schools in the nation. Almost nobody had a car. It took me six months to save up $35 to buy something I really wanted. Yet I am now considered "rich" by liberal standards. I went to college and paid mine and my wife's way through. I worked 50-60hrs a week while carrying 16-18 credit hours. I finished first in both majors, both minors, and both associate degrees that I took at the time. I worked. That is what it take and I did come from a very poor family. I am the first college graduate on either side of my parents family. While in school I made friends with someone from an even poorer background. He came from Columbia. He worked to by a tent and then set it up in a nearby beach park. He went to school and continued to work. He graduated the year before me and went on to medical school. I will never buy the argument that people in depressed areas are not there by choice. My friend and I got out through hard work and so can they.

Third, what I don't like it the theory that only the government will take care of the poor. The scriptures you refer to are not talking to the Roman government but to the christians following Jesus. It was directly to the people. Allow people to be generous. Don't force them to be.

And as for Magic the Obama supporter. Name one accomplishment that obama has done. (oh, and he gives good speaches doesn't count;) ). I can name several off the top of my head for Mitt. He founded a billion dollar business employing 2000+ americans, helped get the SLC Oly's organized leading to a successful venture, and he sucessfully ran a state! BTW, to say hundreds of thousands of Mormons support Obama - did you and your buddies take a count or did you just estimate? I grew up in Hawaii, have all my family still in the islands, and many of my childhood friends. Everyone of them that I have spoken with are pro Mitt and anti-Obama! If you are going to join in the arguments, please try your best to keep to the facts. This is not a liberal news agency that just makes up facts (ooo low blow! sorry but I couldn't resist). I would address the rest of your arguments but the first one basically discounted the credibility of the rest of your post.

If you read my post you'll notice all I was doing was trying to encourage people to make arguments other than "poor people are lazy and stupid". I just think we ought to have some compassion. That's great that you were able to get out, but that doesn't mean that everyone can.

The arguments you made about the economy and those scriptures being directed at Christians are good arguments. All I'm asking is that you stick to those rather than kicking people who are already down.

I don't think it was me as I was poor financially (although I didn't know it at the time). I understand their circumstances so I don't think I called them names. If is was me you are completely justified in correcting me. I agree that name calling does not foster intellectual debate but rather detracts from it. Good call.

imuakahuku wrote:

I don't think it was me as I was poor financially (although I didn't know it at the time). I understand their circumstances so I don't think I called them names. If is was me you are completely justified in correcting me. I agree that name calling does not foster intellectual debate but rather detracts from it. Good call.

I don't know if it was you or not. I just read it a couple of times so I thought I'd encourage some civility . you're a good guy imaukahuku (sp), we may disagree on a lot of things, but disagreement is better than apathy.

Hengst wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

I don't think it was me as I was poor financially (although I didn't know it at the time). I understand their circumstances so I don't think I called them names. If is was me you are completely justified in correcting me. I agree that name calling does not foster intellectual debate but rather detracts from it. Good call.

I don't know if it was you or not. I just read it a couple of times so I thought I'd encourage some civility :-). you're a good guy imaukahuku (sp), we may disagree on a lot of things, but disagreement is better than apathy.

Agreed! Thanks for the compliment! I had one of the posters send me an email a while back basically calling me names because he didn't agree with me. I think debate (communication) is very healthy because we learn from each other.

imuakahuku wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

CougyMonster, seeing people coming over the border for care is emblematic of rationing and scarce resources, to be sure. Something no one wants. But would you not agree that 35 million uninsured Americans, or whatever the actual number is, is just a different way that the resources are being allocated here? To me that reality is a troubling as the people coming over the border for medical attention.

I have never understood why it is either our system or "socialized medicine." Once that term comes out, end of debate, because who wants socialized medicine? I thought "socialized medicine" was where the doctor is employed by the governement. Am I wrong? That said, do you consider Medicaid or Medicare "socialized" medicine? If you do, why? If not, then what is wrong with this model as a means for covering all Americans? I am not advocating this, just wondering. The fact is that about 1/3 of all Americans today are on one or the other programs already.

That is the beauty and deception of this argument. Those millions of uninsured still recieve great healthcare. All they have to do is go to the local General Hospital and they will receive treatment regardless of whether they are insured or not. People always refer to them as uninsured as if they cannot get treated but that is a fallacy. They do get treated to the tune of billions a year.
Here's an option why not just get rid of health insurance altogether? Make people pay for it and I guarantee you that prices will drop. The problem is that you have to first limit the damages from lawsuites. How about it doctors? How much of your practice's fees pay for legal insurance. I know our OBGYN had to leave her practice because her partners decided the insurance for delivering babies was just too high. So now there are many fewer groups delivering babies in our area, which means demand for their services is much greater as well as the potential for lawsuits and both in turn leading to skyrocketing fees for their services.

You make some good points,as usual, but I think it would be good to consider that caring for the uninsured is more expensive than those who are covered. Why? They wait longer and problems grow, they ignore problems and they get worse, and when it gets too bad, they go to the hospital's emergency room where the costs skyrocket...and who pays for that? The taxpayers, the insured (through higher bills) and society in the form of lost time and productivity. Our system is not working...Many companies recognize this and are clamoring for change--the competitive disadvantages they are finding themselves being put in is gigantic...GM spends significantly more money on each car because of health care costs than does Toyota and its Japanese health care model. (Using CougyMonster's definition of "socialized medicine, Japan is a socialized medicine country). We can do better; we must do better.

I just spent 30 minutes reading through all of this post. Interesting stuff. I need to preface what I say first of all. This election cycle, my wife finally is taking interest in politics, so I've finally had someone to bounce my ideas off. I have tried to determine why I feel and think the way I do, not just say what others have said.

This will probably not be a very coherent post, because I will be jumping all over the place, but, you are not forced to read it.

I get the feeling from Hengst (and from others I have talk to) who consider themselves liberal (I hate using broad generalizations, but it sure makes it easier to type) that their main concern is for the people. Especially those in the LDS church feel that they must help others, as stated by whoever quoted King Benjamin (Sorry, I'm not giving credit where credit is due, but I'm not going to go look for it over 19 pages of postings). As a conservative, I have thought how I reconcile the capitilistic idea of everyone for themselves vs. the liberal idea of "we have to help everyone".

What I have decided is that I don't believe it is the governments responsibility to take care of everyone. In that regard, I am libertarian. I feel we have a social responsibility to take care of the downtrodden, and help those who need help, but should the government help out?

We have had examples of poor people getting out of poverty and making a life for themselves, and they say "I did it, why can't you". We've had examples of socialized medicine that worked, and people say "It worked for me, why not you". As an example, lets think of a poor single mother of two living in the slums of Baltimore. The liberals say that as a people, we should provide health care for this family (because she obviously can't afford it), also help out with welfare (should we make her leave her family to work). If we do make her work, it shouldn't be minimum wage, because she can't live on it, and we should pay for her children to go through school, and maybe even get a college diploma. But, we also need to make sure that the kids don't have real problems at home, so day care is provided, etc... On the other hand, a libertarian (this is even a larger stretch than a conservative) says the government shouldn't have to take care of people. If the mom really wants to help her family, she goes out and finds a job or two. She provides for her family, and maybe moves out of the ghetto so that her kids are taken care of. It's up to her to teach her children self-reliance, and then they can take care of themselves. This is really the compassionate thing to do, so that we don't teach people to live off of handouts, but to take care of themselves. This is what the country was founded on, and we should stay with it. The idea is that in the whole, the economy get's better (less taxes = more money to grow) so that the poor people, over generations are better off (which historically actually has been the case). We will sacrafice the individuals, for greater overall prosperity, which will eventually help the poor.

When we bring in Christian values, do our ideas change? Whould Christ force people, through taxes, to care for the poor? Whould Christ sacrifice the individual now so that in the future things are better for all? Here is my view of what the best possible scenario for the family would be. Some kind individual would go to the home of the family. The needs and wants of the family would be discussed. In this case, the mother needs a way to support her family. A plan of action could be decided upon. Each individual is different. Maybe health care needs to be paid for, maybe not. What can the woman do to help her family? Maybe the family needs to move out of the slums, and we can help finance that. The needs can be taken care of without having to give everything to the family, and they can take part.

This seems the best of both worlds, mercy and justice. But, the mercy is not given without some sort of justice. The problem I see (and the main difference between "liberals" and "conservatives&quot is who is going to oversee the family? I don't think the government can do that job. Because of all the rules and regulations, a program can not be individualized enough to truly help most families. But if the government doesn't do it, who will? Well, before the welfare state, it was individual charities....but I don't believe if we just get rid of all government subsidies, that those charities will come back. It sounds a lot like the home teaching program......but we'll have to wait for the milenium first.

The reason I consider myself conservative, is that I think the government is normally the worst entity to get things done. So that's why I'm against socialized medicine. If the government is in charge, I just don't know how it can be better than what we have now, while still costing less.

Well, this is long enough. I think I'll have to write up a blog or something, so that those of you as bored as I can have something to comment on, without talking on a sports board about politics.

Though Hengst, I do agree that we need more dialogue, and less diatribes. If we just got some normal people who wanted to solve problems in congress, we could do a lot of good. Let's just elect all of cougarblue to congress (with the possible exception of that shoe person)