Mocking The Poor

[thesometimesaint]

Joseph neglected to mention we believe in trying to change laws when we don't like them, too, including changing some people who make some laws for us.

 

Joseph Smith stated quite clearly in D&C that he believed in the US Constitution. The US Constitution itself has ways to change the laws and the people whom make the laws.

[Ahab]

Joseph Smith stated quite clearly in D&C that he believed in the US Constitution. The US Constitution itself has ways to change the laws and the people whom make the laws.

I meant in the AofF, or the summary we read as #12.

[thesometimesaint]

I meant in the AofF, or the summary we read as #12.

 

We do believe the Articles of Faith. But I don't believe they were ever meant to contain everything we believe.

[The Nehor]

Joseph Smith stated quite clearly in D&C that he believed in the US Constitution. The US Constitution itself has ways to change the laws and the people whom make the laws.

 

True, but I think it was more the principles underlying it were good. The Constitution is imperfect. I really doubt the 3/5s of a person bit is the mind and will of God.

[thesometimesaint]

True, but I think it was more the principles underlying it were good. The Constitution is imperfect. I really doubt the 3/5s of a person bit is the mind and will of God.

 

I don't know what JS believed about the US Constitution other than what he wrote down, or had his scribe write down. That it is an inspired document. On that I agree, given the caveat that inspiration isn't perfection.

[wenglund]

Already did. That we Saints are required by Scripture to give charity and pay taxes.

 

That is an answer to some question, but not to the questions I asked. I wont challenge your avoidance further. You evidently have your reasons for being evasive.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Let's just cut to the chase while admitting that there are enough resources on this planet for everyone to have at least a modest home and modest clothing and a modest amount of food and all of the other needs we have on this planet, including medical care and transportation. The only thing we haven't worked out yet is getting everyone to agree on how that should be done, as if that is necessary, and I contend it is not necessary as long as all of us have a say in the process at least in our own country or state or province.

As a citizen of the Pacific NW area of the U.S. I'm in a pretty good place for most of the resources I need, but I'm willing to share what I have with people in other parts of the world. Are you? If not are you at least willing to put it up to a vote? If not other people are already voting on it and making decisions on this issue and you can choose to be part of the solution, even if it takes replacing the people who are in positions of power. It is up to all of us to choose what we will do, and because I have been given much I believe I must give, too.

 

This also doesn't directly answer the simple and straight-forward questions that I asked. Oh well...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think we have a moral obligation, as individuals, to care for the poor. As it says in scripture: to care for the poor, the naked, the unhealthy.

It's quite easy to say, " I won't give any money to this or that person because I don't know what they will spend the money on." It's also easy to not find any joy in paying taxes because: There are better ways to do it, The money is not going to what I would prioritize, This method produces the wrong outcomes, etc, etc, etc.

You say you have thought provoking statistics, I'd be happy to hear them. Do you have propositions for ideas that will actually work, or is it just criticism of all present methods and models?

I personally think my government does not do enough for the poor, the sick, the uneducated. I would willingly pay more. I vote for and support a party that wants to increase taxes.

But this doesn't prevent me from giving time and money for programs or efforts that provide the kind of care I endorse. I have given many years in active service to those less fortunate and as soon as my wife goes into pension we have a plan to once again be active in supporting services that lie close to our hearts. We've got it good. We give away half of what we have and still have it good.

If I knew how to post it I'd post to a YouTube page, "Spearhead, 'Hole in the Bucket'", by Spearhead. I don't think he's singing about a bucket.

 

This, too, doesn't directly answer the simple and straight-forward questions that I asked. I am sensing a trend here.

 

Again, there is little point in citing the statistics if citing them will do no good.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 15, 2014 by wenglund

[Ahab]

Already did. That we Saints are required by Scripture to give charity and pay taxes.

The command applies to everyone, and not just the saints. It's just that usually it's only the saints that consider it to br a commandment of God.

Let's remember that God is speaking to the whole world when he speaks to his presiding Prophet on Earth.

[thesometimesaint]

The command applies to everyone, and not just the saints. It's just that usually it's only the saints that consider it to br a commandment of God.

Let's remember that God is speaking to the whole world when he speaks to his presiding Prophet on Earth.

 

Agreed.

[Ahab]

This also doesn't directly answer the simple and straight-forward questions that I asked. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The direct answers to your questions are yes, no, and no, in that order. It's still up to all of us to work out the best solution, and I am not opposed to acting through government representatives as long as the solution is in the best interests of everyone, collectively, even if there are some naysayers. Edited January 15, 2014 by Ahab

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

I think we all agree that at least individually we have a moral obligation to care for the poor.

 

Where we tend to disagree most is in terms of the nature and means for conveying our charity and service.

 

In deciding between the competing ideas, isn't it advantageous to ask whether the proposed options actually work in terms of helping the poor (particularly long term)? Would it make sense to actively promote an option that doesn't help raise people out of poverty, particularly in the long term, but causes more and more people to become poor and/or more impoverished, or where scarce resource aren't prioritized and end up channeled to those less in need? Does God want us to completely remove the mind from matters of the heart?

 

 

This appears to be the questions you are asking.

No, it would not make sense to promote an option that doesn't help raise poeple out of poverty.

No, to "where scarce resource aren't prioritized and end up channeled to those less in need".

 

I would have to say no that God does not want us to remove our mind from the matters of the heart.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[wenglund]

The direct answers to your questions are yes, no, and no, in that order.

 

Great. Thanks for answering.

 

If government welfare programs actually worked as intended, one may reasonably expect an inverse relationship between the trend in money being spent on entitlements and the trend in numbers of people or rate at which people need entitlements. For example, one might expect that the more money spent by the government to reduce poverty, the more that poverty would be reduced, and thus eventually the less money would need to be spent by the government to further reduce poverty. Or, more particular, if government mandated increases in the minimum wage supposedly reduces poverty, then one would expect poverty to decline as minimum wages are increased. Right?

 

Rather than posting pages and pages of statistics demonstrating that government entitlement programs almost invariably make matters worse (I can post them here if needs be), particularly for the people the programs were intended to help most, let me provide links to those pages.

 

General Welfare (increases welfare)

 

Minimum Wage (increases unemployment)

 

Minimum Wage (doesn't decrease income inequality)

 

Minimum Wage (doesn't reduce poverty)

 

Obamanomics - Trickle Up Poverty (see the entire series of articles)

 

Obamacare (see the entire series of articles)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This appears to be the questions you are asking.

No, it would not make sense to promote an option that doesn't help raise poeple out of poverty.

No, to "where scarce resource aren't prioritized and end up channeled to those less in need".

 

I would have to say no that God does not want us to remove our mind from the matters of the heart.

 

Excellent! See my response to Ahab above.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

The needs and righteous desires of people don't actually diminish as life goes on and on, at least not while we are mortal. Someone who needs food today will also need food tomorrow, as well as a place to live and some health care products.

Money is only a tool and a modest amount lasts only so long before some more money is needed.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

Great. Thanks for answering.

 

If government welfare programs actually worked as intended, one may reasonably expect an inverse relationship between the trend in money being spent on entitlements and the trend in numbers of people or rate at which people need entitlements. For example, one might expect that the more money spent by the government to reduce poverty, the more that poverty would be reduced, and thus eventually the less money would need to be spent by the government to further reduce poverty. Or, more particular, if government mandated increases in the minimum wage supposedly reduces poverty, then one would expect poverty to decline as minimum wages are increased. Right?

 

Rather than posting pages and pages of statistics demonstrating that government entitlement programs almost invariably make matters worse (I can post them here if needs be), particularly for the people the programs were intended to help most, let me provide links to those pages.

 

General Welfare (increases welfare)

 

Minimum Wage (increases unemployment)

 

Minimum Wage (doesn't decrease income inequality)

 

Minimum Wage (doesn't reduce poverty)

 

Obamanomics - Trickle Up Poverty (see the entire series of articles)

 

Obamacare (see the entire series of articles)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

That is simply not true.

SEE http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/charts-poverty-50-years-after-war-poverty

[wenglund]

The needs and righteous desires of people don't actually diminish as life goes on and on, at least not while we are mortal. Someone who needs food today will also need food tomorrow, as well as a place to live and some health care products.

Money is only a tool and a modest amount lasts only so long before some more money is needed.

 

In terms of welfare and caring for the poor, there tends to be a vital difference in outcomes between giving a man a fish as contrasted with teaching a man to fish. The one creates dependency, and the other self-sufficiency.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

That is simply not true.

SEE http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/charts-poverty-50-years-after-war-poverty

 

You and the left-wing propagandists at MotherJones are sadly mistaken. See the ample and balanced documentation in my articles.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 15, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

[delete dup]

Edited January 15, 2014 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

You and the left-wing propagandists at MotherJones are sadly mistaken. See the ample and balanced documentation in my articles.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Ad Hominem.

[Ahab]

In terms of welfare and caring for the poor, there tends to be a vital difference in outcomes between giving a man a fish as contrasted with teaching a man to fish. The one creates dependency, and the other self-sufficiency.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If everyone had an equal opportunity to catch fish there would be a possibility of equal success, but that isn't the case in our world now so we should be sharing all of the fish we can get. For someone to have a billion fish while someone else doesn't have any is just not right unless the one with a billion shares all that he has.

[wenglund]

Ad Hominem.

 

False accusation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If everyone had an equal opportunity to catch fish there would be a possibility of equal success, but that isn't the case in our world now so we should be sharing all of the fish we can get. For someone to have a billion fish while someone else doesn't have any is just not right unless the one with a billion shares all that he has.

 

To me, whether the intent is equal success or progress (I favor the later since that it how I view God's plan), people have a greater chance of eating fish, and continuing to eat fish, and feeling much better about how they got the fish, through developing skills of self-sufficiency rather than dependency.

 

If someone has 10 talents, and another 5, and another 1, does Christ advise taking 4.6 talents from the first and giving .3 talents to the second and 4.3 talents to the third, so that all three have 5.3 talents?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 15, 2014 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The needs and righteous desires of people don't actually diminish as life goes on and on, at least not while we are mortal. Someone who needs food today will also need food tomorrow, as well as a place to live and some health care products.

Money is only a tool and a modest amount lasts only so long before some more money is needed.

So instead of throwing money at problem what other solution is there that might alleviate poverty? What if jobs were created were people could fend for themsleves? You know teach a man to fish instead of just throwing him a fish.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If everyone had an equal opportunity to catch fish there would be a possibility of equal success, but that isn't the case in our world now so we should be sharing all of the fish we can get. For someone to have a billion fish while someone else doesn't have any is just not right unless the one with a billion shares all that he has.

Remember Ahab this is not a 0 sum game. Meaning that if I have mine, I took it from some one else and now they have no oppterunity to get theirs.

 

I think it import to note that weath redistribution is a part of getting rid of poverty but it is but a small part. Wade asked a nice question about MW. If MW really did help the poor and it really did help lower poverty why not increase the MW to 100 dollars an hour. Serious question BTW.