Lds Church Issues New Statement Re: Immigration

[ELF1024]

This thread is becoming more political then dealing with the church's position on this matter. Please keep it on topic or we will need to close the thread.

Nemesis

I'll voluntarily leave the thread as I recognize that this is a topic I would take politically.

[Xander]

I'm ignoring the rest of your rant, as it is off topic

I merely followed your lead. The real difference is that on these matters, I actually know what I'm talking about.

This is an off-topic and unnecessary personal attack.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Minos

[Loran Blood]

Keynesian theory is dead? That would be surprising to Economists, most of whom are Keynesians.

Whether most economists are actually Keynesians is an empirical question, which may or may not be correct, to some degree or another. However, the long discrediting of Kenysian theory and monetary policy, which began as far back as the thirties and forties with Von Mises, Hazlitt, and other libertarian economists, would be no mystery to either Austrians, Chicago School theorists, or many mircroeconomists who study the actual effects of economic policy on human behavior.

Well, that's a couple of studies that you could have cherry picked. Keep listing the "virtually every academic study....

Yes, there must be a "consensus"...but this, whatever it may be, is still an argument from authority, and little more.

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

See: Shock Doctrine

[seriously honestly]

Seriously honestly, the problem is that there isn't enough blue cards to go around for all the people who want to go into the US. So they go into the US illegally because they cannot come in here legally. I believe most of the blue cards are given out via raffle, although there are certain countries which get limited numbers because they send so many immigrants to the US.

That's why I sympathize with illegals a bit... I don't sympathize who want to come here and stay solely illegally... but I sympathize for the ones who want citizenship, but cannot get it due to the gov not giving out enough blue cards. It is hard to get into the US. =/

I sympathize too and understand that they may really really really want to come here, but no amount of sympathy makes it ok to do so illegally. For example, if I went to the store and realized I don't have enough money to buy the things I need, but I really really want/need them then, it doen't mean I should go ahead and steal the items I can't pay for.

Now, going back to the issue of the missionary who is here illegally, it would be hypocritcal of him to preach things such as honesty with your fellow men, or the 12 AoF, when he himself doens't even abide by those things.

[Loran Blood]

You're not very familiar with either Keynesian economics or the real world if you think we are worse off than we were with Bush.

I don't want this thread to become politicized to the point of a closure, as the immigration issue is one place the gospel does clearly intersect with contemporary political dynamics, and its a good conversation to have. Having said that, the economic policies of George Bush, while they certainly did feature some conservative, free market elements, were substanatially Keynsian, interventionist, and statist in nature, as were those of the Republican legislature during those years, which are a fundamental reason we are now facing the economic collapse of our society within a frighteningly near term time frame.

Obama continued the "stimulus" began within the Bush administration, but under conditions of wild cell division, as with a cancerous tumor. Obama's creation of phantom money to be pumped into the economy as either credit or direct wealth transfers, have now pushed the national debt to $15,000,000,000,000 and counting out to the end of the decade, and substantial general price inflation has already begun. Two years out, we are at depression era levels of idle workforce and historic welfare and food stamp recipiency. Nixon, another staunch Keynesian, pursued a proactive Kenysian approach during the seventies, including high taxation, stimulus spending, and wage and price controls. Carter continued the trend, producing a decade of economic decrepitude, stratospheric interest rates, galloping inflation, high unemployment, and two major recessions.

The same principles produced the same result in the thirties. When the major recession of 1929 began, Hoover responded with a bevy of government programs that eventually became associated with the New Deal, including massive government spending initiatives and federal "stimulus" spending. FDR, like Obama, took over these programs and expanded them to a colossal extent, creating the Great Depression from what should only have been a fairly short and severe major recession.

Keynesian economic theory never claimed to be able to perform miracles.

Very ironically, what it claims to be able to do is eliminate or substantially mitigate, through the manipulatin of money and credit, the "boom and bust" business cycle said to be associated with unhampered free market economic dynamics. What it actually does, in point of fact, is create the boom and bust cycles that have plagued American life in the past and a textbook example of which we are undergoing at the present time.

But most economists do agree that the stimulus package has worked to a considerable degree.

Most intellectuals in the thirties, including many leading and distinguished ones, agreed that eugenics (among other things, such as fascism and/or socialism) was the wave of the future and would "work." The argument from authority is considered a logical fallacy because it adduces no logical connection between its propositions and the conclusions drawn from them, but simply says "look at all the "smart" people who believe it." Lysenkoism bloomed in the Soviet Union on the same principle, and everything from UFOlogy to the countless baseless environmental scares that have racked western society over the last fifty years have had "consensus" and "most smart people agree" argument behind them. What we are looking for, however, are evidentially connected arguments, not kicking the intellectual can down the road to the present trendy herd.

IThe deficit exploded under Reagan and Bush for a reason.

Yes, this is true, and there are multiple reasons for that, including the stratospheric welfare, entitlement, and domestic pork spending by the Democrats who held deeply entrenched power in the legislative branch during (except a small Republican minority for a two year period) the Reagan years (inlcuding control of the internal committees that make proceedural rules and make spending decisions), the urgently needed rebuilding of our military and subsequent folding of the Soviet empire in response to those pressures, among other forces working upon them, and other factors. But, at the end of the day, the "supply siders" were right, and the expanding tax base created by the longest and largest economic peace time boom in post WWII history began bringing the federal deficit down by the time Reagan left office.

Deficits only seem to matter to these folks when a Democrat is in power.

To some politicians, this is probably true. To principled conservative/libertarian intellectuals, however, its a matter of fundamental principle, which is why I never argue party politics in these forums, if not politics per se.

They don't want the country to progress economically, otherwise the Left might get credit for it.

What the Left takes credit for is the European, Asian, Latin American, and African socialist/communist world it helped birth, nurture, and defend throughout the post WWII era; the sclerotic, economic decrepitude of western Europe, the U.K., and the present American major economic crisis.

Say what you will about Keynes, but his economic philosophy isn't what got us into this mess.

I think the overwhelming weight of both theory and history are against you here.

Only the folks who are regurgitating talk radio and FOX News are saying immigrants present a clear and present danger to our country.

Is that right?

But those who actually know how to analyze the data and present case studies, come to the opposite conclusion. Illegal immigration doesn't increase crime rates and just the other day I read that there is evidence that residents in border towns are just as likely to cross over to Mexico for healthcare. Much of the fearmongering about illegals in hospitals has been exaggerated as well.

The empirical facts seem to be against you here, but I see no reason to go on arguing with you. Soon we'll be back to the Glenn Beck bashing, and this all spells doom for any thread.

[Loran Blood]

This is just plain false. The immigration system, at present, is heavily skewed toward the admittance of what amounts to massive numbers of third world peasants and unskilled laborers, and this has been one of the major criticisms leveled against it in the past. We are not trying to attract the brains and skilled technicians from other countries, but its desperate economic refugees. Why? Color me jaundiced, but there is a substantial ideological and political element in this country who seek a large repository of balkanized, intergenerational welfare dependents as a guarantee of continued entrenchment in power.

It also makes the U.S. the enabler of other countries who can put off putting their own houses in order for the forseeable future.

By your own logic, most Americans don't accept this system of government since we break laws regularly. From making/using pirated media to jaywalking, we're all criminals.

I see your argument now:

Laws should not be broken.

Laws are broken.

Therefore, their should be no laws.

This could also be stated as:

If laws are made, they should not be broken.

Some laws are broken.

Therefore, those laws that are broken should not be made (or should be repealed).

[Loran Blood]

Sorry again, as I still can't edit, but the statement I was responding to when I replied "This is just plain false" was:

The problem is that the system discriminates. The system doesn't want poor folks. They only want immigrants who come where with money.

[Loran Blood]

9+% unemployment, after the Billions spent on Stimulus, which wasn't nearly as "shovel ready" as they expected.

The effective unemployment rate, including those who have ceased looking for work and dropped out of the search for employment entirely, is about 16.5%, well into Depression era levels.

[Loran Blood]

http://www.deseretne...-statement.html

The only part I disagree with is:

• The church supports efforts "where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship".

I think there needs to be an effective means to citizenship.

Why?

[mbh26]

I sympathize too and understand that they may really really really want to come here, but no amount of sympathy makes it ok to do so illegally. For example, if I went to the store and realized I don't have enough money to buy the things I need, but I really really want/need them then, it doen't mean I should go ahead and steal the items I can't pay for.

That's exactly right and really all that is going on in this situation. If we lived in a completely capitalistic free market state without social programs and an economic floor the immigration situation would simply be reduced to the same old poverty and disparity of wealth issue.

[Loran Blood]

Loran Blood:

See: Shock Doctrine

"Clear!..."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Having said that, the economic policies of George Bush, while they certainly did feature some conservative, free market elements, were substanatially Keynsian, interventionist, and statist in nature, as were those of the Republican legislature during those years, which are a fundamental reason we are now facing the economic collapse of our society within a frighteningly near term time frame.

Obama continued the "stimulus" began within the Bush administration, but under conditions of wild cell division, as with a cancerous tumor.

Obama is not Keynsian, he was born in the US they showed his birth certificate.

Sorry could not resist.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Xander]

While I'm inclined to respond to all of Loran's numerous false statements, I think I'll just do what the mods asked and avoid big political debates, and give readers enough information from other sources so they can decide for themselves. Suffice it to say that most economists disagree with Loran and he has terribly misrepresented the history of Keynesian economics and its successes. The most reputable economists are avowed Keynesians who believe this is the best way to save capitalism from the capitalists. Loran's information comes strictly from outdated Austrian school theorists who have been dead and refuted for decades, though they have his complete loyalty. His comment that our immigration system prefers the poor and not the rich is a true howler. The rich folks come here legally because they can afford to. He and others here have no earthly idea just how complicated and expensive it is to come to this country legally. To say we prefer the poor over the rich is a true howler.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Xander

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

While I'm inclined to respond to all of Loran's numerous false statements, I think I'll just do what the mods asked and avoid big political debates,

But you didn't avoid the big political debate.

[Xander]

But you didn't avoid the big political debate.

dp

Edited June 28, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

But you didn't avoid the big political debate.

Then apparently you don't know what a "big political debate" looks like. I've had debates with Loran that go one for thousands of words and dozens of pages. That's OK. This is America, and he has the right to be wrong (grin). All I did above was reassert my position and provide sources for people to judge for themselves. Like Mormons insisting people should go to the Mormons to find out what Mormons believe, I provided links to Keynesians who make their own case. The problem is Loran is the anti-Mormon equivalent when it comes to politics. He tells one side only while misrepresenting the other, and his is usually a side reminiscent of extremely radical and biased folks like Ann Coulter.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then apparently you don't know what a "big political debate" looks like.

Blah blah blah. Political debates are off limits weather it is a "big" debate or a "little" debate. You did nothing but perpetuate it. I guess the key is just say "I think I'll just do what the mods asked and avoid big political debates," and then post numerous articles that are political in nature.

Good job Kevin.

One thing I do know is that Keynesian economics does not work. Weather under FDR, LBJ, GWB, or BHO.

Non of it worked. I don't need the NY Times spin to look back at history to realize they were all failures. But go a head and have your non "big" political debate.

[Xander]

Blah blah blah. Political debates are off limits weather it is a "big" debate or a "little" debate. You did nothing but perpetuate it

Wrong. And funny how you had nothing to say about this after Loran posted his numerous political activist rants above. Wherever politics raises its ugly head, you'll usually find Loran at the center of it. But you're OK with that, because you think like him. As I said, I didn't start this. This thread was "political" long before I ever arrived. All I did was post an educated opinion that, apparently, threatens the presuppositions of others. That ticks you off. I get it. You cannot debate the points with IRL examples based on sound economic analysis. Most anti-Keynesians can't. All you can do is try to shut down the voice of those who challenge your opinions.

I guess the key is just say "I think I'll just do what the mods asked and avoid big political debates," and then post numerous articles that are political in nature.

I posted hyperlinks to leading experts in Keynesian economics, so people can hear their side and decide for themselves. Apparently, you'd have them limited to the extremely negative/ignorant attacks by the anti-Keynsians.

One thing I do know is that Keynesian economics does not work. Weather under FDR, LBJ, GWB, or BHO.

Too bad you aren't able to explain why you think this nonsense is true..

Non of it worked.

It most certainly worked while it was being used, but the problem is you do not understand Keynesian economics, history or the Great Depression well enough to make an educated argument on the matter. All you can do is barely glance at a Nobel Prize winning economist's argument and dismiss it as "spin." O'reilly has taught you well, young one.

I don't need the NY Times spin to look back at history to realize they were all failures.

You don't understand history if you think post-WWII economics presented anything less than a tremendous success story for this country. According to the anti-Keynesians, none of it should have worked but it did. The economy boomed in a period of high taxation, and the deficit was erased through time. According to these folks, the defict should have kept going up instead of down when taxes were at their highest. In reality the deficit didn't really take off into the stratosphere until we were introduced to Reaganomics (who is one of the biggest "Government Spenders" in history, requestion more money than Congress was willing to appropriate!). You can't just make up facts as you go along. There is a reason why most economists disagree with you both. All I did was offer people here a way to find that other viewpoint by providing links. That ticked you off, which tells us more about the insecurity you have in your own positions; when you cannot tolerate education beyond your personal echo chamber.

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

We're NOT going to mass deport 11 million people, and because failure to adaquately address the problem with a effective path to citizenship doesn't work.

[frankenstein]

how about this.....

Xander and Loran, you are both wrong. The economy isn't some artificial intelligence that is self aware. It is an amorphous blob comprised of billions of people. And what ever "theory' that are espoused are just self perpetuating theories designed by man to justifies man unrighteous behaviour.

Printing money does not cause inflation....the hungry hungry hippos, who are only motivated by greed cause inflation. Economies fail because the people have failed. Just the other day I was watching a Arizona new show, whereon a person was talking about why wind power and solar power have not taken off, this person said "because there isn't enough profit", notice there is profit, but just not enough for the greed of those who could do something good in the world. Economic philosophers are just preachers of myth, which many have gullibly followed.. the economy is created by man, for man, to excuse man in his insatiable appetite for more, it is destined to fail, and nothing man can do can prevent or fix it.

greed is what drives the economy. money is not available right now for progress because the hungry hungry hippos can not even begin to appease their bottomless appetites with the current interest rates. it is just that simple. should we appease that greed, no, we should starve the basrrrards out.

Edited June 28, 2011 by frankenstein

[Xander]

Loran Blood:

We're NOT going to mass deport 11 million people, and because failure to adaquately address the problem with a effective path to citizenship doesn't work.

Millions of these folks are here due to no fault of their own. They were dragged here by their parents at a young age. Millions more were born here and are American citizens who are raised by a family of "illegals," also due to no fault of their own. I know I'd hate this country to the core if the government snagged my family away from me and sent them to a third-world country like Mexico. In many cases these people they deport don't even speak Spanish because they came here at such a young age.Yes, there needs to be serious reform, and it shouldn't involve massive deportations. Someone has to think about the children, many of whom were born on American soil. One thing is for sure; it won't be the Republicans. Faux News frequently dehumanizes them by referring to them as "anchor babies." This has a desensitizing effect on their audience.

[LeSellers]

Printing money does not cause inflation....the hungry hungry hippos, who are only motivated by greed cause inflation.

Wrong.

Printing money is the only cause of inflation.

If there are five loaves of bread, and five dolloars to buy it with, each loaf will be one dollar. If the number of dollars doubles, but the number of loaves remains the same, the price will double for the reason that there are more dollars "chasing" the same bread. It's the Law of Supply and Demand, and it cannot be repealed nor modified.

Money is no different from any other commodity: if there is a greater supply, the price will drop. In the case of money, this means it will buy less (or, conversely, the amount of money needed to buy a specific thing will increase). Governments love inflation because they can increase taxes while denying doing so. That's one of the major points of a Central Bank, e.g., the Federal Reserve (which is not "federal", nor is it a "reserve"). (The other one is that the private owners of the bank can confiscate most of the wealth in the country, but that's a wholly different subject.)

Greed does not increase all prices (the definition of inflation), it only increases prices if the buyer cannot switch sources, or cannot substitute another good for the one the greedy chose to raise his price on.

Lehi

Edited June 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[Xander]

Printing money is the only cause of inflation.

Oh really? So the price of gasoline jumped to $4 last month because the government was printing more money?

Did it suddenly go back down by .50 cents per gallon within a month, because the government printed less money?

The supply of money is certainly a factor but it is not the "only" cause of inflation. For example, when demand surpasses supply, we see price inflation.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Xander

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

"Millions of these folks are here due to no fault of their own. They were dragged here by their parents at a young age. Millions more were born here and are American citizens who are raised by a family of "illegals," also due to no fault of their own. I know I'd hate this country to the core if the government snagged my family away from me and sent them to a third-world country like Mexico. In many cases these people they deport don't even speak Spanish because they came here at such a young age.Yes, there needs to be serious reform, and it shouldn't involve massive deportations. Someone has to think about the children, many of whom were born on American soil. One thing is for sure; it won't be the Republicans. Faux News frequently dehumanizes them by referring to them as "anchor babies." This has a desensitizing effect on their audience".

Agreed. That is a part of why I said we're not going to deport 11 million people.