Elder Holland, The Poor

[Teancum]

The problem with the feds coming in is they want to do a one size fits all. Each business is different, as is each community and each state. The people hurt most by minimum wage laws are small businesses and franchise owners. It is amazing to me the hostility toward the rich when it is the rich who provide the jobs to begin with. I am also astounded by the lack of understanding of simple economics in business models.

I am not sure if you are speaking to me but I can assure you I undrestand economics and business quiite well. Just because someone may disagree with what seems like your more conservative approach to capitalism does not mean they don't understand economics or business.

Personally I would not object to a tiered minimum wage perhaps based on size and number of employees.

[mnn727]

I am not sure if you are speaking to me but I can assure you I undrestand economics and business quiite well. Just because someone may disagree with what seems like your more conservative approach to capitalism does not mean they don't understand economics or business.

Personally I would not object to a tiered minimum wage perhaps based on size and number of employees.

Have you ever owned a business? I have. I find usually those complaining about how business works, never owned one themselves.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Have you ever owned a business? I have. I find usually those complaining about how business works, never owned one themselves.

 

In reality most small business owners want the minimum wage to increase. 

Mitt Romney agrees.  Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016. Click the link so you can see their names. 

Edited March 23, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[mnn727]

  Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, 

Yawn. Economics is the only field in which two people can get a Nobel Prize for saying exactly the opposite thing.

 

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says “What do you want it to equal?”

[Mormonmaniac]

My wife just got a raise at work and now we are finding it easier to pay bills and have some left over. So yeah, an increase in wages is a good thing for an economy.

[thesometimesaint]

 

If the employer can buy something from an overseas company cheaper than he can make it here, it does.  If the employer can replace some of his service employees with self service checkout machines, it does.  If doing so allows him to charge less for a comparable product or service than his competitors, it does.    

 

Sometimes raising wages helps make the company richer, sometimes, it doesn’t.  And if raising an employee’s wages always made an employer richer, why would we need minimum wage laws at all?  

 

 

That works only as long as those overseas workers are willing to work for less. Then either that corporation must close and find someplace where there is cheaper labor, of they must raise prices to compensate. How much do you want to pay for that cheap shirt?

SEE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/american-made-clothing_n_3225899.html

[Deborah]

Thomas Sowell, who is black for those who don't know called minimum wage laws "ruinous compassion."  He says

It is not just the young who are affected when minimum-wage rates are set according to the fashionable notions of third parties, with little or no regard for whether everyone is productive enough to be worth paying the minimum wage they set.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415569/minimum-wage-laws-ruinous-compassion-thomas-sowell?target=author&tid=900925

Edited March 23, 2015 by Deborah

[Deborah]

And by the way Elder Holland talking about helping the poor doesn't mean that government should enforce rules that are unfair or a hardship on individual businesses. Helping the poor is an individual responsibility and all the government can do is take from someone else forcibly and give to another. That is not compassion or charity but extortion.

[thesometimesaint]

And by the way Elder Holland talking about helping the poor doesn't mean that government should enforce rules that are unfair or a hardship on individual businesses. Helping the poor is an individual responsibility and all the government can do is take from someone else forcibly and give to another. That is not compassion or charity but extortion.

 

Ayn Rand loves you.

[Deborah]

Ayn Rand loves you.

 

I love Ayn Rand. She was very prophetic. And why is it you think it is the government and not the individual responsibility to care for the poor. Such things can be done much more efficiently and cost effectively in local communities and churches and by individuals. I have seen over and over again a community rise up to help someone in need.

 

I do not oppose local government, even at the state level, having a program to help those in need who cannot help themselves. But money should not first be given to the federal bureaucracy to syphon off to the states. Let the money go directly to those who actually can meet the needs for their state or community. We would save so much money by doing away with federal bureaucracies and giving directly to those who can best help. I would even propose a volunteer charity paid to the states for such welfare needs so that people could have an opportunity to help others but may not know where the needs are (like our fast offerings). But it should not be through a tax system, especially a system that taxes one's productivity and work ethic.

[thesometimesaint]

Ayn Rand was a sociopath.

SEE https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=Ayn+Rand+was+a+sociopath.&vid=2f14c888bc9b7798d2b63814f6abe77d&l=3%3A30&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.607989944520409515%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTffW_pa2rOU&***=Ayn+Rand%3A+The+Sociopathic+%26quot%3BHeart%26quot%3B+of+the+Teabaggers&c=6&sigr=11b79h95o&sigt=11t0vgq48&sigi=11rutfjdh&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3DAyn%2BRand%2Bwas%2Ba%2Bsociopath.%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-005%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=1350f5afo&ct=p&age=1305530265&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&hsimp=yhs-005&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

 

You need to re-read the US Constitution.

[The Nehor]

I love Ayn Rand. She was very prophetic. And why is it you think it is the government and not the individual responsibility to care for the poor. Such things can be done much more efficiently and cost effectively in local communities and churches and by individuals. I have seen over and over again a community rise up to help someone in need.

 

I do not oppose local government, even at the state level, having a program to help those in need who cannot help themselves. But money should not first be given to the federal bureaucracy to syphon off to the states. Let the money go directly to those who actually can meet the needs for their state or community. We would save so much money by doing away with federal bureaucracies and giving directly to those who can best help. I would even propose a volunteer charity paid to the states for such welfare needs so that people could have an opportunity to help others but may not know where the needs are (like our fast offerings). But it should not be through a tax system, especially a system that taxes one's productivity and work ethic.

Ayn Rand was an adulterous hypocrite who took more in government funding then she ever paid in. He championing of self-interest and living for one's self is the exact opposite of the teachings of Christ. Christians latching on to her is a scandal and an embarrassment.

[The Nehor]

And by the way Elder Holland talking about helping the poor doesn't mean that government should enforce rules that are unfair or a hardship on individual businesses. Helping the poor is an individual responsibility and all the government can do is take from someone else forcibly and give to another. That is not compassion or charity but extortion.

The idea that charity is solely an individual responsibility is a made up doctrine.

Government has a role to play, churches have a role to play, charities have a role to play, and individuals have a role to play in the mandate to help the poor.

[mnn727]

The idea that charity is solely an individual responsibility is a made up doctrine.

Government has a role to play, churches have a role to play, charities have a role to play, and individuals have a role to play in the mandate to help the poor.

Governments get their money through the taxpayers 

Churches get their money through their members who donate

Charities get their money through donations

 

So yes charity is solely an individual responsibility - involuntary in the case of government and voluntarily through Church and Charities. 

[The Nehor]

Governments get their money through the taxpayers 

Churches get their money through their members who donate

Charities get their money through donations

 

So yes charity is solely an individual responsibility - involuntary in the case of government and voluntarily through Church and Charities.

By that standard I am responsible for national defense, national transit improvements, and the post office. So no. Governments can do things individuals cannot and so can churches and other large organizations. I contribute to them of course but that does not make me responsible except as part of a greater whole.

[Deborah]

I am well aware of Rand's personal history. If you are referring to her collecting SS, that was something she was entitled to and paid into. One can give accolades for her philosophy on individual responsibility and economics without accepting her personal lifestyle.

[mnn727]

By that standard I am responsible for national defense, national transit improvements, and the post office. So no. Governments can do things individuals cannot and so can churches and other large organizations. I contribute to them of course but that does not make me responsible except as part of a greater whole.

You are responsible for paying for those items (assuming you pay taxes) and you are responsible by whom you vote for.

[The Nehor]

I am well aware of Rand's personal history. If you are referring to her collecting SS, that was something she was entitled to and paid into. One can give accolades for her philosophy on individual responsibility and economics without accepting her personal lifestyle.

She collected far more then she paid in. If she was true to her principles she would have collected no more then she paid in. She was clearly knew it was hypocritical or she would not have gone to such lengths to try to hide that she was collecting.

One can do that but the truth is her lifestyle and her philosophy were linked. Her philosophy is still morally bankrupt and antichrist.

[The Nehor]

You are responsible for paying for those items (assuming you pay taxes) and you are responsible by whom you vote for.

So by that token since I voted in the people taxing me taxation for government welfare is not extortion.

[Deborah]

At some point one actually needs to deal with the facts, not the smear campaign.

 

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html

[The Nehor]

At some point one actually needs to deal with the facts, not the smear campaign.

 

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html

What a delightful imagination that blog writer has. She does not need a smear campaign. You just have to listen to her:

"Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights."

Wow.....uhhhh....okay, so ignoring how ignorant she is about Native American culture she sees invasion as perfectly justified.

"The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."

Sounds like the philosophy that got the Nephites damned.

"The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself. That means spitting in your own face."

People who take themselves that seriously are in pain.

"Do you know that my personal crusade in life is not merely to fight collectivism, nor to fight altruism? These are only consequences, effects, not causes. I am out after the real cause, the real root of evil on earth — the irrational."

End altruism. Kindness is a disease.

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."

Sacrifice for others is wrong. I am guessing consecration would be even more of an anathema.

"Do you believe in God, Andrei? No. Neither do I. But that's a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know. What do you mean? Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do—then, I know they don't believe in life. Why? Because, you see, God—whatever anyone chooses to call God—is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it."

Worship of the self is the highest conception of the highest possible. There was that one fellow with that alternate plan before the world was....wasn't this his objective?

"There is no such thing as duty. If you know that a thing is right, you want to do it. If you don't want to do it—it isn't right. If it's right and you don't want to do it—you don't know what right is and you're not a man."

Here I was thinking I had duties for holding the Priesthood and seeking to follow the Lord but no, I should only do things I want to do.

"Never demand of another that which would constitute his sacrifice to you. Never grant that which would constitute your sacrifice to him."

Exactly what Christ did.

She lived unhappy. She died unhappy. She is antichrist. Why would any Christian follow her? Why would anyone who wants to be happy at all follow her? The usual excuse is some division where we can claim part of her philosophy and discard the rest. She would have hated that and cast such a traitor out of her inner circle in a heartbeat.

Why her? If her philosophy is so compelling and rational why does it not have a less repugnant champion? Is this the best people who believe this can do? It is like being a firm vegetarian and picking Adolf Hitler as your philosophical role model. Is there no one else?

[Teancum]

And by the way Elder Holland talking about helping the poor doesn't mean that government should enforce rules that are unfair or a hardship on individual businesses. Helping the poor is an individual responsibility and all the government can do is take from someone else forcibly and give to another. That is not compassion or charity but extortion.

 

 

Really? Who says?  You?

[Deborah]

Here is what Elder Holland said: "Now, lest I be accused of proposing quixotic global social programs or of endorsing panhandling as a growth industry, I reassure you that my reverence for principles of industry, thrift, self-reliance, and ambition is as strong as that of any man or woman alive. We are always expected to help ourselves before we seek help from others. Furthermore, I don’t know exactly how each of you should fulfill your obligation to those who do not or cannot always help themselves. But I know that God knows, and He will help you and guide you in compassionate acts of discipleship if you are conscientiously wanting and praying and looking for ways to keep a commandment He has given us again and again."

 

Everything in his talk pointed to us doing our part. The problem with government welfare is nothing is expected of the recipients and thus we have generations of those who have not learned self reliance or industry or thrift but live with an  expectation of getting what they have not earned, perpetrating a cycle of dependency.

[The Nehor]

Here is what Elder Holland said: "Now, lest I be accused of proposing quixotic global social programs or of endorsing panhandling as a growth industry, I reassure you that my reverence for principles of industry, thrift, self-reliance, and ambition is as strong as that of any man or woman alive. We are always expected to help ourselves before we seek help from others. Furthermore, I don’t know exactly how each of you should fulfill your obligation to those who do not or cannot always help themselves. But I know that God knows, and He will help you and guide you in compassionate acts of discipleship if you are conscientiously wanting and praying and looking for ways to keep a commandment He has given us again and again."

 

Everything in his talk pointed to us doing our part. The problem with government welfare is nothing is expected of the recipients and thus we have generations of those who have not learned self reliance or industry or thrift but live with an  expectation of getting what they have not earned, perpetrating a cycle of dependency.

Elder Holland said that we should do all that we can.

Then in the very portion you quoted: "Furthermore, I don't know how each of you should fulfil your obligation to those who do not or cannot help themselves." He does not make a distinction between those who cannot and do not help themselves in whether we help.

Government welfare generally demands more of people receiving it then the church or private charities. The idea that you fill out a few forms and the dollars roll in indefinitely is a myth perpetuated by those who want to oppress and grind the faces of the poor. I had a friend who genuinely needed Social Security disability and it took almost 2 years. Bishops are speedy and require much less to get help from. The hatred this generation has for the poor is shocking. There is almost a sense of envy that someone is getting more then they earned even if they have barely enough or not enough to live on. Is it envy? Greed? Hatred? Or is it just that some people will not help the poor unless said help guarantees an escape from poverty? That is not going to happen. The Savior said the poor would always be with us. We cannot and should not withhold aid and allow people to suffer even if they fail to rise out of poverty. Elder Holland talked about this in his talk when he quoted the Savior: "they shall not suffer." No caveats are added about some test before we can help or a proviso exempting us from King Benjamin's counsel that judging the poor as unworthy is cause for repentance and if we do not repent of such judgements we will perish and have no part in the kingdom of God.

The church has to discriminate in dispensing funds because our resources are limited. So do we as individuals but we must help as we can in our sphere as guided by the Spirit and spending time judging between the worthy poor and those who brought it on themselves is condemned and if we do it we are going to hell.

 

If this turns into a thread about the government it will be closed.