I'm under the impression that an economic recession begins about 6 months before it is publicly acknowledged by the government. Its probably no surprise to you to hear people talking about our current recession. Rather than talk about factors contributing to the current state of the US dollar, I did some research on what the upcoming presidential candidates say about the economy.
Hillary Clinton's site doesn't have a tab under the label economy. But she does have several actions on her agenda which seem to be economy-driven.
1) Lowering taxes for the middle class. Hillary claims to give child tax credit and marriage penalty relief. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is no different from the current situation. We used our child as a "write-off" when we did our taxes last month. And we find it cheaper to file as a couple rather than as individuals.
Hillary also offers some tax credits for people in college, retiring, etc. One thing I thought was interesting is her desire to expand the EITC. Is the EITC something like a handout which Democrats love to give the struggling in society, or is it really more of a tax write-off which not many people know how to include when they file?
Hillary also wants to give a childcare tax credit. This is good and bad. Good because there are A LOT of people with kids in childcare which costs lots of $$ but also provides jobs for those doing the caring for said children. Bad because...wait a minute, is it bad? I am seeing nothing but perks from this tax credit. Unless the money has to jump through hoops to be returned to its owners. That is always a nuisance.
2) Hillary wants to empower American workers by empowering labor unions. This is another discussion for another post, another time.
3) Hillary wants to create high wage jobs in pursuing alternative energy methods. Supposedly this is a bonus to provide low cost energy and broadband to underserved and disadvantaged communities. Um, who is going to pay for the high wage jobs that isn't bringing in much revenue since it is so low cost? This isn't really specified.
4) Hillary wants Americans to work hard so that then Government can step in and provide them tools they need. Again, the wherefores and hows to describe what this means is not really specified. I would personally love it if all able-Americans worked hard. However, experience has taught me this is not the case for many many people. Knowing their president is urging them to work hard probably will not change their work ethic.
5) Hillary wants to "bolster" retirement security by encouraging savings and investment. She wants to do this via a government 401k plan. I'm still trying to decide how this is different from what Social Security was supposed to do.
Barack Obama's site lists an economy plan that is supposedly going to stimulate the economy by providing tax relief for 150 million workers.
1) Barack Obama wants to give a $500-$1000 tax cut to each 'family' to help stimulate the economy. Maybe I am way off here, but I think that $500 doesn't do much to fatten the wallet nowadays. That wouldn't even pay my rent for one month, and I am not in an appealing part of town, and my apartment is not the greatest place to live either. Yet, in my area, I can't find anything cheaper. I digress...
2) How on earth is tax relief for 150 million workers going to swing our country out of a recession? This is approximately half the US population. Hopefully at least half the population is working so they can have income, pay taxes on that income, and then get tax relief in turn.
3) Obama's next great idea is to simplify the tax filing system so that each American can file their taxes in under 5 minutes. I don't think this is possible. However, he claims that this will save $2 billion in tax preparer fees. I think that this is going to cost more jobs and lower the economy further, if anything, because less money is being spent, more people will lose jobs (like H&R Block) since no one needs to pay them to do their taxes anymore, and no taxes will be paid on this lost income. Personally I don't think that the amount of money "saved" by filing in 5 minutes is going to be worth the hassle of creating a filing system that is easily accessed and is equivalent fraud-proof with the current system.
4) Obama says he wants to double federal funding into research to create high-paying jobs. This reminds me of Hillary's idea.
5) Obama wants to invest in education, investments, and training. Worthwhile things to invest in, however, I don't think investing in these things can help us RIGHT NOW. And people tend to whine or cheer based on their current situation, not the projected situation in 5-10 years.
6) Obama wants to expand rural businesses and somehow attract highly skilled professionals aka doctors to rural areas. No specification on how exactly he wants to accomplish this, or if this will be immediate in his presidency or simply a long-term projection.
7) The biggest impact that I can see as far as immediate effects go in Obama's platforms comes in the form of cracking down on credit card fraud and bankruptcy laws. Personally I think that this is the major contributing factor to the current recession (that is to say, credit card debt/filing bankruptcy for being irresponsible) and hopefully will curb people's irresponsible spending habits. He wants to cap interest rates as well.
I could go on, but in the interest of time and space I'll let you jump around the sites I highlighted. For an account by the Washington Times on why Obama's economic package justifies his title as the most liberal senator (including Ted Kennedy) click here.
To see details on John McCain's tax cut plan, click here. McCain's plan to address the economy seems to take a pretty conservative outlook, at least at first glance.
1) John McCain wants to permanently repeal the AMT, alternative minimum tax. This will save the middle class over $60 billion in one year, and he's counting on people turning around and spending the money saved, thus boosting the economy by higher consumer activity.
2) McCain is also pledging to fight the Democrat's attempts to raise taxes in congress, he wants to make the majority vote necessary to raise taxes 3/5. He wants to cut corporate taxes from 35 to 25%. He also wants to allow first year deductions for business equipment expenses. This should help more businesses survive that first year with better profit margins, and help the economy by providing services/products to the consumer market.
3) McCain is looking to veto bills that are driven by corruption (lobbyists I am assuming) rather than issues important to the American people. He's also looking to curb earmarks. I don't even know what an earmark is, but according to his site "Earmarks restrict America's ability to address genuine national priorities and interfere with fair, competitive markets."
4) McCain wants to save Social Security and have the government supplement it so that it won't collapse under the pressure of the baby boomers. Personally I think this is a better idea than Hillary's idea to create a whole new "401k" system. Its always cheaper to keep the current system and fix it rather than scrap it and start a new system over.
5) McCain wants to limit Medicare because he thinks that this is a major threat to our economy. Or rather, he thinks our economy can't support it. I agree: Medicare is a huge waste of our tax dollars. McCain wants to limit Medicare spending and protect seniors against rising payments, which I think is also good. If you'd like to read his exact healthcare reform plan, click here.
6) As far as energy is concerned, McCain wants to do what we need to do to be independent from foreign oil services. Again, I agree with him.
7) McCain wants to enforce government fiscal responsibility. According to him, a substantive amount of money collected from the American people is squandered every year, wasted ludicrously by those persons in office that we the people have elected and are trusting to act in our best interests. I don't know enough about what goes on behind closed doors in Washington DC but personally I am inclined to believe him!
All in all, its good to look at the major candidates to be the next president and actually look at what they are proposing to do, economy-wise, for the next 4 years. In my opinion, none of these actions will be enough to pull us out of the current recession immediately. Perhaps some of these things are harsh enough to pull us into a full-blown Depression. All 3 candidates have good ideas, all 3 have some ideas that aren't so good too. The trick is to look at their ideas without bias and honestly see which candidate you agree with, or align with the most.
What do you think?
Economic Depression or Recession?
Posted by Amy on 3/03/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
87 comments:
I think I lean libertarian on economic issues. Government, get out of my pocketbook! Stop taking my money and giving it to someone else! Both Democratic proposals scare me. Since when is the government responsible to ensure a certain standard of living (like broadband internet!?!?!)?
I am very familiar with the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). We qualified when we were students with children. Basically it meant that when we filed our income taxes (and paid no taxes), the government gave us $4500 each year because we were workers. It was great! It has been called the "most successful form of welfare". We benefitted until we graduated and hit a tax bracket that definitely ensures we will never vote Democrat. Hillary wanting to expand the EITC basically means she wants to give more money to the "poor" (in the name of a "tax credit") Sidenote - funny how most of these tax "rebates" in May are being sent out to people who never paid income tax in the first place. To me, it's a sneaky way to impose welfare (but I'll take my $2400 check, and besides I PAY taxes).
About the childcare tax credit, that's great to give a credit to help people paying for childcare, but what about people who don't pay childcare, but who stay at home with their children and make a financial sacrifice to be the person taking care of their children? Shouldn't they deserve a tax break, too?
I think the biggest indicator of Hillary's economic position is her Christmas commercial in which she "gave" Christmas gifts like "universal health care". Who exactly is she? God?
You didn't mention government subsidies for heating oil. Or universal preschool. Or food for all the poor children (as Hillary is promising in her ads in Texas). If the government pays for food, health care, heating oil, steps in and saves our mortgages, etc., what is there left for us to do? This is a slippery slope towards socialism.
I am all for doubling funding into research (of course I am biased since my husband is a scientist).
Let me pick on John McCain for a minute. The AMT hasn't actually hit a bunch of people yet. The threat is that it will hit a ton if left alone. So, if it hasn't hit those millions of people yet, how will they "save" any more money? Removing the AMT will, for the most part, keep the status quo. Allowing it to remain will do a lot of damage when people suddenly have $2-3K less than they did the year before. I agree with his position on removing it, but I think that the picture of what will happen needs to be painted realistically.
Curbing earmarks is not enough. We need to END earmarks.
I belive our current recession (which I think will lead to a depression) is caused by the same thing that caused the Great Depression in the 1930's: debt. The Great Depression was caused by stocks being purchased on margin. This depression will be caused by the mortgage crisis and consumers having too much credit card debt. You can't live beyond your means indefinitely. And the government can't bail everyone out. I personally think the tax "rebates" are a joke. They won't solve the problem because the problem is that people have too much debt. Giving people more money and encouraging them to spend it to "boost" the economy is like giving a drunk a drink. He'll be happy until he wakes up and wants more. But, like I said, I'll take my rebate and put it in the bank and save it for when the Democrats gain control and tax the heck out of me. I'll need it then.
Wow, Amy, there WAS a lot of research put into this post - great job - did a lot to get me thinking about some of these issues. Slippery slope towards socialism? At least in the medical-care world, I say, "yeah!" but that is a bit of a digression - only quasi on-topic. Anyways, thanks for getting me thinking about some of this stuff - I'll do some research and have a thought-provoking response in a few days. :)
One more thing - after the Bush tax cuts, my EITC (actually just called EIC on the tax form) went up dramatically. So, as a "poor" person, I benefitted greatly from the tax cuts. Also, Hillary and Obama have defined "wealthy" as making $95K per year (I don't have the source - I remember this statistic from when I was really watching the primaries closely. It may have been in a debate). So, raising taxes on someone making $100K per year while giving more to someone making $35K per year (as is done with the EIC) sounds a lot like income redistribution to me, which is a form of socialism. So, Rick, I respectfully disagree. Inserting the idea of a slippery slope toward socialism into a discussion on economic proposals is entirely ON topic.
This is a great post, Amy. It's just great to see people discussing politics at a level so far above that of the sound bite.
To your observations I would add that it's good to analyze policy platforms for what they reveal about the candidates, but that we shouldn't think of them as things that will necessarily be implemented. Neither individual candidates nor their parties consistently deliver on their promises. When they offer up their various plans, sometimes they mean it and sometimes they don't. Sometimes even when they're sincere they'll never get their plans through Congress. And any major candidate who promises to cut federal spending should not be believed. At best they might slow the growth of federal spending a bit. But pork-barrel spending, military spending, and entitlements are simply facts of budgetary life now. The interests that perpetuate them are too deeply entrenched.
Also, if taxes are cut but not spending, so that a huge debt builds up, sooner or later that debt has to be paid. In my experience, each major party plays its own kind of shell game. The Democrats will give out welfare and raise your taxes to pay for it. The Republicans will (sometimes) cut your taxes but not spending, and run up the debt, and leave that debt for some future administration to worry about. (This is what Reagan did to Bush I, and what Bush II is currently doing to his successor.)
These are the two ways the parties get their people elected. Both ways are dishonest, though IMHO the Democrats' approach is less dishonest. Also, we should be realistic and remember that in terms of practical results there's not that much difference between the two parties. The Democrats are never going to eradicate poverty, and the Republicans are never going to abolish the IRS. Most people's lived experience is not that much different under either party. Under the "liberal" Clinton the economy cruised right along and the budget was balanced. Go figure. The economy has a life of its own.
As for Stephanie's "leaning libertarian on economic issues"--may I suggest that if you're laissez-faire on economics but not on social issues, that is, if you want the government out of your pocketbook but not out of your bedroom, then you're not a libertarian at all: you're a straight-line conservative. Similarly, if you want the government out of your bedroom and, let's say, you favor the legalization of pot, but you don't mind the government dipping into your pocketbook to pay for poor kids' college tuition, then you can't say you "lean libertarian on social issues"--you're a liberal. It makes sense to me to reserve the word "libertarian" for those who consistently oppose Big Government across the board.
There are a fair of real libertarians out there, but they never get far in national politics. None of the three major candidates is even remotely libertarian. McCain (like his forebears) has been a government employee all his life but is otherwise a moderate-conservative. His stand on campaign finance reform is extremely anti-libertarian. Clinton and Obama are moderate-liberals. All three candidates have doled out plenty of pork; they all know that "fiscal prudence" is the watchword of those who don't get elected.
A final comment on libertarianism: The typical libertarian claims to champion liberty and sings the praises of the free market. But guess what? It's absolutely impossible for a nation to be dedicated to those ideals. As national policy, libertarianism is a structural impossibility. Why? Because for a nation-state to exist at all, there has to be an initial act of creating a border separating the citizen from the non-citizen. To station armed guards along that border to shoot at people who try to cross it is, of course, the very antithesis of liberty--yet it is necessary for a nation to exist at all.
One result of this structural necessity is a decidedly unfree economic market. Don't believe me? Consider the fact that, under the current "free trade" rules, an investor is free to take his capital across a national border and invest it wherever it will make him the most money. He is free to take his products across a national border and sell them where they will fetch the highest price. But the laborer is NOT free to take his labor across those same borders and sell that labor where it will fetch the highest price.
As long as capital is free and labor is not, it's pretty deluded to talk about free-market economics. It's also difficult to take seriously the libertarians and conservatives (and so-called liberals like the Clintons!) who champion "free" markets. To me it makes much more sense to acknowledge that 1.) the very creation of a nation, with its creation of national borders, distorts the natural structure of what might otherwise be free economic markets; and 2.) since it is the nation that creates the economic miseries that sometimes ensue from those distortions; then 3.) it is the nation's responsibility to try to ameliorate those miseries. This is why, contra the conservative and the libertarian, the nation really DOES have a certain responsibility for the public welfare. (There's also that bit in the Preamble to the Constitution about how one of the nation's purposes is to "promote the general welfare.") The nation doesn't bear ALL of that responsibility, but it does bear a modest share of it. That's one reason I'm a liberal.
Sorry for being so prolix. It's just who I am--a gabby guy. And I hope I'm reasonably on topic and not hijacking the thread.
--David
This is an absolutely fundamental liberal/conservative argument - is it, or is it not the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth? I say it is. The government should help the people who struggle or cannot help themselves, (like) such as the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children. A pure free market *sounds* like a great idea (just like libertarianism in general), but reality dictates other methodologies due to market imperfections. We had much closer to a free market in the robber baron days of the late 19th century. What was the result? A very select few that had all the money, and a huge lower class. Government regulation (labor standards, anti-trust laws, etc.) pulled us out of that mess.
I find it curious that some who benefit so heavily from government redistribution programs like the earned-income tax credit, medicare, etc. are so critical of them. The EITC is an excellent program - it is a form of welfare, but one that discourages free riding to the highest degree possible with its phased structure. The tax savings can make a huge difference in the lives of lower-income working families, which is exactly the intention.
Government is most certainly not perfect in its application of redistribution programs, but the system we have is better than a system with little to no government intervention.
Welfare is only a fraction of factors that contribute to the state of the economy though. I think it is interesting to look at the entire picture painted by these candidates and ask yourself if it is the picture you'd like to live in.
Also, why do presidents get blamed for the economy if all their economic ideas take so long to implement that they essentially won't be president any longer when the effects are being felt?
If our senators/house reps come up with plans and ideas that affect our economy so drastically, how come we don't hear more about their economic plans prior to elections? (this probably refers to Joel's latest post about people not being able to say who their local leaders are). In fact, I would like to see more local leaders take initiative to drive the impact the economy takes on their stewardship over the people.
David, interesting comments. I like your analysis of the political landscape. What are your ideas on how to fix it? How do we actually cut spending AND cut the deficit? Because it would be nice to elect a leader who actually does what they say they are going to do. I am a conservative (not libertarian – I said I LEAN libertarian as an illustration of where I am on the spectrum) who primarily votes Republican because they are the party that at least claims to espouse my values (although I have been deeply disappointed by President Bush and Governor Rick Perry of Texas – I voted for an Independent in the last Texas governor election). In my opinion, the Republican party as a whole is falling apart because candidates are saying the right thing that conservatives want to hear to be elected, but they don’t act in accordance with that (just like you said David).
I do agree with you, Big Bald Dave, that the government has some level of responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. I think social security for the disabled, federal pell grants, school lunch programs have a purpose. I send my children to public schools and drive on public roads. I recognize that I need to pay taxes for the general welfare of society. However, I think that churches and charities do a better job of helping the poor than the government. The role of government should be limited. Since this is an LDS site, may I insert a scripture? In the 4th Book of Nephi, when all the Nephites and Lamanites are converted to the Church of Christ, “they had all things in common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor”. That’s not because their government imposed taxes and a welfare system. It’s because the people had charity, the true love of God, in their hearts, and they took care of one another.
I love your question, Amy. Which of those pictures do I want to live in? This takes the discussion away from theory and rhetoric and down to the reality of my life for the next four years. Well, as an LDS conservative, which scenario is best for MY family? Here is my situation: Last year, we paid 15% of our family’s income to taxes (federal income, Medicare, Social Security, property, sales taxes – Texas does not have a state tax, thank goodness). We paid 16% to charity (you can probably guess that 10% was in tithing). I drive a 10 year old car and home-teach preschool to my 3 year old so that I can use the money saved to pay that extra 6% over tithing to charity to help feed/clothe/house the poor. We also allowed my mother and brother to live with us rent-free for a second year while they get back on their feet. I feel that we are doing our best to live the law of consecration and help lift others out of poverty. Well, if both Democratic candidates want to raise my taxes as a “wealthy” taxpayer, how much do you think my taxes should be raised to pay for all these additional programs or expansion of programs promised by Hillary and Obama? Hillary has been making various promises of cradle-to-the-grave entitlements (like a savings bond for every child born). As a cold, heartless conservative, how much more of my income should be taken from me by force to fund her programs?
I am fairly happy with the status quo with regard to taxes and all the tax breaks I get, so I am not interested in electing someone who wants to raise my taxes. Period.
Stephanie, I couldn't say it any better myself. I completely agree with you on the governments level of responsibility to the poor. I have been studying the founding fathers and thier ideas and logic for creating the Constitution. I feel it is very important to understand the founding of our nation in order to understand how it must be governed to remain a free and virtuous nation.
Jefferson had this to say about the "welfare state", "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."
Samuel Adams said they did everything possible to make the ideas of socialism and communism unconstitutional. He said "The utopian schemes of leveling (re-distribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of the means of production and distribution), are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."
I know times have changed, but logic has not. My employee lives in a hotel day to day. I have helped him monetarily many times. Has this helped? No, not at all. He has become more and more dependent on Me. I know this is only one facet of the economy but it's just my two cents.
As far as the big picture, I agree with David that no candidate will deliver All of what they promise. With that being said, I will vote for McCain or Hillary. To me, Obama is all talk and will undoubtedly run up the debts of this nation that the republicans have been so careless with. I have no faith that Obama can improve the current recession. When he is elected I sure hope he proves me wrong!
Stephanie, call it pessimism or call it experience, but I think some of the problems we're talking about simply CAN'T be solved. I think the best we can do is try to minimize as many of the negative consequences as we can and muddle through. Third parties will never accomplish anything at the national level until they first become a force at the local level. To a certain extent you can try to pull the major parties in a favorable direction (something I believe conservatives have been quite successful at). But about all that Perot voters accomplished in 1992 was to put Clinton in the White House, and all Nader voters accomplished was to put Bush II in the White House.
Of course, another thing to keep in mind is that in spite of the many ways the system is broken, most of us still have incredibly good lives. Even if your taxes go up by five percent or whatever, you're still going to have an incredibly good life--or at least the opportunity for one.
Matt, would you say that Jefferson's call (to "prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them") has any bearing on foreign wars like the current war in Iraq? Big government is rarely bigger than during a major war.
Anonymous, are you David or someone else? Yes, if my taxes go up 5%, it would hurt a lot. By the way, we are very middle class (not “wealthy” even though Hillary and Obama would like to classify us that way). And we live in Texas where home prices are still affordable! I can’t imagine trying to raise my family in San Francisco. We budget to the T, every penny, and try to save for the future. Where do you propose I take that 5% from? Should I stop eating out the 1 day per week that I do? Or buy my children 3 pairs of jeans to wear during the winter instead of 5? Or maybe just take it out of savings so that we save 5% instead of 10% and don’t have enough for retirement so that we are dependent on social security for a paltry existence in our senior years? My husband and I completed 15 years of college between the two of us to earn what he earns now. Do I feel like my standard of living should be lowered by 5% so that the government can take that to triple the EITC of someone making minimum wage? No. I think the person making minimum wage should take out student loans and pay them back for the next 30 years like we are and improve their standard of living. Where does it stop? It’s 5% this time, but what about next time? Does it stop when we all live on $40K (the national average for household income) so that everything is “fair” and balanced? No - what makes America great is that we can each work hard and make our own future. Those who work harder and sacrifice more deserve to earn and live on more. Otherwise, what is the point? What is my incentive to improve my skills and marketability if the extra income I earn will be taken from me to pay the expenses of someone else who doesn’t want to improve their skills? Big Bald Dave is correct – this is a fundamental liberal/conservative issue – and nowhere has it been more blatantly obvious than in this presidential election cycle with Hillary and Obama pandering to those who want more government handouts.
Anonymous, the irony of what you said just hit me. You said, "Even if your taxes go up by five percent or whatever, you're still going to have an incredibly good life--or at least the opportunity for one". Well, let's see. We have been blessed with the opportunity to make a good life for ourselves. We worked our butts off with many years of college to earn our income. You are proposing to take 5% more of my income (on top of the 31% I already pay to taxes and charity) to pay for more government income redistribution programs. Well, now I need more income! (particularly with gas prices so high, food prices increasing, the threat of stagflation) Well, thank goodness I STILL have the opportunity to get some MORE education and skills to earn even more money to take care of someone else who has that same opportunity. I am laughing just thinking about it.
Stephanie, yes, I'm David--I forgot to add the name after that last comment. My apologies.
In my comment I was not "proposing to take 5% more" of your income. I was suggesting instead that we all keep things in perspective. I'm suggesting that even IF your taxes went up that much life would still not be so horrible. I just happen to think we're lucky to be living in circumstances where the consequences of this or that party's victory is not as extreme as it might be in so many other countries.
The political "pendulum" swings first one way and then the other. When it swings too far to the left and taxes get too burdensome and government gets too big, the voters swing it back to the right and elect Reagan. Then later it swings back left. Yes, it matters whether we elect Republicans or Democrats, but only within the fairly narrow range permitted by the electorate at large. No Democratic victory will eventuate in Sweden-level taxes. No Republican victory will abolish the IRS and turn all the poor people out on the street. The truly apocalyptic scenarios we're always being warned against never seem to materialize, at east not since the Great Depression, because each party reigns in the excesses of the other.
This blog is called PoliticaLDS, suggesting it's about the intersection of politics and religion, and I must say it always surprises me that people can be at once so sincerely Christian and so materialistic. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to worry about more important things instead. Tough advice, I know, especially since he offered it at a time when Caesar was oppressing Jesus's fellow Jews far, far more tyrannically than Hillary Clinton will ever oppress any of us.
Don't get me wrong. I think your argument about the essential injustice of governmental income redistribution, etc., is a coherent one. I just don't see how it is in any sense a Christian one. It seems to be rooted in precisely the sort of materialist obsession and fear that Jesus wanted to liberate people from.
--David
I COMPLETELY agree with what Stephanie has said. David, the position is not against Christian principles. IF everybody were working equally hard to better society and doing all they could to make their lives better, then it would be much less offensive to me to take my money and spread it around so everybody was living more equally. However, a lot of poor people are sitting at home right now watching Jerry Springer and Judge Joe Brown collecting welfare for them and their three kids instead of "working" 10 hours a day trying to get a job. If you don't have a job, your job is to get a job. If your job sucks, you need to work to get training to qualify for a better job. I understand there are circumstances SOMETIMES, but the vast, vast majority of the time it really isn't my problem and I don't want to pay for somebody else's laziness out of my pocket.
David, are you calling me Unchristian because I am concerned about ensuring I have enough money to provide for the welfare of my own family? Particularly after I stated in a previous post that I spend 16% of my income on charity (split between contributions to the church and other charities that help the poor) and provide for my mother and brother? If I am not concerned about the welfare of my family, who is? You? The government? Are you calling me Unchristian because I prefer to have the choice of how I help the poor rather than having it imposed on me? I challenge you to find a liberal more committed to Christian causes than I am. No, nevermind - I don't need you to validate my "Christianity". I recognize this is merely a common attack aimed at conservative views.
Other than that, I enjoyed your comment. :)
P.S. Glad you enjoyed my comment. I've been enjoying this blog, and your comments, and everyone's comments, immensely. This blog is one of the comparatively few islands of sanity in the blogosphere.
--David
David, I would like to introduce you to my little brother when he gets off his mission. He wants to be a professor of Mormon Theology. I think the two of you would have a lot of fun. :)
I'm having lots of fun mainly listening on this thread, and not talking so much. :) Economics is one of my weaker points as far as factual, practical application goes (by which I mean, I have gut feelings, but I don't feel like i Have a firm enough grip on the actual mechanics of economics, taxes, etc to base my decision for who to vote for very much on that aspect).
My initial thoughts are - I think health care really needs to be evaluated and "fixed" before we get raising taxes, or lowering taxes, and getting into these other welfare proposals. Healthcare is something which almost everyone in this country uses, needs, etc, and the system right now is so grossly bloated and inefficient that it pains me to think about it.
And I don't know exactly what the cause, or the answer is, but I just wonder how our country has gotten to the point it has, where a single-income family with a couple of kids struggles to hard to make ends meets, even on a relatively high income. I mean, I hate to sound like an old geezer, but what about the "good old days" when a father worked one job and was able to provide for his family and everything just sort of chugged along? It seems like now there's so much more *want*, and I can't tell if it's because our money doesn't go as far as it used to, relatively, or if it's because our sense of collective entitlement has gotten so drastically out of control that we feel like we "need" more than our grandparents ever did.
Maybe both.
Wizzle, a great book to understand how we got here is "The Two-Income Trap - Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers are Going Broke" by Elizabeth Warren & Amelia Warren Tyagi. The footnotes are exhaustingly thorough. I don't necessarily agree with all the proposals they suggest to solve the problems (a little too liberal for me), but their analysis is very good.
Well, I'm glad we're all still enjoying it! for a minute, I thought you two were going to start throwing punches :)
Okay, Now that I've seen where this Blog has headed, I feel like I can say something - maybe not a whole lot, but something. Bottom first -
Rachel (Wizzle) - yes, our wants are extreme, and yes, our money isn't going as far as it used to. This is the very point I was trying to make on my previous post about environmentalism - That we aren't entitled to all the conveniences of life just because they are available to us.
Just as Joel and Matt agree with Stephanie on every issue, I'm right there with you, David. Maybe that's just because I'm poor:) Ah, the life of a student/teacher. In study of early Christianity and it's Israelite Backgrounds, that is one of the things that I've been completely struck with these last few years - - Christ and his followers called themselves "the Poor" as a title - remember when he talked to the rich young man and said, "Sell all that thou hast and give it to the poor?" There is abundant evidance that he was not refering to some nebulous "poor" people, but, rather to the church and it's poor. Now, lets remember what Christ's church was - the Kingdom of God - that is, a Theocratic Government. Therefore, It follows that he was asking the rich young man to follow a socialist lifestile, e.g. the United Order.
Now I realize that this is idealistic - that it can't be rationally and logically realized in this life - however, I do think that we place far too much emphasis on our wants - and call them our needs - and that is the biggest reason for the fact that our money doesn't go as far as it used to - because we just need so much!
Rachel, I want to back you up again - we need to fix medical care before we fix economic issues - I think the corruption in the medical field is one of the biggest reasons for our current economic crisis. If we can fix that, then a vast amount of the economy's problems will fix themselves - how do we do that? Well not how McCain suggests, that's for sure.
Amy, I want to reiterate what David said - that the cadidates proposed systems are not the same as what will be realized - so, to vote for someone based on his or her grand proposals for a better future, is a fundamentally flawed way of voting - we have to vote on character and leadership ability - because when it comes right down to it, the President is a political figure head - he's not the King for 4 years.
However, I've seen up close and personal that portion of America who benifits from redistribution of wealth, as we're calling it. That lowest of the lower class that is living on welfare checks. And I have to agree that to further enable those people who are already being enabled is a mistake. Most of the people that might fall into this category are honest, hard workers - but there are a few that are taking advantage of the system. However, those few should not out weigh helping the many that are working hard.
I propose that the biggest reason for class distinction is the value placed upon certian jobs. For instance - in some states, being a full time elementary teacher is not nearly enough money to "make ends meet" - there are not more people that work harder and more taxing days than elementary school teachers - but they have to take on second jobs - or spouses have to work, or whatever, just to make a living in this country - that's not fair - that is where tax breaks and opposing tax increases really help. We as a society need nurses, teachrs, janitors etc, but who can afford to do those jobs anymore?
Exactly! Lots of people who can barely afford to get by, depending on where they live, are in honorable professions! Teachers, in particular, come to mind. IN my area, teachers in Scottsdale have to live in other cities and commute, adding to their already not-that-awesome standard of living, because they can't afford a house of any kind near their place of employment. It's ridiculous! That job requires a college degree, for heaven's sake! It's not KFC!
Blech. It's so infuriating. Not everyone is, needs to be, or should be, a CEO. We need people to do all kinds of jobs, and I never claimed to be anything but an idealist, but I sure wish a person could choose a career based not only on salary.
And I am totally getting that book next time I'm at the library, Stephanie. I'm really into this topic right now.
The law of consecration ("United Order" as it was called in the early church) is a celestial law. Here is a great article about living the principles of the law of consecration now. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=2ad55991d66db010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Sorry, there might be a better way to do that, but I don't know how yet. President Romney (referring to the welfare program of the church) said "Considering that we are not now required to live the law of consecration and that we have the welfare program which, as President Clark said, if put “thoroughly into operation … we shall not be … far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order,” I suppose the best way to live the principles of the law of consecration is to live the principles and practices of the welfare program.
These principles and practices include avoiding idleness and greed, contributing liberal fast offerings and other welfare donations, paying a full tithing, and complying with the purpose for which the First Presidency organized the program, which they thus stated:
“Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be reenthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership.” (In Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3.)"
Under Christ's millenial reign, I will gladly live the law of consecration. For now, socialism just doesn't work, but doing the things outlined in this article does.
Dang it. That link didn't work. The article is "First Presidency Message Living the Principles of the Law of Consecration" by Marion G. Romney in the January 1980 Liahona magazine (accessible through lds.org)
Wizzle (Rachel?), I will gladly loan you my copy if you need. :)
wow, I go away to school for a 12 hour day and come home to find a full-blown discussion that I missed out on! Great reads, everyone!
In reference to Christ's statement of giving unto Caesar's what is Caesar's: I highly doubt that what he was saying was raise taxes in order to give more handouts and redistribute wealth. There are many scriptures that denounce idleness, slothfulness, encourage self-reliance, etc.
My favorite Chinese proverb is "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life." Until our population has the skills to bring the income necessary for survival we can give and give but we are not solving any problems.
My own solution for our current economic crisis: cap inflation, cap income of celebrities (why on earth should an entertainer [not a necessary survival craft] make more than our teachers/professors? This has always irked me...stop automatic approved credit card mailers, stop irresponsible housing loans, get people to stop buying buying buying when they can't afford/don't need it, stop raising taxes, stop government payments on things from internet to bankruptcy to years of able-bodied welfare recipiency...only issue short-term loans, stop raising minimum wage (our hamburger flippers get $9/hr!! Ridiculous, that is more than I made as a college student doing a desk job!) Etc, etc.
And I would like to see our government trimmed. I think there are a lot of unnecessary programs and employees and I don't like all the government projects that get approved without my okay. Like the millions that go into building rockets that only get lost in space around Mars. So many dollars are spent imprudently. We need to get back to basics and focus on our own country's infrastructure and trying to build up a better people and a better opportunity for ourselves and our children.
oh yeah, and I am a big fan of debtor's prison. If there were more consequences like that, where you had to go to prison until your debts were paid or you had served the equivalent of your debt, then there would be a lot less people willing to take a chance on not being able to pay their bills, or spending money unwisely.
And while I'm commenting, let me also say that IMHO we are heading into a hard cold depression. I think this "recession" we are experiencing is going to snowball into something infinitely worse and the majority of people in the world do not have the same survival skills that enabled our grandparents to outlast the Great Depression of the 1930s. And when we are all dying of poverty and no job and so much inflation that we can't even afford bread...who will the government tax? No one will be able to afford taxes, everyone will lose their pricey lush homes and cars and lifestyles. And people will have to do manual labor for food, eating a slice of humble pie by doing what they look down on illegal immigrants for doing now (floating day jobs).
Its going to be harsh.
I agree with some of your solutions Amy, but not with the ones that take away the free agency of others'. I don't think society should impose an income cap on celebrities. It seems unfair that they make so much more than a teacher, but they DO earn it. I definitely agree that our society is too materialistic and spends too much, but I don't agree with anything that would force people to stop (besides the natural consequences of their actions). I guess the question is "How"? How do you stop predatory lending and rampant materialism without taking away the free agency of those who want to be irresponsible?
You answered my question at the same time I was writing it. :)
I like debtor's prison - or indetured servatude - why not? That's one of Sir Thomas Moore's Ideas that I think is a wonderful one, albeit inpractical.
One of the reasons that the economy is not going to improve any time soon is that many of the issues related to the economy are perfect for election propaganda. What is comes down to is this, Poverty wins elections. As long as poverty gets votes there is no rush to fix it. If you are running for president why would you tell millions of potential supporters that you have plans to cut back welfare programs? It sounds harsh. On the other hand you'll be sure to get the votes if your general theme is "help the poor", or "Free everything for everyone". Unfortunately it just doesn't and can't work that way.
We are all CREATED equal. Not created EQUAL. It's up to us what we do with our lives. I agree we need to have compassion on the poor, but like others have said, let me decide who and how much I want to help. It is not and never will be the governments decision.
Benjamin Franklin, a "have not" wrote this to a friend, "I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor (in England) is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness. We have followed your example, and begin now to see our error, and, I hope, shall reform it."
I completely agree with Rick, that we feel we are entitled to way too much. Over spending and greed are the cause of our debt, and until we hit rock bottom people will not change.
The economy is my favorite topic. I don't have time to do it justice, but I think this has been a good discussion.
I think the the following topics are the key things pulling down our economy: 1) Baby boomers effect on social security, 2) Baby boomers effect on medicare, 3) The effect of illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes but use social services, 4) Energy dependence on other countries which effects the price of oil and transportation costs , 5) Trade tariff imbalances with the developing countries, 6) US Dollar manipulations by China.
I believe that these are the key drivers of what are going to drive our Economy into a depression. There needs to be a systematic strategy to address each of these issues. Currently these things are all happening and US fiscal policy directly effects all of these things. If these things don't change or the policies don't change then we will need to have personal strategies to survive what we are facing.
I liked Mitt Romney's strategies to fix our economy; he offered pragmatic solutions that would work . Obama, Hilary and McCain will just give us more crap.
Yes, this is Jon.
Jon, now THAT gives me something to think about. I agree with Amy that I think our economy is going down. I think it will get scary. But, then I think about what the scriptures say and what Elder Uchtdorf said in this past conference: the righteous need not fear. So, I suppose I even agree with David that my life and the lives of my children and husband "will still not be so horrible".
Anonymous Jon, I noticed that there was no room on your list for any fault or blame to be handed to the irresponsible spending habits of US consumers. Why not?
I just spent about 30 minutes re-reading this comment thread. A couple things popped out at me.
First, you're right Stephanie, I was wrong---solutions that inhibit another's agency is wrong and although I hate how much celebrities get paid for simply entertaining us, if people want to hand over their cash then that is their choice.
Second, Anon. David, you spoke several times about the role of the president being realistically different than their platforms for election. This is something that gripes me. Why on earth do we spend so much time and angst watching our potential candidates debate issues and build campaigns around things, such as economy solutions, when they won't be able to feasibly do anything right away that will fix today's problems? All of government implementations are done to come into effect long after they are ratified, sometimes after the president who wanted it isn't even in office anymore.
I guess I can sum this in question form as "why on earth did I just spend time compare/contrasting the three 2008 presidential hopefuls when they realistically won't be able to do any or most of the things they are promising to do according to you?"
Third, after doing some more research I found that McCain's solution to being independent from foreign oil (#6 in my post under his name) is to tack on a .50 tax/gallon on gasoline. I completely disagree with this. My idea of being independent from foreign oil is drilling in Alaska.
Fourth, I am more convinced than ever after reading people's comments that until American citizens can discern 'want' from 'need' and make their purchases with self control and moderation that the economy will continue to bulge and balloon and stretch and sink and do everything unhealthy until it explodes. Thus, in a way, the government is really an extension of the people and cannot honestly be blamed for the current situation or the future situation. We've got to blame ourselves, as a people as a whole. We, and our lifestyles across the board, and our lazy approach to governing and politics has created this situation.
Great last paragraph, Amy.
First - I have ZERO problem with celebrities and athletes making millions upon millions of dollars. It ain't their fault, it is ours. If somebody came up to you and offered you $3 million a year to do your current job, there isn't a chance you'd turn them down. So why would somebody that is in that situation say "Naw, that's too much money..."? If you don't like it, don't buy the product/watch the movie/go to the game. I'm glad that you retracted, Amy, because that was irking me.
I talked a bit about the limits on Presidential powers in my local politics thread. I agree that we are expending far too much effort on the presidential election, but, as Wizzle said, it is something that everybody has in common and is thus easy to talk about.
And I completely oppose drilling for oil in Alaska. BAD IDEA. It is the outdoorsman in me; I love nature and it pisses me off when we screw it up. We need independence from oil, not just independence from foreign oil. We need to cease using oil as our primary energy source. It is killing our economy and our environment. I say tax the crap out of oil like we do cigarettes to discourage its use. We then take that money and pour it EXCLUSIVELY into energy research. Problem solved in five years, tops, guaranteed.
And Anon Jon, I think most of your list is terrible. (1)&(2)It isn't the baby boomers fault they are getting old. It is Washington's fault that nothing has been done to reform the systems. It isn't like we woke up yesterday and these problems were a shock. We've had 15 years to deal with it, and nothing has happened. (3)What about the tens of thousands of illegals that are paying taxes (and more then they "should" because they can't file for returns) and aren't drawing social services? At any rate, this isn't a major factor in the grand scheme at all. (4) Again, this isn't a problem that we haven't seen coming. Again, it is our own fault for not dealing with it. (6) We are screwing the dollar just fine without the aid of China. Lowering interest rates during a period of inflation is bad for the value of the dollar. I understand the Fed is between a rock and a hard place. I'm not suggesting I have a better plan to save both the economy and dollar. I'm just saying that the dollar is being devalued by our policies right now.
I agree with Rick (is that twice now? or was the first time on the same issue...? :) ) Most of the problems right now are due to consumers irresponsibility, whether that be a lack of savings, racking up CC debt buying crap we don't need, or buying houses that we can't afford. This lack of restraint is THE driving force behind the recession and any eventual depression.
Joel, in the next five years, as you tax the crap out of oil, our economy will collapse. Oil is not the same as cigarettes. For one, everyone needs it and uses it. With little to no current competition, it is an inelastic good. For two, as the price of oil rises, so does the price of everything else. This would lead to stagflation in a major way.
If more illegal immigrants actually filed their taxes, they wouldn't pay taxes! They would get a hefty tax return with a huge EITC. The government would actually be giving out MORE money (assuming a majority fall below $40K, which I am pretty sure is the case).
It doesn't sound to me like Jon is blaming the baby boomers. He is stating the facts as they are. As more baby boomers retire, removing their labor from the workforce and instead start pulling from social security, this will have a dampening effect on the economy. It also has a dampening effect on the housing market as baby boomers move from large homes to smaller homes or retirement homes.
It seems to me that Jon is coming from an investment perspective and Joel is coming from a policy perspective. Jon hasn't proposed how to solve those problems, but he is definitely going to do well in his personal finances and investments because he understands the market forces and what is driving them.
Well, besides offering Romney's solutions. In fact, I was going to point out how nice it would be to have a President who actually understands all the factors affecting our economy and how to solve them. Too bad we missed that train. :(
Actually, Joel, I can see a great Democrat-sponsored bill coming out of your proposal. To appease the environmentalists, tax the crap out of oil. But then, because the additional tax is so burdensome to low-income households, give a "gas tax rebate" to those households. So, who shoulders the burden of this tax? Ah, the "wealthy" (also known as the "middle class" to the rest of us). Income redistribution at its finest.
And, one last comment about illegal immigrants and tax returns. I find it ironic that in a time when U.S. citizens are screaming "Close the border" to congress, our congressmen are giving illegal immigrants more of an incentive to come to our country. It used to be, "Come to the land of opportunity where you can work and earn a good life for yourself". Now, it is, "Come to the land of free healthcare, free food, and even a free tax rebate check in May if you file a paper telling us you are here illegally". Who wouldn't want that?
Stephanie - I know that we can't acutally tax oil like cigarettes in real life. But my point is still valid. We need to NOT depend on oil, and that is an unavoidable fact. And it needs to be sooner rather than later.
And you go right ahead and try to get people who are here illegally and have a stolen SSN to file taxes. Talk about throwing up a "Come and get me" sign. C'mon. They aren't ever going to file taxes. If they did, they'd be boldly admitting to several felonies.
I'm also did not mean to say that Jon is blaming the baby boomers. My point was simply we should have done something about these particular problem before now. And I still don't think the baby boomers are 2 of 6 main factors contributing to THIS ecomomic downturn. They will be a problem in a short few years, but not at this instant.
And lastly, PLEASE don't give them any ideas, Stephanie!!
Oh, yeah. How 'bout that loosing 63K jobs last month? Heading in the wrong direction... Amy's doom and gloom predictions may just manifest themselves in our near future. Sure hope not, but...
Joel, I was talking about undocumented workers who use ITINs (see article ). I 100% agree with your point that we need to reduce/eliminate our dependence on oil. I think that if given an incentive (oil prices/potential profits being high are an incentive), the free market can find solutions better than the government.
Joel, until a feasible alternative can be found, I completely support drilling Alaska. Sure it is beautiful country, so is Texas. Was Texas completely ruined by all the oil drilling there? Not to mention that oil drilling in Texas was done without keeping the environment in mind, so drilling in Alaska will be done with a lot of precautions that didn't even exist a century ago.
Hybrids are great and I love them, but guess what? They still use oil. Electric cars got taken off the market by the oil barons and destroyed (have you seen Who Killed The Electric Car? ) and patented awesome batteries to prevent their use, thus ensuring OIL use.
Yes, an alternative to oil needs to be found, but in the meantime we are a ridiculous nation for fighting terrorism yet handing over millions of money to nations that fund, support, give birth to AMERICA-Haters, all in the name of cash for fuel. It is counter-productive. What are we saving the oil in Alaska for? A rainy day? That rainy day has come.
And until a sufficient, efficient, affordable solution can be found, I say Drill Baby! Drill.
Love it, Amy
Joel, this is about the most good feelings I've ever had for you :) I think that deep down, you arent' as conservative as you think.
Stephanie, WOW, that was a great idea for a proposal - you should run for congress - seriously, I loved it.
Amy, seriously, "drill baby drill" is an offensive phrase for some of us. Lets be honest folks - when talking about wants and needs, how many of us NEED to drive the amount we do. Have you seen Alaska? I'm so sick of destroying this planet for oil. We MUST reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels. How many problems that our country is currently facing would be erraticated if we decreased that dependancey to what it was...like 100 years ago - or even70 years ago. "drill baby drill" is like the epitomy of the overspending and over consuming to which I've been refering.
Rick, I am still waiting to hear the thought-provoking response you promised me regarding this post several days ago. :-)
And Rick, puh-lease, can we just nix this whole "offensive" card once and for all? If people never offered solutions that were considered offensive to certain people, then we would never be able to talk about anything or get anything done. You don't hear conservatives talking about how 'offensive' it is to hear a woman talking about murdering her unborn child, or how 'offensive' it is for the government to continually raise our taxes. No, rather, we are more inclined to state "we don't like that. We don't support that." Perhaps a lot of us are more concerned about funding populations that will send people over here to bomb and kill us than concerned over potential environmental threats that may not materialize.
I'm just tired of the word Offensive, much like KWS has stated his fatigue of overused words in other posts.
I'd like to hear some rational solutions as an alternative to complaining that the populace isn't mindful enough of the resources we have.
Solutions to this economy problem anyone?
Joel, I think Rick is right, your not as conservative as you thought. I'll go so far as to say you are being overcome by the dark side:)
Tax the heck out of gas? Yeah, that will solve a whole lot. Maybe even adding to that 63K that lost their jobs this month. Yes, we need to and can cut WAY down on oil consumption, but did you ever think that some of us can't take the bus, well unless you don't mind helping me hold my painting supplies and buckets of paint. Every service oriented business would be impacted dramatically. Small business is one of the main driving forces of our economy and creating jobs. Stephanie is right when she said that when oil prices go up so does everything else. Joel, I think your common sense is turning into nonsense!
Amy, I am also offended by your "drill baby drill" comment. Are you suggesting that we drill babies?!:)
I am offended that Rick is offended! Isn't drilling on our own land better than paying terrorists to kill us? Just think of the investment of buying Alaska and then turning it into huge oil producing economy. Hurray Capitalism!!
Joel, do you really think the government can come up with a solution for oil independence? They are the last institution I would trust.
I'm sorry if some animals loose their homes when we drill in Alaska. Just send them my way, I'll eat 'em and make really warm fur coats! Oh, and the trees, maybe we could build homes for all the "poor" that Obama and Hillary are going to help.
Ok, so that last comment is a little drastic but come on, we are entitled to opinions! They are just that, opinions. Please don't take offense at every little idea.
I've actually thought about that, Matt. A very practical way to drastically cut back on oil usage would be to tax oil drastically for normal automobile drivers - however, if a vehicle can be shown to be a necessity for business (like your paint truck, Matt) then it would be tax exempt. Thus we are taxing the gas for vehicles that are non-essential. It would be a state tax, and the state uses that tax money to increase the availability and practicality of their public transportation systems. People will still drive, but now they will have a huge incentive to drive when it isn't necessary (because of the tax) and there will be a reasonable alternative. If the fed. govt. wants to throw an additional tax on gas for the same situation, that's fine, as long as that money also went to research and production of alternative methods of transportation.
Don't hold your breath, Amy - I thought the one halfway up the page was pretty good. If that didn't do it for you, sorry to disappoint - I remember when Mike wrote about abortion and I wrote about marriage legisation and someone (you?) wrote about immigration and the word offended came up quite often from the conservative wing.
Not trying to change the subject or anything--just want to mention there's a great post over at Common Consent that someone here might want to comment on. It's called The Ten Most Influential Mormons of the Twentieth Century.
Rick, thank you for imposing an additional tax on me as I drive my children to and from school, to soccer practice, to church, to the grocery store, etc. We live in a small town with no public transportation where things are far apart from each other. I never knew my vehicle was so "non-essential". It looks like again I will get to shoulder the burden of an additional tax.
Besides, have you ever taken four children (all who need to be in car seats/boosters) on a public bus?!?!?! YUCK
I had an additional thought on the credit crisis. In a lot of ways, this will be good for the long-term viability of the American economy. Easy credit and creative loans have caused home prices, car prices, even tuition costs to increase. As borrowers have access to higher loan values, they have more money to bid on a house with. This is not the only reason home prices are so high in places like San Diego (restricted building is another), but it does allow someone making $50K to buy a $500K home. Is that sustainable? No. As credit dries up, prices should fall. That is bad for the person stuck in the high mortgage, but good for a poor student just graduating from college who now might stand a chance at getting a home for a reasonable price using a 30 year fixed rate mortgage. It is a natural correction in the market.
Speaking of corrections, I think the stock market has been over-valued as well. I think investors started pulling their money out of real estate investments (like starter homes in Vegas) and putting them into the stock market, driving it up. (As a side note - I think speculation is another reason home prices in some areas skyrocketed. Investors were in there trying to make some money. That makes it really difficult for a small family just starting out. A correction is definitely warranted.) When the DJIA hit 14,000, I just rolled my eyes. I actually think 12,000 is around where it should be. So, I think the natural correction of the market is warranted. If it falls down to 11,000, then it will have my attention.
Granted, I simplified things here, but my point is that these corrections aren't always so bad. Sometimes we need a reality check.
While I'm on my rant, here's a pet peeve of mine: the government's inflation index that excludes food and energy prices (amongst other things). WHAT? They keep saying that inflation has been so low for so many years. During that time, home prices have skyrocketed, tuition prices have skyrocketed. The price of milk, gas, eggs have doubled. Who freaking cares if the price of a bobble at Wal-mart has stayed the same when I am paying twice as much for OJ as I used to?
I have to admit Hillary Clinton is right when she says that homemakers have known for several months that a recession is coming. More right than the people in government who have been saying "All is well" for so long. I am sure that an economist out there will tear my comments apart, but I'll stand by my point: the inflationary index used by the government is bogus.
Wow, Anonymous, that is going to take me a long time to get through, and take some serious brain power to think about. :)
Stephanie, it appears you didn't finish my post - the tax money would be used to improve public transportation - of course it's yuck right now (I still do it - - some how I manage to bring myself on one of those terrible busses - to ride with (shudder) poor people) - the point is that if it's fixed and expanded and increased, then it's the best option out there - economically, enviromentally and globally (stop the foreign oil dependance - remember). Besides, carseats aren't required on busses.
. . . which does not make it very safe to take children on buses. Your interjection of poor people in that comment was uncalled for. Rick, I get the impression that you do not have children yet because if you did, I doubt you would be so enthusiastic about encouraging everyone else to haul their children on public transportation. Guess my evil, heartless conservative side is showing here because in this case, I care more about safely, efficiently and comfortably transporting my family than I do about the environment. Sorry!
And I enjoy my free agency to drive in a car instead of being forced to take a bus.
I think the better idea would be to give tax breaks and incentives to companies who enforce carpooling. I feel the same about health care. It would be better to encourage businesses and reward them with incentives for providing health care to employees but to mandate it is absolutely unconstitutional. I know it's a different topic, but the same principal applies.
The only place public transport would be effective is in densely populated areas.(where it is already available, NYC, LA, etc.) It just isn't logical in small towns or even large cities like Phoenix that are way too spread out.
Allow me to point out that Rick, you just used another common attack aimed at conservatives: implying we somehow dislike or look down upon poor people because of our conservative views.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke at our stake conference this morning. His comments apply to this discussion and what many of you have mentioned about excessive materialism, so I thought I would share. He said that materialism is to worship something other than God. The first commandment is to love the Lord thy God. Put the Lord first in our lives. Don't fix our priorities on any other thing. He told a story of being in South America in the 80s and receiving a million peso bill back as change for $1 when buying a roll of lifesavers. He asked someone else how much that bill would have bought 10 years earlier. They said it would have been worth approximately $150K in US dollars. He said that people who trusted in that bill in the 70s would have been in a world of hurt. He said that if we trust in the arm of flesh and material things, that is what will happen to us. He said to trust in the Lord and the counsel from our church leaders, and we will be safe.
The night before at the adult session, he counseled us to read "All is safely gathered in" and "Family Home Storage" - those two new pamphlets. He said we are living in dangerous times. He said there has never been a time when it is more important to listen to counsel from our leaders. Get out of debt!
I think oil was put on earth to use. Let's keep working with alternative fuel ideas, but until they are proven effective there is no need to tax the crap out of oil.
Just a side note: Ford would have to sell 3 billion Expeditions driven 15,000 miles per year just to equal the emissions put out by China alone over the next 12 years. We are a tiny piece of the problem. Lets not make drastic changes just because it is politically correct. Lets improve our economy and in turn improve alternative fuel options. We can't afford alt.fuel as long we can't afford milk and eggs.
Rick, how do you feel about disposable diapers? Bad for the environment but pretty dang good for this evil, heartless conservative mom! (I recognize this is off-topic). So, while I'm at it, here's another one. What is worse for the environment? A large family owning two smaller cars to drive around in or one big Suburban?
Well, I don't know about Rick but I use cloth diapers! :) It was something I felt like I could do. It's really easy to feel helpless in the face of the need for change ("But I can't get rid of my car! I need to drive! I need all this stuff!" Just examples, not picking on any statement in particular at all).
But it really does help to examine this stuff with an open mind. "Well, could I get away with driving less? Is there anything I could do to make the world a better place without making myself miserable in the process?" Because to sacrifice ourselves to the point that we aren't having happy lives isn't the point. The point is to find ways to help *all* of us, and be good stewards, and contribute to solutions. Not everyone is able to contribute in the same ways, but I kind of get the feeling - from a LOT of people - that there's this unwillingness to even consider some of our options.
This is way, way, off topic, but I figured no one else reading used cloth dipes so I thought I'd chime in!
Oh, and China is a big part of the problem. But I think that if America wants to be seen as the leader of the world, as the greatest country and the greatest power on Earth, that we need to step up. We need to do what is right because it is right, and I do believe that doing the right thing has value in and of itself. What about ethics? What about morals? We're all Mormon, aren't we?
Of course, this extends much farther than environmental stewardship - we should be *leading* the way in healthcare, in our schools, in innovation in many different areas. Or at least trying! People seem to want it both ways - we want to call ourselves the greatest country and the greatest people in the world, but then we don't want to take responsibility and actually *do* the things and take the stances that would compel others to look up to us.
We do a lot of good (see Bush's more recent work in Africa! Yea!) and it is exhausting, but I don't think we just get to say "well, no one else is doing the right thing so we're not going to either".
Wizzle - that's a very fair comment about doing our part within our own stewardship. My family recycles everything we can, we only buy the things we need, my husband takes a commuter train to work (I admit that last choice is also financially motivated). I enjoy being fiscally and environmentally aware. What irks me is when solutions to problems take away my choice. Can you tell that I am really a free agency gal? Taxing the crap out of me to try to change my behavior irks me. Taxing the crap out of me to redistribute my income instead of allowing me to keep my own money to be charitable if I want to irks me. I really think that energy is one area where we need to give innovative entrepreneurs a chance to work. With gas prices so high and rising, there is a financial incentive for someone else to come in and provide cheaper and cleaner energy. I would prefer to leave that up to entrepreneurs than the government.
About the diaper thing - I have a whole new respect for you. :) May I ask how many children you have? Those seem to be the kinds of things that are easier with 1 or 2 children (so would riding a public bus), but more than that, and it becomes all about the efficiency. If you do have more than 2, give me some pointers, please.
Aha - this leads me to a solution! Limit everyone to 1 or 2 children so we can all be environmentally conscious and not over-tax the environment with all our carbon-emitting children!
Yeah, Rach - how many kids do you have? :) You're absolutely right, Stephanie - My wife and I don't have kids yet. But when we do, we decided along time ago that we would use cloth dipars and still won't get a car. However, I do have 43 nephews and nieces - I'm very well aware of the benifits disposeable diapers. I'm also very well aware of the benifits of minivans. And seeing the "benifits" of that style of life is the reason that I feel the way I do regarding such issues.
Rick, I don't really understand what you are saying. You are going to need to spell this out for me. What do you mean by your "benefits" comment? Hey, more power to all of you for choosing cloth diapers. I really do respect that. I am so not there.
I did have a thought as I was picking up my kids' dirty clothes. If their clothes still look and smell clean after one day, I make them wear them a second day. Doing less laundry helps the environment by saving water and electricity, but honestly, that's not why I do it. I do it to save money on my water and electricity bill!
I think the solutions that win in this will be environmentally-friendly solutions that also offer another incentive like saving money. People vote with their pocketbook. Even if it costs just a small amount more or is a minor inconvenience (like putting something in a recycle bin instead of the garbage), I believe most people would do it. But, if it is a MAJOR inconvenience, I just don't think it will go far.
So, if you hear of solutions that save me money and help the environment, let me know. I want to invest in those companies . . .
And, Wizzle, I stalked your other blog and saw that you are expecting #3. Congratulations. I am seriously interested to hear if you keep up all the same "sacrifices" you make for the environment once that third baby comes. You could write a book on "How to be environmentally concscious even with a bunch of kids". I would buy it! :) Seriously, cloth diapers and public transportation are not in my comfort zone right now, but I may be open to other ideas . . .
I never thought my first comment on a thread would be number 71 down...
Two quick points, and my apologies for not being able to think through a response to even half of the above, thought I find it all very thought-provoking.
First, and this is a point I raised on another thread, I strongly object to socialism being likened unto the United Order or Law of Consecration, or being put in a subcategory thereof. Choice is what life on this earth is all about -- the choice we make every day to follow God's counsel and keep our covenants with him, or to not. We are tested, and we are tried. If the answers are given, what kind of test is that? Where is the trial if your course of action is predetermined? When Jesus called on the rich young man to give all that he had to the poor, the young man still had the choice to not; indeed, he chose not to follow the recommended path. And Jesus let him do that! Why? Because to dictate by fiat and consequently enforce is not and never was Jesus' plan. It was someone else's, though! Same story with socialism as a form of government. When people choose to give, choose to participate in the United Order, ZCMI, Law of Consecration, communal society, great! When we've gotten there as a nation or planet, I am ready and willing to share all that I have and can contribute to the pot. I've made covenants that I choose to keep to that effect. Until that time, though, advocating a system that redistributes resources without the consent of those who inherited wealth or earned wages or won money in the lottery or found treasure in their backyards is not at all akin to what Jesus taught. Jesus asks all men to share what they have, but nowhere does he say or imply that anyone should be forced to do so. Taking away agency is not Jesus' style, and if it were it would be the undoing of all His sacrifice. This is the difference between the Law of Consecration and socialism/communism, and it is not a minor one.
Second, and less important, is the dollar and its value. We sometimes say the dollar is "strong" or weak" in reference to its exchange rate with the rest of the world's countries. This is misleading terminology because a weak dollar is not necessarily bad for the economy, and a strong dollar not necessarily good for it. Quite the opposite can and has been true. The dollar's exchange rate with rest-of-world is simply a measure of how much non-US persons collectively think the dollar is worth. It is an aggregate indicator that doesn't tell us all that much about the health of the economy, one way or another. When the dollar is strong, imports are cheap; import firms benefit and US consumers can buy more foreign stuff. When the dollar is weak, US exports become more competitive in world markets because they are cheap relative to similar goods and services available in the foreign country's domestic market. This means that sectors that make goods in which the US has a comparative advantage (think goods and services that we export instead of import) thrive. It could even have the effect of paying down the trade deficit and national debt that we fear so much! Consumers do suffer, but then depending on what factory/farm they work at, they may do quite well with a weak dollar. Overall it tends to balance out, so I support the Federal Reserve enacting policies oriented toward growth regardless of the dollar's de- or re-valuation. FWIW, the dollar's "strength" does not worry me at all.
KWS - if you have time, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on all of this.
Wizzle and Rick, my mom, who used cloth diapers for her first couple of kids, has been reading this post and had this to say, "How does the washing process for cloth diapers affect the enviorment? Bleach, detergent, softeners get into the water supply. How much electricity is used to wash and dry the diapers? How does it affect the environment to produce that electricity? Do they line dry the diapers? Do they have TV on when they are spending hours folding diapers using electricity? How much do they spend on ointments because of rashes that, in my experience, are more prevalant when cloth diapers are used? Do these ointments make it harder to clean the bath, thereby requiring harsh chemicals be used in the cleaning process which then get washed down the drain?
There is the line of thinking to just let the child run diaperless and clean up the piles like one does with dogs. It has not caught on in day care centers however".
LOL. I am not expecting a response or picking on you. My mom is just showing that sometimes issues aren't quite so black and white.
I found a couple of great scriptures last night that relate to some of the comments on this thread. 2 Nephi 26:30-31 " . . . if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish". I think it is interesting that the word laborer is used in verse 30. I also like that it points out we should labor for Zion instead of money. Money itself is not evil. The desire to acquire money is not evil. Our motivations are what determine whether we are laboring for Zion or laboring for materialism.
Well, I think that your reading of Nephi 26:30-31 is fine as far as it goes. But that passage seems to me to be part of a larger condemnation of "priestcraft," that is, setting onself up "for a light unto the world" but only for "gain and praise of the world" (2 Nephi 28-29)--and more generally part of the denunciation of the Catholic Church (until recently admitted to be what Joseph Smith, in a typical Protestant trope, meant by the "great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth" of 2 Nephi 28:18 and elsewhere). So it seems to me to be more about the theological underpinnings of the LDS Church's democratic, unpaid priesthood being contrasted to the pomposity and glitter and material acquisitiveness of the Catholic hierarchy. It's not so much about the individual's motivation for acquiring money as it is about other churches' corruption. That doesn't mean it can't incidentally support your reading as well.
--David
Anonymous David, thank you for your additional insight.
Rick, not to pick on you again, but I just realized that in one comment you said you and your wife do not own a car, and in another you said that your proposal is to "tax oil drastically for normal automobile drivers". It seems easier to suggest proposals like that when they will, instead of hurting your standard of living, actually enhance your standard of living because your preferred mode of transportation will most likely become cheaper and more readily available to you. It sounds like you are actually looking out for #1 just like the rest of us. :)
Stephanie - my prefered mode of transportation is a big old Dodge Ram - okay? I could have gone and bought a dodge ram a couple of years ago and been totally happy - it would just about be paid off by now -they're big, they're sexy, they have good sound systems and boy that heater would be nice on a cold Provo morning. No, the prefered mode of transportation is NOT the UTA (Utah Transit Authority) or my Bicycle - no matter how comfortable that new seat cushion may be. However, I make sacrifices because I feel that honestly that's what God requires of people who call themselves latter-day saints - to sacrifice a bit of their comfort and standard of living for a better cause - and my causes are manifold - the environment and not supporting foreign oil (or local drilling for that matter) are just a couple.
Stephanie - my prefered mode of transportation is a big old Dodge Ram - okay? I could have gone and bought a dodge ram a couple of years ago and been totally happy - it would just about be paid off by now -they're big, they're sexy, they have good sound systems and boy that heater would be nice on a cold Provo morning. No, the prefered mode of transportation is NOT the UTA (Utah Transit Authority) or my Bicycle - no matter how comfortable that new seat cushion may be. However, I make sacrifices because I feel that honestly that's what God requires of people who call themselves latter-day saints - to sacrifice a bit of their comfort and standard of living for a better cause - and my causes are manifold - the environment and not supporting foreign oil (or local drilling for that matter) are just a couple.
Rick, I admire your dedication to environmental causes. And I admire your desire to be a good Saint. I am grateful that we live in a nation where you can choose to make the sacrifices you do. Do I think that your sacrifices make you a better Christian or latter-day saint than me? No, not particularly. Do I think that if you raised the taxes on my gas and I drove less (or you raised the taxes on my income and used that money to give to someone else) that then I would be more Christ-like or a better latter-day Saint? No, not really. Do I think that then YOU would be a better Christian or latter-day Saint? No - in fact, it seems to me that Christ wasn't the one wanting to take away agency . . .
I'll stop bantering with you now. My main point through first comment to last is that I don't think the government should remove my agency or take away my ability to make choices for a "greater good".
Stephanie - I typed out a huge response to your comment this morning and Blogger done ate it! Bah. Took me all day to get back here to retype it...
Basically, you're totally right, of course, that just because one course of action (say, disposable diapers or a gas-powered car) has negative consequences, that going in another direction is inherently better. Corn-based ethanol, anyone? Looks like that isn't going to be quite the magic bullet it was touted as...
There are all kinds of "hidden" costs for every choice. The choices that are the "default" just seem to have those costs better hidden than other options, or at least the costs are deferred to such a degree that we can pretend they're not happening.
And although no one probably cares, to address your specific points:
1) I do not use bleach or softeners on my laundry.
2) I use natural detergent, made with plant-based surfactants etc, on all my laundry, as well as all the cleaning products I use in my house (I make them myself and it's *cheap!*)
3) I have a very energy- and water-efficient washer.
4) I do not line-dry nearly as much as I should (HOA conflict! Do you believe it? How forward thinking of them!) since I have to do it inside. I do a bit though. We certainly have the ideal climate for it here!
5) My children do not get diaper rashes, but I use natural products on their skin too so no chemicals there.
6) I also use wool diaper covers, made from humane or organic farmed animals.
Impressed? :) Of course it's not a contest, but yes I do think of all those things. It sounds exhausting to list it all our like that, but really it's just a choice I made and it doesn't feel like a difficult one to me. I used disposable diapers for the first 4 months of my son's life and I was literally flabbergasted at the sheer amount of TRASH I was making. I just couldn't stand it.
Once you get used to evaluating things from this perspective, it doesn't feel like an imposition anymore. There's a Rush lyric I love (from a song incidentally called "Free Will", very apropos I think!) that says "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
Every time we buy something, we choose how far to drive to get it, or how far it must be transported to us. We choose which businesses we will patronize, which companies we will support, what ingredients we will put into our bodies, etc. Every choice has a cost, and each of us just has to determine the cost-benefit for ourselves and act accordingly.
Oh, and I can't see switching to disposables for my third child! I've had two in cloth at the same time for a few months and that was fine. Besides, the more butts these diapers go on, the cheaper they get!
Thanks for sharing, Wizzle. I feel inspired to take a look around and see what I can do. I have to admit that I have tried a few things (seventh generation all-purpose cleaner that doesn't cut through grease as well as 409 and a high efficiency W/D that I ended up selling because I didn't like it). But, I do feel inspired to be more conscious of my choices (as long as they are mine and not someone else's imposed on me :)).
May I just quickly drop into this thread that I missed out on and say that this is exactly what I envisioned this site to be - spirited, civil, opinionated discussion. Hooray! Tell your friends.
And may I add to that, Mike, that I really like your "vision" of this blog. I think that all it needs is more people . . . (like you said)
Our congressmen have been hard at work. Tax changes
I find this curious: it seems that the big buzz word among politicians is the "fading middle class". And yet, here are the tax changes: "The chamber voted 52-47 to reject a move by Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., to extend Bush's tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.
That vote came immediately after the Senate gave a sweeping 99-1 tally to an amendment by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., endorsing cuts aimed at low-income workers, married couples and people with children."
They are choosing to raise the taxes on middle income America. At least I am married with kids. I might stand a chance at keeping a little of my income.
It seems that several of us agreed that earmarks are bad. Our congressmen don't agree. Congress Budget
An interesting quote from the article: "The practice of inserting "earmarked" spending into legislation is seen by lawmakers in both parties a birthright power of the purse awarded to Congress by the Founding Fathers."
And note that all of Bush's tax cuts will expire by 2010.
Is there anyone interested in writing a new post related to the economy and what is going on now?
Post a Comment