"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered."
Those are the words of Thomas Payne. Words that he wrote during the Revolutionary war. A time when freedom truly hung in the balance. Today, though some may not see it, there is another war going on.
On Sunday, members of Congress declared that healthcare is a right. On the sabbath, the Lord's day, they declared with a loud voice that rights come from government and not from God. This chilling declaration means that government, and not God, has the power to take our rights whenever they see fit.
Watch this video. It is a compilation that I put together about socialism. If you don't want to watch me, skip to the last minute and a half, there is a quote by Ezra Taft Benson you really need to hear.
As you can see, there is a radical change that is taking place. Don't get me wrong, there are some good things that will come out of this bill. I am happy about the people that couldn't get care before, that can now. But there are radical reductions in freedom that are too high of a price to pay.
This is why we need you. We can't afford sunshine patriots at this point. We need people willing to stand up for freedom. I'm not calling for a revolution or any kind of violence. We already fought a revolution over 200 years ago that gave us the system we have now. That system contains the means for change, but only if we use it.
This past week there were more people at our Caucus than I have ever seen. That is great! But it needs to continue. Not only do we need to show up and be heard, but we need to educate ourselves. Read Adam Smith and F.A. Hayek to learn about the economy. Read Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, study the constitution, learn about the founding fathers.
For those of you who disagree with me, study why the founding fathers tried to make socialism illegal in the constitution. It's not enough just to say that their thinking was flawed. They thought about it, and decided it was wrong. Read enough books that you understand why you think they're wrong. If you think there's a book that will change my mind, I'm not afraid of information. Suggest it to me and I will read it if I haven't already.
Please, whatever your stance is on this issue, educate yourself further and make sure to vote in November. Make yourself heard. Be willing to be a patriot in the sunshine and in the darkest night.
One Year Later
1 year ago
I promise! Thanks for helping me learn more and to think about the consequences of what could happen if we stand and just watch, thinking we can't do anything about it. I agree that I am happy about the good things that will come from the bill, but it is a slippery slope that could really take away the freedoms we are so proud of in this country.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I don't ever get into stuff like this...but I feel like I should educate myself about it more. So thanks for always sharing your opinions! I feel like if I thought about this stuff more often, I'd think very similarly to you. :)
ReplyDeleteP.S. The video's not working for me!
ReplyDeleteAmen brother, amen. I felt that you had sound logic and I am in favor of standing up for the freedoms that this country was founded upon. I have tried to be educated about politics--especially economics. Here is one of my favorite documentaries about the United States' financial situation.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo
Thank you Jeff.
ReplyDeleteJeff for president!
ReplyDeleteIt's hard not to just give up and assume that there's nothing we can do, but there is. Thanks for the reminder.
Thanks for helping me to get educated.
ReplyDeleteIf you're afraid of socialism...what about the kind of capitalism that the savior of the conservative party, Ronald Reagan called Reaganomics? Keep in mind that his own VP and future US President even called Reaganomics "phantom" or "shadow" economics. Click the link below to see how Reagan enacted and supported the largest socialist government in American history...yet his followers (and sometimes worshipers) say this is the way to run the nation...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.truth-out.org/032009R
I think a major flaw that has befallen many members of the LDS faith is that they surmise that since one of our modern prophets just so happened to be a high-ranking politician with daily contact with the President of the USA, it must mean that his personal politics and his definitions thereof (sometimes shared over the pulpit at General Conference) are synonymous with scripture and Godly truth.
Why is it that government-run health care is a bad thing, but government-run fire departments, road construction, police departments, public schooling, heath and safety regulations, etc, etc, etc are all ok? Nationally observed safety regulations are alright, but nationally observed health options are not?
Jeff, you just threw a lot of things out on the table. I'll try to respond to at least most of them.
ReplyDeleteFirst, that article you've linked to. I've read it before, and I have to say the author is either wildly ignorant of income tax law or intentionally deceptive. I say this only because, while nothing they say is untrue, they leave out a number of facts which heavily distort the truth. The distorted version of the truth supports their arguments so it's good enough for them.
First, I do appreciate that the Dr. Batra admits that Obama is a socialist because Obama refers to the word socialist as "name calling" so that he can avoid debate on the subject. But then Dr. Batra tries to turn around and do some name calling of his own by twisting the meaning of the word socialist. The basic and most accepted definition of the word 'socialism' is 'an economic system based on state ownership of capital'. Ezra Taft Benson has referred to wealth redistribution as socialism and I agree with that so long as we are talking about taking wealth from one group and giving it to another.
When we talk about cutting taxes for the wealthy we are talking about letting the wealthy keep their money. We're not talking about taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy. The very mindset that it requires to make the argument that Dr. Batra makes, assumes that all wealth is already the property of the state. Therefore anything they let citizens keep is actually a gift from the all powerful state. If we "give more gifts to the wealthy" then we are redistributing from the poor to the wealthy. I reject that premise, so the rest of the argument holds little water.
But, nonetheless I would like to address some of the other things Dr. Batra points out. I won't attempt to tackle everything but the The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is what I am most familiar with so I'll discuss that for a moment.
First, he says that the lowest tax bracket was raised from 11% to 15%. While that is true, the standard deduction was also raised so that those that were actually in the bottom bracket went from paying $0 to paying $0. Admittedly, if you made under $12,000 there is a small window where you would be paying slightly higher taxes but everything above $12,000 was a tax cut. It is bound to happen that there are windows with higher taxes as you simplify the tax code.
My favorite quote in the whole thing is "His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate" I find it amusing that most of the article is about how we should tax the rich, but he tears down this particular piece of taxing the rich because he can twist it to make his argument. So I'll explain the reality here.
All the tax cuts for lower incomes are recieved by higher incomes as well. If the tax bracket says that under 30,000 dollars is 15% that means that even if I make a million dollars my first $30,000 is taxed at 15%. To remedy this issue and take more from the rich, there was a tax bracket added so that, for a certain bracket, income was taxed at 33% and then above that bracket was 28%. What this did was equal it out so that if you were making over $150,000 a year you were paying a flat 28% on everything you made.
If Dr. Batra doesn't understand that, he shouldn't be teaching economics. The truth is he does understand that but it makes for a much less persuasive paper to tell the whole truth.
To be honest, I don't know everything about the other taxes he brings up. But I don't really understand the relevance of it. Reagan was the "great american socialist" because he cut taxes, so why does Dr. Batra feel that taxes in other areas such as gasoline or cigarettes are wrong?
As for the rest of what you said: I respect Ezra Taft Benson as a prophet of God and I believe in everything he taught in that station. I know that the church has no official stance on politics so I take anything that he said on politics as his opinion and not as official church doctrine.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also respect Ezra Taft Benson as a wise man. I've read several of his books and I feel that he taught truth. If anyone disagrees with those opinions I invite them to do so.
As for your list of things that government does and why they are okay I could write a whole novel talking about different aspects of government and how involved it should be in each sector, but I'll just answer by talking abut education. Ezra Taft Benson believed that there should be no public education. I've gone back and forth on this because I see the merits of privatizing it but that's one area where I think I disagree with President Benson. However, I do think that it should be kept local. I think the department of education has lessened the quality of education. The No Child Left Behind Act was absolutely ridiculous.
By the same token, I think that if a state (such as Massachusetts) wants to enact their own healthcare system I don't have as much problem with that. I still have other concerns with it, that we can't afford it or that doctors will not want to participate but I can debate those locally with local leaders. I think on a federal level it is a gross over reach of power, especially when we talk about mandating the purchase of a product by every citizen. I see no support for that in the constitution.