Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Compromise? Conservative Republicans compromised too much with Democrats

Comments

Return To Article
  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 1:56 a.m.

    I'll take this rant seriously when a Republican proposes a budget that spends only 15% of GDP, which is what taxes currently bring in. Till then, it's just blowing smoke.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 12, 2012 5:58 a.m.

    Hate to break it to you Kim, but you have fallen into the rut of thinking that the GOP is not guilty of overspending. Granted, so are the Dems.

    But, the GOP's thirst for unfunded Wars and lower taxes play a huge part of the problem.

    According to the very conservative Cato Institute (started by Charles Koch)

    "President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security

    Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bushs first term."

    And all this with a GOP controlled house and senate.

    I hate to break it to you, but we are our problems are not caused by the GOP compromising with the big spending Dems.

    They are quite capable of overspending (including people like Paul Ryan) as the best of the Dems.

    History has shown that.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 6:31 a.m.

    Oh, good grief, Kim. You apparently don't want to live in a democratic republic. You want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship where a Christian social & fiscal conservative controls everything and you never have to deal with opposing viewpoints. No wonder there has been talk of secession from your side. If there was a nice blank spot on the map you could all run off to and form your own walled-off insular nation of laissez-faire theocrats, I'd say go for it. But there isn't, so you're stuck living in a nation with people of different opinions. Get used to it.

    The rest of your letter includes nanny state blather, regurgitations on liberal media boogeymen, and starry-eyed mythology about our nation's origins. Those are tired old talking points typical of a voter who feels disenfranchised after losing an election. Nothing substantive or remotely relevant there.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 12, 2012 7:28 a.m.

    If you compromise your principles too much, you lose your soul, your morality, your purpose! That's how liberals become liberals-no principles. Everything is ok! There is no right or wrong and everything is relative! Only your FEELINGS matter. Sound familiar?

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    I feel sorry for those who believe this nonsense.
    Hey Kim....your guy Bush is not a democrat, and he nearly sank us all.

    The next time the GOP reaches across the aisle to work with the Dems on ANYTHING will be the first.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    As Emajor said mountainman..you apparently don't want to live in a democratic republic..and I would add reality. Compromise happens not because you lose your principles but because you've lost your power/influence. Compromise simply means you get what you can when you can.

    You think you're going to lose your soul if you comprimise with a liberal...no..what you're going to lose is elections and any further opportunity to influence political outcomes. Whine all you want but this country (out of neccessity) is becoming both socially and politically center left. Center left means libertarian on social issues, more keynesian than austrian on economic issues, and Hamiltonian in their view of the role of government is society.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:20 a.m.

    @ pragmatistferlife. All I am saying is there are things all honorable people will not negotiate; their values, their freedom, their principles and their sacred honor. These things we will not surrender. If we do, what have we become? To some these things are just "words". To others, they are the standards by which we conduct our lives.
    Merry Christmas to you and yours!

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    Mountanman,

    Your point about principles is absolutely true. But this is not about whether we are loyal to our families, the gospel, or even our nation.

    Our current situation is about political decisions. There is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about this level of taxation or that level of spending. High spending in times of war may be quite moral but less so in times of peace. When facing large debts, cutting spending that we would normally not want to cut and raising taxes to levels we do not like, may also be quite moral.

    My point is simply that there is no particular rate of taxation or spending that is moral or immoral. The morality comes into play when considering what we can afford and how these decisions affect future generations.

    The reason compromise is so important is because if we do not have some, NOTHING will get done. You need votes to move legislation. Period. And, if we do nothing, the nation will continue on an unsustainable course. In my book, that would be immoral.

    For our politicians on both sides, I think much of this is more about power and influence than morality or honor.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:41 a.m.

    "righteous principles...fiscal conservatism and the free enterprise system"

    I just love it when people lump these terms together as if conservatism and capitalism were somehow ordained of God. The fact is that there are many people living in a variety of monetary and government systems throughout the world who are living righteous lives. In fact the dominant religion of Utah promoted the United Order at one time, where each received according to his needs, but it was abandoned because people were not "righteous" enough to live it.

    Until one side can prove the that their platform is te absolute perfect one for everyone to live by, compromise is the only way for us to progress. Dictatorship has never been a viable alternative.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    re: Mountanman 7:28 a.m. Dec. 12

    Blindly following an absolute, carved in stone, w/ no deviation plan. Gee! Where have we heard that before and how did it work out?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:50 a.m.

    Hank. Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who has done that? But there are absolutes in the world, its called truth; things as they really are, as they always have been and as they always will be.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    Mike Lofgren, was a Republican aide and Congresssional staffer for nearly 30 yrs, the last 16, as an analyst on the House and Senate Budget Committees. Upon retiring he wrote a scathing critque of his own party, stating:

    "I could see the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure, used 87 times since World War II, to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis, to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies hostages.

    ... the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.

    Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. ..It is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself."

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:13 a.m.

    Yes, mountainman, there is a thing called truth.

    But it is very, very frequently tossed aside by you and other posters here. Here is one example from a few days ago in which one of our frequent posters slips and allows the truth to come out"

    "procuradorfiscal
    Tooele, UT
    4:38 p.m. Dec. 9, 2012
    Re: "Procura: With views like yours . . . ."
    My views are completely irrelevant to facts."

    That tells it all. So I submit respectfully the question, if someone feels facts are irrelevant, is that truth?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    @Mountanman -- And so I infer that you think that a top tax rate of 35% is one of those absolutes, the truth, something that can never be compromised on. This is what we're talking about compromising on. Not murder.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID
    @ pragmatistferlife. All I am saying is there are things all honorable people will not negotiate; their values, their freedom, their principles and their sacred honor.

    ============

    Mountaman,
    Get off you moral High-Horse.

    You whine higher taxes on the upper 1% to help pay for Bush's 2 un-funded wars,
    about yet supported the same goon who actully DID strip away FREEDOM - and introduced America to Ghestapo citizen spying, and ven maockingly sugar coated calling it the ficticous "Patriot Act".

    ..and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

    Your sense of honor means nothing,
    becuase you don't even know what Freedom means.

    Freedom to you is right near and dear to your keester - it's only your wallet.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    I would like to know what exactly conservatives compromised on. Remember now, we were already trillions in debt when Obama took office. So I don't want to hear anything about the ACA.

    Did Democrats want Medicare part D?
    Did Democrats push for these tax cuts?
    Did Democrats desire 2 unfunded wars?
    Were Democrats in the White House when TARP was passed?
    Were Democrats in control of Congress and the White House when Clinton's surplus was quickly turned into trillions in debt?
    Were Democrats in control when stimulus package after stimulus package was passed from 2000-2008?

    Finally, who was the last GOP President who balanced the budget? Any ideas Kim?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:38 a.m.

    @One old man. I guess you will have to decide what truth means to you.

    @Wonder. If I knew a 35% tax rate on a minority of citizens would be the "true" solution to our economic problems, I would be all for it. The truth is, there is no amount of taxation that can sustain our government's spending as it is. The truth is our government spends too much money, money we don't have; hence our $16.2 trillion and growing by over a $1.5 billion everyday debt. The truth is unless we control our spending, our economy can not, will not survive.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:43 a.m.

    Those who believe in law and who have integrity insist that Congress limit itself to do only what we, the people, have authorized it to do. Those who do not believe in law insist that Congress can do anything at any time and that one segment of the population, the fictional "rich guy" pays for everything.

    Principles guide everything that we do. If we are principled, we NEVER do anything at the expense of someone else nor do we pass our responsibilities onto others. If we have no principles, we don't care how much someone else is hurt, as long as we get what we want.

    We have the right to expect the Federal Government to limit itself to only do those things that we have authorized it to do. If we have principles, we will loudly object any time the Federal Government exceeds those limits.

    Compromise is not possible when some people willingly reject the Constitution and then demand that we go along with them. No person with principles will participate in illegal activity. Any program not authorized by the Constitution is illegal on the Federal level.

    No compromise is possible.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:45 a.m.

    I understood that "raising taxes" is against Conservative Republican values. If they do nothing, taxes WILL go up. If conservatives compromise, at least they can negotiate some restraint in the increase. What an extremely odd letter "Conservatives should do nothing, and let taxes rise a lot".

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:54 a.m.

    What exactly have Republicans compromised on?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    Agreed, Mountain.

    But to me, and others like me, Truth is something precious and is based entirely on facts. If facts do not support what we try to say, then we are not being truthful.

    The rants of Rush and Glenn and Sean and others are not facts and cannot be used as the basis for truth.

    And if truth is not there, then what do we have?

    May I submit that the lack of truth is a lie?

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:05 a.m.

    If the debt is the #1 issue for the GOP then they should absolutely just let us fall off the cliff. The mandatory cuts and tax increases will take huge bites out of the deficit and have us paying off the debt in no time!

    But at what cost?

    Guess we'll find out if they don't compromise!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    There is a war going on in America. Only it’s not between Republicans and Democrats, it’s business versus the people.

    The writer is correct that our nation was started out by businessmen, They were seeking to keep the profits of the new world to themselves and not share it with overseas businessmen.

    They must have been lacking in funds to pay for soldiers so they came up with some grandiose promises like equal opportunity, all men are equal, liberty and justice for all. Of course the ordinary people ate it up hook line and sinker. They won the day and even started out to prove up on their promises.

    But then they had to deal with the businessmen in charge of the colonies. The result of that gave us the Bill of Rights and allowed the colonies to maintain their monopolies in what became states.

    Up until the latter part of the 1900s it seemed like the people were winning in their efforts to be more civilized. It was then that technology and size gave the advantage back to business. If we don’t change, we may go back to the world in the 1800s

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    Emajor:

    Best comment I've seen in ages. Well said.

    Mike Richards:

    I'm getting weary of your absolutist declarations of what can only be described as sweeping generalities. For instance: "If we are principled, we NEVER do anything at the expense of someone else nor do we pass our responsibilities onto others." I'm sorry, but that is such simplistic thinking it deserves a quick response. In the real world, organizations and individuals often have competing needs. There's no getting around it, and if both follow their principles and try to meet their needs, one or the other is going to come out damaged or disadvantaged in some way. Unfortunately, in our society, organizations wield so much power that it is the individual that is often harmed. If you can figure out a way to prevent this, you'll deserve some sort of international award. Until then, please spare us the shallow bromides.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    once again the letter writer manages to belch out every talking point from the past election and just like during the election they fail to provide any evidence to support their claims. time for new talking points people these ones have failed you.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    The only truth you can rely on is the truth that you can never know the truth.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    "That's how liberals become liberals-no principles. Everything is ok! There is no right or wrong and everything is relative! Only your FEELINGS matter. Sound familiar?"

    No actually, it doesn't sound familiar.

    What exactly are you insinuating?

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    @Henderson
    The Republicans HAVE compromised.....their honor, their integrity, the truth, reality, ...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 12, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    Kent,

    We live in a right/wrong world. It is very simple. You can try to avoid making the "right" decision by telling us that doing the "right" thing is not politically expedient. Obama does that all the time. The "right" thing for him to do is to obey the Supreme Law of the Land. That means that Obamacare would be retired. That means that taxing one person at a different rate than another would be stopped. That means that spending federal dollars on anything not listed in Article 1, Section 8 would not ever happen. But, that does not further his agenda. That does not give him the power and the influence that he craves; so, he lives in a "gray" world where there is no right and there is no wrong; where there are no principles that guide and restrict.

    Don't be fooled by cunning and devious people who try to carefully lead us into their lair. Right is right - all the time. Wrong is wrong - all the time.

    The federal level of government is not authorized to "give" welfare. That duty is left to the States and to the people.

    Right is right - all the time.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 12, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    Mr Richards,

    Can you name a few politician who has ALWAYS "obeyed the supreme law of the land"?

    Reagan? Bush? In your mind, what politician does not qualify as "cunning and devious people who try to carefully lead us into their lair"?

    Two or three politicians would be plenty. Names please

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 12, 2012 11:47 a.m.

    Mike Richards,

    Although many things come down to right and wrong, not all do. For many things the "good, better, best" model apply. And when determining what is best in politics one must look at the possible.

    It was not ideal for our Constitution to wink at slavery. It was a political necessity at the time. Without it, the Constitution would not have been approved.

    Our current situation may be a bit less historic, but the questions we face simply do not come down to a "right" or "wrong" tax rate or spending level. We have to determine those.

    Yes, there are activities that the Constitution outlines and others it does not. Which are allowed is determined by the very process outlined in the Constitution in which the constitutional officers (President, Congress, Supreme Court) each have their respective say.

    Of course we can disagree and should feel free to do so. But the result of that process is, by definition, legal and constitutional (and yes, that includes past decisions with which I strongly disagree).

    So please. Let’s stop talking about compromise as if it were evil. It is the soul of the Constitution.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 12:13 p.m.

    On the contrary we'd be doing better if Democrats hadn't compromised too much with Republicans. We've thrown away a few trillion dollars the past decade on nonsense like the Iraq war and tax cuts for the rich which did jack squat to create jobs.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    Ah, Mike Richards,
    I believe in law, and I have integrity. Liberals generally do. We just understand the Constitution differently than you do. Congress DOES limit itself to only those things we, the people, have authorized. Including, unfortunately, a whole lot of things you don't personally agree with. Tough toenails, pal.
    I also agree that principles are important and should guide us. That's precisely why I support President Obama. That support is entirely consistent with Constitutional principles.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Dec. 12, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    Mike in sandy.

    "Hey Kim....your guy Bush is not a democrat."

    He could've fooled me. I thought he was the most liberal president we ever had up until Obama. JFK looked like a conservative compared to Bush.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Dec. 12, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    Lds Liberal

    "You whine higher taxes on the upper 1% to help pay for Bush's 2 un-funded wars,
    about yet supported the same goon who actully DID strip away FREEDOM - and introduced America to Ghestapo citizen spying, and ven maockingly sugar coated calling it the ficticous "Patriot Act"."

    Yet you were calling for them to use this against the seccessionist. Do you believe the patriot act is ok as long as it's Obama who does it? That is pretty hypocritical.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 12:47 p.m.

    Bottom line. There will be no incentive for either party to balance the budget until there is a constitutional amendment that forces them to. In that amendment there should be criminal penalties for congress if they fail to maintain a balanced budget. Oh how I'd like to see Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and John Boehner in the same prison cell.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 12, 2012 12:59 p.m.

    Re:MikeRichards
    "We live in a right/wrong world. It is very simple."

    So what choice would you have made in the Garden of Eden? Would you have chosen to partake of the fruit to gain knowledge?
    It's all very simple isn't it? Or is it?

    Life is not simple. As Twin Lights and others have pointed out, life is complex and messy. Sure, there is a spectrum with extremes at either end, but a lot of gray between the extremes. Our Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, did not always agree on what constituted the "correct" limits/interpretation of the Constitution. If life were so certain and simple we could just turn decision making over to computers.

    Re:The Fiscal Cliff

    My guess is Republicans will wait to go over the fiscal cliff before compromising on tax revenue. They have more to gain by voting for a middle class tax cut after the rates go back up than voting to let rates increase for higher levels of income. Income is taxed, not people. High income earners will also benefit from the middle class tax cuts.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 1:47 p.m.

    Mike Richards --

    The opposite of "Compromise" is Totalitarianism.
    That really is what you are "insisting" on.
    Is that really what you want? a Totalitarian regime?

    ==============

    @Anti Bush-Obama
    Washington, DC
    Lds Liberal

    Yet you were calling for them to use this against the seccessionist(s). Do you believe the patriot act is ok as long as it's Obama who does it? That is pretty hypocritical.

    12:37 p.m. Dec. 12, 2012

    No I do NOT believe the Patriot Act is OK -- Bush or Obama!
    I have integrity regardless as to who or what party it is!

    FYI - Those who signed letters of session did so "PUBLICALLY".
    The Bush Patriot Act allows spying in secret [as in the person is unaware his/her actions are being monitored -- you know, PRIVACY.]

    There is a HUGE difference.

    BTW- I hope you weren't little minded as to sign one of those letters.
    Those who did are still considered traitors to this Country by all definitions.

    Publically or Privately.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 1:51 p.m.

    Where did you get the idea that conservatives compromise too much? You did not give even one example. In the debt ceiling talks over a year ago the Republicans leaders admitted that they got 90% of what they wanted. Is getting only 10% of your demands an example of being uncompromising?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 1:54 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    Kent,

    We live in a right/wrong world. It is very simple.

    =============

    So why does the LDS 1st Presidency allow for safe and legal abortions in the instances of Rape, Incest, Life and Health of the Woman, and Fetal viability?

    If you believe everything is either right or wrong,
    then I will have to agree that EVERYTHING you say must be wrong!

    Good-day.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 2:00 p.m.

    Flash, when you write: " In that amendment there should be criminal penalties for congress if they fail to maintain a balanced budget," are you sure you're not referring to the congress that allowed President Cheney and his little buddy to put two wars on the credit card while at the same time cutting taxes on millionaires, thus adding to an already large deficit?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 12, 2012 3:13 p.m.

    There once was a man living in the Americas whose name was Zeezrom. He delighted in twisting words. He distorted the meaning of statements to serve his purposes. Most people in Utah know what happened to Zeezrom. Read today's posts and see how many went to the "Zeezrom" school?

    Law is related to "scope" or "sphere". All truth is related to the scope or sphere in which it is given. Outside that scope or sphere, other laws apply. In any case WITHIN THAT SPHERE there is right or wrong.

    Redistributing wealth is wrong according to the Supreme Law of the Land. It is absolutely wrong.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 12, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    @mike zeezrom richards
    "Redistributing wealth is wrong according to the Supreme Law of the Land. It is absolutely wrong."

    yet you have no problem allowing for laws that allow for the consecration of that wealth at the expense of everyone else.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 4:31 p.m.

    The 1st Presidency and 12 Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

    THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny…

    ONE OF THE GREAT EVILS with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties… are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations… which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible…

    If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin

    ----------------

    Absolutely Mike? --

    So does this make our Prophets:

    Right or Wrong,
    Good or Bad?

    I follow our Prophets, and the redistribution of wealth.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 4:34 p.m.

    Mike, Alma redistributed wealth. See Mosiah 18:27. He commanded his people to share their substance with those who were less fortunate, and "if he had more abundantly he should impart more abundantly." He didn't say "pretty please" or tell them they could give up their stuff if they felt like it. He didn't just leave it up to them. He commanded them.

    Similarly, Joseph Smith redistributed wealth, continually. And consecration wasn't just a free-will offering. When establishing the law of tithing, the revelation Joseph dictated, put it this way: "Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop" (D&C 119:1). Again, the word is "require."

    If redistributing wealth is so wrong, why did God require it? Well, he gives us the answer: "the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low" (D&C 104:16).

    Apparently God was wrong in contradicting the Supreme Law of the Land.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 4:49 p.m.

    Mike Richards,

    A man who once lived in the Americas named King Benjamin has also addressed your points as well.

    Mosiah 4:16-18

    "And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

    17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

    18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent;"

    It is not for your to judge nor to refuse to help those in need. I see a lot of judging going on on this website regarding peoples' work ethic, integrity, and socioeconomic status. The Lord has been clear with this.

    Let us live as King Benjamin suggested to SERVE our God by serving others, NOT BY JUDGING THEM.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 5:11 p.m.

    Just for all you sad Nellies out there complaining again about the rich not paying their fair share, the top 10% pay 70% of the income taxes.

    To them I say THANK YOU!!!!

    As an income tax payer, it would be nice if I were actually appreciated for my contribution, regardless of the size of it. But to hear the left, there is no appreciation of those who pay for the bulk of the programs, just resentment. Human nature is to appreciate help given occasionally, but help given constantly becomes expected instead of appreciated. This is called an entitlement mentality and it is considered a thinking error. It leads to resentment of those you depend on. I see plenty of that in the opinions of the left.

    Please note, that this is not the same as the social security retirement program, which people have paid into with a promise of repayment at the end of their life. It is an entitlement, because they have paid for it. Retirees are less likely to fall into entitlement thinking of "I exist, I need, therefore you should give me."

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    Kim, we're moving on. You are not.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 12, 2012 6:12 p.m.

    Kim - turn off the radio and TV, get off the web sites, and start doing a little deeper research into our countries history. The myth that "hand outs", corporate or otherwise, are a new invention, by the evil socialist, is just plain false. Our country has a rich history of "handouts".

    Take the homesteading act. Millions of acres were hand out for free, with simply a promise to live on the land enough to be given large tracts of land. LIncoln gave the railroads a swath of land 20 miles wide across the country so they could build their cross country railroad. None of the value of that land was ever paid back. In today's dollars, both of these "handouts' are valued in the hundreds of billions each. And both of these happened over 150 years ago.

    For the very first day of this nation, it was founded on a compromise constitution. Many of the founding fathers were repulsed by slavery, but compromised to keep this young nation together. It was only when compromise died that North and South went to war.

    Compromise is what enabled this country... not the other way around.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 12, 2012 6:30 p.m.

    "Redistributing wealth is wrong according to the Supreme Law of the Land. It is absolutely wrong."

    Umm.... where does the Constitution say that? I agree with the principle, but where in the heck did you see that in the constitution. I am assuming this is yet another claim that Taxation is a form of redistribution. The unequal taxation - and taxation will always be disproportionate - is by its own virtue giving unequal benefit to one group over another. The Federal government every day redistributes wealth - has since day one. It never hasn't. There never was, not a single day, where people proportionally benefited from their taxes.

    @Henderson - could not have said it better. Our poor constitution has been "Zeezrom"ed to death by those who don't believe in a representative government where people decide how they will take care of society's poor and needy through their constitutionally elected representatives.

    The constitution is designed to ensure no one group ever gets their way.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 7:01 p.m.

    Kent,

    You have distorted the scriptures. Why? Why would you use the word "commanded" when Alma did't use that word? He was addressing the leaders of the church. They were to work for their own needs and not to demand that others take care of them. That is 100% opposite of what you posted.

    Obama demands that we labor to support him. He demands that we labor to support those who follow him. He demands that we pay for the government programs that others receive.

    That is not what Alma or King Mosiah taught.

    If we believe in Christ, we care for the unfortunate without being forced. If we believe in Christ we DON'T force anyone to be charitable. Christ does not force us. Force is not part of his agenda. It is part of Obama's agenda.

    Christ never compromised his principles and he does not expect that we compromise ours. He never misused scripture to prove his point nor did he misrepresent anything for any purpose.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:00 p.m.

    J Thompson,
    I've read enough Christian scripture to know that there is precious little supporting the hoarding of wealth, but much advising people to share with the needy, with little mention of their worthiness or government's role in the matter.

    Explain your way out of this scripture:

    "'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth...

    'And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God'"

    Face it folks, wealthy Christians are living in a real dichotomy. Natural instinct says they should be able to keep their wealth, but most of Christian scripture says to give it up and follow a higher calling. Don't blame the liberals for that one, we didn't write it.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 6:53 a.m.

    Now I get it! Obama is just "suggesting" that we pay taxes so that he can feed the hungry and clothe the poor. So many posters are telling us that, just like Christ, Obama is using no force. They're implying that we will have complete choice whether we want to be taxed or whether we want to hold on to our money, or (heaven forbid) whether we want to help the poor ourselves.

    Look at how many have twisted the scriptures to "prove" that God forces us to be good. Look at how many imply that Obama is just doing what Christ would have done if he were the President.

    I may not be much of a theologian, but I'm fairly certain that the words "Christ" and "force" don't belong in the same sentence. I believe that much of the Gospels cite the times and places when Christ severely criticized people who twisted and turned his words.

    Christ did not compromise his principles with the government. Not once. Never.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 13, 2012 7:01 a.m.

    J Thompson.... one huge problem with your claim that you are being forced by Obama to do anything. You see it is this concept of a democratically elected government where the people select their representatives and leaders, and it is the peoples will that is being acted out - Not Obama's, not any particular party. This government acts as agents of the people.

    Now you might not like who wins these elections. You might not like all the policies enacted. But every 4 years for President, and ever 2 and 6 years for Congress, we choose these people. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything in any dictator or totalitarian like manner.

    "If we believe in Christ we DON'T force anyone to be charitable" SInce when? We force people to not drink or smoke. We force people to take care of their kids. We force people to marry only certain people. We force families to educate their kids. Christ following people force a lot of people to do the right things. Since when was their an exception for Charity? Read Utah's history - Brigham Young forced a lot of people to do the right thing, or leave.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 7:59 a.m.

    UtahBlueDevil,

    Yes, you are right. The PEOPLE elected their Representatives to REPRESENT them in Congress. Their Representatives were elected because those Representatives rejected Obama's tax and spend policies. If Obama cared enough to check, he would see that the election is over, that he doesn't have to campaign any more, that Republicans were the choice of the people and that Republicans will not sign on to his programs.

    Your understanding of government vs religion is interesting, but wholly without merit. No one if forced to join a church or to be a member of a religion. If you don't like the teachings of a church, you are free to join a church that you do like. If your church teaches responsible behavior and you reject that principle, then you can find a church that tells you to eat, drink and be merry. That matter is between you and God.

    Government doesn't work that way. Your choice is to pay taxes or to be imprisoned. Government can destroy you if you disobey. God invites. Government forces.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    J Thompson:

    "And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given."

    Please don't accuse me of distorting scripture. If you don't like what they say, that's fine. But at least read what they say. Alma's system of redistribution and Joseph Smith's were far, far more progressive than anything our government has ever required. Ever.

  • mightyhunterhaha Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 10:30 a.m.

    Apparently you don't understand compromise. Compromise - Where you may not wholly agree but you can go along with 70% of the decision. Henry Clay the "Great Compromiser" kept the country out of war for many years. Good bad or indifferent he knew the art of compromise. Our Founding Fathers Franklin, Madison, Hamilton and the Chair Person Washington knew the importance of compromise as with out it we would not have a Constitution.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 13, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    J Thompson
    SPRINGVILLE, UT
    UtahBlueDevil,

    Government doesn't work that way. Your choice is to pay taxes or to be imprisoned. Government can destroy you if you disobey. God invites. Government forces.

    7:59 a.m. Dec. 13, 2012

    ==============

    How ridiculous!
    No one in the evil Governement is "forcing" you or anyone else to pay taxes.

    Go live an a cabin, with no power, water, sanitation, garbage, roads, Police or Fire protection, raise your own food, and Home School your own kids.

    America is a FREE country. have at it, best of luck.

    If you want to live in our "Society",
    then YES, you're gonna need to pony up and pay for our shared collective services.

    I realize this is irrational to you.
    Knowing it's a form of Socialism and all, and you are very much against it --
    But you are indeed free NOT to participate.

    No one will stop you.

    But if you want what we have,
    you MUUT pay for it.

    BTW - Have a nice life.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    In a perfect world Barack Obama would NOT be president and 55% of the people in the US would NOT want socialism. Unfortunately the world is not quite perfect and in the case of the US our national integrity has slipped into the gutter for the majority. Things being as they are the GOP is caught with choosing between ugly and really ugly. I say choose ugly and move on. Let Barack get his taxes and spending and let him own the result. Unemployment will go up - way up - especially in states already hurting like New York, Michigan, California etc... but to be honest I couldn't care less. If you vote for socialism you get what you pay for and that equates to misery!! If the 2 million registered republicans who DIDN'T bother to vote (probably due to Romney being Mormon) want to complain I say maybe you had better VOTE next time!!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 13, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    Kent,

    When did God choose Obama to be His prophet? Do ypu really think that Obama is God's spokesman on earth?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 1:44 p.m.

    re:Kent C. DeForrest

    Kent regarding Alma's statement to members of the Church and Obama's message to our nation you are trying to compare apples to cannon balls honestly. There is NO comparison or relation. Alma was a prophet leader and the wealth that he asked to be imparted to help the needy WAS actually used to help the needy because it was distributed by honorable men of God instead of falsely squandered by corrupt politicians. Understand the difference? Much of the stimulus money for example was given to down right rotten to the core and corrupt Union bosses as payment for their voting loyalty and not to the truly needy. In short much of the stimulus money was completely wasted and was used BY corrupt men as payment TO corrupt men. Follow the money trail!!! Communism is build on the foundation of wealth redistribution and I would doubt you would equate Communism to anything but evil. America was founded by inspired men on the principles of SMALL and LIMITED government which is exactly opposite from the Obama plan. Please don't try to call evil good and good evil!

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 13, 2012 1:53 p.m.

    @L White
    Springville, UT

    I may not be much of a theologian, but I'm fairly certain that the words "Christ" and "force" don't belong in the same sentence.

    6:53 a.m. Dec. 13, 2012

    ---------

    You aren't much of a Theologian.
    Of course you are always free to choose.
    But, "Christ" also said that even 1 of the very littleest of sins denies you all of his Kingdom in Heaven.

    It's called the "If you don't like it, leave." clause.

    FYI - That same clause exists in our "free" America.

    ===========================

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    Kent,

    When did God choose Obama to be His prophet? Do you really think that Obama is God's spokesman on earth?

    12:45 p.m. Dec. 13, 2012

    What on earth are you talking about? No one eblieves that.
    Besides - I thought you'd love Obama trying to mimic the Bible. Isn't that what you Religous types are contantly trying to do by legislating morality and copying Judeo-Christian Bible-coded laws.

    Who do you think you are, God's spokesman on earth?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 2:56 p.m.

    re:Kent

    "Isn't that what you Religous types are contantly trying to do by legislating morality and copying Judeo-Christian Bible-coded laws."

    No Kent - it was our FOUNDERS who believed, taught and LEGISLATED the Christian GOD into the very fabric our constitution on purpose. "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" were later unanimously adopted by a nation of believers and patriots in former times unlike the progressive atheists that we find in the democrat party of today. Recall the DNC where an ugly chorus of boo's rang out when God was added back to the party platform.

    I would highly recommend you read the book 1776 by David McCullough and actually try to learn something about George Washington and our founders. Washington "willingly" walked away from power after "serving his country". Compare that leadership to the debauchery we see in the White House today.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 13, 2012 3:11 p.m.

    @JThompson - "If Obama cared enough to check, he would see that the election is over, that he doesn't have to campaign any more, that Republicans were the choice of the people and that Republicans will not sign on to his programs."

    What? What election did the Republicans win? I am sorry.... but the one I had in my country, Obama won the election, and the Republicans lost seats. Hardly a sweeping change, but there is no math that has Republicans winning the last election. But it does explain the disconnect... somehow you live in a world where Republicans won.... huh.

    @Mike Richards - Obama, a Prophet? You know, I thought I had heard all them all...but thats a new one. Where did you come up with that one?

    @Patriot - in your perfect world, there would be only one party with total control? And now, the US is in the gutter because we don't have a totalitarian government? 2 million Republicans are anti Mormon? You do understand that the Republican Party runs 3rd in registered voters behind Democrats and Independents... best you start learning to get along rather than hoping to have it all your way. Not going to happen.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 5:15 p.m.

    What a bunch of "hypocrites". Sorry, but there is no other word that describes what is going on.

    Christ had no use for "hypocrites", those who twisted and turned his words to to prophets from Adam down to his time on earth.

    Christ NEVER authorized the government to be his method of Caring for the poor and the needy. He asked each of us to roll up our sleeves and do whatever was necessary. There was no force. There was no compulsion. There was only an invitation. He INVITED us to help.

    Obama wants to force us. He wants to make the choice for us. He thinks that his way is the way. He reminds me of the spokesman in that great council whose ideas were rejected and who was thrust out because of rebellion.

    There was no compromise then and there can be no compromise now. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Forcing someone to do "good" against his will is ALWAYS wrong,

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 14, 2012 7:53 a.m.

    @L White -- Then I assume all laws that regulate alcohol use and all laws that prohibit same sex marriage, etc (all laws that prohibit something you deem to be immoral) are Satanic, correct? Because God will never allow force to do what is right.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 14, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    re:UtahBlueDevil

    Yes my friend the majority of the US has fallen into the gutter and that is precisely why you get elected officials like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi,and on down the godless progressive line... These politicians are great at politics but lousy at leadership and that is a reflection of our country today. Take a look at the last election for a second - you now have legalized Marijuana, government funded late term abortion, legalized gay marriage and a majority party that BOO's GOD at their convention. Add to that ugly mix of a growing entitlement culture that would rather pick up their Obama welfare check and sit on their can than take a job. Does this sound like the America of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson? It sounds more like Sodom and Gomorrah!!! America today is not even a shadow of the America of our grand parents. There is still roughly 35% in this country who do reflect true traditional American values of hard work, morality, decency and ambition but certainly not the majority and the election proved that once and for all. As far as one party rule - I am a registered INDEPENDENT.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 14, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    L White
    Springville, UT
    What a bunch of "hypocrites". Sorry, but there is no other word that describes what is going on.

    Christ had no use for "hypocrites", those who twisted and turned his words to to prophets from Adam down to his time on earth.

    Christ NEVER authorized the government to be his method of Caring for the poor and the needy.

    =============

    Then why does an LDS Church Bishop ask someone requesting help 1st ask if they are recieving Government Food Stamps, Government UnEmployment, Government Medicare, Government Medicaid, Government Free Lunch or reduced lunches, help from Family or Friends, ect., ect.

    The LDS Church is used as the course of LAST resort.

    And, Speaking of a "hypocrites",
    aren't YOU and your hubby relying on Government Entitlements to get by on at this very moment?

    Christ NEVER authorized your retirement.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 15, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    If the Democrats are in control, this postion favor of shutting the government down to create conservative utopia. This is anarchy by definition.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 5:55 p.m.

    Dive deeper in to the isolated right wing corne.

  • Ron_D Ft. Worth, TX
    Feb. 9, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Compromise is basically defined as exposing ourselves and it creates vulnerability. We as human beings are instinctively innocent and vulnerable by nature and our survival depends on progressively learning not to do things that expose and threaten us. So, when we reach into the flame for the first time and get burnt, we tend to remember not to reach again. Our trust is adjusted by the learned consequences for the the decisions we make. The issue we face in politics as human beings is to trust one another. Our current political system is a vulnerable system by its very nature and trust has to be honored for it to work. The less we honor our promises, the less we trust. Its a vicious cycle. We have to progressively find a way to change our system to reduce the vulnerability of our trust and make it easier for politicians to learn to trust one another and honor their promises to each other and their constituencies. If we can focus on creating trust, we can learn to compromise and know we can reach into a fire that has been reduced by our honor.