So, I know you're all DYING to hear me rant about politics.
Seriously, I've been getting some pretty charged up emails regarding my decision to vote for Obama. Apparently I've "turned to the dark side", embraced socialism, and am toying with the ideas of communism!
Here's an attempt to set the record straight.
My decision to vote for Obama is based on several things. I will only talk about three points right now. The first is the economy/taxes, the second is the war in Iraq, and the third is having the right temperament/disposition.
Economy/Taxes (This is for you, Curtis, Dad, and Chad)
Why does everyone keep calling Obama a SOCIALIST? (Thanks for the propaganda picture, Dagen!)
According to wikipedia (which is ALWAYS right, hee hee!) socialism is defined as
"a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."
So basically socialism might have a good motive, i.e. the creation of an egalitarian society, however the means by which this would be accomplished is by the state/government or a group, controlling, owning, and operating the "means of production"; this could mean the government owns and controls the banks, factories, businesses, etc. ( which is communism, a form of socialism)
This idea, of creating an egalitarian society, is in harmony with our church doctrine. "If ye are not equal in earthly things, ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things." (D&C 78:6) This revelation was given in reference to taking care of the poor and needy. As members of the Church, we practice this. I also feel that we should try to practice it in our governments as well.
From what I've heard and read concerning Barack Obama and his political views, he has the same desire to promote an egalitarian society, (which means... "Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.") yet I have never heard him say that he wants government to take control of the "means of production" for our society/economy. So for those of you who are convinced that Obama is a socialist... I say, do you think Warren Buffet (a self-made gazillionaire) is a SOCIALIST? He's supporting and advising Obama. Do you think Colin Powell, is a SOCIALIST?
I don't think so.
I think both of these men are supporting Obama because they believe, as do I, that he is what our country needs right now.
A friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, sent me a link to an NPR interview from 2001, in which Obama discusses the Warren Court and the Civil Rights Movement. A lot of people, including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, are using this interview as a way to scare everyone into believing that Obama, IS, in fact, a Socialist.
In the interview, Barack Obama and 2 other law professors from the University of Chicago discuss the Warren Court and how it was viewed and how it changed during the Civil Rights Era. If you listen to the questions that prompted his responses and the context in which those responses were given, it is clear that he is not saying we need to become a classless, socialist society. This was only a discussion of the historical aspect of the role of the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights movement, not a policy discussion and certainly not part of his platform.
Here is a link to the interview.
People also like to use the example of "Joe the Plumber" and the "discussion" between him and Obama to prove that Obama is a socialist.
Apparently, the company that Joe wants to buy, would not make over $250,00 a year (unlike he said initially.) What Joe the Plumber maybe meant was that he was going to purchase this company for $250,000, which would not increase his taxes. But even if his business DID make $250,000 per year, then there is still some good reasoning behind Obama's position.
Here is a link to the transcript of their entire conversation. Please read it. He explains it to Joe, much better than I could explain it here. Again, when you read the entire conversation and hear the context, it takes on a different meaning.
Here's my opinion on taxes. (And Obama shares my opinion! Tee hee!) None of us make our money in a vacuum. We all benefit from our economy/society. We make money off of each other. Some of us make more than others.
But we have a responsibility to help out those who need help. (My brother's keeper?)
I am all in favor of having the lowest possible amount of taxes that we can. But the reality is that we are spending WAY too much money. We HAVE to raise taxes in order to dig ourselves out of the hole that we are in. The reason that I'm okay with raising taxes right now, is that we have an opposing party (Republicans), who will eventually win back the presidency and lower taxes, when we can handle it. Now I know the trickle down economic theories and I don't want to get into a debate about that. I'm just telling you that, even though I am normally in favor of lower taxes, I'm okay with it right now.
So here's why I don't have a problem with Obama's tax plan. Under his plan, if you make more than $200,000 a year (which we don't), then our tax would increase from 30% to 35%.
Just to put this in perspective... the other day Josh received a job offer doing anesthesia in Denver. We obviously can't take it because of our military commitment, but if we did, they were offering to pay him $375,000. So I did the math and after paying 40% in taxes (we'll just add another 5 percent in there for the "extras") Josh would still be making over $18,000 a month!
I'm sorry, but if he were making that much money EVERY month, I think we could afford to pay more in taxes. Then I think back to when we were poor college students and we were living off $1000 per month. (Yes, that's right) And we had two kids! I can say, from experience, that the tax breaks and Earned Income Credit (EIC) that we received during those years was HUGE. I don't know how we would have made it, if we hadn't have had that help. The way I see it, Josh has worked really hard to get where he is now, but he had a lot of help along the way. Would he have been able to get into medical school without first getting a FREE education as a child? Or graduate from college without a Pell Grant or subsidized federal loans? Or be able to feed his children, (literally) without the help of WIC? (Yes, we were on WIC!) These are all things that we used and we came from a pretty comfortable financial background. How different would it be for that child who grows up in the backwoods of Alabama, if there weren't government run programs that could help these people? My point is, yeah, we all work hard for what we have, but we're also part of this society and we all contribute to the economy. It's all linked together. In that sense I don't think we can say... "It's all mine... I did it all myself".
Barack Obama explains his philosophy regarding taxes in his book, "The Audacity of Hope". Even if you're not going to vote for him, I would urge you to read it, so that you are at least getting your information from the primary source. When you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, ONLY, and they are your main source of news, then you are going to get a VERY biased picture of what Obama stands for. (And I do listen to the above mentioned, but I also listen to NPR and try to read a mixture of conservative/liberal magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) I'm saying this from experience because for years Rush Limbaugh was my main source for news and I sincerely believed everything he said.
Here's an example:
As a Latter Day Saint, nothing bugs me more than when people who are not members of our church think they know all about Mormons because they've heard their anti-Mormon minister talk about Mormons, or they've read a book about Mormons. I'm assuming that frustrates all of you.. because we feel like, "Hey, if you would just come to church, read the Book of Mormon, talk to the missionaries, you would see that all that crazy stuff you read and heard are NOT true." The reason I read Obama's book, in the first place, was because I sincerely wanted to see the "other" side. I wanted to know, for myself, whether or not I agreed with what he was saying, instead of just listening to what Rush Limbaugh, etc., SAID he was saying. And to my surprise, I agreed with a lot of what he said.
The War in Iraq
Notice, I didn't call it The War on Terror, because I believe this is a war that we should never have started. I'm not going to spend too much time trying to convince anyone on this point, because I think most of us can agree on this. (Maybe not... I don't know!) I think the real question is, who is going to help get us out of their more quickly and do it in such a way that we can reclaim our good standing with the rest of the world. I sincerely believe that Obama will be better at doing this than John McCain. I admire and respect McCain and I think that he would do an okay job in this department. However, if something should happen to McCain, then I would not feel comfortable with Sarah Palin as Commander -in-Chief. She just doesn't have the experience; unless there is a war between the town of Wasila and Russia, who is, after all, HER NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR! (Seriously, I do like Sarah Palin.... I just don't think she's qualified).
Now, I know that you can make the same case of inexperience against Obama, I will agree with you on that. However he thankfully has Joe Biden as his running mate. Even if you don't agree with Biden's politics you have to concede that he does have foreign policy experience.
Disposition/Temperament
Eight years of George W. Bush as president have convinced me that we need to move away from the "shoot from the hip/go by your gut feeling" kind of presidency. We need a president who can think analytically, listen to all points of view, and will try to build a consensus. In interview after interview I have heard Obama say "I disagree with your opinion, but respect you." We need more politicians who have this attitude.
My previous post (Colin Powell's endorsement) explains this much better.
Now, here's my disclaimer.... just because I'm voting for Obama, does not mean that I am a Democrat (yes, sorry to disappoint you, Kim and Jasmine!)
I've never been registered as a Republican or Democrat. I truly feel like I am a moderate Independant, so don't start thinking that I'm a crazy left wing liberal.
I just believe that Barack Obama is the best choice for our country, right now.
I know that some of you have strong feelings about this election and that you completely disagree with me. And I think that's great! We NEED to have political differences and have these healthy discussions. That is part of what makes our country great.
I also want to say that I feel good about my decision to vote for Obama. In my opinion, he will be the better of the two choices. I would hope that those of you who disagree with my opinion can still respect it and not feel that my eternal salvation is at stake. There is room for differences of opinions in our church.
In closing, I will leave you with an official statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints regarding political neutrality.
The Church "expects its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters."
This "maverick" is gonna "smoke 'em out" on November 4th... now do your patriotistic duty and get out there and vote!
My decision to vote for Obama is based on several things. I will only talk about three points right now. The first is the economy/taxes, the second is the war in Iraq, and the third is having the right temperament/disposition.
Economy/Taxes (This is for you, Curtis, Dad, and Chad)
Why does everyone keep calling Obama a SOCIALIST? (Thanks for the propaganda picture, Dagen!)
According to wikipedia (which is ALWAYS right, hee hee!) socialism is defined as
"a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."
So basically socialism might have a good motive, i.e. the creation of an egalitarian society, however the means by which this would be accomplished is by the state/government or a group, controlling, owning, and operating the "means of production"; this could mean the government owns and controls the banks, factories, businesses, etc. ( which is communism, a form of socialism)
This idea, of creating an egalitarian society, is in harmony with our church doctrine. "If ye are not equal in earthly things, ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things." (D&C 78:6) This revelation was given in reference to taking care of the poor and needy. As members of the Church, we practice this. I also feel that we should try to practice it in our governments as well.
From what I've heard and read concerning Barack Obama and his political views, he has the same desire to promote an egalitarian society, (which means... "Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.") yet I have never heard him say that he wants government to take control of the "means of production" for our society/economy. So for those of you who are convinced that Obama is a socialist... I say, do you think Warren Buffet (a self-made gazillionaire) is a SOCIALIST? He's supporting and advising Obama. Do you think Colin Powell, is a SOCIALIST?
I don't think so.
I think both of these men are supporting Obama because they believe, as do I, that he is what our country needs right now.
A friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, sent me a link to an NPR interview from 2001, in which Obama discusses the Warren Court and the Civil Rights Movement. A lot of people, including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, are using this interview as a way to scare everyone into believing that Obama, IS, in fact, a Socialist.
In the interview, Barack Obama and 2 other law professors from the University of Chicago discuss the Warren Court and how it was viewed and how it changed during the Civil Rights Era. If you listen to the questions that prompted his responses and the context in which those responses were given, it is clear that he is not saying we need to become a classless, socialist society. This was only a discussion of the historical aspect of the role of the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights movement, not a policy discussion and certainly not part of his platform.
Here is a link to the interview.
People also like to use the example of "Joe the Plumber" and the "discussion" between him and Obama to prove that Obama is a socialist.
Apparently, the company that Joe wants to buy, would not make over $250,00 a year (unlike he said initially.) What Joe the Plumber maybe meant was that he was going to purchase this company for $250,000, which would not increase his taxes. But even if his business DID make $250,000 per year, then there is still some good reasoning behind Obama's position.
Here is a link to the transcript of their entire conversation. Please read it. He explains it to Joe, much better than I could explain it here. Again, when you read the entire conversation and hear the context, it takes on a different meaning.
Here's my opinion on taxes. (And Obama shares my opinion! Tee hee!) None of us make our money in a vacuum. We all benefit from our economy/society. We make money off of each other. Some of us make more than others.
But we have a responsibility to help out those who need help. (My brother's keeper?)
I am all in favor of having the lowest possible amount of taxes that we can. But the reality is that we are spending WAY too much money. We HAVE to raise taxes in order to dig ourselves out of the hole that we are in. The reason that I'm okay with raising taxes right now, is that we have an opposing party (Republicans), who will eventually win back the presidency and lower taxes, when we can handle it. Now I know the trickle down economic theories and I don't want to get into a debate about that. I'm just telling you that, even though I am normally in favor of lower taxes, I'm okay with it right now.
So here's why I don't have a problem with Obama's tax plan. Under his plan, if you make more than $200,000 a year (which we don't), then our tax would increase from 30% to 35%.
Just to put this in perspective... the other day Josh received a job offer doing anesthesia in Denver. We obviously can't take it because of our military commitment, but if we did, they were offering to pay him $375,000. So I did the math and after paying 40% in taxes (we'll just add another 5 percent in there for the "extras") Josh would still be making over $18,000 a month!
I'm sorry, but if he were making that much money EVERY month, I think we could afford to pay more in taxes. Then I think back to when we were poor college students and we were living off $1000 per month. (Yes, that's right) And we had two kids! I can say, from experience, that the tax breaks and Earned Income Credit (EIC) that we received during those years was HUGE. I don't know how we would have made it, if we hadn't have had that help. The way I see it, Josh has worked really hard to get where he is now, but he had a lot of help along the way. Would he have been able to get into medical school without first getting a FREE education as a child? Or graduate from college without a Pell Grant or subsidized federal loans? Or be able to feed his children, (literally) without the help of WIC? (Yes, we were on WIC!) These are all things that we used and we came from a pretty comfortable financial background. How different would it be for that child who grows up in the backwoods of Alabama, if there weren't government run programs that could help these people? My point is, yeah, we all work hard for what we have, but we're also part of this society and we all contribute to the economy. It's all linked together. In that sense I don't think we can say... "It's all mine... I did it all myself".
Barack Obama explains his philosophy regarding taxes in his book, "The Audacity of Hope". Even if you're not going to vote for him, I would urge you to read it, so that you are at least getting your information from the primary source. When you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, ONLY, and they are your main source of news, then you are going to get a VERY biased picture of what Obama stands for. (And I do listen to the above mentioned, but I also listen to NPR and try to read a mixture of conservative/liberal magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) I'm saying this from experience because for years Rush Limbaugh was my main source for news and I sincerely believed everything he said.
Here's an example:
As a Latter Day Saint, nothing bugs me more than when people who are not members of our church think they know all about Mormons because they've heard their anti-Mormon minister talk about Mormons, or they've read a book about Mormons. I'm assuming that frustrates all of you.. because we feel like, "Hey, if you would just come to church, read the Book of Mormon, talk to the missionaries, you would see that all that crazy stuff you read and heard are NOT true." The reason I read Obama's book, in the first place, was because I sincerely wanted to see the "other" side. I wanted to know, for myself, whether or not I agreed with what he was saying, instead of just listening to what Rush Limbaugh, etc., SAID he was saying. And to my surprise, I agreed with a lot of what he said.
The War in Iraq
Notice, I didn't call it The War on Terror, because I believe this is a war that we should never have started. I'm not going to spend too much time trying to convince anyone on this point, because I think most of us can agree on this. (Maybe not... I don't know!) I think the real question is, who is going to help get us out of their more quickly and do it in such a way that we can reclaim our good standing with the rest of the world. I sincerely believe that Obama will be better at doing this than John McCain. I admire and respect McCain and I think that he would do an okay job in this department. However, if something should happen to McCain, then I would not feel comfortable with Sarah Palin as Commander -in-Chief. She just doesn't have the experience; unless there is a war between the town of Wasila and Russia, who is, after all, HER NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR! (Seriously, I do like Sarah Palin.... I just don't think she's qualified).
Now, I know that you can make the same case of inexperience against Obama, I will agree with you on that. However he thankfully has Joe Biden as his running mate. Even if you don't agree with Biden's politics you have to concede that he does have foreign policy experience.
Disposition/Temperament
Eight years of George W. Bush as president have convinced me that we need to move away from the "shoot from the hip/go by your gut feeling" kind of presidency. We need a president who can think analytically, listen to all points of view, and will try to build a consensus. In interview after interview I have heard Obama say "I disagree with your opinion, but respect you." We need more politicians who have this attitude.
My previous post (Colin Powell's endorsement) explains this much better.
Now, here's my disclaimer.... just because I'm voting for Obama, does not mean that I am a Democrat (yes, sorry to disappoint you, Kim and Jasmine!)
I've never been registered as a Republican or Democrat. I truly feel like I am a moderate Independant, so don't start thinking that I'm a crazy left wing liberal.
I just believe that Barack Obama is the best choice for our country, right now.
I know that some of you have strong feelings about this election and that you completely disagree with me. And I think that's great! We NEED to have political differences and have these healthy discussions. That is part of what makes our country great.
I also want to say that I feel good about my decision to vote for Obama. In my opinion, he will be the better of the two choices. I would hope that those of you who disagree with my opinion can still respect it and not feel that my eternal salvation is at stake. There is room for differences of opinions in our church.
In closing, I will leave you with an official statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints regarding political neutrality.
The Church "expects its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters."
This "maverick" is gonna "smoke 'em out" on November 4th... now do your patriotistic duty and get out there and vote!
38 comments:
A quick clarification... I'm not saying that the scriptures are endorsing communism/socialism, only that the motive or intent is the same. (i.e. promoting and/or establishing an egalitarian society)
Hi Heidi, It is so interesting reading your posts. But there are some things I disagree with - surprise, surprise!
You say, "(D&C 78:6) This revelation was given in reference to taking care of the poor and needy. As members of the Church, we practice this. I also feel that we should try to practice it in our governments as well." The problem with that is it is not the role of government to take care of us. We should help the needy, but that should come from us as individuals, it should not come from the government. The LDS church has counseled us to take care of ourselves - to be self-sufficient. The LDS church has told us that if we DO need help, we first go to our family, then to the church and then as a last resort the government. But it is not the government's role to take care of anyone.
Ezra Taft Benson said in his book "An Enemy Hath Done This" said, "It (the government) cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will." By raising my taxes the government is forcing me to "perform acts of charity against (my) will." You say that you feel that if you, Heidi, are earning a large income then you could afford to pay more in taxes. Fine. But don’t put that upon everyone else. Many other people would love to give the money they pay the government in taxes to the charities of their choice. Would we really rather send that money to the government for THEM to choose what to do with it? No. I want to choose what charities I help with my money.
You also said, "I'm not saying that the scriptures are endorsing communism/socialism, only that the motive or intent is the same. (i.e. promoting and/or establishing an egalitarian society)". Here is what David O. McKay said about communism: “The position of this Church on the subject of Communism has never changed. We consider it the greatest Satanical treat to peace, prosperity and the spread of God’s work among men that exists on the face of the earth." (Conference Report, April, 1966, p. 109)
"Paula",
First, with regards to your view that "it is not the government's role to take care of anyone"; how can we go to the government "as a last resort", if help for the needy "should not come from the government"? If the individual can't care for themselves, and family or church are unable or unavailable, then who? I guess we just let them rot because nobody is responsible but them.
Second, with regard to quoting Ezra Taft Benson statement against paying taxes and "perform acts of charity against their will." If you would rather not pay any taxes, since paying them destroys your free agency, and you carry your logic to it's conclusion, wouldn't we end up with no government to limit your liberty - that's called anarchy.
I don't hear any political candidate proposing that we do away with taxes or social programs. McCain isn't saying this. However, this argument is classic rhetoric from Hannity and Rush, and just isn't realistic.
You should also read up on Benson's involvement in politics, especially his explicit support of a right wing ultraconservative anti-Communist group called the John Birch Society founded by Robert Welch in 1958. Among the society's beliefs were that the Civil Rights movement was started by Communists to overthrow America, (they opposed the Civil Rights movement), and that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a possible "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy." Benson's support of this society and their views caused dissension among the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (Pres McKay's two councilors Hugh B Brown and Henry D Moyle were Democrats and were opposed to his fiery rhetoric - given from the pulpit at times). Also opposed to Benson's political opinions were Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee, N Eldon Tanner, Mark E Peterson. However he shared similar right-of center-views about Communism with Pres David O McKay, who allowed him to make these comments in General Conference. This occurred during the height of the Cold War and the Communist threat, and is understandable in this context. For a more complete discussion of the topic please see chapter 12 of Gregory Prince and W. Robert Wright's book David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.
Lastly, Heidi was not stating that the scriptures promote Communism or Socialism. However, promoting an egalitarian society is consistent with D&C 78:6 and the Law of Consecration (ie the motive).
Wow, you guys sure do your research. Good for you. I'm with you, Heidi. I think we should pick the canidate whose campaign didn't almost go bankrupt during the primaries. I mean, do we really want McCain to run the finances of this country when he couldn't even manage the money in his campaign?
Good point Melissa! I had forgotten about that.
It's a difficult decision. I struggle with Obama's ties to Bill Ayers. I have looked into this extensively. I won't go into it, but don't be afraid to look deep. It will scare you. Also, I looked into the rumors about Reverend Jerimiah Wright. I don't believe someone can go to church for 20 years and not be influenced. You can watch his sermons and interviews if you hunt around on the internet. I don't think either candidate is going to keep all their promises. But these associations disturb me. People keep dismissing them and they really shouldn't. (You know I love ya - just adding my two cents to the discussion)
Thanks for adding your input Melissa. I love having open discussions about this kind of stuff.
I've also looked into the Bill Ayers/Reverend Wright relationships, but I've come to a different conclusion. I think that just because you are friends with someone, doesn't mean that you share their political views. (I have lots of friends who have VERY different views from mine, but I still like them and respect their opinions.) Obama, in the case of Bill Ayers, has repeatedly said that what he did was wrong and he disagrees with it.
As far as Reverend Wright... I absolutely believe that you can go to church for 20 years and respect and revere someone as your SPIRITUAL leader, yet completely disagree with them on politics. Take, for instance, Ezra Taft Benson. I 100% disagree with a lot of his political views (that communists were behind the Civil Rights movement and some other right-wing conservative views), yet I still sustained him as a Prophet of God and respected him as my spiritual leader.
That's my opinion... thanks for not disowning me!
I promise this is the last I will say on this. With the Bill Ayers thing. He said that he doesn't regret the bombings but that he realized he needed to hit our country at it's core and start with the education system to promote his radical views. (He actually said that openly) So he wrote a college textbook that is dripping with Marxism. In the front of that text book is Obama with a forward to this book. I also believe you can be friends with people who have done wrong and it not influence you. But clearly obama shares some of Ayers views or he would not have endorsed his book. I have looked into all of these allegations and found that they all carry their weight.
I have viewed some of Rev Wrights sermons and it is clear he hates white America. President Benson might have had crazy views on things but I don't remember him ever sharing them over the pulpit. This is where our church and Rev Wrights differ. He did share his view over the pulpit for 20 years.
Oh why do I love to argue so much. Clearly we both have made our decisions and I know more than anyone that comments on blogs do not change my mind.
Love ya - and I promise I will keep my opinion to myself - starting NOW!
I do love your blog and seeing your beautiful family! Keep it up!
Well played Heidi, Obama is going to lose Georgia and win the general election big. It is going to be a long night for McCain. I hate party politics.
Well said Heidi. You have obviously done your homework (more so than myself) and for that you deserve some credit. I wish I had more time to delve into the "meat" of politics - I feel like I have only been drinking "milk." Politics are fascinating in one aspect and downright frustrating in another - frustrating because the issues that should be at the forefront are often clouded by the need "to get elected," hearsay, or he said/she said nonsense - which leads me to my current thoughts on Obama.
Reading through his website and listening to him during the debates, you would have a hard time knowing that he was a democrat except for the fact that he is debating against McCain, a lifelong Republican. Besides some of his obvious liberal stances on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. his positions really seem more moderate that the Democrat party typically professes. The problem is that his limited time in the US Senate and Illinois Senate offers no real glimpse into what kind of politician he will be. From what I can gather (you can correct me if I am wrong), he voted with the democrats on every legislation except for when he voted present, which seemed to happen quite a bit. So the real question for me is when Obama becomes president (when, not if, because he obviously will win), will he maintain his more moderate positions, or will he drift back to his the typical positions espoused by the Democrats? History would suggest that he would do the latter. It is not uncommon for the presidential candidates to “come to the middle” in order to get elected. But I would like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he voted with the Democrats every time because he felt like he needed to gain his colleagues' respect being a junior senator. Perhaps he has changed his ideas along the way. Mitt Romney certainly did. But for me, the simple fact is that I just don't know what kind of Obama we will see. If he stays more moderate, I think I would be happy to have him as president. He is obviously a gifted leader and would do great things as president. But things could get a little scary (in my opinion) if he reverts back to the typical Democrat ideals (I'll explain in a bit). Now I know you are probably thinking. Well, Doug if you would just read his book, Audacity of Hope, then you would know what he stands for. And you would probably be right. And then I would say that it is on my list of books to read, right after I finish reading all of my med school textbooks. But I am also naturally a skeptic - especially of politicians. How can I know that he really believes what he wrote in his book and it is not just written with the intent of getting elected? Perhaps I am being a little too skeptical, but I really do have a hard time trusting politicians. Politicians will say anything to get elected – even the Mormon guy!
As to my disagreement with Democrat ideals, I don't disagree with everything the Democrats profess, just as I don't agree with everything the Republicans profess either. Like I stated before, I have not had the time to go deep into these issues, so most of my opinions come from what I have read, discussed, or have formulated from life experiences. To me, the most important issue is the concept of responsibility. I believe that many of the shortcomings that we have had as a society in recent years are due to the continual erosion of individual responsibility. Take abortion for instance. One can argue from a moral point of view, but I will not do that because of the difficulty in determining when a fertilized egg becomes a human being. Instead, I like to look at it from the stance of responsibility. To me all women have free choice. They have the choice of whether they want to participate in intercourse or not. For a teenager that gets pregnant at a young age, she made her choice and she should be held responsible for that choice (obviously cases of rape and incest are the exception). One can argue that abortion is horrible because it takes away a life. But I would argue that it is equally horrible because it also takes away individual responsibility. All of the sudden, it doesn’t matter that we messed up. We are now armed with a giant “Ctrl-Z” in which we can magically undo any of our mistakes without taking responsibility. Our nation was founded upon a common rule of law. Inherent in that rule of law is the notion of personal responsibility. In my opinion, it is this erosion of personal responsibility that has been our primary downfall (Bytheway, I know we talked about this when you were in AZ, but what is your justification for Obama’s position on abortion, besides that fact that you think it should not be a “one and only” issue).
This principle of personal responsibility is also at the forefront of the economy as you alluded to in your post. I agree wholeheartedly with the D&C scripture about creating an egalitarian society. I think we have failed miserably as a society. But if we failed as individuals and communities in caring for the poor how can we expect a government that represents the people to do any better – especially when they are muddled by miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link. A lot has been said about welfare to care for the poor. I am not wholly opposed to government welfare. I think there are a time and a place for assistance. Yet, there is so much corruption in the welfare system now that people feel like they are entitled to all of the benefits without any sacrifice of their own. This creates an endless cycle of dependents and multiple generations that are being raised on welfare. What I would like to see is some accountability and responsibility on the part of those receiving welfare. I think it is time for the government to require accountability on the part of those receiving welfare. It works well in the church welfare program and Perpetual Education Fund program. It has even worked out great in the small villages of Mozambique that have been the recipients of the great Care for Life programs that Mom and Dad helped to start. As long as individual responsibility is present, I don’t have any problem with government assistance. The problem is when the government assistance begins to supersede individual responsibility. As an aside, you gave a big shout out to the government for all the help you and Josh received during medical school. While I do not mean to dismiss government assistance as valuable (I have received Pell Grants myself), what about acknowledging your family, siblings and church? In my mind, I have them to thank before the government. Over the course of a lifetime, I would bet that most people receive far more “benefits” from the family, friends and church than they do from the government.
Now to the topic of taxes…. Unless we want to go back to the times where we plant our own gardens, build our own cars and roads, and home school our children, taxes are a necessity. You are right in the fact that we all rely on each other. What is not a necessity is excessive government spending (war in Iraq, you can blame Bush for that one), inefficient programs (healthcare), and blatant waste of resources (probably half of all government employees). I like to view the government as the trustee of our investments. If they were performing well, I would have no problem giving them more of my income. But the truth is that they have not been very good stewards of our investments (especially lately) so why would anyone be inclined to give them more? I would first like to see the government take an ax to all of their wasteful spending and inefficient programs. We have the most talented business consultants in the world. Why are we not using that at the government level?
A lot of Democrats (including Biden and Obama) argue that the way to handle the poor is to raise taxes on the rich, thereby “redistributing the wealth.” In principle, this may seem to have some merit. The rich have more than they need, so why don’t we just take away what they don’t need and give it to the poor (By the way, are you sure Josh should stay in the military, the $18,000/month sounds real nice). The poor have more money and the rich still have what they need. The problem with this is that, just like individual responsibility that I referred to earlier, self-motivation and ingenuity go flying out the window when the government is at the helm. In the short term, the poor will benefit. But the long-term consequences will inevitably lead to a society that no longer strives for the American dream. Forcing equality takes away the very incentive of the American dream that made this country great. In the end, I believe that we would be doing a greater disservice to the poor by subsidizing their incomes with the income of the rich. I will NOT say that Obama is a socialist, but what I will say is that wealth redistribution is one step closer to socialism and one that I disagree with wholeheartedly. It is wrong the way that we treat the poor in the U.S. But in my opinion, it would be equally wrong to tax the rich to lift up the poor. Last time I checked, two wrongs don’t make a right.
You also mention that you want the taxes to be raised temporarily and then lowered once we have gotten ourselves out of debt. I think those are high hopes. Once you have had a cell phone for a period of time, can you function without one? Impossible – No! Very difficult – Yes! The same goes with the government. I have a better suggestion, how about we just stop wasteful spending (that goes for both parties).
I will say this about the rich. I do think there are way too many loopholes for people to get out of their taxes and I think that we are in agreeance here. How about instead of raising taxes, get rid of all of the loopholes, overhaul the tax codes, and lay off half of the IRS. Doing so could offset the loss of increased taxes. That seems more fair.
To wrap things up, I am not anti-government. I just want to see a government that is more efficient, spends less, wastes less and does so in a manner that retains the individual responsibilities of which our country was founded upon. I also would like to see a government that is actively working towards creating an egalitarian society. My only request is that they do so in a way that is not coercive and does not undermine individual responsibility.
Sorry for all of the scatterbrained thoughts. I stayed up late to finish this before election day so you better appreciate this Heidi. I don’t think that I would be motivated to write this after tomorrow. I would love any comments or rebuttals. I had a lot more to write but I am tired and I have to get up in 4 hours. Do I think that Obama will be good president? I certainly think that he has the potential to be. Yet, I still have this uneasy feeling about him simply because I do not know exactly where he stands – but I guess we will find out sooner or later. To be honest, I am not really excited about either candidate. I think I may write-in Dagen for president. At least he is backed by Paris Hilton!
Doug
A few more comments now that I have awoken from my 3 hour slumber. I do want to add that I agree with you on Palin. I think you can blame a McCain loss on this pick alone. Also, while both candidates' healthcare plans are far from perfect, I actually like Obama's better than McCain's. I've got mine own ideas about healthcare which I would love to share with you sometime (you guys should bring the family out to Houston). In my opinion, the challenge with healthcare is to create a plan that will provide BASIC healthcare to everyone while still maintaining an incentive to be healthy (the individual responsibility part). Finally, I kind of alluded to this in the previous comment but it did not come across as clearly as I wanted it. The problem with creating a egalitarian society that is forced is that it will leave us with a people that are lazy with no ambition. I already sense that there is a sizeable amount of people in the US that have lost their ambition. We need to stop that trend from continuing!
You never answered the question about abortion. do you have a justification for that?
Does Heidi need to "justify" Obama's stance abortion? I voted for Obama today and I disagree with abortion, but I disagree with so many more stances that John McCain has that Obama was the obvious choice for me. I don't know Heidi's stance on the issue, but don't believe she needs to justify someone else's.
(Hi Heidi, It's Annie Cluff (Emily's friend) I found your blog through hers. I love what you have to say about Obama. It's exactly how I feel but couldn't articulate, so thanks for doing it for me!)
Heidi,
You are right. It is important to take care of our fellow man. May we all be as generous as Joe Biden who made 2,500,000 and gave 1 percent to charity. I guess it is easier to be generous with other peoples money.
Hi Heidi!! I found your blog through Nie Nie, then Lizzy, then you. I just wanted to tell you that I wholeheartedly enjoyed your political post. I knew reading it that you would have a ton of comments on both sides. That's the beauty of America - we have a choice. I myself sided the way that you did. I don't agree with everything that Obama stands for - but, on the issues that are important to me - I side with Obama. I do enjoy political debates with family and friends. I have many friends that completely disagree with me on a lot of issues. It's what makes family and friendship fun. Thank you for your post - you made a lot of issues even more clear for me than they were before now. -Dawn :)
Way to stand up for your opinions! I'm definitely middle of the road as well. I usually agree with all democratic views but I always end up voting republican. I never voice my political views because it can be more stressful than it's worth especially when you're the only one on the "other side" so I really respect you for your posts.
Love your post today Heidi. You have the ability to look at the "big picture" and not get caught up on singular issues. It was interesting the other comment members who were trying to ping you on abortion. So interesting - as if that was the only issue of substance. And to those posters, Barack has explained his position at length.
We are all on the verge of something new and big. To all the naysayers - jump on board. We're all in this together.
In answer to all of those who were offended that I would ask Heidi about the abortion issue (hush, hush), I only wanted to know how she felt about Obama's stance on partial birth abortion. The fact that he will put in 3 new supreme court judges and we will have 50 more years of abortion. I feel so sad that this man is our president on so many levels, not just the abortion issue. Again, it seemed that the reason behind writing the post, Heidi was explaining to everyone why she was voting for Obama. I was merely bringing up a big moral issue (at least to me) that most good faithful people overlook and don't even want to discuss. I respect you Heidi and I think that you did a lot of reading. We shall see what is to come in the next four years.
No offense taken, Kristen! I didn't respond to the abortion question, only because I feel that it is too complex an issue to discuss in a blog. My feelings are not something that I could explain in the comments section. As far as the partial birth abortion ban that Obama opposed in the Illinois Senate... Obama has repeatedly said that the only reason he opposed the proposed bill concerning this issue is because it did not include an exception for the woman who is raped and who's life and/or health is in danger. (An exception that our Church endorses.) If the bill would have had these exceptions, he would have voted for it. (Again, he has said this over and over.)
I know some people are very skeptical of this response because they think that it sounds like he's making excuses. However, this is a common practice involving legislation. Senators and congressmen do this ALL the time on a variety of bills.
The Republicans who were sponsoring the bill wouldn't compromise and put that exception in... so the ban couldn't pass.. and then they (the Republicans) could try to blame the failure of the bill on the "evil, immoral democrats". (Party politics at it's worst.)
This happens on both sides of the aisle, all the time, at the local and federal level.
I think Obama is someone who can transcend this and bring people together. I feel so good about him as our president and I have hope that the next four years will take us in a direction that will have significant and beneficial impact in the years to come.
I don't know where to start but these two points stand out from your post.
1st. The Law of Consecration is voluntary.
2nd. You and your husband received grants and loans. Were those grants and loans somehow only for democrats? Were they Clinton loans or Bush loans? Do you feel that somehow that Republicans don't want you to succeed? If you think that then you are very wrong.
You both came from families that could have helped you through your schooling. Given you cars to drive, bought your food and clothing and even paid for your education. Your parents are very wise for not doing that. You had to struggle for what you have achieved. Now what you have achieved has value. You own it. It is yours. You have earned it.
Look at how the church handles welfare. There is never a handout. Handouts don't work.
Obama plans to redistribute wealth. Those who receive these handouts will not benefit from it the way the Democrats intend because they didn't have to work for it. When it is gone, they will put out their hands again.
McCain was not a good representative of my values nor of the Republican party. He was far too moderate. I do not believe in bail-outs. People and businesses should be allowed to fail.
I would love it if you read this article and posted what you think about it.
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
This is where I stand on politics and what laws should be.
Dear Heidi,
I agree with what you wrote and I loved to read it.
I just wanted to tell you that reading your blog hurts my eyes. Those black-and-white bars seem to flicker, what makes it almost impossible to read. I actually had to partially cover the screen with paper. I wonder whether there's anyone out there who has the same problem???
Dear Heidi,
I agree with what you wrote and I loved to read it.
I just wanted to tell you that reading your blog hurts my eyes. Those black-and-white bars seem to flicker, what makes it almost impossible to read. I actually had to partially cover the screen with paper. I wonder whether there's anyone out there who has the same problem???
Brent,
In regard to your comments about the Federal Grants we received during college, you refer to them as "Clinton Loans" or "Bush Loans". Clinton was president when we received the loans, but we don't view them as loans from Clinton - they were Federal Loans. Bush would have given us the same loans. We (and maybe you too) have also been a recipient of the child tax credit under Clinton and Bush. This "redistribution of wealth" has helped us out during our "lean" education years. Is this a redistribution of wealth that you are opposed to?
You also assume that my parents were in a position to give us cars to drive, buy our food, and pay for our education. As a matter of
fact, they couldn't. I received Pell Grants for tuition and worked full time to pay for books, food, rent, and an occasional cheap date. After BYU, I went to the military medical school in Maryland (like West Point for doctors) and the government paid for all my tuition and gave
me a salary during school. I agree with you - I value my
education because I worked so hard for it. However, the fact that the
Government helped me out doesn't mean it doesn't "have value" or that I didn't "earn it".
Next, you say "Obama plans to redistribute the wealth". I'm assuming you are referring to his tax plan, since this is the argument that conservative and libertarian radio personalities like to make. How does his tax plan redistribute any wealth? All he wants to do is give the middle class a tax cut, and have the people making lots of money pay more. He is not taking any money from anyone and giving it to
anybody else.
Finally, you say, "I do not believe in bail-outs. People and
businesses should be allowed to fail." While I really like libertarian views generally, they cannot apply in times of emergency. One of the foremost economists of our time, and libertarian, Milton Friedman
argues that the cause of the Great Depression was that the Fed sat by
idle while banks failed all around them. He claims that if the Fed
had provided emergency lending to key banks, or simply bought
government bonds to provide liquidity and increase the amount of money after the key banks fell, the rest of the banks wouldn't have failed, and the Great Depression could have been averted or it's consequences minimized. Current Fed chairman Ben Bernanke also agrees with this interpretation of history, which
explains the government's response to the current banking crisis. This
is why "bail-outs" are sometimes necessary. In a sense, government
has to step in and save the capital system from the capitalists on occasions. But this is what Frederic Bastiat believed the role of government was for anyway - to protect the
lives, liberty, and property of it's citizens. One could easily argue that the Great Depression didn't just hurt the people guilty of abusing the system - it hurt everyone. The same argument is valid in terms of this financial crisis. Politicians and economists are trying to implement the lessons learned from history to avoid further disaster.
fascinating. no seriously. i really wanted to see a mormons reasons for voting for obama. i still don't agree :) but i found that extremely interesting. i guess i am a one issue kind of person because i have a hard time voting for someone who's values are so far from mine. i have many reasons for not supporing obama (gun control, taxes, welfare, constitution, etc.) but for me it really boils down to abortion. partial birth most specifically. if a mother is already in the process of deliverying her baby, how could it possibly save the mothers life to kill the baby, then finish the delivery. i'm no doctor, but i don't get it. i don't see any reason for a provision in a bill. i think morals and values are what define us in our finest and not so fine moments, you know? i appreciate your view point cause i didn't get it, and now i can kind of see where others are coming from. still don't agree :) but that's okay. good blog.
stinking cute kids by the way. your oldest girl reminds me of charity. she's beautiful. oh, and i've been looking for a good bread reecipe that i could use with my kitchenaid. i'm going to try it.
Thanks for your input Linnea... good to hear from you! Your family picture is adorable.
So I'm curious... if abortion (and more specifically partial birth abortion) is your number one issue, then what do you find, in particular, about Obama's stance on abortion that is so morally opposite from your point of view?
I think that someone who is pro-Life can still appreciate the fact that he has not made abortion a huge issue in his campaign. It is a very divisive issue. He has repeatedly said that we can agree to disagree on the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal, but that both sides (pro-life and pro-choice) should work together and try to gain ground on the areas that we DO agree... limit the number of abortions overall by making it easier for mothers to give up their unwanted babies for adoption and educating our youth about contraception and abstinence. I think that sounds pretty reasonable.
Abortion is such an emotional subject for people (me included) that it is sometimes difficult for us to see the value of compromise. I'm not saying either side needs to compromise its morals, only that neither side can force their moral position down the other side's throat. Our only REALISTIC option is to work together on the parts that we agree on. And hopefully we'll make some progress.
If you read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, he explains this position much better and I really agree with him.
I personally have not used any grants or loans. My point about them is that they are there and have been there regardless of the party in power. You budgeted, scrimped and cheap-dated your way through college. Because of that your education has value. You fought for it and it wasn't easy.
After BYU your education was paid for by the government, but now you are paying them back. They didn't give you anything. You traded a few years education for a few years of work. That was no handout.
The Obama-Bush tax plan- (by the way, thanks for calling me a raido listening, kool-aid drinking, right winger)
Lets say I make $200,000 this year. I put in 80 hours a week and bust my hump to provide for my family. I will pay income tax based on 36% of my income after deductions. I actually pay taxes and do not get everything back. Joe the plumber makes $50,000 and has 6 kids. He also works hard to support his family. After deductions he will not pay income taxes. Fair? I'm not complaining yet. Mr. Lazy works here and there. Maybe 20 hrs a week and changes jobs frequently. He receives food stamps, unemployment off and on and other government handouts. He could work more but choses not to. He pays no income taxes and receives $3000 - $5000 back every year. He has bling, more than one plasma tv, and more than one kid from more than one woman. I have a problem with that. You may say that that is not the norm. I disagree. I am a general contractor. I see it every day and I live in a small town. Some work just long enough to get unemployment and some don't want to make too much or they will lose their benefits. If they would just work and try to better themselves they could be making really good money. They have to potential to do so. I call that redistributing wealth.
Just like your education, you had to earn it and therefore it has value to you. Those who receive handouts and "work the system" do not value our government because they have not sacrificed to support it. This is one of the reasons I believe that if you don't pay taxes, you should not be able to vote.
Why did Obama win? I believe it is because he promised everyone but the rich a tax cut. Well, most people do not consider themselves rich. He started out saying those who make above $250,000 a year. Then it was lowered to $200,000 a year. Then Biden said under $150,000 a year. I live in a small town and I can count at least 15 "small businesses" that make over $250,000 a year. He was misleading america.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
I didn't attend this ralley but this woman was sure believing strange things after she did. Don't you think?
As far as the bailouts. Like I said, I am a contractor. There are quite a few contractors where I live. Times are tough right now. There is not enough work to go around. Some of them will fail. Others will not. The market will decide who makes it. This is how you separate the wheat from the chaff. The wheat will find a way to survive. It would not be right for the government to step in and ensure that all contractors survive.
I am not an economist, but it seems to me that this whole mess was caused by greed. Banks started making unwise loans (with pressure from congress) to people who would not otherwise qualify. Others started getting getting bigger loans to buy houses they could not afford. The housing market went crazy. The bubble burst. Those who were responsible and did not make unwise loans will survive. I hear about the bonus packages the top people at Freddie and Fannie received and it just makes me angry. They should go to jail, not be bailed out. But that might by my alter ego "talk radio" talking.
Time will tell. I wish Obama success as president. I hope he does not lead us closer to communism. I hope we all prosper but I still don't think prosperity should be given to those who don't earn it.
Brent,
There are some things we disagree on and that we won't be able to change each others mind on; I don't think every government program or intervention is "welfare" "communism" or "wealth redistribution". (Maybe you don't either - I shouldn't assume you do.) The fact that we disagree without being disagreeable is great. In a democracy people are allowed to have different opinions, and we should extend the presumption of good faith to others with different opinions.
However, I think we actually agree on many things as well. You and I (and President-elect Obama) all agree that handouts don't work and that welfare should be reformed to improve accountability. However, the system isn't perfect. Neither is the church welfare system. People abuse this system as well for the generosity our church provides. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to be a generous church or nation. Let's fix the system, and keep helping people out when they are down. I now I have been a recipient, and I know many other good people who have been as well.
And just for the record, I didn't call you a "radio-listening, Kool-Aid drinking, right-winger". I only said you made the same argument that "conservative and libertarian radio personalities like to make" about Obama's tax plan. I'm a recovering "dittohead" myself and still agree with a lot of republican/conservative ideals such as small government, fiscal responsibility, and a strong military to name a few. However, what turned me off was their vitriol, anger, party partisanship, and inability to see both sides of an argument.
I'm glad you wish Obama success as President. I voted for Pres Bush thinking he would be a "uniter not a divider" but was disappointed. I have better hopes for Pres Obama.
The radio comment was my dry sense of humor shining through.
There are a lot of things Bush has done that I am proud of, but there are a few that I am not proud of. When republicans had the chance to shine, they did not. We spent money like it was going out of style instead of actually budgeting.
I am thinking of raising a flag at my house. Remember the old "don't tread on me" flag. That is what I feel like. I feel like telling all politicians to concentrate on preserving freedoms rather than saving everyone. We have more entitlement programs now than we ever have. I agree with you that the system is not perfect but that we do need the system. Everyone talks about welfare/social security reform, but nothing ever happens.
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. In Obama we have a man with great aspirations. He wants prosperity for all. No poor among us and conversely, no lasting wealth either. The ideals are nobel, but I believe flawed. Wasn't it satan (NO I AM NOT SAYING OBAMA IS SATAN) who wanted to save us all. There would be no suffering, no poor? The plan has merits. It offers equality for all. What could be more fair than that? The true plan is for us to have freedom to succeed, freedom to fail and freedom to be average. We should all take care of our brother but we should never be forced to do so. I look forward to the day when the law of consecration can be lived. I don't think anything like it will ever succeed until Christ returns.
You have been blessed to become a doctor and have the potential to earn a great living. What you do with that to better humanity is your burden. I should not be able to come to you and force you to be charitable. You need to do that on your own otherwise it is not charity.
I too enjoy the debate and I am glad it is just that... a debate, not an argument.
i enjoy the debate too. i'm excited to keep reading your blog (and comments) even if politics isn't the topic.
People who actually do their homework are few and far between. I check out things that are said even by the commentators I trust. I firmly believe that church and state should be separate so religion had never had anything to do with my choices in politics. I relished in voting for obama.
Long after the fact, and probably irrelevant too, but I wanted to thank you for this awesome, thoughtful post. It is always encouraging and refreshing to me when I find like-minded Mormons. :)
I wrote a similar post a while ago, although I dare say yours was better ;)
http://momedy.blogspot.com/2008/10/mormon-democrat-why-how.html
Anyway thanks again, and since Nov 4th has come and gone....hooray :)
Heidi,
I just wanted to say I really enjoyed your original post and all of the comments that came after even if I didn’t agree with many of them. I have always known you are very bright and it is good to see you married a smart man. I grew up in slightly left of center Mormon family and I am always amazed and sometimes offended by how some people don’t see how a good member can vote democratic even once. I feel you showed how you can vote for Obama and still be a moral person.
Joe Dairman
Thanks for the kinds words Joe. It's fun to hear from old friends. Email me sometime and let me know what you're up to.
Hey Heidi if you are still reading this, will you email your address to me so i can send a christmas card. I love keeping in touch. erinopfel@yahoo.com
Just wanted to say, "Hi" and wish you a Happy New Year! Congrats on Obama's win as well as your incredibly busy, productive, and eventful 2008. Best wishes with 2009!
Post a Comment