POLL: How Much Time Does America Really Have Left?

[BroJones]

...

I do not think it is going to happen, but it could and our debts would disappear in an instant as America powered back up. Of course it would catch up with us and the crash would be fast and hard....

Never underestimate apathy. This economy won't crash until Wile E Coyote looks down. He's been floating for some time now!

Good points, SwissM.. PS -- do you still think we're in for major DEflation?

[Jason]

Thing is, you wouldn't have to do away with the dole. Just getting rid of the environmental/health and safety legislation/regulation would cause an unprecedented spike in the GDP. Imagine if VW could start cranking out bugs selling for $5000/ea. by making the same 60's bug every year without emissions and airbags etc... Imagine if power plants and smelters and mines could run without the man on his back. I know of at least 3 major proven prospects that even with the sky high pm values aren't even moving due to environmental considerations.

I do not think it is going to happen, but it could and our debts would disappear in an instant as America powered back up. Of course it would catch up with us and the crash would be fast and hard.

But don't confuse any of this with the time it's going to take for "upon my house," "gathering," and "preach my own sermons." From my perspective those 3 are certain and will take some time.

Never underestimate apathy. This economy won't crash until Wile E Coyote looks down. He's been floating for some time now!

The economy is still crashing. May not appear that way in the stock market but the real economy is continuing down the spiral. Again its quite evident in things like gasoline demand (decades low and exporting to Brazil and other countries for the 1st time in 40+ years), wages (late 90's levels), unemployment (decades high and continuing to grow - real numbers which include everybody), decline in tax revenues (decade low), decline in housing values (nearly wiped out the bubble now), etc etc etc

We are in deflation. Look at the decline in total debt since we hit the tipping point in debt saturation in 2008....we are still continuing to decline. Safety nets don't increase credit levels. Housing is 95% of the people's biggest asset. The main leveraging asset (#1 source of borrowing capability for business & pleasure). Housing values are continuing to plummet (7.5% drop this year at the end of Q3)....

Its all about tipping points...we are on track for another big slide within the next couple of months.

[dlbww]

.

[jonesde]

Thing is, you wouldn't have to do away with the dole.

Unless you mean something else by "the dole", then I think we really do need to do away with it in order for the economy to be productive and prosperous.

Prophets warned about involuntary charity from early in church history through the mid-eighties. They called it out as immoral (it is clearly theft), and they warned that it would contribute to the destruction of our society.

If you take a look at major federal budget items the vast majority is "the dole". This includes Medicare/Medicaid ($827B), social security ($725B), Income Security ($405B), and a good portion of military spending (which is corporate and individual welfare, sometimes known as Republican Welfare)... lets say 25% of current military spending would be necessary to defend our country if we moved all US military assets to US territory and focused on actual defense... that leaves $526B as dole. The total of these items is $2,483B which is 69% of the federal budget. Most of the rest is possibly legitimate military spending, and regulatory agencies (which I agree, we also need to get rid of... and that would eliminate TONS of federal spending).

You can't steal massive amounts from those who are productive in society and give it to those who are not and expect the society to remain productive. GDP is an incredibly deceptive measure because it counts all economic activity and not just productive economic activity. It includes government spending and loan interest as the main parts of the economy that are not productive. Those two combined account for 70% of the current USA GDP, meaning only 30% can be called productive. Because of this we have a robust and healthy looking GDP while our standard of living is falling fast.

Remember that corrupted government is all about money. The primary role of a corrupt government is tax collection, everything else is just for public relations purposes. If they could get away with fewer services and collect just as many taxes they would, and they regularly do, and they are talking about doing it more in the name of "austerity".

[dlbww]

.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

You can't steal massive amounts from those who are productive in society and give it to those who are not and expect the society to remain productive.

Actually I disagree. (but my post wasn't by any means a what should happen nor would it be good. It was simply a scenario that I believe could happen)

Look at the oil production taxes paid world-wide by companies doing well despite declining demand as China cools off to match the rest of our cooling off as of late. Their rates are in the neighborhood of 25%. And I have to add that I think extraction taxes are absolutely ethical using John Locke founder's father logic.

Personally I think the government should be funded by that means and by import/export fees that would be added to any item imported that is also made here until such time that domestic supply is exhausted and only then would the tax be lifted until more domestic production came in. It would be set at domestic cost plus 10% or so to encourage domestic quality (if import quality was significantly better people would just shell out a little more for that). And any exports would be heavily taxed until domestic demand was met at which time it would be lifted until the situation again reversed. That would promote self sufficiency as a nation (after the wars that it would spark died down). This is not too far from what our own Reed Smoot sponsored during the Great Depression (Smoot-Hawley Tariff act of 1930). That piece of Legislation doesn't deserve the bad rap it has gotten, it never was given adequate time to work.

I absolutely still believe we see and will see deflation, but I hope more for inflation as it would be much more merciful. In reality things are more complex than that. Most prices that lack any recent speculative element, are pretty static. We have seen "normal" rates of inflation on cars, firearms, durable goods, remote real estate, and a few other indicators. Of course we have allowed speculators to run up marketable commodities of all sorts and they have become more unstable. PM's are volatile driven by fear and not long-term fundamentals. They will crash, but predicting when is like (to judge by today's news) predicting hurricanes. I would guess they will spike before plummeting as they are a crash indicator on both sides (on the way up they express fear and uncertainty in other markets, on the way down they express liquidity issues made acute by financial catastrophe).

In the end the dole is probably an outdated term that fails to encircle the full bloat of 360 degree teet suckling that extends from GE to the low end welfare roles. I have yet to meet the entity not attached to it by several milk lines by way of subsidy, direct payment, political influence/procurement, matching funds, grants, loan guarantees, etc... Heck as much as we hate and curse the federal reserve we all benefit from it's clout dramatically on every import. If we really saw a fair and free global economy/wage arbitrage, we would see an immediate and harsh reality check as our standard of living was halved overnight.

I don't condone it for one second, but I have to be honest about it.

I would have far more hope for the future if I saw us "like minded LDS folk" agreeing on a specific solution that was both just and merciful and fit with prophecy regarding the end of all nations, Christ reigning as King under a global theocracy, under the principles of our founding documents. Until then my hope is vested in the man like Moses who leads this church and whom I sustain as prophet, seer, and revelator.

[Jason]

You can't steal massive amounts from those who are productive in society and give it to those who are not and expect the society to remain productive.

Actually I disagree. Look at the oil production taxes paid world-wide by companies doing well despite declining demand as China cools off to match the rest of our cooling off as of late. Their rates are in the neighborhood of 25%. And I have to add that I think extraction taxes are absolutely ethical using John Locke founder's father logic.

Personally I think the government should be funded by that means and by import/export fees that would be added to any item imported that is also made here until such time that domestic supply is exhausted and only then would the tax be lifted until more domestic production came in. It would be set at domestic cost plus 10% or so to encourage domestic quality (if import quality was significantly better people would just shell out a little more for that). And any exports would be heavily taxed until domestic demand was met at which time it would be lifted until the situation again reversed. That would promote self sufficiency as a nation (after the wars that it would spark died down). This is not too far from what our own Reed Smoot sponsored during the Great Depression (Smoot-Hawley Tariff act of 1930). That piece of Legislation doesn't deserve the bad rap it has gotten, it never was given adequate time to work.

I absolutely still believe we see and will see deflation, but I hope more for inflation as it would be much more merciful. In reality things are more complex than that. Most prices that lack any recent speculative element, are pretty static. We have seen "normal" rates of inflation on cars, firearms, durable goods, remote real estate, and a few other indicators. Of course we have allowed speculators to run up marketable commodities of all sorts and they have become more unstable. PM's are volatile driven by fear and not long-term fundamentals. They will crash, but predicting when is like (to judge by today's news) predicting hurricanes. I would guess they will spike before plummeting as they are a crash indicator on both sides (on the way up they express fear and uncertainty in other markets, on the way down they express liquidity issues made acute by financial catastrophe).

In the end the dole is probably an outdated term that fails to encircle the full bloat of 360 degree teet suckling that extends from GE to the low end welfare roles. I have yet to meet the entity not attached to it by several milk lines by way of subsidy, direct payment, political influence/procurement, matching funds, grants, loan guarantees, etc... Heck as much as we hate and curse the federal reserve we all benefit from it's clout dramatically on every import. If we really saw a fair and free global economy/wage arbitrage, we would see an immediate and harsh reality check as our standard of living was halved overnight.

I don't condone it for one second, but I have to be honest about it.

I would have far more hope for the future if I saw us "like minded LDS folk" agreeing on a specific solution that was both just and merciful and fit with prophecy regarding the end of all nations, Christ reigning as King under a global theocracy, under the principles of our founding documents. Until then my hope is vested in the man like Moses who leads this church and whom I sustain as prophet, seer, and revelator.

Thank you for your comments....seems a most fair/wise perspective to me!!!

[jonesde]

I would have far more hope for the future if I saw us "like minded LDS folk" agreeing on a specific solution that was both just and merciful and fit with prophecy regarding the end of all nations, Christ reigning as King under a global theocracy, under the principles of our founding documents. Until then my hope is vested in the man like Moses who leads this church and whom I sustain as prophet, seer, and revelator.

The problem is there is no such thing as "like minded LDS folk", or like minded any other kind of folk. There are two many different people with too many different preferences and consensus on any but a few small issues is unlikely.

Even on the topic of the dole: the people who are being stolen from and the people who steal from them (or receive the spoils of that theft) will never agree.

BTW, it's one thing to charge a fee for use of public resources. It is quite another to enslave men for a few months each year.

[NoGreaterLove]

The problem is there is no such thing as "like minded LDS folk", or like minded any other kind of folk. There are two many different people with too many different preferences and consensus on any but a few small issues is unlikely.

The saints can not even agree on something as simple as food storage or tithing.

[AGStacker]

SwissMrs&Pitchfire -

Deflation would actually be far worse than the inflation route because the inflation route will lead to hyperinflation. Deflation is essentially the government defaulting on the debt and allowing bad debts to be liquidated. This will be quick yet painful.

Inflating the currency through money printing to pay the bills is much worse and prolongs the depression for many years. Hyperinflation occurred before the rise of Hitler. Read "When Money Dies". It discusses what the Germans went through when the Weimar Republic of Germany inflated their currency. Before inflation, their mark was equivalent to 1/4 US dollar. By the end of the hyperinflation it was about 4 trillions marks per US dollar. Many very interesting stories in the book. One lady sold her silver fork for groceries. Another traded a piano for a bag of wheat. It is also said that a bellhop bought the hotel he worked for, for an ounce gold he received as a tip.

One particular story is of a widow and her small fortune which equaled roughly $200,000 US dollars. She went To Switzerland to be with friends for an extended stay and during the trip broke her hip or leg. When she arrived home she got her mail. The first letter which was written a while ago was from her banker telling her that the mark is in trouble and he thought she should come see him. The second letter written after the first explained that it didn't profit the bank to hold her funds any longer. The third and last letter had enclosed a million dollar mark. She turned over the envelope and discovered that the million mark covered the postage.

Hyperinflation is worse because it requires so much intervention through the central bank and the government. They create price ceilings and floors. This will lead to scarcity because store owners can't afford to sell products for a loss.

Inflation can actually make people rich if they are on the right side of the coin. You can pay off debts relatively easy. Others were known to buy something on credit and pay the bill practically overnight because the currency inflated that fast. We also see how inflation would help those aged 40 and above. These people could have purchased homes when wages were lower. My parents bought a home on an acre lot in Mesa, Arizona with a $600 mortgage. My father's wages rose far greater than his mortgage payment. So inflation works out both ways.

In summary, inflation can wipe out debt and savings.

[Jason]

SwissMrs&Pitchfire -

Deflation would actually be far worse than the inflation route because the inflation route will lead to hyperinflation. Deflation is essentially the government defaulting on the debt and allowing bad debts to be liquidated. This will be quick yet painful.

Inflating the currency through money printing to pay the bills is much worse and prolongs the depression for many years. Hyperinflation occurred before the rise of Hitler. Read "When Money Dies". It discusses what the Germans went through when the Weimar Republic of Germany inflated their currency. Before inflation, their mark was equivalent to 1/4 US dollar. By the end of the hyperinflation it was about 4 trillions marks per US dollar. Many very interesting stories in the book. One lady sold her silver fork for groceries. Another traded a piano for a bag of wheat. It is also said that a bellhop bought the hotel he worked for, for an ounce gold he received as a tip.

One particular story is of a widow and her small fortune which equaled roughly $200,000 US dollars. She went To Switzerland to be with friends for an extended stay and during the trip broke her hip or leg. When she arrived home she got her mail. The first letter which was written a while ago was from her banker telling her that the mark is in trouble and he thought she should come see him. The second letter written after the first explained that it didn't profit the bank to hold her funds any longer. The third and last letter had enclosed a million dollar mark. She turned over the envelope and discovered that the million mark covered the postage.

Hyperinflation is worse because it requires so much intervention through the central bank and the government. They create price ceilings and floors. This will lead to scarcity because store owners can't afford to sell products for a loss.

Inflation can actually make people rich if they are on the right side of the coin. You can pay off debts relatively easy. Others were known to buy something on credit and pay the bill practically overnight because the currency inflated that fast. We also see how inflation would help those aged 40 and above. These people could have purchased homes when wages were lower. My parents bought a home on an acre lot in Mesa, Arizona with a $600 mortgage. My father's wages rose far greater than his mortgage payment. So inflation works out both ways.

In summary, inflation can wipe out debt and savings.

...seems you jump back and forth as to which is worse.

Question is....why would they spend decades upon decades of efforts getting everyone in debt....only to let them off the hook via printing free money???

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Exactly. I think it is telling that Weimar chose the hyper-inflation route (rather than pay their debts, but then they were nationalistic as were their leaders). And if you read the accounts, people still worked, they still bought food and necessities, and life went on.

But in Deflation (Great Depression) people became dispossessed of all their possessions and lost their employment to boot. And they didn't even have massive debts like we do now. If we saw hyper-inflation we would all pay off our debts and in a sense the money changers would be paying for all of our excesses and letting us all off the hook for decades of extravagance. First off that just isn't their agenda, and secondly it would take away their power, not consolidate it. We're in a debt crisis, not a money crises.

As to consensus I disagree.

I can't tell you how many people I have known on WIC that vote and rail "against it" (vote for people that oppose it and like programs and actively participate in public forums and campaigns and even run for office etc...) and it's like. Heck I know of many on here that have applied or received their fair share of these horrible programs (not to mention all the hidden subsidies) and yet we are universally against these programs as presently constituted.

It is a very cynical view of human nature that says things like "people will never vote away a subsidy they receive" as is Mao Tse Tung's "everything government does it does at the barrel of a gun." I just don't believe either is true.

In my experience (as the Declaration of Independence relates) "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." We can and do unite around truth when it's clear and I know that is what the future holds for us (I just don't see it happening yet). Right now the water is cloudy almost muddy as the salient truths aren't so clear as to be beyond our constant debates. But I would point to a great many consensus understandings that almost the whole group of posters on this forum have arrived to together at various times as proof that we will rally around the standard of truth when we can see it.

Government doesn't literally hold a gun to anyone's head, nor rob anybody directly. Neither does the church. I would point out that anybody that really believes LDS doctrine knows that the consequences of disobedience are more real, harsh and long-lasting than anything government threatens. So is this statements even more true of the church (which is just a government in all reality)? Everything that God does He does with a lightning bolt and ray beam to hell at our heads? I don't think so for a number of reasons.

But to develop the topic a little further (welfare). Has God not asked us to care for the poor, the needy, the sick, the afflicted? And when God granted us unprecedented prosperity as a globe and more so a nation, via inspiration and the industrial revolution, when He did this for us did we then care for the poor, needy, sick, afflicted, widows and orphans? Is that what history records? Or does it reflect the sentiments of the much beloved Dicken's "A Christmas Carol?" And Jack London's "Why I became a socialist?" (a good read for those not afraid of a title). And is it too hard to believe that we are under condemnation for not caring for them willingly by our own free will and choice? Is such not fitting with gospel principles? Should we not expect consequence of failure? Don't you think that when we fail the poor that God then "forces our hand." That is "the poor are exalted in that the rich are made low?" Are we not saddled with more laws, performances, ordinances and the like when we fail to perform the higher essential ones? (certainly the Law of Moses illustrates this point wonderfully well)

Of course we all believe that we have an obligation to use the talents entrusted to us for their rightful purposes as articulated by the God of heaven. And we all know they will be taken from us (they are not inheritances after all) if we fail to enlarge them. Yes our nations welfare is sick and wrong, inefficient and manipulated by false ideals and satanic values. No it isn't the best system, but shall we grind on the faces of the poor? Shall we point at the guy we know is wrong and say as King Benjamin warned in Mosiah 4:16-30 "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 the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."

That's what happens when we cling to justice/equity instead of mercy and the fairness that only God may safely judge knowing the full measure of all men. We deny the very mercy we are so reliant for salvation upon seeing that we none of us warrant salvation.

How merciful it is that we may part with worldy things and thereby obtain an eternal reward of spiritual things. Christ meant what he said about turning the other cheek and giving coat and cloak. Only therein are we truly on the safe road.

In reality when we grind on the faces of the poor or scowl at them or judge them in our hearts let's first do the math. 1 penny times 90 million (the number of tax paying tax returns filed in 2008) = $900,000. So in reality the guy you just wasted your mood on owes you less than a penny...and if you asked I bet he'd give it back just to be your friend!

[jonesde]

Exactly. I think it is telling that Weimar chose the hyper-inflation route (rather than pay their debts, but then they were nationalistic as were their leaders). And if you read the accounts, people still worked, they still bought food and necessities, and life went on.

But in Deflation (Great Depression) people became dispossessed of all their possessions and lost their employment to boot. And they didn't even have massive debts like we do now. If we saw hyper-inflation we would all pay off our debts and in a sense the money changers would be paying for all of our excesses and letting us all off the hook for decades of extravagance. First off that just isn't their agenda, and secondly it would take away their power, not consolidate it. We're in a debt crisis, not a money crises.

As to consensus I disagree.

I can't tell you how many people I have known on WIC that vote and rail "against it" (vote for people that oppose it and like programs and actively participate in public forums and campaigns and even run for office etc...) and it's like. Heck I know of many on here that have applied or received their fair share of these horrible programs (not to mention all the hidden subsidies) and yet we are universally against these programs as presently constituted.

It is a very cynical view of human nature that says things like "people will never vote away a subsidy they receive" as is Mao Tse Tung's "everything government does it does at the barrel of a gun." I just don't believe either is true.

In my experience (as the Declaration of Independence relates) "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." We can and do unite around truth when it's clear and I know that is what the future holds for us (I just don't see it happening yet). Right now the water is cloudy almost muddy as the salient truths aren't so clear as to be beyond our constant debates. But I would point to a great many consensus understandings that almost the whole group of posters on this forum have arrived to together at various times as proof that we will rally around the standard of truth when we can see it.

Government doesn't literally hold a gun to anyone's head, nor rob anybody directly. Neither does the church. I would point out that anybody that really believes LDS doctrine knows that the consequences of disobedience are more real, harsh and long-lasting than anything government threatens. So is this statements even more true of the church (which is just a government in all reality)? Everything that God does He does with a lightning bolt and ray beam to hell at our heads? I don't think so for a number of reasons.

But to develop the topic a little further (welfare). Has God not asked us to care for the poor, the needy, the sick, the afflicted? And when God granted us unprecedented prosperity as a globe and more so a nation, via inspiration and the industrial revolution, when He did this for us did we then care for the poor, needy, sick, afflicted, widows and orphans? Is that what history records? Or does it reflect the sentiments of the much beloved Dicken's "A Christmas Carol?" And Jack London's "Why I became a socialist?" (a good read for those not afraid of a title). And is it too hard to believe that we are under condemnation for not caring for them willingly by our own free will and choice? Is such not fitting with gospel principles? Should we not expect consequence of failure? Don't you think that when we fail the poor that God then "forces our hand." That is "the poor are exalted in that the rich are made low?" Are we not saddled with more laws, performances, ordinances and the like when we fail to perform the higher essential ones? (certainly the Law of Moses illustrates this point wonderfully well)

Of course we all believe that we have an obligation to use the talents entrusted to us for their rightful purposes as articulated by the God of heaven. And we all know they will be taken from us (they are not inheritances after all) if we fail to enlarge them. Yes our nations welfare is sick and wrong, inefficient and manipulated by false ideals and satanic values. No it isn't the best system, but shall we grind on the faces of the poor? Shall we point at the guy we know is wrong and say as King Benjamin warned in Mosiah 4:16-30 "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 the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."

That's what happens when we cling to justice/equity instead of mercy and the fairness that only God may safely judge knowing the full measure of all men. We deny the very mercy we are so reliant for salvation upon seeing that we none of us warrant salvation.

How merciful it is that we may part with worldy things and thereby obtain an eternal reward of spiritual things. Christ meant what he said about turning the other cheek and giving coat and cloak. Only therein are we truly on the safe road.

In reality when we grind on the faces of the poor or scowl at them or judge them in our hearts let's first do the math. 1 penny times 90 million (the number of tax paying tax returns filed in 2008) = $900,000. So in reality the guy you just wasted your mood on owes you less than a penny...and if you asked I bet he'd give it back just to be your friend!

Let me see if I'm understanding correctly:

1. you believe the lies of some people in government that what they do is not violent and is not backed by violence

2. you are a socialist and believe that redistribution of wealth involuntarily is a good thing, and at the same time believe that those who are on the dole support ending those programs

3. national social programs are the work of God on earth

Sorry, we'll never agree. It is my opinion that these social programs are the very wickedness that will lead to Gods condemnation and destruction of this nation.

Yes, your opinions and lifestyle bother me, so I might as well say what I've wanted to: Carry on living on the dole instead of producing, and I'll stop wasting my time trying to convince you. When you get around to earning your keep and participating in the productive side of the economy, maybe then we can talk.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

See, I think that when we do as we should, that God fights our battles for us (or directs us to see the desired end). That doesn't mean just swords and guns on the filed of mortal combat, that means all our battles. If we do as we should we will be delivered. Had we done as we should we would have been delivered. But we are under condemnation as a nation, as states, as individuals.

In reality the same people that hate welfare now would have hated gleaners under the law of Moses and will hate "shirkers" that receive from the storehouse under the law of consecration. It's an issue of judgement far more often than a directed critique of the specifics of our current system.

In the end we yield to God's law and those that stay their hand will lose what they had. When government acts this out are they taking a role never given them or acting out the delegated role of government in an imperfect way that we do not like (for a good many very good reasons). God clearly delegated this role to the children of Israel in a secular governmental capacity (though the lines between church and state were non-existent then and there). If you failed to impart of your substance to the poor you were punished severely. The only reason not to impart of our substance is that we don't think they deserve it. In the end Christ told us what to do about that, as did King Benjamin, as did...

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

1. you believe the lies of some people in government that what they do is not violent and is not backed by violence

I believe in the literal interpretation provided by reality. CHH isn't in jail nor dead, the gun to his head was impotent. Only a violent government like Mao's fit's Mao's description. One that is based upon christian ideals does not. I leave it to your judgement which you think we are.

2. you are a socialist and believe that redistribution of wealth involuntarily is a good thing, and at the same time believe that those who are on the dole support ending those programs

Personally I am not afraid of labels nor the truth. If socialism is what I have described then I claim it with zeal. But I would then point out that Christ was the perfect socialist by that definition. And by the way you are on the dole more than you let on! Do the math and figure it out for yourself.

3. national social programs are the work of God on earth

Nope, but they just may be within the authority delegated to them by God inasmuch as they follow His guidance He has given for their administration (ours clearly do not).

As to the burr under your saddle it's yours and not mine and I wont tell you how to remove it. I would however suggest that you are too dependent on labels and not allowing free and independent thought based upon scripture and doctrine and that then sets up conflicts that make things personal and aggravating for you and consequently it is difficult for you to be at peace when your perception is that you are being slighted and your habit is to seek justice and not react in mercy.

[Fairminded]

Exactly. I think it is telling that Weimar chose the hyper-inflation route (rather than pay their debts, but then they were nationalistic as were their leaders). And if you read the accounts, people still worked, they still bought food and necessities, and life went on.

But in Deflation (Great Depression) people became dispossessed of all their possessions and lost their employment to boot. And they didn't even have massive debts like we do now. If we saw hyper-inflation we would all pay off our debts and in a sense the money changers would be paying for all of our excesses and letting us all off the hook for decades of extravagance. First off that just isn't their agenda, and secondly it would take away their power, not consolidate it. We're in a debt crisis, not a money crises.

As to consensus I disagree.

I can't tell you how many people I have known on WIC that vote and rail "against it" (vote for people that oppose it and like programs and actively participate in public forums and campaigns and even run for office etc...) and it's like. Heck I know of many on here that have applied or received their fair share of these horrible programs (not to mention all the hidden subsidies) and yet we are universally against these programs as presently constituted.

It is a very cynical view of human nature that says things like "people will never vote away a subsidy they receive" as is Mao Tse Tung's "everything government does it does at the barrel of a gun." I just don't believe either is true.

In my experience (as the Declaration of Independence relates) "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." We can and do unite around truth when it's clear and I know that is what the future holds for us (I just don't see it happening yet). Right now the water is cloudy almost muddy as the salient truths aren't so clear as to be beyond our constant debates. But I would point to a great many consensus understandings that almost the whole group of posters on this forum have arrived to together at various times as proof that we will rally around the standard of truth when we can see it.

Government doesn't literally hold a gun to anyone's head, nor rob anybody directly. Neither does the church. I would point out that anybody that really believes LDS doctrine knows that the consequences of disobedience are more real, harsh and long-lasting than anything government threatens. So is this statements even more true of the church (which is just a government in all reality)? Everything that God does He does with a lightning bolt and ray beam to hell at our heads? I don't think so for a number of reasons.

But to develop the topic a little further (welfare). Has God not asked us to care for the poor, the needy, the sick, the afflicted? And when God granted us unprecedented prosperity as a globe and more so a nation, via inspiration and the industrial revolution, when He did this for us did we then care for the poor, needy, sick, afflicted, widows and orphans? Is that what history records? Or does it reflect the sentiments of the much beloved Dicken's "A Christmas Carol?" And Jack London's "Why I became a socialist?" (a good read for those not afraid of a title). And is it too hard to believe that we are under condemnation for not caring for them willingly by our own free will and choice? Is such not fitting with gospel principles? Should we not expect consequence of failure? Don't you think that when we fail the poor that God then "forces our hand." That is "the poor are exalted in that the rich are made low?" Are we not saddled with more laws, performances, ordinances and the like when we fail to perform the higher essential ones? (certainly the Law of Moses illustrates this point wonderfully well)

Of course we all believe that we have an obligation to use the talents entrusted to us for their rightful purposes as articulated by the God of heaven. And we all know they will be taken from us (they are not inheritances after all) if we fail to enlarge them. Yes our nations welfare is sick and wrong, inefficient and manipulated by false ideals and satanic values. No it isn't the best system, but shall we grind on the faces of the poor? Shall we point at the guy we know is wrong and say as King Benjamin warned in Mosiah 4:16-30 "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 the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."

That's what happens when we cling to justice/equity instead of mercy and the fairness that only God may safely judge knowing the full measure of all men. We deny the very mercy we are so reliant for salvation upon seeing that we none of us warrant salvation.

How merciful it is that we may part with worldy things and thereby obtain an eternal reward of spiritual things. Christ meant what he said about turning the other cheek and giving coat and cloak. Only therein are we truly on the safe road.

In reality when we grind on the faces of the poor or scowl at them or judge them in our hearts let's first do the math. 1 penny times 90 million (the number of tax paying tax returns filed in 2008) = $900,000. So in reality the guy you just wasted your mood on owes you less than a penny...and if you asked I bet he'd give it back just to be your friend!

You're making the false assumption that government welfare helps the poor. Like with any other government program, there's massive overhead and most of the money goes to the bureaucrats who run the program. At the same time you get generations of people on welfare who never bother to start working at all, only continue suckling on the government teat like their parents did.

So let's clarify what you're saying. You're saying that it's moral for the government to forcibly tax a hardworking person of a large percentage of his earnings, then spend that money on programs that don't directly benefit the person they're taxing, programs that are vastly inefficient and corrupt at doing the task they're assigned to do, and this is all moral and smiled upon by God because it's helping the poor?

Sounds to me like the viewpoint of someone who's benefiting from welfare and doesn't want it to stop. Which means you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Remember, Jesus himself said that a gift given grudgingly will be considered to never have been given. How much more so for charity given forcibly to enrich evil men?

[jonesde]

See, I think that when we do as we should, that God fights our battles for us (or directs us to see the desired end). That doesn't mean just swords and guns on the filed of mortal combat, that means all our battles. If we do as we should we will be delivered. Had we done as we should we would have been delivered. But we are under condemnation as a nation, as states, as individuals.

In reality the same people that hate welfare now would have hated gleaners under the law of Moses and will hate "shirkers" that receive from the storehouse under the law of consecration. It's an issue of judgement far more often than a directed critique of the specifics of our current system.

In the end we yield to God's law and those that stay their hand will lose what they had. When government acts this out are they taking a role never given them or acting out the delegated role of government in an imperfect way that we do not like (for a good many very good reasons). God clearly delegated this role to the children of Israel in a secular governmental capacity (though the lines between church and state were non-existent then and there). If you failed to impart of your substance to the poor you were punished severely. The only reason not to impart of our substance is that we don't think they deserve it. In the end Christ told us what to do about that, as did King Benjamin, as did...

You are using words and ideas that I did not use to attack my position. This is called a straw man argument as you are attacking a "straw man" and you claim I represent. You are either intentionally lying to manipulate others, or you do not understand these principles.

I have said nothing about witholding charity. In fact, I said quite the opposite a few posts ago when I wrote about how our current system deprives us of the aspects of giving and receiving charity that build Christ-like qualities in both the giver and the receiver.

It is the system of violent (involuntary) redistribution of wealth that I have a problem with. To equate our current governmental welfare system to the Church welfare system (or charity under the Law of Moses) is to misunderstand the difference between voluntary and compulsory charity, and just how important that different is.

In a compulsory system there is the immorality of violence and theft. A compulsory system builds animosity on one side and feelings of entitlement on the other. A compulsory system robs those involved on BOTH side of charity to build Christ-like attributes of humility, gratitude, and love for God and for their fellow man. It is the total corruption of one of the greatest principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Maybe you also misunderstand my personal position. I am in need of charity, and not in a position to give, and yet no charity is available to me. Because I reinvested so much of my earnings into a consulting business and renovating an apartment building just before the crash in 2007, and because the partners I had in each endeavor considered the legal entities to be more important than the people involved, by the end of 2008 I found myself with mountains of personal debt.

I currently live on less than $20k per year, but have to earn over $100k per year to stay on top of my obligations. To do that I have to work long hours when work is available (I'm lucky to have some time off right now after a very busy 6 months), and even long hours when no paying work is available to increase my chances of getting better and higher paying work (I write free/open-source software when no paying work is available). And yet, I don't have enough money to adequately care for my wife, so she is working too. I have child support payments from a previous marriage, but can't afford fertility treatments and other health care expenses that would be necessary to have more children.

Because of my income I don't qualify for ANY government welfare, not food stamps or health care assistance or anything, and yet I can barely afford a lower middle class lifestyle. If my wife had any complications to her pregnancy there would be no help, and I would simply be enslaved for a certain period of time by the debt I would incur because of it. So, we aren't planning on having kids for a while. What's possibly worse is that I don't get to spend much time with the son I already have. It is both expensive and time consuming to visit him, and I have to incur all of the costs because my ex-wife does not want to make it easy for me to visit him, in any way.

So yes, I have problems with the current system. I am forced to fund it, and can receive no benefits from it. If I didn't have to pay so much in taxes I'd more than double the money I have available for living expenses and could much more quickly pay down debts and get back to a reasonable financial position.

Because of this situation I've spent a bit more time reading and understanding just what is up with our current economy and government. I'm now ASHAMED to pay taxes because they are used for so much evil and to hurt so many people, including murder and theft all around the world.

Our system is designed to enslave the most capable so that those entitled few in government can avoid work. Sure, they'll hand out benefits to anyone who will sign up because it justifies more theft and a bigger cut for them personally. Receiving welfare removes the motivation to work for many who could greatly benefit society. It also reduces the ability to build means of production and train people for those who produce at high levels and could lead organizations and industries. It is the cause of our economic woes and slowly (for now) declining standard of living.

Yes, government is the characterized by the use of force. One of the foundational principles of government is that to counter aggressive force the use of force is needed, and in order to best protect and preserve a society that force should be governed for proper use. When force is needed it is better to do it by authorization of the populace than it is to have people independently or in small groups using force however they see fit.

However, if you use government for things other than countering aggressive force you are now the attacker and not the defender.

If you don't believe that government operates by force, just stop giving them money and you'll see behind the curtain pretty soon. Stop paying income taxes (if that applies to you). Stop paying property taxes (and get ready to move out... they'll give you time, in most cases around 3 years, but then men with guns will show up to remove you from the property and if you don't comply they will pepper spray, taze, or beat you; if you resist violently, they will kill you). Stop paying vehicle licensing and registration fees. Try refusing to pay sales tax (you'd have to buy only from individuals). Try refusing to pay passport fees. If you get a traffic or parking ticket, try refusing to pay it. Try refusing to pay court fees and fines and see how the judge reacts.

In every case if you don't comply violence will be used against use. That is why I say that government's only real tool is violence, even though it most uses the threat of violence to get people to behave in certain ways. I'm not the only one to say it, and neither is Mao. Thomas Jefferson talked about it, and so have many presidents even through Obama who candidly stated that government is a monopoly on violence.

Enough of this (and sorry for rambling so long)... I'm heading out for a motorcycle ride... since I can't afford a car (other than the one I leave in Utah and use for preparedness projects and family events, and even that is just an 18 year old basic SUV). Oh well, for errands and occasional breaks in the mountains (or desert this time of year) I'd rather have a bike anyway... they are more fun to ride and way easier to maintain... this 6 year old Kawasaki still runs almost like new and changing the oil and stuff is super easy to do.

[jonesde]

...seems you jump back and forth as to which is worse.

Question is....why would they spend decades upon decades of efforts getting everyone in debt....only to let them off the hook via printing free money???

Very generally (since it's not really this simple): deflation is good for those who hold cash, and inflation is good for those who hold physical assets. If you know the timing and move around the right assets at the right times, both deflation and inflation of both prices and money supply can multiply your wealth.

Those who influence (or perhaps control) the economy gain real assets and services from other people through both deflation and inflation. To them, as long as they know what is coming, one is as good as the other. The only circumstance they can't manipulate is the lack of currency, ie a market with naturally emerging trade media.

Inflation can lead to loss of actual assets and labor too. Generally with monetary inflation prices and general living expenses go up before wages do, and in that lag time people can fall behind on loan payments and lose assets that are loan collateral.

Inflation is also BEAUTIFUL for those closest to the increased money supply (ie banks, govt, investment firms, etc). Because the money is devaluing so fast people try to spend their money while it is worth something. That means investment in business is extremely unlikely to come from private savings and instead will come from the banks, govt, and investment firms and others who are close to the new money and have access to it first (and least expensively too). That means that the directions of industry and control over labor is in their hands and they can manipulate the economy and much of what people do with their time and much of the products available to them.

If you want to control the world, inflation is a GREAT tool.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I honestly wonder why people take other peoples words and twist them so much?

You're making the false assumption that government welfare helps the poor. Like with any other government program, there's massive overhead and most of the money goes to the bureaucrats who run the program. At the same time you get generations of people on welfare who never bother to start working at all, only continue suckling on the government teat like their parents did.

I know what poverty looks like in the U.S. and I know what it looks like in the 3rd world. Helps the poor is a blanket statement. When the church enters a home the very first thing it does is makes sure the basic needs are met. That is foremost because it matters most. The programs aren't efficient but they do help many poor. An entitlement mentality isn't exclusive to the poor by the way it goes all the way up and has nothing to do with money.

So let's clarify what you're saying. You're saying that it's moral for the government to forcibly tax a hardworking person of a large percentage of his earnings, then spend that money on programs that don't directly benefit the person they're taxing, programs that are vastly inefficient and corrupt at doing the task they're assigned to do, and this is all moral and smiled upon by God because it's helping the poor?

Clarify? You mean skim read and falsely summarize (straw man)? The church has been quite outspoken defending the right of governments to tax it's citizens. The devil is in the details. The church is a government and it does the same thing, it just does it differently and uses force differently (by way of eternal threat and restrictive access to fundamental ordinances). It does so in complete righteousness inasmuch as it follows the guidelines laid out by God.

Sounds to me like the viewpoint of someone who's benefiting from welfare and doesn't want it to stop. Which means you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Yeah it's great, you should try it. People are so nice to you and if you've read the other thread you'll see the overt glamor of never taking a vacation, not owning a car and walking everywhere, living completely second hand...Seriously you don't know what your missing. Everyone should just quit work and live it up. It's like a party every day. That's why we lived in a tent in standing water for months with the wife 8 months pregnant and having hard contractions, because we didn't want people to see what a good thing we had going on and horn in on the fun! Not because we actively try anything and everything to be self sufficient to incomprehensible extremes.

Remember, Jesus himself said that a gift given grudgingly will be considered to never have been given. How much more so for charity given forcibly to enrich evil men?

Good logic, I guess you should just stay your hand then and see how that works out for you. Of course Jonah went to Ninevah begrudgingly and was saved/spared and a great many others. There is a difference between justice and mercy. Justice pays you back whether you do it begrudgingly or not, mercy looks at the heart. Seriously though the answer is to give willingly with love and not animosity.

[Still Learning]

Exactly. I think it is telling that Weimar chose the hyper-inflation route (rather than pay their debts, but then they were nationalistic as were their leaders). And if you read the accounts, people still worked, they still bought food and necessities, and life went on.

But in Deflation (Great Depression) people became dispossessed of all their possessions and lost their employment to boot. And they didn't even have massive debts like we do now. If we saw hyper-inflation we would all pay off our debts and in a sense the money changers would be paying for all of our excesses and letting us all off the hook for decades of extravagance. First off that just isn't their agenda, and secondly it would take away their power, not consolidate it. We're in a debt crisis, not a money crises.

As to consensus I disagree.

I can't tell you how many people I have known on WIC that vote and rail "against it" (vote for people that oppose it and like programs and actively participate in public forums and campaigns and even run for office etc...) and it's like. Heck I know of many on here that have applied or received their fair share of these horrible programs (not to mention all the hidden subsidies) and yet we are universally against these programs as presently constituted.

It is a very cynical view of human nature that says things like "people will never vote away a subsidy they receive" as is Mao Tse Tung's "everything government does it does at the barrel of a gun." I just don't believe either is true.

In my experience (as the Declaration of Independence relates) "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." We can and do unite around truth when it's clear and I know that is what the future holds for us (I just don't see it happening yet). Right now the water is cloudy almost muddy as the salient truths aren't so clear as to be beyond our constant debates. But I would point to a great many consensus understandings that almost the whole group of posters on this forum have arrived to together at various times as proof that we will rally around the standard of truth when we can see it.

Government doesn't literally hold a gun to anyone's head, nor rob anybody directly. Neither does the church. I would point out that anybody that really believes LDS doctrine knows that the consequences of disobedience are more real, harsh and long-lasting than anything government threatens. So is this statements even more true of the church (which is just a government in all reality)? Everything that God does He does with a lightning bolt and ray beam to hell at our heads? I don't think so for a number of reasons.

But to develop the topic a little further (welfare). Has God not asked us to care for the poor, the needy, the sick, the afflicted? And when God granted us unprecedented prosperity as a globe and more so a nation, via inspiration and the industrial revolution, when He did this for us did we then care for the poor, needy, sick, afflicted, widows and orphans? Is that what history records? Or does it reflect the sentiments of the much beloved Dicken's "A Christmas Carol?" And Jack London's "Why I became a socialist?" (a good read for those not afraid of a title). And is it too hard to believe that we are under condemnation for not caring for them willingly by our own free will and choice? Is such not fitting with gospel principles? Should we not expect consequence of failure? Don't you think that when we fail the poor that God then "forces our hand." That is "the poor are exalted in that the rich are made low?" Are we not saddled with more laws, performances, ordinances and the like when we fail to perform the higher essential ones? (certainly the Law of Moses illustrates this point wonderfully well)

Of course we all believe that we have an obligation to use the talents entrusted to us for their rightful purposes as articulated by the God of heaven. And we all know they will be taken from us (they are not inheritances after all) if we fail to enlarge them. Yes our nations welfare is sick and wrong, inefficient and manipulated by false ideals and satanic values. No it isn't the best system, but shall we grind on the faces of the poor? Shall we point at the guy we know is wrong and say as King Benjamin warned in Mosiah 4:16-30 "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 the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."

That's what happens when we cling to justice/equity instead of mercy and the fairness that only God may safely judge knowing the full measure of all men. We deny the very mercy we are so reliant for salvation upon seeing that we none of us warrant salvation.

How merciful it is that we may part with worldy things and thereby obtain an eternal reward of spiritual things. Christ meant what he said about turning the other cheek and giving coat and cloak. Only therein are we truly on the safe road.

In reality when we grind on the faces of the poor or scowl at them or judge them in our hearts let's first do the math. 1 penny times 90 million (the number of tax paying tax returns filed in 2008) = $900,000. So in reality the guy you just wasted your mood on owes you less than a penny...and if you asked I bet he'd give it back just to be your friend!

You're making the false assumption that government welfare helps the poor. Like with any other government program, there's massive overhead and most of the money goes to the bureaucrats who run the program. At the same time you get generations of people on welfare who never bother to start working at all, only continue suckling on the government teat like their parents did.

So let's clarify what you're saying. You're saying that it's moral for the government to forcibly tax a hardworking person of a large percentage of his earnings, then spend that money on programs that don't directly benefit the person they're taxing, programs that are vastly inefficient and corrupt at doing the task they're assigned to do, and this is all moral and smiled upon by God because it's helping the poor?

Sounds to me like the viewpoint of someone who's benefiting from welfare and doesn't want it to stop. Which means you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Remember, Jesus himself said that a gift given grudgingly will be considered to never have been given. How much more so for charity given forcibly to enrich evil men?

Without getting entailed in your argument, I wanted to comment. I understand both sides...I think. Just a thought on what Fairminded said about "grudgingly" giving. Doesn't grudgingly giving fall under satan's plan? i.e. being compelled to do something...taking away free agency? Not only that, but I am certain there is deeper meaning and more control by satan than we give him credit for. For example, when I see a poor man on the corner holding a sign "starving. will work for food" or something along those lines, it gives me, an individual, the opportunity to feel the spirit and follow that prompting and give to the needy man (the needy man's intentions should not be in my mind, as King Benjamin so well illustrated because the spirit will still permeate my being...the spirit comes of the deed not the situation). When I CHOOSE to give to the needy, I not only follow the prompting, but I am also rewarded with the warm spirit afterward, which strengthens me and my testimony. Satan in essence gains more power to deny me that opportunity by taking from methe opportunity to feel the spirit that I otherwise would have felt in choosing to give to the needy man. I believe that each time we feel the spirit we grow. Therefore, he impedes our spiritual growth and further alienates man from God. To put it plainly, satan has just carefully prevented charity from entering my heart. You can see that satan has now used the government to withold the true love of Christ from our society. Not only in that situation, but due to my forced giving to the needy through governemnt programs, I fill up with resentful feelings (yes, I'm admitting to that at times) toward the takers. And from there I am even less willing to give to the poor. Or I can rationalize and say to myself, I pay taxes or support them already...or there are programs out there to help that man, etc. Now the damage is great indeed. The spiritual growth was replaced by ill feelings or at best just denied because I was compelled to give...grudgingly!

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Genuinely sorry to hear about you situation, but you make all my points for me. I do not support the system at all and I think my posts if actually read reflect that rather well. I do however believe that there is a role for government to play in assuring that the "least of these" are cared for and that role should be filled by government (of, by, and for the people), but it should be done righteously. Our system is completely corrupt and everyone is on the dole yes even CHH as I have pointed out to him (I single him out because he has a thick skin and exactly because he defines what most of us mean when we describe independence so it is by way of complement and not condemnation).

I won't address most of your points because I'm not interested in your specifics as this isn't about them (nor should it be about mine) here.

The churches system isn't entirely voluntary as I have pointed out. If you really believe the doctrine then the threats are far more real and present and weighty to non-conformance. Nobody can force you to give begrudgingly even if they had the figurative gun to your head. Resent the heck out of the gun if you want and you should, but then do you resent the threat of having a temple recommend revoked or losing your place in the Celestial kingdom as it is being held over your head and is infinitely more sure than the figurative gun will ever be.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Do you feel robbed when you pay fast offerings? Of the opportunity to individually assist and feel of the spirit of giving? Why can you not feel the same way about paying taxes (especially when such a large percentage goes for just that)?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Satan has no power to rob us of the Spirit of anything. If he has done so then we must look to ourselves and not any external forces.

[Jason]

...seems you jump back and forth as to which is worse.

Question is....why would they spend decades upon decades of efforts getting everyone in debt....only to let them off the hook via printing free money???

Very generally (since it's not really this simple): deflation is good for those who hold cash, and inflation is good for those who hold physical assets. If you know the timing and move around the right assets at the right times, both deflation and inflation of both prices and money supply can multiply your wealth.

Those who influence (or perhaps control) the economy gain real assets and services from other people through both deflation and inflation. To them, as long as they know what is coming, one is as good as the other. The only circumstance they can't manipulate is the lack of currency, ie a market with naturally emerging trade media.

Inflation can lead to loss of actual assets and labor too. Generally with monetary inflation prices and general living expenses go up before wages do, and in that lag time people can fall behind on loan payments and lose assets that are loan collateral.

Inflation is also BEAUTIFUL for those closest to the increased money supply (ie banks, govt, investment firms, etc). Because the money is devaluing so fast people try to spend their money while it is worth something. That means investment in business is extremely unlikely to come from private savings and instead will come from the banks, govt, and investment firms and others who are close to the new money and have access to it first (and least expensively too). That means that the directions of industry and control over labor is in their hands and they can manipulate the economy and much of what people do with their time and much of the products available to them.

If you want to control the world, inflation is a GREAT tool.

LOL....as you first state....they are both GREAT tools.

Deflation leads to a gain of actual assets (default on debt - loss of assets) and cheaper labor....as well as providing a new starting point for the next inflationary round.

Deflation is also BEAUTIFUL for those with power over the printing press because they now add a power multiplication factor to that printing press since everyone is clamoring for money (hard to come by).

Inflation on the other hand lessens the debt obligation as well as sparing the assets for those in debt (prolonging default). The problem with inflation is if it gets out of hand (psychology of the people in the perception of money's purchasing power) it becomes almost impossible to stop that freight train -

Because the money is devaluing so fast people try to spend their money while it is worth something.

...from going off the edge of the cliff and destroying the power of the printing press in the process. That said, good ol' Paul Volcker did demonstrate that it is possible to stop that train although it was a close call.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

- Thomas Jefferson

Our current problem is we are saturated in debt....and debt is the primary means of creating new money. Additional debt only hastens the default and cannot possibly solve the core problem (mathematically impossible to borrow your way out of debt). Thus we either must have "free" (non-debt bearing) money issued in sufficient quantities to maintain or expand the money supply...

OR

...we must have debt forgiveness on a broad scale to release the masses from their debt obligations such that they can start over again to take on new debt obligations (create more money via debt).

There is no other way.

Now you might at this point believe that the government can save the day by borrowing....but this also is impossible as every dollar borrowed by the government still comes with an obligation via the people....which ultimately means every dollar borrowed by the government only robs a dollar (or more with interest and plenty of middlemen hands) from the private side. We see evidence of this from 2008 to the present in which the government borrowed over roughly $3 trillion but the total debt collapsed by over $2 trillion meaning the private side took a loss of over $5 trillion.

As I've stated numerous times before....we are in deflation. I also think a massive deflationary spiral will be our endpoint. I will change my opinion when I see evidence of vast amounts of debt-free money being given to the masses.....or vast scale of debt forgiveness (releasing people from debt obligations while letting them keep ownership of their productive assets).

[Still Learning]

Satan has no power to rob us of the Spirit of anything. If he has done so then we must look to ourselves and not any external forces.

It is true that we must give him the power. But my point was that he uses government to do so...and very successfully.