Well its Started, The C word has entered the Presidential

[_honorentheos]

In contrast, consider this answer by Huntsman on a different question also related to how his administration would differ from the Obama White House -

Governor Huntsman, in Utah, you offered millions of dollars in tax credits to promote clean energy. In June you said that as president you would subsidize natural gas companies. How is that different from the Obama administration, which gave the solar panel company Solyndra a half-a-billion dollars in federal loan guarantees, and as we all know, that company ended up bankrupt, and we taxpayers ended up on the hook?

FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN, R-UTAH: Chris, first of all, it's an honor to be here in Orlando, home of my wife, the greatest human being I've known in 28 years.

We've learned some important lessons as this economy has spun out of control. We have some hard decisions to make. And we're not going to fix the problem. We're not going to be able to bring our people together in America until we fix the economy.

I'm convinced that part of the divide that we're experiencing in the United States, which is unprecedented, it's unnatural, and it's un-American, is because we're divided economically, too few jobs, too few opportunities.

We have learned that subsidies don't work and that we can no longer afford them. I believe that we can move toward renewable energy, but we're going to have to have a bridge product. Everybody wants to draw from the sun and draw from the wind, and I'm here to tell you that eventually that will make sense, but today the economics don't work.

We need something like natural gas. I've put forward an energy independence program, along with tax reform and regulatory reform. Just by drawing from natural gas, for example, you're looking at 500,000 to 1 million jobs over the next five years. It is ours, it's affordable, it has important national security implications, and we should begin the conversion process.

WALLACE: But just a 30-second follow-up, sir. In June, you told the New Hampshire Union Leader as president you would subsidies the natural gas industry.

HUNTSMAN: I would be willing to begin an effort, so long as there was a rapid phase-out. I do not like subsidies. I do not like long-term subsidies. But if there was some sort of way to get the ball rolling with a -- with a -- with a quick phase-out, I would be in favor of that.

Good God! He almost sounds like he's thought about this and is looking for real solutions rather than just ways to score political points.

Throw the bum out, I say.

[Guest]

Interesting, given that Obama (the person who has actually signed bills into law and worked to help influence the writing of those laws) is possibly the most centrist, moderate President we've had in a very, very long time.

He is not.

Hoops, you aren't saying anything substantial. You are just being contradictory.

If you disagree, please take the time to include a little evidence that supports your position.

Do you think that the left was happy with Obama because he eliminated the option for a single payer during the health care reform debate BECAUSE it was preventing debate and compromise?

Do you think the left was happy with Obama when he worked with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts?

Do you think liberals are happy with Obama because he has placed just about every sacred cow including Medicare and Medicaid on the table for discussion on debt reduction? or continued military activity in the Middle East? or postponed new restrictive environmental regulation action? or considers the views of businessmen when they complained about the impacts of regulations on their ability to do business?

He's a centrist.

Just because the opposition is unreasonable and won't consider coming to the middle doesn't mean Obama is far left. As I said before, what you see in him is a result of being so far right it compresses your view of everything from the middle out.

If you wish to point out how extreme Obama is, please start citing examples. Links would be nice.

[_honorentheos]

Before you think that Paul gave a good answer, go back and read the 2008 article from the Washington Post I linked to in the first ACA post.

I did.

It's BS. If it were true, we wouldn't have needed health care reform. It's an example of how an ideology may sound good, but it wasn't true in 2008 and it won't be true in 2013. It's BS being labeled as freedom.

Why?

Ron Paul's answer was basically his favorite refrain - let the markets sort it out. We will take care of each other if the government would only get out of our way.

But if you go back to link I posted earlier from 2008, we see something any economist would say was inevitable. Health care has an almost universal demand and a significant increase in costs for health care year-to-year was a defining characteristic of the Bush years. From the article -

"Since 2001, premiums for family health coverage have increased 78 percent, according to a 2007 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Premiums averaged $12,106, of which workers paid $3,281, according to the report."

The system itself was broken and needed intervention. It wasn't that the government was messing up the system and we needed to simplify. Paul's response was basically to avoid the complexity of the causes and pretend that everyone would be better off in a world where money = entitlement.

This is perhaps the biggest beef I have with candidates who exhibit ideologies similar to Paul's - they over-simplify issues and suggest that the government is the bad guy in every story. They seem to want us to forget that human history is almost entirely about what happens when the few who have rule over the many who have not. And that the American chapter of this history is notable precisely because of how it changed that narrative.

Health care was a run-away train under Bush and something needed to be done. If in the process we figure out how to help more people too then I'm for it. As a Christian, I would think you would be as well.

[_Jersey Girl]

Baptist Pastor Defends 'Cult' Description of Mormonism

Jeffress mentioned the word "cult" in referring to Romney's religion when he spoke to reporters after introducing Perry on stage. The comment drew a strong rebuke from conservative icon Bill Bennett and disavowal from Perry's campaign.

But after considerable backlash, Jeffress stood by his definition on Sunday, saying the Southern Baptist Convention deems Mormonism a "cult," though he distinguishes between a "sociological" cult and a "theological" one.

Mormons have "never been considered a part of mainstream Christianity," Jeffress told Fox News. "Mormonism was invented 1800 years after Jesus Christ and the founding of Christianity, and it has its own founder, Joseph Smith, its own set of doctrines and its own book, the Book of Mormon. And that, by definition, is a theological cult, that's all I'm saying."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10 ... z1aIlxvKkG

I would like to hear how the believers on this board would defend the LDS Church in light of Jeffress' fact based statements.

Here's something you're not going to see every day on this board. An Ev attempt at defending the LDS church "in light of Jefress' fact based statements".

Let me take a crack at this in the hopes that Hoops, in particular, will offer up a counter argument. :-)

Christianity was founded 2000 years ago. It has it's own visionary, Jesus Christ, and founder, mainly the apostle Paul. It has it's own set of doctrines and it's own book, The New Testament, that added to the Tanakh, and that by definition, makes it a theological cult.

Please counter that, Hoops.

[_DarkHelmet]

It is time to find a solution outside of Washington and the Occupy Wall Street Protest that is spreading really has my interest piqued. Change needs to happen and it isn't going to come from the Rep or Democrat parties or Washington. Interesting that when the Tea Party started, it was called a peaceful protest. The Tea Party is calling the Occupy Wall Street Protest a Mob.

I am the 99%.

I've been laid off 6 times in 10 years. Since 2008, I've been out of work 20 months total. The economy was so bad, nobody was hiring, even if you had a professional resume like mine. I've lost over 150k due to layoffs and the housing burst. I paid $100k more for my house than it was worth due to hyperinflation. I've watched my lifetime savings dwindle to where I will work past 70 years. I know what within another year, our savings will be depleted - everything I have worked for and saved for for 10 years will be gone. I constantly worry if I will have a job next month. We save to pay high cost of health care bills, deductibles and denials. We save for layoffs and the ever rising cost of food, gas and utilities. I watch the value of everything around me go down, but I watch them raise our taxes as much as $1000 per year - forcing us to protest. It is time for change, NOW. It won't be much longer before even white collar workers like myself will be out in the streets marching on Washington and Wall Street.

I think the nation is heading towards a serious crisis and those in power right now couldn't give two s***s. They create laws and tax breaks for them, and they in turn stuff their back pockets with cash. It won't be long before these protests grow to where Congress can no longer sit and squabble, posture and act like school children.

I really don't give a damn about the Presidential race because as so eloquently sung by the Who... "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss!"

So sorry to hear about your plight. It is awful and I agree that neither party really seems to want to work together by putting aside their ideological positions and compromises.

Can you share what you professions is? Maybe we can do some networking for you.

Facts are that we need to raise revenue and that means some increased taxes. We also need to make substantial cuts in defense and entitlements. We do need to focus on infrastructure and new industries such as green energy. And yes government can help businesses by targeting certian new and emerging technologies that may be struggling to get off the ground. It has done so with success in the past and can now and in the future.

Both sides need to give and take and compromise and drop the demagoguery.

The biggest issue, as Infymus and you point out, is jobs. Sustained unemployment over 9% is killing us. It's killing the housing market. We have never seen a better buyers market in housing, yet people's houses sit for sale, with no equity left, because there are no buyers. Fix the jobs problem, and a lot of the other issues go away. The problem is, I don't think the democrats understand how economics works. The republicans do. But to them, employees are commodities that should be bid out to the lowest bidders in a global marketplace to ensure maximum profits for corporate shareholders. Nobody has an answer for the jobs issue.

[_MCB]

My concern is that whatever Mitt says, the LDS church will try (as it must) to influence a Mormon President's decisions.

I'm not happy with that.

That is the biggest general concern.

Of course, my own concern is with D&C 121, but is still tied to the general one.

[_honorentheos]

The biggest issue, as Infymus and you point out, is jobs. Sustained unemployment over 9% is killing us. It's killing the housing market. We have never seen a better buyers market in housing, yet people's houses sit for sale, with no equity left, because there are no buyers. Fix the jobs problem, and a lot of the other issues go away. The problem is, I don't think the democrats understand how economics works. The republicans do. But to them, employees are commodities that should be bid out to the lowest bidders in a global marketplace to ensure maximum profits for corporate shareholders. Nobody has an answer for the jobs issue.

Darkhelmut,

I think you bring up the key issues behind our economic woes, though maybe not how I would place the emphasis.

The strength of the economy in the US immediately prior to the recession was directly tied to the average person's sense of having wealth held in the increasing value of their homes. Businesses could expand because people had money to spend on the products and services provided by these businesses.

I don't think it's the lack of jobs impacting the housing market. I think it's the other way around - depressed home values have cut into the average person's wealth. Until the foreclosure markets stabilize, it's going to remain this way, too.

I don't think one can address the economy by focusing on businesses, at least as the primary force for creating jobs. A new employee is an expense, and one that typically isn't profitable to the company for a varied amount of time depending on the business. (Consider this article, for example) Headcount is a critical number when looking at the potential profitability of a firm when considering investing.

Instead, I think we need to figure out how to get more money in the system as a whole while minimizing the risk of rapid inflation. That means not just focusing on one side of the equation alone (people vs. companies). But of the two sides shifting the wealth equation back to the side of average Americans will stimulate businesses to create more products/services and add more jobs. In effect, creating work - and work that needs doing - does not focus on just companies or people. It is the engine that drives both profits and jobs. Doing the opposite isn't guaranteed to have the same result.

One part of the President's jobs bill I think is spot-on relates to infrastructure spending. See this article for a recent report on our real needs as a nation. Businesses and government together are going to have to tackle this problem and if $2.2 trillion were to make it's way back into the economy it would be the beginning of a new "new normal" of prosperity. How to pay for it is a big question, of course, and why I said above realistic solutions will require both business and government working together. What scares me is that "working together" seems to be a lost skill.

Anyway, it's a topic worth discussing.

[_Hoops]

Here's something you're not going to see every day on this board. An Ev attempt at defending the LDS church "in light of Jefress' fact based statements".

Let me take a crack at this in the hopes that Hoops, in particular, will offer up a counter argument. :-)

Christianity was founded 2000 years ago. It has it's own visionary, Jesus Christ, and founder, mainly the apostle Paul. It has it's own set of doctrines and it's own book, The New Testament, that added to the Tanakh, and that by definition, makes it a theological cult.

Please counter that, Hoops.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to counter. If that's your defintion of a cult, then clearly ancient Christianity is a cult. In fact, the terms is used today to classify religious groups, not religious groups 2000 years ago. I'm not really sure what the point of that is, nor why it matters in the overall discussion.

But I will maintain that Mormonism is not Christian, which is significant enough for me.

[_honorentheos]

Hey Hoops,

As a gesture to the OP, I was wondering about something today -

Is there a good example from the current race where a particular Christian candidate demonstrated how their worldview translated into a better position or decision-making process than the other non-Christian candidates by whatever definition you wish to use? It's bothering to me that the pastor described Romney as a moral good man, but that somehow his lack of a Christian base makes him less-preferable to a truly Christian candidate.

Thanks in advance.

[_jon]

This aught to help in the Mormon Missionary effort.

Assuming you meant "ought", yes it will. Opposition always does.

Hmmm, if you are correct bcspace then presumably attendance being down at Church on Sunday would kinda mean that opposition is decreasing. Or does it work both ways on your planet?

You know,
Opposition helps the Church to grow
No Opposition helps the Church to grow

Using that logic you could literally believe any old nonsense...