Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: No welfare, ever

Comments

Return To Article
  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 20, 2013 12:16 a.m.

    Why? Because before government got involved, here we're hungry people in America. Chariety wasn't enough.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 20, 2013 12:45 a.m.

    Ezekiel 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 20, 2013 5:08 a.m.

    I am not really sure which good old days you are referring to. Welfare began as a governmental institution as far back as the Roman empire when the government distributed corn to the poor. In the US it formally begain in the early 1900's.... hopefully as a result of our growing morals and ethics.

    To say we had it right back then, a time when women didn't have the right to vote, or even own property in many places, that a personas rights were dependent on the color of their skin, or that children in poor families were sent of to work in mines, factories, or even household help as young as 8 years old... if these are the days we are to emulate, I think you are going to have a hard time anyone of this idea beyond those who love cheap political sound bites and rhetoric.

    Everyone is subsidized in one way our another. Whether it be through educational dollars, or the street leading up to our property, the cost of services received is almost far greater then taxes paid. One mans welfare is another's second child in public schools. We are all paying for each other.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 20, 2013 5:14 a.m.

    Would you like the ten dollars you helped contribute to welfare back in ten ones , two fives or a ten dollar bill?

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    May 20, 2013 5:41 a.m.

    You make all negative assumptions about people in trouble. "There was no poor among them" will never be said of the US as long as Jim Green has anything to say about it.

    We live in a country where employers aren't hiring and officially won't hire anyone unemployed more than six months. I bet Jim Green is retired and living off the rest of us on SS and Medicare, seems typical. I can make assumptions too Jim.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 20, 2013 7:02 a.m.

    "We did this for almost 200 years in our country and it worked fine."

    That simply reflects a poor understanding of history.

    There is no doubt that programs should constantly be assessed for effectiveness. Also, that private charity is a boon for both the giver and the receiver. But the ability for private charity to fully bear the load is not demonstrated in the historical record (not our country but read Dickens - written when England was the dominant world power).

    I have little doubt that in close-knit religious communities (such as the LDS when they came to Utah) could cover a lot, maybe even all of their poor through a solid local network. But that network is not so solid these days and many folks are not part of a strong group (religious or otherwise) that can offer that kind of backstop.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    Jim, nothing is stopping you or anyone else from increasing your private charitable donations. Would you be willing and able to increase your own charitable giving by 10, 20, or 100 times to fill the gap created by eliminating government assistance programs? And how would you locate those who could use your assistance? How would you determine who does and who doesn't deserve your help? I'm guessing you would have to turn to and rely on some non-governmental organization, maybe your church or some other charitable group. But what happens to those whom such organizations cannot reach? Would you just let them die and decrease the surplus population? That's what happened, after all, back in the halcyon days when government was as you wish it were today.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 20, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    Jim, you really need to take a history class. For 200 years it worked fine?

    Ummm no.

    If it had really worked out, "fine" then there wouldn't have ever been a need to create it.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    Mr. Green's letter is filled with the usual and tiresome Tea Party generalizations, but what strikes me as most notable about his rant is the deep-rooted misanthropy at the foundation of his sentiments.

    Conservatives, Mr. Green is one of your own. His brand of angry, reality-free conservatism is why you're losing ground nationally. What are you going to do about it? Will you get these self-destructive impulses under control, or will you double-down?

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    May 20, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    What a disgusting letter. So we have billions to throw away in Afghanistan to help "build them up" but we shouldn't spend anything domestically? Disgusting and completely un-American.

    I'm sure Jim has never been in a situation of using welfare. As a result, he has this mentality of, "If I don't need it, it should be done away with!"

    Not so Mr. Green, not so.

    We live in a society. And as a result, some of your tax money will go to fund things that maybe you disagree with. For me, I do not believe in bank bailouts, nation building, and our massive defense budget.

    It's this mentality, republicans, why you have lost the last 2 Presidential elections. It's because of letters like these that everyone other than old white rich males believe your party is unattractive. They cannot connect with you.

    Finally, you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Could welfare be adjusted? Perhaps it needs to be tweaked. But don't get rid of it. Especially when we are still struggling to recover from the greatest recession since the Depression brought on by completely failed conservative trickle-down economic policy.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    Great letter.

    The problems in this country will never change until liberals start believing that "my bills are my bills and your bills are your bills"

    It's all too easy to demand someone else take care of you

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    This is one of the most incredibly selfish letters I've ever read here.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    Re: "'We did this for almost 200 years in our country and it worked fine.' That simply reflects a poor understanding of history."

    Actually, suggesting charity works poorly in the United States is the REAL reflection of a poor understanding of history.

    Fact: There is no quantifiable difference between nutrition among America's poor today, compared with those at any time during the last century. Nonetheless, we spend more than 18 times as much [inflation-adjusted] today on the poor than we did during the Great Depression, and nearly 5 times as much as during the "War on Poverty."

    To what effect?

    Today's poor are less likely to get an education, marry and form a stable family, live a healthy life, stay out of trouble with the law, avoid substance abuse, or die of old age than ANY other historical cohort of poor Americans, EVER.

    Nice job, liberals. Proud of yourselves?

    Your impersonal, bloated government "solutions" have sure done a lot to help the poor, haven't they?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Re: "If it had really worked out, "fine" then there wouldn't have ever been a need to create it."

    Well, at least you got that right.

    It worked fine.

    And, there was no need to create a bloated, impersonal, ineffective, counterproductive welfare society.

    It was done for one reason, and one reason only -- to buy votes for liberal politicians.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    Charity is a business. When government competes with business, the businessmen complain.

    Charity is dependent on people in pain, misery, poverty or otherwise needing help. If someone were to end or lessen those conditions, they would be harming the charity business.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    I assume you are a US citizen and have the right to vote which means your taxes are not convesgated they are a shared social contract the voting public has chosen to maintain. If you failed to vote that is a choice you made and again does not mean your taxes were convesgated.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    People have government or allow private business to do those things they cannot or don’t want to do for themselves. They usually prefer the source that provides the best product for the lowest price. In every instance the cost to the consumer is less when the service is provided by the government.

    In the case of helping the distressed on a large scale, only the government has the size and power to do the job. History shows that to be the case.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    "No welfare ever" said Jesus....never.
    Jesus was a liberal who taught socialist principles.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    It's funny to read about "class warfare" being waged against the "haves." And to read how the "haves" are being robbed by the "have nots."

    It's funny to me that according to conservatives, class warfare is being waged and won by only one side, the poors. How is that even possible?

    Wall Street hit another record high the other day. Are the middle-lower classes hitting record highs?

    CEO pay is hitting record highs. How is worker pay going?

    The top 10 % are doing fine. How about the other 90?

    Most folks are on welfare not because they CHOOSE to be on it but because they HAVE TO. To suggest that the poors are winning is to completely ignore the buying power of the lower classes, CEO pay, wall street, and the disappearance of the middle-class.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Procura, thinking people would really like to see some solid documentation of your purported "facts."

    We won't hold our collective breath.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Yes lets torch the modern economy and go back sixty or seventy years. Medicare and social security too.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Businessmen get their wealth by the buying and selling of the labor of others. All wealth is created by the physical and mental efforts of people.

    Not that they don’t work hard, businessmen are often the most driven, inspired and active people. It’s just that their hard work is the manipulating of others rather than creating actual wealth. Business is a very necessary part of our civilization. It is more quick and responsive to the changes in our economy.

    However, slow moving and clumsy government is just another competitor as seen through the eyes of some.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 20, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    I would suggest that if the author is correct and such "welfare" makes the "people receiving the assistance begin to look at it as an entitlement and don't really appreciate it. It makes them dependent and resentful" then he ought to start by paying back the $24 billion in federal monies that Utah has received that it didn't pay for. That's right, Utah gets about $1.12 in federal monies for every $1 it pays in federal taxes. Clearly, Utah can't subsist without taking other's money (dependent) and the author fails to mention this (entitlement) which makes him resentful as a result.

    Time to show the courage of your convictions, Utah conservatives, and pay California (owed about $480 billion) back for bailing you out the last thirty straight years.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 20, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    This has got to be one of the most ridiculous letters printed in the DN ever...

    Guys like this need to open their eyes a little more in their readings of 1776.

    Look what was happening at that same time in France.
    This is stupid sort of "Let them eat cake" mindset didn't go over so well.

    BTW - Conservatives won't be happy until America becomes the equivalant of Somalia.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 20, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    "Fact: There is no quantifiable difference between nutrition among America's poor today, compared with those at any time during the last century. Nonetheless, we spend more than 18 times as much [inflation-adjusted] today on the poor than we did during the Great Depression, and nearly 5 times as much as during the "War on Poverty.""

    Care to provide a source for the statement of fact?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 20, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    The letter has GOT to be a Republican.

    Becase he does not care if people suffer, but turns a blind eye and completely ignores "Corporate Welfare" and their multi-Trillion Government hand-outs....

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    May 20, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    Jim's ideas might have worked in the agrarian economy of 200 years ago (might have, but didn't). They certainly don't hold any water in today's corporate economy, where we the people have become one giant human resource, underemployed by the holders of capital. They won't hire us when they have plenty of wealth; they won't give to charity to help alleviate the suffering; they buy politicians who give them immense tax breaks; and they complain that we don't buy all the consumer goods they produce in Bangladesh or with technology that has replaced us. Yup, this is a wonderful system, Jim, and your solution is about as realistic as planting a human colony on Neptune.

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    re: airnaut May 20

    "BTW - Conservatives won't be happy until America becomes the equivalant of Somalia."

    Disagree. Conservatives will whine that it isn't enough of a police state to enforce morals. ROFL!?

    to Open Minded Mormon May 20

    Agreed. The whole socialism for the rich & capitalism for the poor mindset that conservatives espouse turns my stomach.

  • Onion Daze Payson, UT
    May 20, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    Rose colored glasses distort the information received by the viewer.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 20, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    "We did this for 200 years ..."

    You know the first thing that came to my mind? The Homestead Act.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    May 20, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    Only when you admit that the other side has a legitimate view (that welfare is a proper role of government) can you begin to have a fruitful discussion and work toward a viable solution. You may vehemently disagree with it, but you have to legitimize an opposing opinion like this one if you hope to have any kind of discussion that will be more than a dead-end argument.

  • Demosthenes Rexburg, ID
    May 20, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    Jesus never taught about the role of government in welfare. All his "socialist" teachings were for individuals and the Church to take care of the poor. Not once did he say the government should do so.

    In fact, to pass the role of welfare on to the government is to reject Jesus' admonitions that WE, individuals, should take care of the poor and our neighbors in need.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @Chris B
    "The problems in this country will never change until liberals start believing that "my bills are my bills and your bills are your bills""

    Then why is Mississippi the poorest state in the nation? It's not exactly a liberal bastion...

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    May 20, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Let me guess. Jim's personal set aside as part of the "private sector" that is destined to take over all welfare functions is exactly...ah...zero.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    "In fact, to pass the role of welfare on to the government is to reject Jesus' admonitions that WE, individuals, should take care of the poor and our neighbors in need."

    Not at all. Jesus admonished that we take care of the poor. So as an individual I decide that I will vote to see that my tax dollars, take care if the poor. I will vote for a government that recognizes a need to help the poor. You are supposed to live Christ in all things you do if you are Christian. If you leave him outside the ballot box when you vote, I would suggest you are not a Christian at all.

    If you think government should wage war, as opposed to helping the poor, and you are a Christian you really need to reassess your religious believes.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 20, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    It is sad to see so many in Utah who are most likely members of the LDS church supporting the socialist and soul destroying policies that the government is imposting.

    In 1966 Howard W. Hunter said "The government will take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots." Both have last their freedom. Those who "have," lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who "have not," lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got "something for nothing," and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.

    Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost."

    Seems like he was speaking prophetically and knew that the day would come that people would trade their birthright of freedom for a bowl of pottage.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    May 20, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    If I remember my Biblical history, wasn't government welfare started under Pharaoh as Joseph's interpretation of the dream sent by God to Pharaoh?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 20, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    @Demosthenes - no where did Christ specify how we should take care of the poor. He surely never said the church should do it. He by his example showed that he took the responsibility personally.... but no where does he prescribe how other than the commandment to do so.

    And there is the crux. Conservatives believe the government is not them... that it is an alien force to be controlled. And there is some merit there as with all power comes temptations to corruption. But we have also seen this same issue in non-profits and even churches.

    On the other had, the liberal side believes in a government of We the People... that we as citizens are the government and that it acts to do the peoples will... particularly in areas where we individually can't do. And there is merit here too... lincoln most eloquently spoke of this notion in the Gettysburg Address.

    the balanced answer lies in between the two.... that we act as a people... but check to assure power is not corrupted.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 20, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    Another sad twist of pathetic Irony ---

    The same lot who claim America is a "Chritian Nation",
    deny it completely when it comes to actually making good on those words and being "Christian".

  • jrgl CEDAR CITY, UT
    May 20, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    The letter writer throws the word welfare around without defining who those on welfare are.
    I'd be interested to know who he thinks these undeserving on welfare are.
    My work is with the sick, aged and disabled population of my fair city. They are living a difficult life and yes they rely on government programs. I don't see outpourings of private or church programs stepping up to help in my town.
    It's bothersome to assume these populations "go get a job" or that we don't need to help them whatsoever. That the solution is to cut them off.
    Too bad the letter writer can't walk in one of my clients shoes for a day. How would he handle a disability, poverty & illness.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 20, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    To "mark" you are wrong. By voting for welfare projects to be funded through taxation, you are voting to have other people care for the poor.

    As the Bible teaches, Jesus will not take from one person just to give to another. See Luke 12. Your voting to take money from other to give to the poor is the opposite of what Jesus taught.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 20, 2013 2:01 p.m.

    Re: "Care to provide a source for the statement of fact?"

    Sure -- BTW, neat trick, asking that my last post [I only have one screen name, unlike liberal posters] be used to source data known to be accurate.

    DN won't permit posting URLs of readily-accessible data compilers, but mine fully footnote their data. They're easily found on the web, if one's interest is facts, not disingenuously discrediting data known to be correct.

    Direct statistics from 1932-1970 [even years] are contained in the US Census Bureau's "Bicentennial Edition: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970." Data prior to 1932 is extrapolated, so I didn't go back further. Data after 1962 is more readily available from Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Obviously, some early data are extrapolated from proxies, since collection was spotty, at best, but, it's best we have.

    Compare data from 1932 [3 years into the Great Depression] and 1968 [4 years after Johnson's War on Poverty speech] to today, and, voilà, statistical support for my statement above!

    Enjoy!

  • goldengun Heber City, UT
    May 20, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    Here is an interesting fact, and you can check it. Conservatives give 40% more to charity than Liberals. Maybe if the "compassionate" liberals gave a little more of their income to charity without being forced, they wouldn't have to force the rest of us to fund programs we don't believe in.
    And public services like roads and schools are a different thing than welfare genious. I don't think people get upset paying for a road, but they do get a little upset when they work 40+ hrs a week and their neighbor sits home and plays xbox. That's a little rediculous don't you think? The next time I stand behind someone in the grocery store after a hard day of work and they just got off the ski slopes and are buying junk food with food stamps, I think I may hold him down and make him eat his food stamp card. It's a little rediculous!

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    May 20, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    goldengun,

    Your caricature of welfare recipients is "rediculuous." Perhaps you ought to spend a day or two with those who have been marginalized by our market system. I have, and your naivete is astonishing.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    "To "mark" you are wrong. By voting for welfare projects to be funded through taxation, you are voting to have other people care for the poor."

    Nope. Not at all, RedShirt. I am voting to have a government that institutes programs for the poor. And there is no way that I can see that Christ would be against his believers wanting their tax money to go towards helping the poor.

    Ha! Can you imagine Christ saying, oh no, you were wrong to think of the least among you when you voted. Why didn't you vote for people that wanted more war machines?

    But, hey, RedShirt, whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    goldengun:

    In case you are LDS, I would commend a re-reading of Mosiah 4:17-22 and 3 Nephi 14:1-2. Also, learn how to spell ridiculous and genius. Your argument is faulty enough without spoiling it further through bad spelling.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    May 20, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    Re: Redshirt

    Isn't it sad to see so many posters from Utah who are likely LDS, claim to be the source of correct LDS doctrinal interpretation and use that position (self-appointed, of course) to judge others?

    Indeed, it is.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 20, 2013 5:21 p.m.

    @ Jim Green

    "We can look around and see what an abysmal failure the notion has been in recent decades."

    Want to know what has been an abysmal failure proven in recent decades? Conservative economic policies. That trickle down nonsense? Yeah, that isn't working. It's forcing more folks onto welfare while the top percent gives themselves record bonuses.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2013 7:03 p.m.

    procura -- you've used that lame argument about "liberals having many screen names" several times. I tried it a while ago to see if I could get more than one. Couldn't.

    Maybe it would be possible if I had more than one computer. But DN's software recognizes the computer's identity and denies any more than one name.

    Want to try another fib?

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    May 20, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    Well, let's go with the premise it's not the government's responsibility. It still might be in the government's best interest. You see in the Great Depression, and even before that, socialist (communist) ideas were getting traction.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 20, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal - nice try ... trying to make the case you are of superior ethics that so called "liberals".... It would be easy to call out several conservative posters who have multiple screen names.... but that would be a childish act... trying to discredit the person rather then their statements of facts.

    And by the way, the date you claim isn't there... is there. A study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison by the Institute for Research of Poverty details the data quite well. Refer to a paper called "Inequality and poverty in the united states:1900 to 1990" Give it a read.... you just might find some new data you were not aware of.

    And by the way... insulting so called "liberals".... really doesn't add any credibility to your statements. In fact, the end result just comes across as shrill partisan rhetoric.... which is never credible. Try attacking the message, not the messenger. You will find a lot more people will take your comments more seriously.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 20, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    It's ironic that on the day this letter was printed a massive storm hit Oklahoma City killing at least 51 and causing billions of dollars of damage. Thank goodness for the federal government working in conjunction with local governments and charities. I have a feeling that those folks will need and be grateful for welfare payments and other federal assistance. Clearly, churches and charities would be in over their head if they had to deal with that situation alone.

    Not everything the federal government touches is evil. Don't throw the baby out in the bath water. Tweak social programs? Sure. But keeping them is mandatory.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    May 21, 2013 2:16 a.m.

    Interesting that the same people pushing for Jesus to be in Schools, government and all other government institutions bristle at the mere mention of helping the poor and needy. I am LDS and proud. I want to help people on their feet and be self sufficient but some people are so far gone that we must help their children or the cycle of poverty continues. As it does we pay for incarcerations, police, and other ways as we try to treat symptoms instead of creating solutions.

    Are we a Christian country? Not according to some of the poor attitudes toward the poor, sick and needy I see from my fellow Christians.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    Jim, you are 100% correct! Thanks for having the integrity to say it.

    I've donated both time and money to many different **private** citizens and agencies over the years. I've consciously chosen those to whom I've given that time and money because I find them to be the most in need and/or the most likely to do the most with it. All the time/money that I've thus donated was given with the utmost joy and willingness.

    Other than some which was literally stolen, the only money of mine I've resented being relieved of is that which was **taken** by the only entity legally authorized to so, namely, the government. Probably the single most wasteful and least capable of using it as I would intend.

    Needless to say, knowing that so much of those many thousands of dollars that I've worked very hard to earn is and has been used in ways that are anything but useful is a great source of irritation. I wish earnestly that I'd been able to give it to those who would have done much more good with it.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 21, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    To "mark" so then you are saying that you are voting to keep your hands clean from actually helping the poor. You would rather force others to pay additional taxes to pay for the poor, regardless of their ability to afford those additional taxes.

    Actually, I can see Christ telling his believers that the government is not the way to help. Name one instance where Jesus did not advocate personally helping others. Where did Christ ever tell his disciples to use government to do anything?

    How much damage do you cause by raising taxes? Think of it this way. If you can afford to pay an additional 5% of your income in taxes, and the government raises sales taxes by 2%, does that bother you much? Now think of a poor family that can barely afford food before sales taxes are raised. Does your government welfare program hurt or help the poor that now have to pay 2% more for food?

    Why would you willingly hurt the poor to avoid having to personally help them?

    To "Claudio" what is there to interpret when the message is so clear? Do the 10 commandments have to be "interpreted"?

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    May 21, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    In my humble opinion, people shouldn't bother to call one's self a disciple of Christ if you have a sour attitude toward the sick, poor, and needy. Christ did not hang out with rich and well connected people who despised the poor, needy and downtrodden. That is why he was so dangerous to the wealthy powers, he called out their selfishness and greed.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    May 21, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Re: Redshirt

    "To "Claudio" what is there to interpret when the message is so clear? Do the 10 commandments have to be "interpreted"?"

    So if you claim to not be interpreting, are you lying or just woefully ignorant?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 21, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    To "Claudio" neither.

    When a church leader says that Socialism is wrong, what is there to interpret. My comment yesterday where I quoted Howard W. Hunter in saying that when government forces charity through taxation, freedom is lost, what is there to interpret?

    The fact that you cannot believe that Prophets speak clearly to us leads me to believe that you work hard to justify liberal positions and twist doctrine to meet your views of the world.

    In 1979 the Prophet Ezra T. Benson said "The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established" Tell me what is there to be interpreted from that? It is quite clear that Communism is wrong.

    So tell me, are you just trying to justify your positions, or do you actually follow God's commands?

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    May 21, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    Re: RedShirt

    First off, I don't have to defend my relationship to God or whether I choose to follow His commandments to you. You are nobody to me, and certainly not in a position of authority to know that relationship or my practice.

    Second, I choose to follow the counsel of prophets, which is that a living prophet is better than a dead one. Brigham Young believed some crazy things and Joseph Smith believed people lived on the moon. Not everything recorded by prophets should be taken as scripture. The same should hold true when referencing a prophet who actively served in politics and was a member of an extremist political group.

    Third, another counsel from prophets has been to study the scriptures and interpret them ourselves in order to receive personal revelation. Having said that, our own personal interpretation cannot conflict with that of God's authorized servant, his current prophet, if it is indeed from God. You know nothing of how I have interpreted any scripture. To imply otherwise is, indeed, a lie, as once again, you do not know me.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 21, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    To "Claudio" so what you are saying is that even though the Prophets have been quite clear that government welfare destroys freedom, you are going to believe otherwise.

    You still have not answered the question about how to interpret what has been said so clearly.

    How would you interpret what Howard W. Hunter said or what Elder Benson said? Those quotes that I gave came from General Conference talks. Are you saying that God allowed false doctrine to be taught by his Prophets from the pulpit?

    We can get more basic, how do you interpret the 10 commandments?

    I may not know you personally, but I know your type. You refuse to answer the simplest questions because of how it will show the hypocrisy that you live.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    May 21, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    I give up. You clearly refuse to even read what I write. You have already formed your opinion before I even write, so what's the point of discussing anything with you?

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    May 21, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    There are millions of people that have died in this country because they couldn't afford cancer treatment while millions of tea-partiers enjoy long life and their government healthcare when they are lucky enough to make it to age 65. That's just ungrateful selfishness.

    Conservatives apparently don't really believe that the Lord would bless a nation for taking care of the sick and hungry as he COMMANDED us to do.

    If our churches were funding cancer treatments and such the government would have nothing to try to solve in that area. But I know for a fact the first thing most religious leaders do is refer people to government agencies.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 21, 2013 5:27 p.m.

    under Barack, welfare is a career opportunity

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 21, 2013 6:41 p.m.

    the old switcharoo
    mesa, AZ

    If our churches were funding cancer treatments and such the government would have nothing to try to solve in that area.

    ========

    Agreed.

    Churches will "pray" for you.

    Governments will pay for Research and Development, Medical Schools and send you to a "Doctor" and a Hospital....and ask you to pray if you so desire.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    May 21, 2013 7:06 p.m.

    Nobody wants to take aid from those who really need it but for many of those who receive aid please just ask the question of for how long? Unfirtunately many in this country have been receiving aid for years and for some it is generational.
    Nobody should interpret assistance for those hit by a caminity like a tornado or a hurricane as to be welfare. That is mixing apples and oranges with meat. Wake up.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    The safety net has become a subsidy to the liberal base. The hand up has morphed into a hand out.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    May 22, 2013 12:06 a.m.

    Despite the fact many people certainly need a safety net, our liberal commenters are in complete denial that there is clearly a growing class taking welfare assistance who are not extending the effort to be gainfully employed, or who are merely gaming the system. I have a son who receives welfare, despite the fact he and his wife both work, drive a luxury car, and have very minimal living expenses because of their residential arrangement. The indictment on the system is I don't even think he's lying to get the assistance. I've chastised him for taking what he doesn't need. He not only receives welfare assistance, but he legally received thousands more back on his tax return than he paid in taxes.

    The government is simply creating an entitled and dependent class at the expense of our country's future, and incentivizing a very poor work ethic. I believe we could cut welfare in half and provide for all the truly downtrodden, while incentivizing capable people to improve their work ethic. That would stimulate our economy and develop greater dignity for people much better than keeping an open-ended welfare trough.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 22, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    To "Claudio" you still have yet to respond to the questions I posed about how you would interpret some statements made by LDS Prophets. If I am wrong, tell us how you would interpret what Elder Hunter and Elder Benson said, prove me wrong.

    So far you have done nothing but run and hide from the questions that could show that you are not like others here that claim LDS membership yet believe in philosophies that are in direct contradiction to doctrine.

  • care4usa Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 22, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    The number of mis-statements in these comments is truly amazing. St. Jude's Children's Hospital and Cancer Research Center is a privately run charity that does not expect patients using their world renown treatment centers to pay for it. Catholic Charities set up, staffed and operated top knotch hospitals in towns and cities across our country. They operated on a sliding scale and no patient was ever turned away. When private practice doctors still had control of their billing charges most worked with patients in need and donated a number of hours a week or month to pro bono treatment of the poor. When government decided to launch its War on Poverty in the 1960's they chose to pay women who had baby's but only if there was NO father in the home. This set up the generational poverty and welfare as we see it today. Anything taken by force cannot be given in charity.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 22, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Federal Govt Welfare -> an entitlement that generations of people use for their "free" government monthly check. It destroys the incentive to work - to even look for work - to be ambitious and self reliant. It enslaves a person into government dependence for life. The Democratic party USES those on welfare and passes policy to keep them there because it ensures their relevance and political power. Having a permanent 'dependent class' of people is a HUGE political tool that guarantees that voting block during every election. As terrible and despicable as this is it is THE main strategy used by the Democratic party to ensure their political survival.

    LDS Church Welfare -> A temporary hand up to those in need. The goal is to elevate those recipients to self reliance as quickly as possible. Those welfare recipients are expected to work and serve ..if they physically can... while receiving welfare assistance. This is a short term aid and nothing more. The Church wants all people to be SELF RELIANT. Contrast that to our federal government which wants people to be GOVERNMENT RELIANT.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    May 22, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    Redshirt1701,

    In response to your quotations from LDS prophets, I note that both quotes precede their tenures as President of the Church. I therefore reject claims that these are statements by prophets.

    I note also that Elder Benson's involvement in far Right politics was highly controversial at the time, and caused deep divisions within the Quorum of Twelve by accusing anyone with differing views, including with Elders Brown and Tanner who were moderate/liberal, of communist sympathies. He made outlandish statements that Eisenhower and MLK were communist agents. Harold B. Lee eventually muzzled his damaging political rhetoric.

    He was sent to Britain to remove him from the American political scene. A British member recounts the following conversation with him, "I said, 'I'm a socialist. I've been a socialist all my life. My father was a great radical socialist. I don't think you know what socialists are when you come up and criticize them so harshly.' He explained to me the difference between the socialist he was attacking and the socialist I believed in at that time."

    I respect President Benson as a prophet. I don't respect Elder Benson and his divisive brand of politics.

  • Still a Mormon Greenfield, IN
    May 22, 2013 7:26 p.m.

    All this talk about History is irrelevant to the modern day even if it is an interesting rabbit trail. I am a handyman helper right now and the handyman is the owner/ property manager of the properties that I help him to maintain. Because of this I have the opportunity to go into the homes of many individuals in a 'low' income part of my community. I also have to post late notices, file eviction and sometimes go to the forced move-outs on these individuals so i get a feel for how there finances work and I am also able to observe their living conditions.

    Most of these individuals have many nice things. Things that are as nice if not nicer than what I grew up with in the Suburbs. Tho to be fair i come from a pretty big family. I often time go into homes where the tenant has nice furniture, nice clothes, nice televisions, and more often than you would think a nice car.

    Not to mention the fact that if they chose to (or were better financially educated) they could purchase the home and free up several hundred dollars tied up in rental fees.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    May 22, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    Many have already commented with many valid points, but I'll add my two cents. To those espousing the ideas and sentiments written in this letter you should be ashamed. I'm a conservative, and it honestly saddens me when I read these types of comments from conservatives who obviously have no clue about welfare or it's purpose. Need I remind you that the religion many of you embrace has an entire department and budget for welfare programs. I think what is frustrating to many conservatives is the lack of accountability in the governments welfare programs, whereas the welfare programs of the lds church (of which I'm a member) are rooted in self efficiency and accountability. While I understand this frustration, to believe that welfare is never warranted and only for those too lazy or too dependent is a narrow and inexperienced/uneducated view of the struggles many are experiencing right now. There could certainly be more efficiency and accountability, but to judge and overtly label those needing welfare benefits is disgusting and unChristlike for those that embrace the lds, or any other Christian faith. You should be ashamed, and I'm embarrassed for you.

  • Rockyrd Gilbert, AZ
    May 22, 2013 11:13 p.m.

    Unfortunately, Mr. Green is wrong. I have worked with a number of people who just want a job, but because of illness or a number of unfortunate circumstances, are not able to provide for themselves. From what I understand, most people on welfare are women with children who's husbands have abandoned them. Should we let them all starve? In spite of the best efforts of our government welfare system and private charities, we still have hungry people in this country. If the answers were easy, as Mr. Green suggests, we'd have found them long ago. The entitlement system cannot go on and will eventually break government budgets. Changes need to be made, but who will have the courage to do it? Attitudes like Mr. Green's, may have an element of sincerity, but are without compassion and only compound the problem.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 11:28 p.m.

    "To "mark" so then you are saying that you are voting to keep your hands clean from actually helping the poor. "

    Not at all, RedShirt. Do you really see your own argument as so weak that you have to make up what the other side is saying? If you want to argue with a straw man, why don't you go out into the field?

    But to address your point, do you really presume that those that give to charity are doing anything other then keeping their hands clean? Its a silly argument.

    "Where did Christ ever tell his disciples to use government to do anything?"

    Where did he ever tell them not to?

    "How much damage do you cause by raising taxes?"

    None.

    And you try to make a point about increasing taxes on food. Who said anything about raising tax on food?

    "Why would you willingly hurt the poor to avoid having to personally help them?"

    Again with the assumptions.

    "Are you saying that God allowed false doctrine to be taught by his Prophets from the pulpit?"

    Yeah, I'll say that. Actually, I don't think She paid any attention at all to what was being said.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    May 22, 2013 11:29 p.m.

    Many conservatives do have a clue about our welfare system. It's a bloated system with no accountability requirements for recipients. It has created a class of entitled people with very poor work ethic. It has evolved into exactly what LDS leaders have proclaimed for many years about continued reliance on the dole. I daresay that most conservatives (I hope) see the need for an effective welfare system that helps the truly needy get back on their feet.

    The letter-writer seems to feel the entire system should be abolished, and that's certainly a cold-hearted, unethical position to take in a modern civilized society of abundance. So too is the position that people should be able to get easy welfare with no accountability, for as long as they want. Although not all welfare recipients are lazy parasites, who can deny there is a growing segment that are? It's a huge and frustrating problem, but only conservatives seems to recognize it, and they are continually castigated for it. This letter-writer does not represent me or conservatives I know.

    Can't all reasonable people agree that we need to care for the needy and stop incentivizing laziness?

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    May 23, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    LetsDebate:
    Well said. You echo my sentiments exactly. Welfare is certainly needed and warranted for many people, but the governments welfare is inefficient and lacking in accountability. Conservatives need to lose the idea that welfare and entitlement programs benefit those who are lazy and want to take advantage, because it simply isn't true in many cases. I know plenty of personal friends and family that have suffered loss of job, loss of spouse and subsequent income, loss of physical abilities to perform jobs they are skilled in, etc. Were it not for government welfare programs many of these people would have suffered far more, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. Instead of complaining that government shouldn't provide ANY welfare, conservatives need to think about ways to improve the accountability and efficiency of entitlement programs, and ways they can contribute meaningfully to it.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 24, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut
    To "Claudio" you still have yet to respond to the questions I posed about how you would interpret some statements made by LDS Prophets. If I am wrong, tell us how you would interpret what Elder Hunter and Elder Benson said, prove me wrong.

    ======

    I'm sure President Uchtdorf and other LDS Church Leaders from evil "Socialist" countries would be happy to answer your qustion RedShirt.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 24, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    re:LDS Liberal

    the people of socialist countries aren't evil ...just the government ideology. Even the old USSR with it's 'evil empire' communist government had millions of good people who wanted freedom. Socialism - Progressivism - Marxism - Communism are all related by certain common characteristics including BIG government that controls everything + little if any individual freedoms. You might also throw in there atheism especially for the more hard core regimes.

    Again - it is the leaders of the left wing countries and their ideology that range from corrupt to evil....not the citizens. President Ezra Taft Benson wrote about communism/socialism and I would refer you to those comments.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 24, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    patriot
    Cedar Hills, UT
    re:LDS Liberal

    President Ezra Taft Benson wrote about communism/socialism and I would refer you to those comments.
    2:39 p.m. May 24, 2013

    ===========

    Funny,
    I was taught and have read the scriptures, Enoch, Moses, Abraham, the Nephites, Jese himself and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young all told us to LIVE communism/socialism -- see United Order, City of Enoch, Having All things in Common, and Having NO poor among them.

    BTW - As a Mormon, a Father and a Military Veteran -- I guess that makes me an evil "Socialist" with a firm testimony as well.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    May 24, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    Funny how Uchtdorf and others from Socialist countries have never taken the opportunity to praise their respective governments, and have never taken the opportunity to correct what Pres. Benson and others have taught about socialism and communism. I highly doubt they would be "happy" to entertain calls from anyone to justify LDS Lib's view of the world.

    The tremendous difference between communism/socialism and the United Order has been plainly explained by many, many church leaders, with the former being characterized as Satan's counterfeit to the United Order. But LDS Lib knows better than all of them. Anyone can twist scriptures about compassion into a screed supporting Socialism, or even communism. Twisted interpretations results in twisted connections, such as the laughable suggestion that Enoch, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young supported socialism and communism.