Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Family first’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Jan. 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Okay . . . what exactly are you proposing?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Good. Sounds like we're proposing higher taxes on corporations that outsource and significant slashes to foreign aid, the defense department, and the end to all wars. Great! I can support this! We need to keep the spending of money home!!! Not in the Middle-East or Africa!

Maudine
SLC, UT

If it is truly about families, than shouldn't we be supporting ALL families?

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

The writer is correct. Schools are the perfect example. We pour our resources in trying to equalize the outcome. We not only focus on those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top, but we slow the ones at the top so they won't make those who struggle feel inferior.

We should have policies that promote 2 parent families. Perhaps two parent families get bigger tax credits per child. Statistically they will be more likely to grow to be tax contributors later rather than tax needers, so it comes out in the end, and society is bettered because we raise better and more productive citizens.

But instead we try to normalize disastrous choices and circumstances, and spend all our resources mopping up.

We are fast running out of resources. Don't you think it is time to try something different. Or do you prefer the insanity of doing the same thing expecting a different result?

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Let's help people, for people are what make up not only families as you define them but society as a whole.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Government does not exist to make life easy. Government is here to protect us from enemies, both foreign and domestic that would harm us unless we collectively work together. Government is here to keep large states from enslaving small states. Government is here to build roads and other infrastructure so that commerce can take place.

Government is not here to feed us, to clothe us, to house us or even to educate us. We are responsible to God to handle those duties ourselves. Far too many "parents" let the school "tend" their children and even feed their children.

No nation can survive when its people shift the burden of family onto others. The family is the fundamental unit of society. Its care and keeping cannot be transferred to others.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

I'm okay with the definition of "family" that has been in place for thousands of years. I'm not really interested in trying bold new experiments that could harm children and civilization - the potential downside is too great.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Christian 24-7 said:
"Schools are the perfect example. We pour our resources in trying to equalize the outcome. We not only focus on those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top, but we slow the ones at the top so they won't make those who struggle feel inferior."

So the Christian thing to do is give them slow learners a broom and the other a book and get it over with.
Sounds so "Brave New World"

"Perhaps two parent families get bigger tax credits per child. Statistically they will be more likely to grow to be tax contributors later rather than tax needers, so it comes out in the end, and society is bettered because we raise better and more productive citizens."

Another Christian thing to do... Take more money from the single parent who doesn't have that 2nd income, (yeah, yeah mom's can afford to stay at home and tv's are still black and white) so that they stay poor and possible dependent. You believe society should shun them because they won't stay in an abusive relationship, loveless marriage etc. a new and sick twist on the sin tax.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

Ah HVH

Glad to know I riled someone to the cause, with my tongue in cheek post.

No we don't give second graders who can't read yet a broom, and I was totally kidding about the tax break.

But consider this:

Whatever we tax, we diminish. What we subsidize, we grow.

It would be harsh to tax non-two parent families. And we don't need to subsidize two parent families. Their efforts in creating a cohesive family are naturally rewarded. The change we need to make is to quit subsidizing bad choices. Let natural consequences shape behavior. Yes there needs to be charity, for victims of others. That includes abuse victims, and a whole lot of children who are born in tough circumstances. But we need to mindful that we don't reward adults for making bad choices. We can't afford to tend to the victims they leave behind now, and we certainly don't want government subsidies to be incentives to create more victims.

Under our current system, we cross that line and we reward poor choices. We normalize dysfunctional families. We should be making families functional and normal, instead of making dysfunction normal.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

I am also serious about the way we allocate funds in the schools. Obviously those with learning disabilities will probably require a larger percent of the resources, but we are way overboard on that one. If we worked half as hard to help the gifted achieve their full potential, we would not be falling behind the rest of the world in math and science. This notion that we can again get to the top by pushing up from the bottom is a losing proposition. We disrespect all our students when we do that. I believe that some people are more talented with their hands and others are more talented in intellect, and we should honor and revere those differences instead of trying to make everyone the same. We don't stop teaching any group. We do help all develop the talents they have, along with basic universal skills they need, and we do it in as fair and as equal way as possible.

This again bears little resemblance to the current system. Some big changes are needed, because so far the direction we are going in education is reaping worse outcomes.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments