Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: No welfare, ever’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 20 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cjb
Bountiful, UT

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

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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

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

We won't hold our collective breath.

to comment

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