Why? Because before government got involved, here we're hungry people in
America. Chariety wasn't enough.
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.
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
Would you like the ten dollars you helped contribute to welfare back in ten ones
, two fives or a ten dollar bill?
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.
"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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
This is one of the most incredibly selfish letters I've ever read here.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
"No welfare ever" said Jesus....never. Jesus was a liberal who
taught socialist principles.
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.
Procura, thinking people would really like to see some solid documentation of
your purported "facts."We won't hold our collective
Yes lets torch the modern economy and go back sixty or seventy years. Medicare
and social security too.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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....
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
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 20Agreed. The
whole socialism for the rich & capitalism for the poor mindset that
conservatives espouse turns my stomach.
Rose colored glasses distort the information received by the viewer.
"We did this for 200 years ..."You know the first thing that
came to my mind? The Homestead Act.
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.
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
@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...
Let me guess. Jim's personal set aside as part of the "private
sector" that is destined to take over all welfare functions is
"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.
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.
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?
@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
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".
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
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.
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!
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
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
"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.
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
Re: RedshirtIsn'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.
@ 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
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?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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?
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?
Re: RedShirtFirst 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
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.
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?
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.
under Barack, welfare is a career opportunity
the old switcharoomesa, AZIf 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.
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.
The safety net has become a subsidy to the liberal base. The hand up has morphed
into a hand out.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtTo "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.
re:LDS Liberalthe 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.
patriotCedar Hills, UTre:LDS LiberalPresident 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.
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