Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Medicaid expansion forces charity

Comments

Return To Article
  • borox23 Payson, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    What is meant by expand medicaid? I just received a piece of mail from the state advising me that I could get my 5 kids on CHIP as long as my income is less than $85K... Seems like there is money to be shifted around to more of those in need if people that are hardly destitute can qualify for programs like CHIP. Hope I'm not alone in thinking that $85K should be enough to take care of the insurance myself rather than take from the state.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    Whatever you say, right wingers. As I've said before, I'd like to know if you would REALLY pay for your neighbor's expensive health care costs. You know very well that you'd pay some small amount and feel very good about yourself, but that little bit won't cut it. It takes a larger pool of money, with all of us chipping in a relatively small amount, to really make a difference. On the other hand, suppose you are the most generous of all tea partiers and you do pay for your poor neighbor's health care treatments. Now what about the guy down the street? Medical care by donation just doesn't work, and if you say that you think it does, what you are really saying is that you don't give a fig.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    Badger, Is your post in response to mine?

    Yes you are right. Forced charity is not charity; Robin Hood was not making anyone charitable.

    Of course the story of Robin Hood is not about charity. And the issue of government programs for the poor is not about charity either.

    That really is not what this is about, but conservatives sure do put a lot of effort into trying to knock down that particular straw man. Okay, you did it, you knocked down the straw man. And so what.

    Government programs have nothing to do with charity. You're right.

    Now, if you think these programs should not exist, what is your plan?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 19, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    "I served in the military --I was PAID $350 a month."

    But, you got room and board on top of your wages, did you not?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    Second try at second post-

    Oh, and voting for someone else to have to give money to the poor is not charitable (see Robin Hood in previous post.)

    Robin Hood never forced anyone to be charitable, because he could not. There is a part of charity that is in the mind and in the heart. Robbing people did nothing for the heart and mind. If they were charitable before they were robbed, they were still as charitable after. If they were not charitable before, being robbed didn't change that.

    Forced charity is an oxymoron.

    For those bashing the religious right as being not charitable, research shows that religious people are 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. Religious people donate more to nonreligious charities, after donating to their churches as well. Yup, they are very generous in their giving.

    Perhaps those who champion forced giving through government programs do so because they know they don't give much unless forced to, so they assume the same of everyone else. That would be a false assumption. There are many many very generous people in this country.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 12:42 a.m.

    "Since government forced redistribution is at an all time high"

    Haha. Where are you getting that idea?

    Conservatives, tell me that the only argument you have here is not just about defining charity.

    Tell me that's not all you have.

    Because you are right, these government programs are NOT charity. And so what?

    Now let me hear your plan if you think these government programs should not exist.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 11:19 p.m.

    I would contend that teaching someone to catch fish is more charitable than giving them a fish.

    Opinions on what help is best may vary, but the religious right still give more money and more time to nonreligious charities. Calling them uncharitable is such a lie.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:48 p.m.

    Robin Hood was not charitable. He was a thief.

    His victims were not charitable, by being robbed. (They may have been charitable in other ways)

    His recipients were not charitable by receiving stolen goods. (They may have been charitable in other ways)

    Voting to have other people give you money is not charitable.

    You could argue that those who vote for themselves to give more money to taxes to support the poor have charity in their heart. The problem is that the government is so ineffective it takes a lot more money to help each person. Direct charitable giving is much more effective.

    When half the society is deemed poor and in need of assistance, the system is very broken.

    Since government forced redistribution is at an all time high, and the income and wealth gaps are still growing, I have to think that government forced redistribution is not working.

    It is time for some new ideas. The old recycled liberal ways still don't work, no matter how smooth the President is at a pulpit.

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    Dec. 18, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    re:Howard
    insert strawman:
    "However, to suggest that such programs represent true Christian charity is just wrong."

    According to who? God? you? You are free to resent the taxes you pay to govt. programs to help children, seniors, disabled and needy. Likewise, I can feel okay about paying taxes to those types of programs. But for you to claim that Jesus or God wouldn't favor such govt. programs or for me to claim that God or Jesus favors such programs beyond the scope of available knowledge. It is merely speculation and conjecture.

    ""Why should I reach out individually to the needy? Aren't there programs for that?"

    I assume you are speaking for yourself. It isn't either or. One can/should pay taxes AND donate time and money to charitable causes. I believe it takes a "village" of govt assets/programs as well as private individuals and organizations. The Catholic church believes this as well. I don't consider paying taxes the fulfillment of my obligation to my neighbors and donate my time weekly to those in need.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    I only bring up Christianity because the political party with members that think most poor people are lazy and deserve any pain and suffering they have is the party that prides itself on how Christian it is. I've concluded that the way to be a good Republican Christian is to 1. talk about God a lot, 2. give money to your church so it can maintain itself (not a bad thing) and 3. only help those few poor people that you personally deem worthy of help and hope and pray that after you've given your $20 donation someone else steps up and pays the other $500,000 they need for major surgery or chemo or whatever.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    Here again is what I simply don't understand about "conservatives".

    Suggesting there should be safety nets for those in need, and then characterizing them as handouts. A clearly pejorative description.

    Then declaring that true "Christian" charity (who cares if it's Christian or not) isn't demonstrated by actively supporting society wide programs that feed needy children, support the elderly, etc. etc. Really? Who died and left you in charge of deciding what's charitable and what's not......oh wait, I guess I know the answer to that.

    I suspect the answer to this puzzle of why only individual giving is worthy and government giving is bad is the definition of needy. It's a conservative meme that government recipients are "primarily" lazy do nothing takers (the 47%). Therefore govt. programs are handouts and my contribution is stolen money based on Marxist, Communist principles.

    Once they own this then maybe we can have a reasonable discussion about safety nets. Until then it's just a dance of yea I think we need to help the needy but....

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    I get SOoooo tired of the endless whining from people who don't even know how the evil "Social" programs work.

    Unemployment is NOT Charity.
    It isn't even a Government hand-out.

    Unemployment is from Un-employment INSURANCE.
    We and out employers pay into it each and everyday, each and every pay check.

    In the event we are Un-employed...
    we apply to use it.

    Just like Car insurance, House insurance, Health insurance, and Life insurance.

    We pay into it, and then hope and pray we never need to use it.

    BTW - Obamacare -- same thing.
    It is NOT a Government program,
    but is a just mandate to buy private Health insurance.

    Just like you are required to for your unemployment, car, house, and life.

  • Howard S. Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 12:12 a.m.

    @Wonder

    "Such Christians you are."
    ************

    Speaking for myself, I don't suggest that there shouldn't be societal safety nets to provide for those in need. I think most reasonable people would agree with that.

    However, to suggest that such programs represent true Christian charity is just wrong...

    True Christian charity is manifested by individually reaching out to those in need... not through government sponsored handouts.

    I wonder if the expansion of the government welfare state in the name of charity is, for some, a justification to evade the practice of true Christian charity...

    In other words..."Why should I reach out individually to the needy? Aren't there programs for that?"

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 11:26 p.m.

    All of you fine folks who want to refuse to pay for medical care for the poor through taxes, I frankly don't believe you when you say you are willing to pay for your neighbor's hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cancer treatments that they can't afford. I just don't believe you. Sorry, but I think you're really saying you don't care whether these people live or die. You'll donate $20 or $100 to the cause, but you aren't going to give up any more of your hard earned money. Let's be honest. You just want to keep what's yours and your neighbor can live or die, but it's not your concern. Such Christians you are.

  • Howard S. Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:07 p.m.

    @Truthseeker

    "Please highlight the scriptures which state govt programs in a democratic society, designed to help the needy, are not in line with Christ's teachings."
    ******************************

    I'm not aware of any scripture stating directly that government programs are not in line with Jesus' teachings.

    Jesus' message was not about the establishment of government programs... it was about the salvation of individual souls.

    Individual souls are saved when they are inspired to compassion and the free exercise of charity... souls are not saved by the compulsory mandates of government sponsored programs.

    True charity is exercised by personally reaching out to the poor and needy (...and by the way, we are all poor and needy)... True charity is not exercised in the operation of government programs.

    Look at it this way... the miracle of Ebenezer Scrooge is not about the establishment of government programs. They already had government sponsored workhouses for the poor.

    The miracle of Mr. Scrooge occurred when he was moved by compassion to exercise charity by reaching out individually to the poor and needy... not by relying on government programs.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    Re:Howard, Reason

    At least you're honest about lacking compassion.
    Please highlight the scriptures which state govt programs in a democratic society, designed to help the needy, are not in line with Christ's teachings. You have a vote, you also have choices to obey or not obey laws enacted by legislators. You have a choice to view such programs as compassionate or not. Nobody has taken away your choices. You simply don't like the consequences of all the choices.

  • Howard S. Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:54 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon

    Mr. Scrooge found charity through compassion... not through compulsory government sponsored welfare.

  • Howard S. Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:47 p.m.

    Charity as taught by Jesus is born of compassion... not compulsion.

    Politicians who claim charity as justification for compulsory government welfare programs misrepresent the teachings of Jesus.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    @really??
    are you old enough to vote? Its not forced charity it is a choice we make.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    @the hammer
    So the need for the number and size of the roads constructed, the need for police and fireman have nothing to do with the personal choices people make? we (also known as the government) make choices either directly or through our elected officials make choices of what we invest our money in. Medicaid is something we have historically invested in because the majority of the voting public (the government) has decided it is an investment we want to make. It is not forced unless for some reason you have committed some type of crime that prevents you from voting.

  • Reason?? Farr West, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    Forced giving is NOT charity. It is just that: taking by force from one person to give to another. There is NO good associated with this. It is one of the tenets of Marxism as means of redistributing the wealth.it disregards agency and attempts to save us all. Sounf familiar??

  • Reason?? Farr West, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    Forced giving is Not charity. It is just that: Taking by force from one person to give to another. There is no goodness associated with this. It is one of the goals of Marxism as a means to redistrbution of wealth. It disregards agency, and compels all to "be saved". Sound familiar??

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, behold, your modern-day GOP!!!

    This is a prime example of why they are so unpopular today. And why their current "repentance" just really isn't true.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    Dec. 17, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    There is a difference between public dollars for schools, police, Medicaid, roads etc on the state level vs the federal level. And this is the problem that most conservatives are mad about is because the federal run programs are onerous, oversized and run poorly. Medicaid and Medicare have been scammed far more than any other program in the system and are big contributors to healthcare inflation since their inception.

    As far as forced charity there is a difference between taxing and spending for investments in our future like education, roads, and police vs. Medicaid which is muddled in the waters of private markets, personal responsibility, bad personal health choices and fate. Making others pay for that through taking away from them value of their work under the threat of prison is not justice but theft.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    Forced charity/programs: anything the gov't does with tax money that you don't agree with (Medicaid expansion on the right, Iraq War on the left, etc).

    Not forced charity/programs: anything the gov't does with tax money that you do agree with.

    After all, it's not really "forced" to those who support the program their tax dollars are being spent on since they want it in place.

    @Kent C. DeForrest
    "The Des News prohibits it, but doesn't enforce it for conservative comments."

    I find that they let it go when used for a word or short phrase for emphasis, not just for conservative comments. I suspect they realize that in that 1-2 word context it's mostly just used because we don't have the option to italicize things (as far as I'm aware).

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    2 bits,

    I'm not asking for charity from government. Calling taxation and spending on worthy or necessary causes charity confuses the whole issue. If we, as a society, cannot establish a lower boundary of suffering that we simply refuse to allow people to drop below, then we can scarcely claim to be a society at all.

    All you defenders of economic Darwinism out there, please tell me what your arguments will be when 99 percent of the wealth is held by 5 percent of the population and 70 percent of the population is living in poverty. You may laugh at these exaggerated numbers, but this is where we are headed and where you apparently want us to be. Please, enlighten me.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    "Since when is taking the value of ones work and giving it to another who didn't work and earn it JUSTICE?"

    First, I assume you must be referring to the folks who run McDonald's and Wal-Mart and many other businesses, who take money others have earned and give it to themselves. Certainly they didn't "earn" what they receive. Their work is certainly not worth what they are giving themselves.

    Second, don't yell with capital letters. The Des News prohibits it, but doesn't enforce it for conservative comments.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    "Since when is taking the value of ones work and giving it to another who didn't work and earn it JUSTICE?"

    When it's your child.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 17, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    "At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; sir."

    "Are there no prisons?"

    "Plenty of prisons..."

    "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

    "Both very busy, sir..."

    "Those who are badly off must go there."

    "Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

    "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

    ========

    "They are Man's," said the Spirit, looking down upon them. "And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both!"

    ==========

    "I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach!"

    Merry Christmas!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    "that the government has no money of its own and that when it gives a dollar, that dollar has been taken from someone else’s pocket."
    That statement, so often used by the anti-Americans in their war against the American creed, is an absolute TRUTH. The lie is in the insinuation that it only applies to government.

    Money is the life blood of our economy and has value only when used to exchange for goods or services. The money in your pocket is not worth anything unless you can spend it. It is likely that the dollar mentioned has been in thousands of pockets belonging to workers, businessmen, priests, teenagers, and any one with a product to sell.

    When we give money, taxes, to government we are buying those things that we can't buy from private enterprise.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon,
    You have already posted 4 times under "LDS Liberal". Are you now going for another 4 under "Open Minded Mormon"? You are obviously the same person.

    FYI... I have no guilt regarding my charity. I don't take great pride in it, but I am completely happy with the amount of charity I have (but you won't see me posting my list or making it a liberal vs conservative competition). I leave that to other posters.

    When it comes to "Charity"... I don't think that can be divided along partisan lines. People who try to do that... are just off course.

    -----

    DeForrest,
    Re: "But let us not confuse charity with justice"...

    If you can define "Justice" in a way that all people would agree... you would get a lot of support. That's the problem. Too many people on the Left's definition of "justice" involves taking from someone else... is that "Justice"? Not to the man you are taking from!

    Justice and Charity should not be confused, even by you. They are different things. You can't use "Justice" to demand "Charity". Charity has to be voluntary to be charity.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    @the hammer

    and the doctors how receive the money from medicaid work to provide the services that wage earners pay, exactly the same as all the others professionals that provide public services you list, how are you not getting this?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 17, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    I believe God looks on the heart and judges by our intentions.

    So, do as the Savior said, and rend unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.
    Therfore, I pay my taxes "willingly" with an open mind and willing heart.

    I hope and pray each and every single penny is used to bless our Society and our Nation -- beit the ONE or the Many.

    God bless America!

    However --
    What I don't like is my "taxes" going to Corporatations, Wallstreet in lieu of MainStreet, Foreign Wars for Oil, bribes, kick-backs, pork-barrel projects and THEN to add insult to injury -- tax breaks for the uber-wealthy and Corporations who pay nearly ZERO in taxes!

    These are the Gadianton's and Master Mahan's we've been warned to avoid.

    God would never destroy America for tending to the poor and the needy,
    He will if we serve Babylon!

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    Dec. 17, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    @DeForrest

    Since when is taking the value of ones work and giving it to another who didn't work and earn it JUSTICE?

    Its a lie to think that just because we pass a law and take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't earn it that is not stealing. Teachers, firefighters and soldiers earn money through their services and the value of their work. Medicaid recipients depend on the government stepping on the necks of wage earners and telling us pay for these people or you go to prison.

    Its not justice its forced charity and if we are to offer help to these people it should be done on the state level where the people have a greater say and our states have to abide by a budget if they do doll our the dollars instead of running up huge deficits because our entitlment spending eats all of the revenue.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 17, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    LDS Liberal,
    It's possible to take too much pride in your charity. We don't need to see a list. We all do what we can, and comparing your charity list is not needed. it's not a competition.

    [I'm sorry about your guilt.
    You did not read the comment I replied to. see below.

    I get so sick and tired of Conservatives claiming some Holy Monopoly about "charity",
    and then start throwing around dollar figures.

    Faith without WORKS is dead.

    BTW -- My time spent "serving" the Boy Scouts is not a church calling.
    I do it because someone 45 years ago helped me.
    It made me a better MAN and Christian than any political party or Sunday School lesson ever did.
    I think that's why the LDS Church has held so tightly to the program.
    ...and I support the Brethren.]

    Thid Barker
    Victor, ID

    : the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.;

    Studies have shown that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. Look it up for yourself and learn something about real charity!

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    Could I suggest an article that everyone interested in this topic ought to read? It is "Charity Is Not a Substitute for Justice," written by Sarah Kendzior. Search for it on Aljazeera(dot)com.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    "I ask to choose what I will give and not have the government take it from me. I ask to decide how my hard-earned money will be given to others."

    Sorry, but such an arrangement is not only impractical, but impossible. Instead, we have a form of representative government that taxes us, and our representatives determine how our money will be used.

    But let us not confuse charity with justice. It's one thing to give a few dollars to the poor and destitute through various charities. I do a fair bit of that. But I'm a realist enough to realize that all the charities in our country cannot come anywhere near providing for the needs of all the desperate, poor, sick, and needy individuals and families in our society. We are a society because we want to have a certain type of life that includes security, safety, shelter, prosperity, and opportunity for all. Otherwise we are not a society, but simply a scrambled collection of individuals with individual needs and no concern for anyone else.

    There are some who seem to think that Economic Darwinism is consistent with a just society. Sorry, just ain't so.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    @2bits

    once again maudine did not call it charity, money that goes into medicaid does not go to the individual it goes to the doctor for services provided just like the money to pay for fire services and the police services do not go to the individual it goes to pay for the fireman and police officers that provide the service. I am not sure what part of this you are trying to not understand.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    Here is what I think is at the heart of why this article and conservatives in general are so miss-directed when they talk about charity, government safety net programs and personal responsibility.

    "Where is the line between personal responsibility and expectation of having others take care of you?" The assumption here is that those who accept some form (they don't even specify)of government assistants "have an expectation that someone else will take care of them".

    The first error they make with this argument is, If someone accepts personal charity aren't they letting someone else take care of them? The only difference with accepting government support is it is codified and can be counted on. As can the rest of society. So you haven't done anything about personal responsibility with personal charity except to make it conditional and unpredictable with personal biases.

    More importantly though is the assumption that accepting government help means you don't take personal responsibility and aren't doing what you can. This is absolutely false and even shows an ignorance about the support laws themselves.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    It's possible to take too much pride in your charity. We don't need to see a list. We all do what we can, and comparing your charity list is not needed. it's not a competition.

    It's true Tithing is not "Charity" (I think most people know that). But Taxes are also not "Charity". If you're looking for "Charity"... look to Fast Offerings, and "Charitable Contributions" sections on your donation slip next week.

    Church callings and hours spent working with Scouts are also not "Charity". That's "Service". They are related but not the same.

    ----

    Maude,
    Money to pay teachers, firemen, etc... is also not "Charity". That's a business, a job, not charity. If we go there... my boss paying my salary also counts as "Charity". And in that case the 1% would be the biggest charitable givers in the nation (and we all know that's not true).

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    @thid

    I did not call it charity the letter writer called it forced charity. But you missed the point anyway our taxes pay for the police etc.. The same way taxes pay for Medicaid which tbe letter writer believes is forced charity. Please try to stay on point.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Since when did Government Social Programs become "Charity"?

    As far as I know, the Government and the laws of the land have never even tried to call Social Programs "charity".

    It seems some of you are simply having trouble defining terms.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Maudine. if you don't pay your taxes they come and put you in prison! So much for taxes being charity!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Thid Barker
    Victor, ID
    @ LDS liberal. char·i·ty noun \ˈcher-ə-tē, ˈcha-rə-\

    : the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc

    Studies have shown that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. Look it up for yourself and learn something about real charity!

    8:15 a.m. Dec. 17, 2013

    =======

    One more thing I forgot to mention --
    I pay a full Tithe, but did not list it as "Charity" because Tithing is NOT Charity.

    Charity is the pure love of Christ.

    Paying Tithing only becomes "charitable" because of the laws of the Government and the IRS.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    True charity is not about getting a "warm fuzzy". It might mean making a real sacrifice, challenging your mindset, or helping someone you don't particularly like.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    Where not we're

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    The de Tocqueville quotation is bogus. And that's just the beginning of what's wrong with this rant. Does Sen. Christensen really believe that a few bucks from his wallet are all that's necessary to provide systematic care to the 10 percent of our population who will NEVER be able to care for themselves? He may feel "warm and fuzzy" about his crummy handout, but those who are physically or mentally disabled in our society need more than that. They need organized, systematic support -- and that won't get it as long as selfish and ignorant Republicans are in charge.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    @thid barker

    And we're does the money come from to pay teachers, fireman and police officers? Oh that's right the same place as Medicaid funding our taxes (forced charity according to this letter). Come on man.
    ,

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that:

    "Of the estimated $101.00 billion given by all donors to religious causes, 20.1% ($20.28 billion) is estimated to have gone toward benevolences focused on the poor. Another 3.8% of the total ($3.86 billion) is estimated in benevolences contributed in response to needs in a general population and not focused specifically on the needs of people in lower income groups. The remaining 76.1% ($76.86 billion) went to congregational operations."

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Forced charity isn't charity and our federal government was never designed to be the provider of forced charity. It was designed for foreign policy for our nation and protection and trade regulation.

    Our state governments are better places to have programs like medicaid or medicare and social security because the people who pay for it have a better say in how its used to help.

    Federal power over states in how they provide charity is the problem and that is why medicaid expansion is a bad idea.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Not lecturing you and I am sure you are a very charitable person. Merry Christmas!

    @ lowonoil. Much of the money I donate to my church goes directly to helping the poor in humanitarian aid.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Michele Margolis and Michael Sances note that Brooks' conclusion comes from a dataset that doesn't really ask how conservative people are politically so much as how conservative they are socially. Using a dataset which uses more traditional questions to test political beliefs - the General Social Survey - they found no statistically significant relationship between peoples' political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level. And this held at the state level too. There was no significant relationship between a state's level of giving and the vote share that Bush received in that state in 2004.
    However, they did find that there was a strong relationship between political beliefs and what kind of giving people engaged in. Conservative individuals and individuals in red states were more likely to donate to religious organizations, a finding that Margolis and Sances found to be statistically significant: Conversely, blue states were likely to give to secular organizations.

    But Margolis and Sances' work should put to rest the idea that liberals and conservatives differ in the level, rather than the form, of their charitable giving."
    (Washington Post)

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Thid Barker
    Victor, ID
    @ LDS liberal. char·i·ty noun \ˈcher-ə-tē, ˈcha-rə-\

    : the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc

    ========

    You? lecturing me? about char·i·ty noun \ˈcher-ə-tē, ˈcha-rə-\

    1. I average 6 hours a week with the BoyScouts.
    2. I spend 4 hours a week assisting widows.
    3. I volunteer weekly reading at the nearby Elementary Schools.
    4. I give 5% of my INCOME to United Way, and local homeless shelters.
    5. Once a month I go to Pioneer Park and hand out sandwiches -- [I've was even sited once for not have a food handlers permit].
    6. Bi-weekly, I go to the VA hospital and give Priesthood blessings.
    7. I donate time reparing automobiles for the homeless.
    8. I ALWAYS give to panhandlers.
    9. I don't carry a weapon, nor feel a need to.
    10. I AM the SecretSanta.
    11. My children are liberals just like me.

    BTW --
    I have not even begun to list my LDS church callings and assignments.

  • Lowonoil Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    @Thid Barker "Studies have shown that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. Look it up for yourself and learn something about real charity!"

    Studies have also shown tht when you stop including remittances to the religion industry in your definition of "charity" that statistic changes dramatically.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    "Where is the spirit of giving in such a situation?"

    It's in your heart.

    It's how you choose to feel and think about it.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    @ LDS liberal. char·i·ty noun \ˈcher-ə-tē, ˈcha-rə-\

    : the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc

    Studies have shown that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. Look it up for yourself and learn something about real charity!

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    Charity is alive and well, which is a great thing.

    But if a person with no means needs heart bypass surgery, how is charity expected to pay for that? Even if the money could be collected, it would demolish the charity budget of many families, leaving many other needs to go unfulfilled. Or do we let the person die, and hope charity takes care of their kids?

    Charity has had many, many decades to meet the healthcare needs of the less fortunate, and we're still coming up way short. It's not even close. It was the longest audition in history, and it didn't go well.

    Conservatives need to put the Ayn Rand books back on the shelf, and realize there are common sense, economic reasons to get health coverage for the less fortunate, not the least of which is to get the ridiculous amounts of cost shifting under control so we can get realistic cost information for healthcare and start bringing those costs under better control.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    Thid Barker
    Victor, ID

    I served in the military --
    I was PAID $350 a month.

    I did not serve just because I was PAID,
    I served, because I beleived in a higher cause than just money -- it was for my love of Country.
    THAT is called Charity.

    Police and Firemene, and School Teachers make less money than the private sector for the SAME reason.

    Why do you conservatives always equate and value things based strictly around money?

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    @ cjb. Police and firemen respond to calls because they are PAID to respond, not because of charity! Teachers teach because that is what they are PAID to do! Come on man!

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    "On a brighter note, private charity and giving are alive and well".

    ---

    Were that really the case, government never would have gotten into the charity 'business' in the first place. Volunteerism and donations would have filled all necessary gaps. But this wasn't the case, therefore government saw fit to step in.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 6:40 a.m.

    The fact that the police will respond to anyone's call is charity. The fact that the military protects everyone in the country from foreign invasion is charity. The fact that all children can attend public school is charity. I could go on.

    There are benefits and obligations of living in a society, yet we all choose to group together and cooperate, because of all the benefits.