Comments about ‘Letter: Charity destination?’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 21 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ranch
Here, UT

I'll give you one guess (and it really isn't a 'charity').

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

They already are --
They are powerful United States Senators,
and tell us they are taking care of the "Little People" who elect them...

...right after they take care of the Corporations and Special Interest Groups who control them.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

Well, charity begins at home, so that would be the first place I'd look.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Ranch, OPM, and Curmudgeon --- three GREAT comments! All spot on.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

The charity to which anyone gives is personal in formation.

Sal
Provo, UT

@wrz: if a charity donation is so personal and private then why make a public statement about what you will do with your salary? For show?

casual observer
Salt Lake City, UT

Curmudgeon, one old man and Ranch,

They announced it to demonstrate that they were not receiving their salaries during those troublesome times just as many others were not. Character assassination by innuendo and not fact is one of the lowest, but commonest political tactics. I'm certain that wherever they made their charitable donations, which are rightly private information, would be criticized by some people. No good deed goes unpunished.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Mike Lee should have donated his to the depositors of the bank he stiffed when he defaulted on his mortgage.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Frankly, it is none of anyones business who they dontated to, just like its non of your business who I may donate to.

airnaut
Everett, 00

wrz
Phoenix, AZ
The charity to which anyone gives is personal in formation.

8:50 a.m. Feb. 21, 2014

========

When THEY were they one's who made it public statement,
It is no longer considered private, but public.

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

Casual observer: I hate to break the news to you but they did receive their full salaries during the Shutdown. That is why there were so many people upset. Also when they made public statements and used the newspapers, and TV to tell us that they were going to give their salary to charity, it becomes a matter of public record. They made such a big deal out of it because unlike many Americans they were getting paid. Mike Lee made several statements that "he deserved" his salary. These statements were promptly criticized and he came back mimicking the statement by Senator hatch that he was going to donate his full salary during the full time of the shutdown. When these guys use the public stage to promote themselves, we as the pubic have a right to hold them to their word.

FT
salt lake city, UT

I agree he should pay off his personal debts first before donating to charity. The rest of us have had our interest rates and taxes increased to pay for others who walked away from their mortgages.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Sal:
"... if a charity donation is so personal and private then why make a public statement about what you will do with your salary? For show?

Almost everything politicians do is for show.... including announcing that they're giving their wages to charity. But the ultimate destination of their giving is private. Just like yours and mine are private. If for no other reason than to protect the privacy of the donee.

@airnaut:
"When THEY were they one's who made it public statement, It is no longer considered private, but public."

The donee is what's private about the donation.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Irony Guy,
I am not defending Lee defaulting on his mortgage, but if you think it was the depositors who took a loss, you are sorely misinformed on how depository institutions in this country function.

The bank's shareholders took the loss, but since, in the eyes of so many on the left, they are just greedy owners of those evil banks, they deserve to take the losses.

since the establishment of the FDIC in 1934, no insured depositor has lost so much as a penny when a bank has failed. No, it was not the dpositors who lost.

FT,
people defaulting on mortgages created a cost to the public only because barney frank insisted fannie and freddie lend to poor credit risks

to comment

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