John Florez: The changing face of philanthropy

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Let's Agree to Disagree Spanish Fork, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 11:27 p.m.

    "Charity, philanthropy is good, but there is no case on record where it actually solved the whole problem."

    There is no case on record of a government solving the problem either.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 4:59 p.m.

    True to my calling, I must disagree.

    John Florez : Philanthropy in America grew out of concern for one's neighbor and the deep values Americans held about caring for each other, rooted in volunteerism by individuals, churches and non-profit groups.

    Philanthropy is the efforts people make to balance the scales good and bad for the bad that they have done.

    However, this article is not about philanthropy. This article is a commercial advertisement for the private organizations who want to sell a product called charity.

    The story about philanthropy is just to provide the opportunity to throw mud at the government who has the audacity to compete with private business and reduce their profits.

    When John says: Government's role should be that of a catalyst in mobilizing the talent and good will that exist in our communities by contracting with community groups that can hire individuals who are part of the community to be served.

    Is he really saying: Give the money to private businesses business and let them hand out the benefits to the people.

    When he says: One of the myths elected officials and the public have grown to believe is that "professionals" are the only ones that understand the problem and know the needed solutions.

    Is he saying: Give amateurs a chance at failure.

    Charity, philanthropy is good, but there is no case on record where it actually solved the whole problem.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 3:14 p.m.

    Some good basic points.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 11, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    John got it right. Accountability starts at home. Each child has both a mother and a father. If the father leaves, he still has a responsibility to care for that child. If either the father or the mother has died, then the responsibility passes to the extended family, to that family's church, and to that family's neighbors.

    Government has extended the problem of poverty. Social workers and government paid providers would be out of work if they were successful, so they extend the problem.

    Taking the mother out of the home, even when the children are cared for by concerned care-takers is not the same as the mother being there.

    1. Require that the father support his children. Either put him in jail or require his support.

    2. Require that any government program teach the mother and children how to get out of poverty. Require that funding for any government program be based on how many families work themselves out of poverty.

    3. Require that any government worker reinforce the role of the mother and of the father so that children look to their parents, and not to the government.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 11, 2012 4:02 a.m.

    You missed one step - the government had to step in because the private organizations didn't have the money and those with the money weren't giving it to those who needed help or the agencies that could help them.

    When the problem of poverty became too big to be handled on a smaller basis, government stepped in.

    We have the same thing going on now - charitable organizations are closing their doors and turning people away because they don't have the resources to provide the care.