Today, remember nation's basic principles of self-government

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • George Bronx, NY
    July 4, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    @mike richards

    you're right mike its time for corporate heads, and stock trading snakes to get out of my pocket and earn their own way.

    while we are at it why don't you get out my private life and wory about governing your own.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 4, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    This piece was written by another "...faceless desk jockey..." (the authors own epithet) employed by the heritage foundation.

    The author continues...

    "...With the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act, even more bureaucrats will be necessary to select our health care plans...".

    The concept, of the evil/bureaucrat generating individual health insurance mandate, originated, in 1989, at the conservative heritage foundation.

    So, todays piece is a heritage foundation sponsored indictment, of what the heritage foundation originally proposed as a solution, in the first place.


  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 4, 2012 1:11 p.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    Every single one of your points can be applied equally to the rich.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 4, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    I didn't expect this editorial to turn into an Anti-Obama rant.

    Shame on you Deseret News. Shame on you!

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    July 4, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    I wish to add that the dependence on government, in a large part created BY government, has become so pervasive that it is hard for many, impossible for some, to be independent. If not on government there are those who must be dependent on private charity.

    I'm all for changing this and starting yesterday, but it will likely take time and persistent effort from those who feel the same.

    The main problem I see with this article, which seems well intentioned and to contain some good sentiments, is the apparent postulate that government programs began with Obama and will end with his presidential term. Would it were that simple.
    It also could address dependency such as that created by over-indulgent or under-wise parents of adult children, and the failure to teach independence and voluntary or required assistance in the home asap with minor children according to their abilities.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 4, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    So Mr. Richards where should I look for your future works..fantasy, or just plain fiction?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    July 4, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    Truthseeker: You still didn't get the point. If a rich father spoils his children, that's the rich father's fault. The kid loses too because of a irresponsible and paternizing father. The kid most certainly has become the icon of the Democratic party--you need me (i.e. rich father/big brother) in order to succeed. You didn't mean to, but underscored why both the democrats and republicans have done to destroy initiative of the young, those who are now living with the consequences of the rich father and big government. Both are an affront to God in developing character in the family or the nation! Quit thinking of yourself and do what's right for those who are looking up to you.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    July 4, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    "retirement security because of the ever-present and ever-President Obama."


    Article has good points but perplexed about the above part.

    Obama has never provided or sought "retirement security".
    The social security plan was established under FDR, wasn't it?
    Reagan increased contributions to keep it properly funded.

    Under Obama social security contributions have been lowered and prompt sending out of SS
    checks were threatened, as was military pay, to force the raising of
    the debt ceiling as I recall.

    Besides this has nothing to do with willing dependence on government,
    unless by that you mean that government, unlike ordinary law-abiding
    people, can forcibly borrow money from the people and then reneige on
    its agreement to pay it back with interest when it comes due.

    The spirit of independence to me also means insisting that government
    stops CREATING dependence. Many of its mandates did
    not have the approval of the majority of the people.
    Don't be too quick just
    to blame the people, but lets get back to independence by paying debts
    asap, insisting government does too, and phasing out government programs
    for those who have not contributed to them.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 4, 2012 9:01 a.m.

    There are "takers" and there are "workers". Those who "take" will always demand that someone else sacrifice so that they don't have to. They will demand that someone else work so that they can go to college, forgetting or ignoring that that worker could have gone to college if he was not taxed out of that opportunity.

    They will demand that someone else pay for their promiscuity, ignoring the fact that God told us to be chaste and pure and to reserve sex for marriage.

    They will demand preferential treatment when applying for a job, ignoring that others who are more qualified, who worked their way through college, who have better credentials should get that job. They insure that that business will have sub-optimal people working for it.

    They will demand that others pay for their doctor visits and their hospital care, ignoring the fact that they are stealing from those upon whom they have placed their burden.

    They pretend that they are Americans, but they're just displaced Europeans who don't know that real Americans rejected their lazy, dependant way of life in 1776.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 4, 2012 8:31 a.m.

    "Her success apparently has nothing to do with her own initiative, talent or hard work. It's attributed to government programs, " What a bunch of nonesense. Her success has "nothing" to do with her own initiative...she has gone to college, and I assume done well because she has opened her own business. She has made responsible decisions to not have children until she's capable of supporting them. Once again she makes a responsible decision to make sure that she is doing what she should to have a healthy child by getting pre-natal care. Yet because her community (government)supports her in these decisions her hard work in college, her pre-parental decisions, her years of hard work as a business owner..count for nothing..she's a fee loader.

    Ask her employees who have worked for her for years if she's a feee loader. Ask her children who now are in college themselves if their mother is a free loader.

    Community (government) support and personal responsibility are not contradictory principles.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 4, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    In contrast to Julia, lets consider Willard.

    Willard grew up in a wealthy family and attended an exclusive private prep school.
    Willard financed his college tuition and living costs by selling stocks his father gifted him.
    Willard bought his first house with money "loaned"/gifted to him by his father.
    When Willard began working he was able to take advantage of special tax loopholes and tax shelters lobbied for by his company.

    Was Willard self-governing and self-reliant?

    No one makes it entirely on their own. No one selects the circumstances of their birth. Individual choices can have collective consequences for a society.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 4, 2012 7:48 a.m.

    It used to be that way, but not any more!