Trust is the 'currency of government' and it's hard to earn in Washington

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2019 11:12 a.m.

    This Trust Symposium was about press coverage, opinion polls, government...and tangentially religious institutions.

    As it turns out, it was a FAIL for one reason.

    I watched the video (all 1 hour and 42 minutes of it) and added my comments to those present late last night.

    I come on the D-News today and find all the comments gone, and no way to make comments now.

    Not exactly a way to develop trust, is it?

  • Mad Hatter Santa Fe, NM
    Jan. 15, 2019 7:16 p.m.

    Thid Barker - Victor, ID
    Jan. 15, 2019 2:34 p.m.

    "Other people's money does not belong to you! You have no right to prosper from other people's labor!"

    What are you talking about? What individual says that your money belongs to them? You make no sense. As for others profiting off of another's labor, isn't that what "capitalism" is all about? You work and someone else profits from your labor. Of course, you get paid for your work, but nothing like the person profiting. Wages have remained pretty much stagnant while the top 1% have made out like gangbusters.

    However, if you're talking about tax policy, then I urge you to read the Constitution as to the governments rights to tax goods and services. Now, if you have a complaint about paying your fair share, then take that up with your congressperson or senator. And if you don't like the majority of people supporting specific tax policy, then you obviously don't approve of the democratic process.

    In any case, perhaps you are paid too much for your specific labor and need to take a pay cut? You can move to a state with lower wages, lower taxes, and less benefits. Maybe Utah?

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Jan. 15, 2019 3:44 p.m.

    If 'trust' is the supposed 'currency' of government, then the American people have seen it as bankrupt for the past couple of decades. Who in his right mind would trust the government to do anything right? The military, um, perhaps. Congress and the president? Rarely, if ever.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Jan. 15, 2019 2:34 p.m.

    unrepentant progressive: Other people's money does not belong to you! You have no right to prosper from other people's labor! It called stealing, no matter who does it! The only way you are entitled to other people's money is if they GIVE it to you! You can not take it, that's stealing!

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Jan. 15, 2019 2:15 p.m.

    "The key here is that you can never trust any politician that promises you something for nothing!"

    Well, I certainly agree with that. However, has this writer every considered tax breaks for the wealthy, reducing revenue and therefore causing deficits? As in something for nothing, actually less than nothing as in deficit.

    It is not only your pejorative 'progressive' who seemingly 'promises something for nothing'.

    Hypocrisy!

  • Mad Hatter Santa Fe, NM
    Jan. 15, 2019 2:01 p.m.

    Thid Barker - Victor, ID
    Jan. 15, 2019 9:17 a.m.

    "People who trust the government to control their lives are not called citizens, they are called subjects!"

    And there is the conundrum. Social conservatives and the religious-right demand government control people's lives where they want. You may understand this if you were a libertarian demanding minimal government beyond civil and military defense, but that can get pretty dicey when you consider involuntary serviced through a military draft in times of war, as example, and other issues requiring citizen participation.

    Social conservatives appear to want maximum government control of our lives when it comes to issues of abortions rights, "religious freedom", sexuality, what is taught in our public schools, and other concerns vital to their conservative worldview. We see this at its maximum in the debate about a woman's right to make her own decisions regarding her own body. The zealots want government intimately involved in her ability to decide how her body is used.

    Certainly this is a complex issue and will be debated for generations to come: How much government do we need? There are many factors that need be considered.

  • Joe Leaphorn Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 15, 2019 1:13 p.m.

    Thid Barker - Victor, ID
    Jan. 15, 2019 9:17 a.m.

    "In general terms . . . loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals." Ezra T. Benson

    "People who trust the government to control their lives are not called citizens, they are called subjects! "

    No American trusts or wants government to control their lives. That is an absurd statement. Instead of quoting Ezra Taft Benson, you should be referencing the Constitution itself.

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of States".

    Benson had no more insight into the purpose of government than any other ultra-conservative giving their opinion of "limited government" . If you read the preamble correctly, you will see what the Founders intended " . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of . . .

    [more]

    1 of 2

  • Joe Leaphorn Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 15, 2019 1:08 p.m.

    [continued]

    2 of 2

    " . . . Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." You will see that this document, this covenent, provides for much more than "defence" and "publlic safety". Many conservatives miss this and re-write the Constitution for their own purpose.

    Another point that needs to be made in reference to your statement. When the Constitution talks about the "protection of property", it is not talking about protecting your home, your car, or your smart phone. It is a statement providing for protections for slavery. Most people understood this in the early 19th Century and it was often referenced by leaders in the antebellum South leading up to the Civil War.

    Since the Southern delegation to the Constitution Convention did not write directly protections for their most important social and economic institution, they couched it in language that only referenced "property rights" instead of "preserving slavery". This was in clear violation of the basic tenet of the Constitution that "all men are created equal" and caused people like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams great distress. It took 75 years to right this wrong. Then it took another 100 years to put it into effect.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Jan. 15, 2019 1:03 p.m.

    The key here is that you can never trust any politician that promises you something for nothing! Promising free stuff means one group will be forced to work for that which they will not receive so another group will receive that for which they did not work! We used to call that slavery but today its called "progressivism"!

  • Jim Chee Lahaina, HI
    Jan. 15, 2019 12:47 p.m.

    RedShirt - USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 15, 2019 10:15 a.m.

    "Ironically, since Trump was elected there is actually MORE trust in the government."

    Ah, the humor in that statement. Where are you getting your information? When over 75% of the American people don't want Trump's Wall and a majority don't approve of Donald Trump (he consistently polls in the mid-thirties), it would be interesting to see your numbers showing that there is MORE trust in government. Unless you're only polling your friends of like mind, nowhere else do we see this man as trustworthy, much less capable and fit.

    Although the recent news about Trump being under investigation as a Russian asset by the FBI and the fact that he doesn't want any information about his meetings with Vladimir Putin getting outside (Trump only lets the Russians to make transcripts), we are yet to see these stories on the front pages of the DesNews. However, the only thing we can trust is that Trump will always align himself with Russian interests and go to great lengths to protect his secret relationship with Putin.

    It's hard to have trust when the man leading our government in an incorrigible liar and demands his staff lie for him.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Jan. 15, 2019 11:48 a.m.

    Rather a wall is needed is irrelevant. The government should be functioning while negotiations take place.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 15, 2019 10:15 a.m.

    To "Elsleuith" Germany had a wall and it worked. The White House has a fence around it, and it works. Most high ranking Democrats live in fenced neighborhoods, and those fences work. Various reports from the southern border show that it works.

    All you are doing is repeating Democrat talking points.

    To "Daedalus, Stephen" the lack of trust in government started 50 years ago. Ironically, since Trump was elected there is actually MORE trust in the government.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Jan. 15, 2019 9:29 a.m.

    Headline: "Trust is the 'currency of government' and it's hard to earn in Washington"

    Trust? The currency of government?

    Another couple secret Trump-Putin meetings and it may well be rubles...

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Jan. 15, 2019 9:17 a.m.

    "In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals." Ezra T. Benson

    People who trust the government to control their lives are not called citizens, they are called subjects! Protect our borders and streets, deliver the mail and stay out of our lives and never trust anyone who tell you they can govern your life better than you!

  • Elsleuith Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 15, 2019 7:05 a.m.

    Grandstanding is not government. This shut down is absurd. China had a wall and it didn't work, neither will a Mexico wall. Totally unneeded. No wonder Americans don't trust their own government.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Jan. 15, 2019 5:06 a.m.

    While I would dearly love to point out the many actions of the President which leave the majority of Americans wary of trusting the man, he is only a symptom of a larger diseases in the body politic.

    We seem to have found ways to send people to the halls of power who don't really want to represent the interests of their constituents. So many of our elected officials at all levels of government seem unwilling to be servants of the people elected to do good for the public.

    Rather, we have a large cadre of Governors, Senators, Representatives and others who are in office to amass power, and who seem to serve the special interests that paid for their elections.

    How is the American public ever going to trust government, when the people we select to be our voice cater slavishly to their own careers to accrue power and payback their donors for the dollars spent on their campaign?

    Honesty aside. Comraderie and respect for another opinion as well. We don't have people in the state capitols nor in Washington who see their job as a public servant and voice for the average person.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Jan. 15, 2019 3:33 a.m.

    Trust in this Congress? It would be safer to trust a rattlesnake.