Email Letter: May 4, 2017

Conservatives would rather be capable of giving than entitled to receiving

It is better to give than to receive. You can give encouragement if your character is one of kindness and joy. You can give honor if you are willing to consider others better than yourself. You can give possessions or money if you have worked hard enough to have some. You can give protection if you have gained the skill needed to defend others. You can give time if you are not already a slave to debt or a slave to your schedule.

When life becomes overwhelming, people find they have less and less to give. They still care about people, so they are tempted to vote for the government to give. But when you vote for someone else to give their time, using money that was taken from your fellow citizens, you are saying that their time is worth less than yours. You are saying that your neighbor’s money is worth little and forgetting the blood, sweat, tears, and hours of drudgery and frustration that they went through in order to earn what they have. You are willing to donate what belonged to someone else in order to be generous in an era where everyone is too busy to build what it takes to truly give.

The newspapers, polls, and streets are full of people who want the government to take care of the world. Where are the conservatives? They are busy working hard and minding their own business, because they would rather be capable of giving than entitled to receiving.

EMILY SIGRIST
Mack


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


Ms. Sigrist:  Excellently insightful and passionately delivered.

I’ve heard this perspective in the past but never so persuasively stated!

How much are you worth? If you have little in terms of money saved you are only worth as much as an employer is willing to pay. Do you have any bargaining power in the negotiation? If you can be easily replaced you don’t have much, if any, bargaining power. What should we do with people who have little in the bank, if anything,  and who have little bargaining power and an inability to purchase some of the necessities of life such as adequate medical care? Let them die? They should have been better prepared for life? They are superfluous and a drag on the country.

Does the government have any responsibility to ensure some kind of minimal ability to live a reasonable, comfortable life? The government runs on taxes that we all pay in varying amounts. The vast majority of income taxes are paid by the wealthier citizens. Is that enough to help other less capable and unfortunate people among us? Should the wealthy pay even more? What possible justification could there be for such a thing?

The wealthy get that way for a variety of reasons. One reason is that we have had a very strong middle class whose purchasing power contributed to that wealth. Those with the wealth have the power to determine just how large and prosperous the middle class is. They have contributed mightily in taxes so the middle class thrived which just provided them even more wealth.

In her letter submitted today Ms. Secrist seems to imply that the wealthy are virtuous and everybody else should have a decent paying job so that they don’t have to rely on handouts. If it were only so simple.

What is the right percentage of government income that should be taxes paid by the very wealthy versus the percentage paid by employees? The country will thrive with the right ratio. Lower taxation of the wealthy generally results in less consumer spending and a stagnant economy. Ms. Secrist implies it is simply a ”givers and takers” situation and the fewer takers the better. Is it strange that when the ratio was more evenly matched that our economy was growing the most? Who benefits the most in a strong economy? Are all those in need essentially ”takers” and lesser human beings?

Sorry, I should have said Segrist, not Secrist

Mr Borgen
  You never seem to consider that some people make good decisons in life that help them establish a good middle class life.  You only seem to focus on how evil the rich are and what the government needs to do to bail people out.  Ms. Segrist does not even mention the wealthy.  You must be very narrow minded to envy the rich so much.

Mr. Blosser, Did I say the rich were evil? The people with the money decide the wages of the employees. With the slack times we’ve had until recently many people suffered. It was a “buyers market” for employers. So, do we do anything about that? Money in taxes come right back into the economy. Government spending is a large contributor to the economy. Payments to the needy by the government are spent , almost immediately, by the recipients. We could refrain from doing that as a moral lesson but the economy will not be boosted by that spending. So, do we look down on the needy and teach them a lesson or do we try to make MOST of them contributors to the economy? It is not envy of the rich. It is a fact of life.

Mr. Borgen
  I am not against helping the truly needy but you make the same mistakes many liberals make:  1.  You think that the money we make really belongs to the government; 2.  The government knows how to spend our money better then we do; and all businesses make the owners rich and take advantage of the employees.

Page 1 of 1




TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Advertiser Tearsheet
Information

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy