Quantcast
Opinion

Readers' forum: Drastic spending cuts

Comments

Return To Article
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2011 7:16 p.m.

    The Bush tax cuts should have been reversed to fund the multi-trillion Iraq war. From now on war should be paid by cash form each citizen, maybe we will not get into more Iraqs and Vietnams.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    June 26, 2011 1:47 p.m.

    Cut out all tax deductions. All tithing. All kids. Mortgage. Everything.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    June 25, 2011 11:02 a.m.

    From Hugh Nibley, "Brigham Young on the Environment"

    Why should the enemy seek to pollute? There was an early Christian teaching, reported by Eusebius, that the evil spirits, being forever deprived of physical bodies, constantly go about in the world jealously seeking to defile and corrupt such bodies, glorying in foulness and putrefaction as they "move about in thick, polluted air," and make charnel houses and garbage dumps their favorite haunts,11 until the earth cries out: "Wo, wo is me, the mother of men. . . . When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me?" (Moses 7:48). Once in reply to that cry a vast outpouring of waters purged the earth, quite literally, of its filthiness.

    "The soil, the air, the water are all pure and healthy. Do not suffer them to become polluted with wickedness. Strive to preserve the elements from being contaminated by the filthy, wicked conduct and sayings of those who pervert the intelligence God has bestowed upon the human family." Brigham Young

    A Latter-day Saint pharmacologist has recently written, "Pollution and environmental deterioration are primarily moral and spiritual problems, rather than problems of technology

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    June 25, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    You have your facts backwards redshirt. The banks were privatized in 2000 and went broke in 2008 when they were taken back by the government. I have no idea how you could have got that mixed up except wishfull thinking.

    Right before the collapse the credit agencies also gave the private banks a AAA rating.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    June 24, 2011 10:46 p.m.

    Same argument another day...Socialists think that the government should and can take care of everyone without going broke. Capitalists think that people are individuals and can take care of themselves and others.

  • smileyeagle1021 Murray, UT
    June 24, 2011 5:15 p.m.

    @redshirt "Lets think about it, if the city taxes the people, and has a new city administration building constructed, who produced the wealth? Did the city produce wealth by taxing and spending, or did the contractor produce wealth by building an office? "

    This is really a chicken and the egg dilema. The contractor indeed was the one who generated the wealth by building the building, however they wouldn't have been able to generate that wealth if the city had not collected taxes to be able to pay the contractor, and the city would not have been able to collect taxes if the contractor was not creating wealth. Like it or not, government and private sector are in a nearly unbreakable symbiotic relationship at this point. It is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins anymore. The sooner we as a nation recognize this, the sooner we can start working on viable solutions rather than just shouting back and forth.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2011 4:21 p.m.

    @redshirt
    Matthew 19:21
    21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 24, 2011 11:30 a.m.

    To "Screwdriver | 10:33 a.m." once again, you are not letting facts get in the way of your liberal Koolaid drinking.

    Iceland is also an example of the failure of socialism.

    The privatized banks in iceland were not created until September 2008, at that time the bank held $9.553 Trillion in debt. The GDP for Iceland is $1.3 Trillion. From 2001 to 2008 during the time of financial deregulation in Iceland, the banks were owned and controlled by the government. Again, that is socialism, and we can see its failure.

    Lets look at Spain. They are going through a similar crisis to Greece, but their banks are robust and conservative in their lending practices. Now, the government spent the country into a hole, and because of the national debt that the government incurred, they finally got to a point where nobody would lend them money at a cheap rate. Again, socialism failed.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    June 24, 2011 10:33 a.m.

    Conservatives are pointing to Greece as an example of socialist failure? Not so fast. Greece is broke because thier banks took risks thier accounts couldn't cash. Same with Iceland.

    Study up on Iceland, a near utopia and very socialist only to be brought to near ruin when thier banks were privatized and used as little playgrounds for a few rich that bankrupted them. They took on US banking charateristics and ideals. That's why they went broke and are in a recession along with all the other countries whose "conservatives" convinced them that banks don't need regulation.

    And the weeping and wailing against big government is really consternance with civilization. Sorry, but roads, police and all the necessities that come with millions of people living in close quarters cost money that businesses arn't willing to put up.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    June 24, 2011 8:31 a.m.

    I agree with everyone about closing tax loopholes and tax credits.

    Most people are right to call for an end to the sugar credit, corn credit, ethanol credit and similar government handouts.

    One credit that everyone is missing that also needs to go both at the state and federal level is the child tax credit.

    If you can't afford a family, the government shouldn't be paying to support it. Anyone who takes the tax credit is accepting a government handout. If you take this handout but complain about the credits, please send the money you have received back to the state and federal governement.

    Let's start living within our means at all levels starting at home.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 23, 2011 10:55 p.m.

    re:@Charles
    "Did Christ tell the rich man to sell his stuff and give it to the government? Nope."

    "The govt." Tiberius Caesar, Pontinus Pilate and Herod?

    In case you haven't noticed CA is a very diverse state. Prop 8 remember? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger remember?

    Most/all industrialized countries have a progressive tax system and universal health care.

    Most Third World countries don't.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2011 10:08 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal | 3:12 p.m." again, you show that you have not developed an understanding of the scriptures.

    Read D&C 56:16-17 which states "16 Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!

    17 Wo unto you apoor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other mens goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!"

    To "atl134 | 9:49 p.m." Go and read about Zacchæus the Publican in Luke 19. He was a rich man who had dinner with Jesus. He described how he tried to follow the commandments and be honest. He was not told to give up his riches, but was told "This day is salvation come to this house." Seems like Jesus liked this wealthy man.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:49 p.m.

    "Did Christ tell the rich man to sell his stuff and give it to the government? Nope.
    "

    Of course Christ told him to give up everything he had.

    "I've asked every tax-loving, can't get enough spending Liberal on these pages to detail a city or state or nation that has used the policies that the Dems love as an example we can emulate. No one can provide just 1."

    Vermont, Canada, Norway, Sweden. Ah, you're right... I couldn't provide just 1, that's what I get for not reading directions.

    "What we can see is examples like Detroit, New Orleans, CA, OR, MA, NJ, NY, Greece, North Korea, Cuba, USSR as perfect examples of your failed belief system. "

    Somebodies cherrypicking, and has no idea what Democrats advocate since North Korea, Cuba, and the USSR are not good examples of what Democrats/liberals advocate at all.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    June 23, 2011 6:22 p.m.

    Conservatives keep saying that government needs to balance its' budget just like a household does. Okay, let's follow that logic:

    Say that you're cut from full-time to part-time at work. Naturally, you do things like cancel your Netflix and try to stretch your grocery dollar, but does that mean you tell your family to stop eating or using electricity? No, what you'd most likely do is try to find more work or another job altogether. Not only would you cut your spending, you'd also try to increase your revenue. That's what the typical household would do. Why shouldn't the government?

    Democrats actually have a lot of ideas to close the gap (let the Bush tax cuts expire, cut defense waste, stop rewarding businesses that export jobs overseas, and yes, some cuts in social services), but Republicans would rather slash the safety net, give more tax cuts to billionaires, and declare the problem "solved." We have real problems and calling Americans who are in need lazy freeloaders isn't going to solve them.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 23, 2011 4:42 p.m.

    The primary purpose of government is to protect it's citizens. Most of that effort is devoted to protecting them from themselves. Most laws, rules, regulations, and enforcement apply to our own people. More people citizens tend to require greater numbers in the government at greater expense. The other factor is the growth in technology and new ideas often contain problems as well as solutions.

    The first secondary purpose of government is to do those things that the people want done but cant or wont do for themselves. These things include highways and infrastructure, clean air and water, the needed safety nets and a level playing ground for all to have an equal opportunity of success.

    The nth purpose of government is to do those things that the people want done but cant or wont do for themselves... etc. etc.

    We are no longer individual animals in a jungle, we are people who know that the good life is a more likely result when we work together than when we are alone.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 23, 2011 4:33 p.m.

    The radical right has come out in droves today.

    I think this letter and comments must have hit a nerve.

    Sorry repubs, but your corporate welfare and handouts are going to end soon!!!

  • Roger Terry Orem, UT
    June 23, 2011 4:14 p.m.

    @Charles
    How about Germany? I've lived there. My son spent two weeks in a German hospital with a ruptured appendix. He got excellent care. Since he was a foreigner, they charged him $6000, half of what it cost me to have a minor outpatient surgery here. The Germans spend about half what we do on health care (as a percentage of GDP). They are pretty much supporting the whole European Union. West Germany took on the challenge of reunification with the GDR, took on a little water, but have still maintained a strong economy. They have been a net exporter for decades, unlike the U.S. In fact, they are just behind China as the world's second largest exporter. They have a high standard of living, and very few hungry. Can we blame this on that famous German industriousness? No. They love their time off. Six weeks paid vacation. Holidays we'd never dream of (like Repentance and Prayer Day). They work, on average, about 9 full weeks a year less than American workers. They're rather socialist in many ways. How do they do this? Gee, beats me.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 23, 2011 3:12 p.m.

    @RedShirt | 11:23 a.m. June 23, 2011
    USS Enterprise, UT

    To "LDS Liberal | 10:44 a.m." plese state where you got that number of deaths due to starvation. All I could find were references to plaes outside the US. The US has sufficient money to handle its poor, and does so. The countries where people are starving are usually dictatorship or communist/socialist nations.

    [World Health Organization, and I didn't know "Charity" had geo-political boundaries. So much for believing we are us all Children of the same God.]

    ===============================

    @Charles | 12:29 p.m. June 23, 2011
    The Greater Outdoors, UT
    @LDS Lib continued: yes I believe the Lord when He said charity is the way to go.

    [Good: Then you believe "all things" come from God.
    and know that He tests us to see what we'll do with what we've been given.

    And like any Father, He gives us things (blessings), and tells us to share with our brothers and Sisters....He expects (commands) us to "re-distrubute" (share) his blessings (wealth) - evenly.

    He doesn't micro-manage and say exactly "how".
    and FYI - America is not the Kingdom of God.

    Your "Brother" in the Gospel.
    LDSLib

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 23, 2011 2:25 p.m.

    "...commie".

    Reading these comments reminds me of McCarthy...

    and I don't mean Edgar Bergen's beloved wooden headed sidekick...Charlie.

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    June 23, 2011 1:37 p.m.

    Commie? Are you serious Charles? Who actually uses that word anymore? Laughable.

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    June 23, 2011 12:59 p.m.

    Uh, it's based on the fact that my employers and I by law pay TAXES to the unemployment fund as a condition of employment. Its what you're supposed to do (on this planet anyway), because that's how our government set it up to work, not begging your neighbors for money. Are you going to turn down medicare as well? I'm sure the neighbors would be more than happy to pay your medical bills...

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    June 23, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    @Roger: I don't know of anyone, anywhere who advocates no taxes. Yes taxes have a place and a purpose. The Constitution dictates for the Feds what areas it is supposed to provide.

    I don't see SS, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare (really, forcing someone to buy something they otherwise might not want to buy?), foreign aid, nationalization of private companies, bailouts, etc. Do you? If so, where?

    We've been on the direction you indicate for 50+ years; mainly through those years of Democratic hold on Congress.

    I've asked every tax-loving, can't get enough spending Liberal on these pages to detail a city or state or nation that has used the policies that the Dems love as an example we can emulate. No one can provide just 1.

    What we can see is examples like Detroit, New Orleans, CA, OR, MA, NJ, NY, Greece, North Korea, Cuba, USSR as perfect examples of your failed belief system.

    All we ever hear is that the people who tried it before weren't smart enough but we are. Oh the arrogance of the Commie Democrat in this nation.

    Get government out of the way and let people do what they do best! Charity!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 23, 2011 12:41 p.m.

    Re: "I'm not a socialist."

    Only you can know for sure, of course, but you're doing a pretty good imitation of one.

    Taking a position that an empowered government is a good thing -- that government, rather than hard work, discipline, and fortune should decide winners and losers at life -- makes it hard to argue you're not a socialist.

    Class envy starts with the evil rich, but, as Margaret Thatcher famously indicated, it can't stop there, because too soon, you run out of other people's money.

    There's really no such thing as a little socialism. In for a penny, in for a pound. Power given to government will inevitably be misused. Politicians just can't help themselves.

    The only hope of national salvation is to restore ingenious Constitutional checks and balances. Assure that man's natural need to compete defeats, rather than aids concentration of power.

    It's less efficient, sure, but cooperation between politicians, parties, branches of government, or government agencies can only lead to tyranny and grief.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    June 23, 2011 12:29 p.m.

    @LDS Lib continued: yes I believe the Lord when He said charity is the way to go. It's becoming like Him. Or don't you believe Him.

    Why don't you impart FREELY of your abundance?

    Why do you believe the government does it better than you or me?

    Did Christ tell the rich man to sell his stuff and give it to the government? Nope.

    I've lived in many places in the world/country. I don't need your Commie education that government IS the answer. I already KNOW that PEOPLE are the answer!

    17,000 Americans die a day from starving? Or is that some worldwide number from your Commie UN?

    Sorry pal, but there is enough in this world and room to spare. You do believe your Savior and what He said, right?

    Global Warming? Sure, sure. Can you please tell us all what the optimum temperature of the earth is supposed to be and how you know that?

    You rely on the philosophies of men LDS Lib way too much. I'll stick with what my Savior has said and follow His commandments, not those of worldly men seeking power through the government.

    atl: call the whammmbulllanncee!!

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 23, 2011 12:25 p.m.

    The study I referenced "also dismissed the traditional American capitalist contention that socialism is bad for market growth: "A lot of the finger-pointing we do at these countries is totally misleading. It's a myth."

    Kirkegaard says that many socialized governments provide critical support for business growth, including first class infrastructure built by the public sector, retraining of workers and public education systems that result in better-prepared workforces, comparative to the US. "There are a lot of areas where the role of government is a benefit for the businesses in these countries."

    Oh My Heck...a Ronald Reagan "government is the problem" reality check!

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    June 23, 2011 12:23 p.m.

    @Whatever: why should you have claim on government (actually your neighbors) for money if you lose your job? What principle is that based on? Why shouldn't you save for a rainy day or ask your family to help you? Why is the government the first place you run, "just because you pay taxes"?

    I don't hold anyone on welfare in contempt. I hold the concept of 99 weeks on welfare, won't take a job because I get more money on welfare, etc in contempt. The question is, why don't you?

    My family, not the government or church, helped me out for a couple of months. And I've helped some of them and neighbors who were in need of help. That's how it's supposed to work.

    @LDS Liberal: I believe it was my Savior, apparently not yours, who said we were supposed to love one another as we love ourselves. The scriptures about the Good Samaritan are great examples of how we are to conduct ourselves with what we have been blessed.

    It's amazing that you don't believe that charity has the capability to cover all the REAL needs of our day. Amazing!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2011 12:22 p.m.

    To "atl134 | 11:36 a.m." yes, I honestly believe that if we cut the social welfare programs from the federal budget and government that the American people would step up and take care of the poor.

    I believe in the individuals of the US.

  • George Bronx, NY
    June 23, 2011 12:12 p.m.

    @Al
    Actually Greece has a rather capitalist system and the austerity plan that Greece imposed that has lead to their complete meltdown is exactly the same as the plan republicans want to impose here.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2011 11:36 a.m.

    "The US has sufficient money to handle its poor, and does so."

    With gov't programs. Let's say we got rid of all welfare type programs in the name of deficit reduction. In that situation nobody is getting to keep extra money from lower taxes because we used that lack of welfare spending to reduce the deficit. Do you honestly believe that the American people would then donate from what they currently have in sufficient amounts to handle the poor in replacement of all the current gov't programs that do so? If you do... you're living in a fantasy-world.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2011 11:23 a.m.

    To "isrred | 9:39 a.m" nobody is asking for anarchy, which would be an unregulated market. If you read even the most basic descriptions of capitalism, it requires that there are laws to govern what is done. The problem is that we have government going beyond being the referee, and is now determining who will win and who will lose or else taking over the industry, that is not capitalism.

    Again, anarchy is not capitalism.

    To "LDS Liberal | 10:44 a.m." plese state where you got that number of deaths due to starvation. All I could find were references to plaes outside the US. The US has sufficient money to handle its poor, and does so. The countries where people are starving are usually dictatorship or communist/socialist nations.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 23, 2011 10:44 a.m.

    @Charles | 9:41 a.m. June 23, 2011
    The Greater Outdoors, UT

    Charity has always had the capability to assist those with REAL needs, always.

    ===============

    Holy Cow!

    That is about the biggest lie I have ever read on these comments and opinions.
    Do you really and sincerely believe that?!

    What little part of own private "The Greater Outdoors, UT" do you live?

    Get out and see the world.
    Study some history.
    Get a reality check!

    6,000,000 starve to death every year.
    17,000 children each and every day!

    S-T-A-R-V-E to death.
    Not getting a new X-box, or Nike shoes.

    Charity only works in a fuzzy, dream-like, utopian wish-World.
    We live in the Real world.

    But just like with Global Climate Change -- if it isn't happening in "The Greater Outdoors, UT", it just isn't happening.

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    June 23, 2011 10:26 a.m.

    So Charles, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, you should have no choice other than to wait for some benevolent wealthy person to give you some sort of charity, and not be able to expect anything from a government to which you pay taxes as well? I guess you already have received some sort of charity, (probably church based) so I guess they deemed you worthy But how does that make you different from all the other welfare recipients you obviously have so much contempt for? Why would you accept charity if you are so big on personal responsibility?

    Never received a dime from charity and wouldn't ask for it under any circumstances. Does that make me more of an American than you?

  • Roger Terry Orem, UT
    June 23, 2011 10:25 a.m.

    @Charles:
    FYI, I don't hate rich people or my fellowman. I don't believe that government should provide everything for everyone. I do believe in personal responsibility, liberty, and freedom. And I don't love taxes, although I see their necessity. But I see the direction this country is heading (and has been relentlessly pursuing for the past 30 years), and I'm not excited about the destination.

    As for a sufficient tax rate, given our current situation, I'm wondering if even a return to the rates of the Eisenhower years will be enough to right the ship. Have you got any better solution than simply to let you keep more of your money so that you can donate to charities? Please enlighten me.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2011 10:24 a.m.

    "Do Republicans have a stance on anything besides cutting taxes for the wealthy? "

    I think they have a stance called 'everyone loves private insurers so let's get rid of Medicare and have seniors experience it too'. Speaking of private insurance I wonder if my own lousy insurance has finally gotten around to paying anything for my surgery I had almost 6 months ago.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:41 a.m.

    @Roger: hey, we got it the first time. No need to repeat your hyperbole in the comment section.

    Yes, you hate rich people. You believe the Tea Party has no heart. You believe that government should provide everything for everyone.

    You don't believe in personal responsibility, nor liberty, nor freedom.

    Charity has always had the capability to assist those with REAL needs, always. People like you don't believe in the human race to do the right thing when assistance is needed.

    I know of many who have given anonymously to friends, neighbors and family members. I've been on the receiving end as well as the giving end.

    Maybe if people like you would allow people like me to keep more of the money I earn then I will be in an even better position to help others and the charities I deem worthy. yes, the charities I deem worthy. Shouldn't it be my choice of what happens with my hard-earned cash?

    Who are you to tell me what to do with it?

    Your hatred for your fellowman and your love of taxes is noted. Your hyperbole is noted. So, what tax rate is enough for you, specifically?

  • isrred Logan, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:39 a.m.

    "Ask law enforcement who they spend their time with."

    Ask corporations how much in profits they would make if we did not have a government funded system of law and order that protected their products and assets.

    "And I see no indication that water, sewer, fire protection, flood control, roads, etc. are used disproportionately by the rich."

    How would businesses transport their products without government funded infrastructure? How would their employees get to work without driving on government funded roads? Without government funded infrastructure, business would be hampered. Ignoring, or even denying that, gives your side no credibility.

    I'm not a socialist. I LOVE private ownership. I love that I can take an idea and through hard work, smart investment, and a little luck turn that into a way to advance my standard of living. But I do not support and entirely unregulated free market where big corporations are able to destroy the environment and take advantage of their workers and communal resources.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    Re: "Now I don't hate corporations, but they certainly benefit more from our infrastructure . . . than do those in poverty."

    Yeah, well, I think we'll need to see some proof of that.

    Ask law enforcement who they spend their time with. Ask social and welfare agencies. Ask prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers. And I see no indication that water, sewer, fire protection, flood control, roads, etc. are used disproportionately by the rich.

    Monetary system? The Constitution and laws assume we all benefit from having one. Forcing those most successful at dealing with it to pay a disproportionate share of its cost is a novel, socialistic approach.

    You ought to look over your figures as to who pays for satellites and the internet.

    Your argument actually condenses down to nothing more than a [rather novel, even somewhat ingenious, but] standard, socialist, government-owns-the-economy, class-envy screed.

    I know the socialist argument -- "why steal from the rich? Because that's where the money is." But that encapsulates the morality of socialistic, class-struggle argument. No higher principles involved.

    Same as bank robbing.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:26 a.m.

    To "JustGordon | 4:41 a.m." the interesting about the socialist countries that are growing economically is the simple fact that they are adopting Capitalism. It is the capitalists in those countries that are becoming super wealthy.

    To "Blue | 8:04 a.m." the government buying things is not the same as producing wealth. As has been stated, you have to build something or produce something. What does the government itself build or produce?

    Lets think about it, if the city taxes the people, and has a new city administration building constructed, who produced the wealth? Did the city produce wealth by taxing and spending, or did the contractor produce wealth by building an office?

  • Roger Terry Orem, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    One problem with the conservative "solution" to our debt crisis is that it will put more money in the hands of the wealthy and push more of our poor and elderly and disadvantaged into serious economic hardship or even homelessness. And since charity has never had the ability to cover the real needs of the needy, we will see a drastic shift in our society (as if we haven't already). But if the Tea Party has its way, you can expect to see 100 million people without health insurance, a huge rise in unemployment, and half of our children going hungry.

    The goal of an economic system should not be simply to give certain people the "freedom" to get filthy rich. The goal should be to provide for the basic needs of the greatest number of citizens. After that is accomplished, then let a little wealth accumulate. But we have got the cart before the horse. Perhaps we should rename the Republican Party the "Let Them Eat Cake" Party.

    Also, thanks to the Deseret News for editing grammar and punctuation errors into my letter. Argh.

  • Roger Terry Orem, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:13 a.m.

    It's hard to make a complete argument in 200 words, so much of the connective tissue had to be left out of this letter, but the point is that we will never balance the budget by cutting spending alone. And if we do cut spending suddenly and drastically, we will also be cutting the economy in size, since so much of it is dependent on government spending. Unfortunately, a big portion of this spending has been funded by debt. We could have funded it with taxes, but we didn't. That's old history now, but it got us to where we are now.

    The problem is the fundamental imbalance in the system. When too much goes to the already wealthy, they don't spend as much on consumer goods as the lower and middle classes would if that money were in their hands. The wealthy invest a good portion of their excess instead, often in speculative financial instruments or Third World countries. Since the consumer classes don't have enough disposable income to buy all the products corporations need to sell to stay in business, somebody has to pick up the slack. Guess who? The consumer of last resort. Uncle Sam.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    Start with eliminating corporate welfare and then cut military spending.
    Stop foreign aid.
    Nationalize oil, gas and mining.
    Eliminate Bush's tax cuts.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:03 a.m.

    The most amazing thing about the Republican "cut taxes for the wealthy" policy is that it is defended by poor and middle class Americans. They will not benefit from the wealthy's tax cuts, and many Republican plans cut services for the poor and middle class.

    They support the policy under the delusion that we are over-taxed (we are at historic lows), and the idea that the wealthy will use their tax cuts to create jobs. Life under the Bush tax cuts proved that theory to be false. If the wealthy created any jobs, they created them in India. That didn't help Americans.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 23, 2011 8:42 a.m.

    Common sense has somehow invaded Orem today.

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    June 23, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    Yeah, Paul Ryan's plan is great. It supposedly closes corporate loopholes and lowers corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy by 10 percent while providing NOTHING for the middle class. Just another tax break for the people who need it the least. Do Republicans have a stance on anything besides cutting taxes for the wealthy?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 23, 2011 8:30 a.m.

    @ Blue. I would argue that the defense contractors you mention do not produce any new wealth.The products they produce were funded from taxpayers and no new wealth was created-just a tranfer of wealth! Real wealth is created only by the production of something of value not from taxes but on their own from raw resources, most notably farmers and miners, for examples. Bill Gates is another example of creating wealth, in other words, the private sector! Government does not create wealth because it produces nothing, it only consumes wealth!

  • isrred Logan, UT
    June 23, 2011 8:06 a.m.

    "Those who benefit the most from government debt are those who receive most government entitlements, yet pay NO taxes whatever -- the bottom 46% of income earners."

    No, those who benefit most are those top 1% and corporations. Now I don't hate corporations, but they certainly benefit more from our infrastructure, national security and police force, monetary system, government funded research like satellite technology and the internet, etc than do those in poverty.

    Corporations make billions in profits because of government (not to mention their own corporate welfare), they should pay their fair share.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2011 8:04 a.m.

    "The fact is that government, no matter which kind, does not produce wealth. "

    I'm pretty sure that the chief executives of any number of prominent corporations, such as Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics, L-3, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., whose companies do virtually 100% of their business with the federal government, would have to disagree with that statement.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 23, 2011 7:56 a.m.

    Re: ". . . require those who benefit most from government debt to pay a proportionately larger share . . . ."

    Huh? A liberal asserting we should increase taxes on the poor?

    Those who benefit the most from government debt are those who receive most government entitlements, yet pay NO taxes whatever -- the bottom 46% of income earners.

    I gotta agree with you -- at a time when 40 cents of every dollar government flushes down the toilet is borrowed, EVERY American should feel the bite of our bloated government's excess. Everyone should pay some tax, so everyone has an interest in keeping taxes as low as possible.

    But it's really shocking to hear a liberal say as much.

  • Al Vernal, UT
    June 23, 2011 7:21 a.m.

    JustGordon

    "A sobering study covering 30 years (1981 to 2011) indicates that so called socialist economies have produced more wealth for their citizens than we have in the US. The free market is really not free."

    I guess that is why the socialist nations have failed (i.e. Greece, the most socialist nation in the EU), because they have produced too much wealth for their citizens.

    The fact is that government, no matter which kind, does not produce wealth. Wealth is produced by people. Government just takes the wealth produced by people and redistributes it to where it wants it to go. By doing so, the government chooses winners and losers, while at the same time it enslaves the citizenry making them dependent on the government for everything.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 23, 2011 7:09 a.m.

    "we has been generating record corporate profits and increasing the gap between the rich and everyone else"

    Maybe education and the ability to tell when to use "have" instead of "has" has something to do with it.

    Since you're decrying all the corporate tax breask, do you then support Paul Ryan's plan to CLOSE the corporate tax loop-holes?

    Cut the corporate breaks for all those ethanol producers, sugar producers, and other farm subsidies.

    But before we even go there, do you know who or what the corporations are?

    DO you own ANY stocks, bonds, or mutual funds? Do you have an IRA or other retirement account? If so, you most likely are part of those evil corporations.

    And if you are going into debt to stay afloat, maybe you need to see a credit counselor and take a course in money management.

    People, and governments, go into debt not because they have insufficient revenue, but because they spend more than they bring in.

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 23, 2011 4:41 a.m.

    The reality is that growth in American has either been maintained by debt or geographic expansion. Since there is no place left to expand, taking away the other option is an economic stifling move.

    No American, unless s/he was born with a silver spoon in their mouth and lots of money in the bank, pays for their first house without a loan. Chances are for the vast majority of us, we never will own a house free and clear. How did/do we build equity, create wealth? Through debt!! It just needs to be managed correctly and the system needs to have controls that have been missing since the mid 80's and the adoption of supply side economics.

    A sobering study covering 30 years (1981 to 2011) indicates that so called socialist economies have produced more wealth for their citizens than we have in the US. The free market is really not free.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 23, 2011 12:39 a.m.

    Amen, and Amen!