Comments about ‘Readers' forum: Drastic spending cuts’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 23 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Amen, and Amen!

JustGordon
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

"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.

Al
Vernal, UT

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.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

isrred
Logan, UT

"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.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ 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!

Whatever
Springville, UT

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?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Common sense has somehow invaded Orem today.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

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

Roger Terry
Orem, UT

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.

Roger Terry
Orem, UT

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.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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.

isrred
Logan, UT

"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.

@Charles
the greater outdoors, UT

@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?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

Roger Terry
Orem, UT

@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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments