Quantcast

Comments about ‘Reagan looms over debt debate inspiring both sides’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, July 23 2011 10:11 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Rock..... just stop. Please. To say one side was saintly, and the other the devils advocate is just representing the facts. Stop already, we've had enough.

Reagan had some very strong points, and as a communicator, he was one of the best is helping the nation understand what it was he was trying to achieve. But even the patron saint of the Republican party knew when to bend and try to balance ideology with the pragmatic need to get things done.

I am sure no one in the Reagan administration liked the covert funding of the Sandinestas. Nor the drugs for arms. Nor arming and supporting an Iraqi government, that just a short time later we would have to return to take out of power. Nor the fact that the US government funded much of the Taliban activities when we were trying to unseat the Soviet control in that part of the world Reagan dealt with many groups I am sure he would have preferred not deal with.

But he understood sometimes you bend for the greater good. What we have now is an unwillingness to bend, just to say you did "compromise"

Reagan knew how to compromise.

I'll call it
Ogden, UT

Reagan has alway received too much credit. Granted, he did the best he could. Even great for the ones that choose not to live within their means. That accounts for the majority.

He very seldom took a stance against the democratic congress his first four years. As a result, the national debt increased three fold under his watch (2 terms). He was one of the first truly BIG SPENDERS. Go look at the data, he still holds the record. I feel sorry for the current and future generations. We have mortgaged their futures in the form of debt and taxes.

As for our relatively low federal tax burden... states and local governments have made up the difference. Check out which states are hurting the most right now... the biggest spenders.

Gr8Dane
Tremonton, UT

Obama's debt (defined as debt accrued since he's been President) has skyrocketed and is more than all other President's combined since the founding of the Republic).

He spent a trillion dollars alone on "stimulus," and we're still at almost 10% unemployment. So much for stimulating the economy, or having the effect of reducing unemployment that he promised!

He appears to me to not be alarmed at being on the precipice of economic disaster. Everything is still a teleprompter-induced talking point to him. He's campaigner-in=chief, still focused on political base and favoring his friends in the labor unions and community organizers (rabble rousers) like SEIU, ACORN... Opening the federal coffers to them through Obama Care, bail outs, stimulus.

Amazing to me how Obama seems to get "a pass" every time from lame-brain media who are in the tank for him. Pray for our country....

Led Zeppelin II
Bountiful, UT

Ronald Reagan was the best President of the 20th century and the last true American President.
Both parties complained about what Ronald Reagan did when he was in office.
And later both parties have destroyed this country in the name of Ronald Reagan.
And both parties continue to make fase statements about Ronald Reagan to make themselves look good while they continue to destroy our freedoms and nation because both sides only want power.
RIP Ronald Reagan.
And I hope the 2 parties destroy each other first before they destroy the United States of America.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Reagan's unpardonable sin the that Democrats will never forgive him for? He won the Cold War and brought down the Iron Curtain.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Rifleman

"Reagan's unpardonable sin the that Democrats will never forgive him for? He won the Cold War and brought down the Iron Curtain. "

Maybe you should let Democrats answer the question of what democrats think because for me and many other Democrats and liberals his unpardonable sin was trickle-down economics that over 3 decades of belief in that fraud has led us from having the top 10% control 30% of the wealth in 1980 to controlling 47% of the wealth by 2007.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Gr8dane, boy golly gee, you sure have all the talking points down, dontcha, dude? Good work. But do you ever take a sec to think about what you are saying?

For instance, you claim:

Obama's debt (defined as debt accrued since he's been President) has skyrocketed and is more than all other President's combined since the founding of the Republic).

Really?

The debt when Obama took office was 10.7 trillion. Today it stands at 14.3 trillion.

Let's make the numbers easier for you. Let's say it was an even 10 when he took office, and lets say its 15 today. So obviously, through simple subtraction 15-10=5, we find a difference of 5. Now 5 is less then 10. So if we are saying Obama has added 5 trillion to the debt (yeah, yeah, I know it really is a lot less then this that he has added, but like I said, we are making the numbers easy for you) obviously that is not more then all previous presidents (since the founding) have added combined, as you claim.

And good heavens, we didn't even add the debt from WWII .

J-TX
Allen, TX

@ I'll call it | 2:25 p.m. July 24, 2011

Well said. While I believe he was a great communicator and excelled at foreign policy, why anyone would cite Reagan as a positive economic influence I cannot understand. Trickle On economics does not work. Replacing tax and spend with borrow and spend does not work. Spending trillions on Star Wars programs that would never materialize was irresponsible, if not reprehensible.

Now, I think we should hold taxes in check, and hold spending in check. If I were President, the first thing I would do would be to propose the elimination of the cap on Social Security taxes. THe rich should pay Social Security taxes on every cent they earn. But then we could cut their income taxes some, not touch the general fund to fund SS, and start looking at programs we should not be financing at the federal level anyway.

An interesting article in the Dallas Morning News this morning illustrated the problem in Washington. It listed all the federal funding slated for August, proposing entire programs to fund or not fund per different scenarios. What congress should be doing is cutting all programs across the board.

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

Citing the percentage of income that was paid in taxes is misleading. Because low-income levels are not taxed, prosperity means that people's incomes are farther above that "floor." By cutting tax rates, Reagan helped fuel prosperity. Prosperity raises people's taxable income.

Low tax rates encourage investment and growth.

to comment

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