Deseret News | Obama has the right idea

Reader comments
Obama has the right idea

rick | 2:07 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

Interesting editorial. I would only add that we already have some forms of "socialized medicine" (a term which is fraught with too many negative connotations to be useful in discussing healthcare reform). I am a veteran, and the entire VA system is paid for by the government. Although I have found the VA ( my treatment has been at the George Whalen VA Hospital in SLC )to be understaffed and even overwhelmed at times, overall I have found my care to be very good. I know that Congress has quite an enviable healthcare plan, so it is not quite correct to say that the government has no experience in healthcare administration. (trying to avoid the dreaded "socialized medicine" concept).

hsr0601 | 3:43 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

After the third wave of IT REVOLUTION followed by the immense infrastructure and investments, the fourth wave of ET REVOLUTION awaits a BOLD ACTION for CHANGE, I think. The new govt is on the basis of THE POLICY OF ENERGY INDEPENDENCY adopted by a Democratic Procedure. Americans have chosen CHANGE, and NOTHING ADVENTURED, NOTHING GAINED ! Energy Independency is the unavoidable task after all, and it can bring down the fuel costs ultimately as a by-product, which might be enormous enough to cover the upgrade investments. All the brilliant brains get together in the U.S. for the better life and future. Lastly, without jobs, the economic activity can't be activated, and the working class is broke due to the imported fuel costs, therefore the stimulus project by the govt may be in dire need. CHEER UP !

AZ Border Dude | 5:59 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

The Clinton administration and Congress did more than raid Social Security to get the surplus. Their deeds included security threatening cuts to the military and intelligence operations of the country and disenfranchisment of health care for most reitred military. The Clinton cuts to the active military is the biggest reason the Reserve and Guard forces are called upon so mucn more these days.

Mr. Obama seems headed in that direction. His budget aevisors are looking at cuts in veteran medical care and increasing costs in Medicare eligible non-working retirees to the tune of $100+ billion. There are other things being done we don't usually hear about, such as some of his picks for cabinet posts. Sure he wants change, but the persons selected should at least be conversant with the field they are going to oversee.

It appears he is trying to roll everything back to the 'good' old Clinton days. Days when government was based more on political connection than security, fairness and truth. Days when the President surrounded himself with only 'yes' men.

Good luck. May God Bless the United States of America.

Comments continue below

Good for Obama | 6:50 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

I really like the fact that Obama sees the need to provide tax relief to other than the very rich. I hope he makes good on his pledge to put people to work, investing in alternative forms of energy. Wind, geothermal and even nuclear. We we go all out in this area, we can wean ourselves of the need to buy foreign oil and the economic drag and risk that the supplies will be cut off.

I expect he will make a very good president.

Re: Good for Obama | 7:51 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

You are fooled. The rich are the ones paying the lion's share of the taxes. Why should I pay 50% of my income to taxes and you get handouts? If I am taxed more, there is no incentive to produce more jobs. You will see his policies are going to fail.

ECR | 7:54 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

AZ Border Dude - Now let's be up front and admit that the Reagan Administration started the raiding of the SS fund and subsequent administrations, including Clinton's, followed behind. The difference between the Clinton Administration and the Reagan Administration is that Clinton, assisted by the Republican controlled Congress, actually balanced the national budget rather than just talking about it. Also, the military funding was reduced because the Cold War was over. You mioght remember that Reagan outspent the Soviets which might have been a contributing factor in the fall of that empire. It also put all of us into debt for milennia to come. Clinton also reduced the federal workforce by 250,000, turning over much of the government's work to private industry. I'm not sure that idea worked out so well either but it seems to be what most private citizens pereferred then and now. Just sayin'.

@good for obama 6:50 | 8:05 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

Class envy is what the left is all about - divide the nation.

Question, when Obama makes it harder for employers, such as myself, by over taxing us because we are supposedly rich. What happens to the person that was formally employed by my company and was let go because the cost of doing business was just a little to much to stomach? I know, Obama will just put him to work on a road crew somewhere. Too simplistic this nation is!

This alternative energy is one big 'pipe dream'. we will always depend on oil for our energy and alternatvie energy will be a suppliment to that.

to Re: Good for Obama 7:51 | 8:18 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

The rich pay 'the lions share' of taxes because they have 'the lions and the tigers share' of the money.

RedShirt | 8:21 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

If Obama believes that "The quickest way out of a bad economy is to let Americans keep more of their own money, which they will use either to invest or to purchase products others create." Isn't that like saying that the people have the power to move the economy, yet his plan calls for TRILLION dollar deficites for multiple years to pay for new government programs designed to increase employment.

Wouldn't it make more sense to lower income taxes (thus increasing the purchasing power of each individual) and let people buy or invest their money.

Then, to take care of the new spending AND oil imports, he could increase the oil royalty rates to 20% and start drilling. The oil royalties alone on the US daily consumption would be nearly $230 million, PER DAY. That equates to $83 billion per year. So, if Obama wants to spend more, let him start to pump out oil and get the money that way. Those figures do not include taxes on the oil companies, which amount to billions of dollars per year.

Margaret | 8:41 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

AZ Border Dude says "it appears he is trying to roll everything back to the 'good' old Clinton days. Days when government was based more on political connection than security, fairness and truth. Days when the President surrounded himself with only 'yes' men."

Dude, where have you been living the last 8 years?

bilbo | 9:12 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

ECR:
Roosevelt used SS funds to build the Atomic Bomb, Truman used SS Funds, Eisenhower used SS to build the Interstate and Kennedy and every President since has used SS Funds. The so called Social Security Trust Fund exists in name only, and they are comingled with the general fund.
Nice try to blame Bush, but hardly original.

ECR | 9:21 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

bilbo 9:12 - Did you see the name 'Bush' anywhere in my post? Why don't you conservatives stop using whatever excuse you can to defend Bush - especially when he wasn't being blamed for anything. And if you're going to so blatantly plagerize Wikepedia you should give credit where credit is due.

Anonymous | 9:40 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

So? Did the government learn how to manipulate numbers from Wall St or vice versa?

Roland Kayser | 9:38 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

The Republicans have given us tax cut after tax cut with resultant massive deficits. I can support some temporary tax cuts now while we are in a recession, but at some point we need to be grown ups and pay for the government we have, instead of leaving the bill to our children and grandchildren.

mark | 10:31 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

@good for obama 6:50 | 8:05 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009, you say: "When Obama makes it harder for employers, such as myself, by over taxing us because we are supposedly rich. "
Obama's tax hike would, perhaps, be on people making more then $250,000, and his tax "hike" is based on letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire. So for instance capital gains tax rates going from 15% to 20% if you make more then 250 grand (and forgive me if my numbers aren't 100%. that was just a quick google)
But let's say that people making more then $250,000 get a tax hike. And you state that you are in that group, so you are saying you make at least $250,000 a year.
Well, that equals 20,833 dollars a month. Yes, a month. Utah has an average weekly wage of $660 according to an article in the D-news on Nov 30, 2006: Utah Wage Ranks 40th.
So the average wage in Utah is $2640.00 a month. You make at least $20,833.00 a month.
Which get's to my question, how dare you say you are "supposedly" rich.

Deficit | 10:58 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

I'm sure the immoral wars of aggression wars we've been fighting the last several years had nothing to do with the deficit, right?

Fact: Under Clinton, we paid for our government.
Fact: Under Bush, we didn't.

And it's the democrats that are selfish and out-of-touch with reality? Right.

re Re: Good for Obama | 7:51 a. | 11:36 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

You don't see the whole picture clearly.

Since the 80's the very rich (top 5 or 10%) have an even greater share of the nations wealth. The republican answer to this is to lower taxes in such a way that they get the lions share.

CEO's and other corporate execs get 450 times what the average worker does, is this fair? There is no evidence that this increases their performance either. It actually causes them to game the system to give them income they don't deserve.

There should be income differences according to ability, willingness to work hard, take risks and luck, but these income differences are too wide, they need to be narrowed.

CEO's don't need 50 million per year to live and we have plenty of people who can't even get or afford health insurance.

My cousin is a hard working plumber and he can't get if because of pre-existing conditions in his family. This is why we need national health care.

Sure it is possible to do it dumb, as in England, but look at how Taiwan has done it. They have socialized medicine and it works pretty good over there.

We Americans, we can too.

RedShirt | 11:42 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

To "Deficit | 10:58 a.m."

Fact: Under Clinton the accounting practices that the government uses were changed to make it appear that there was a budget surpluss.

Hmmm | 11:53 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

While it seems as if BHO wants to go back to the Clinton days, there are some of you who think that we have been there with GW for the past 8 years. Why then, would you constantly harp on GW and not on Clinton of BHO? Oh, I get it, you feel bad for not voting him in, but now you demand the rest of us to give BHO a chance. What a bunch of hypocrites.

2 bits | 12:40 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

I think we all need to give Obama's plan a chance and not just shoot it down because he isn't from our political party.

America can't succeed if Obama fails. I hope that's one thing we've learned from the past 8 years. You can't just spend all your time and effort tearing down the President for political gamesmanship and not tear down the whole country at the same time.

I hope Republicans can be a better minority than the Democrats in Congress were. I hope they don't decide to play like the Democrats did and invest 100% of their time and effort in blocking anything the President does, doing everything they can to make him look bad and insure his plans don't succeed, investigating everything he or anyone in his cabinet does in hopes of finding something they can send them to jail for, impeach them for, or at least make them look bad in the media and the public eye.

We need to unite behind Obama and quit the political one-up-manship that's been monopolysing the thoughts, time and efforts of Congress and the media for the past 8 years.

Give Obama's plan a chance.

Anonymous | 12:45 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

How could anyone continue to argue for trickle down economics at this point in history? I cannot even imagine the level of delusional thinking that would allow you to continue to believe trickle down economics could ever be anything other then a failed system.

wallofvoodoo | 12:49 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

Heaven forbid, the evil socialized medicine! Next we'll be making certain that people have a place to live & food to eat. What is this nation coming to?!

Let's try | 12:57 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

Trickle up poverty for awhile.

Ya wallofvoodoo | 12:49 p.m | 1:03 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

Like wallofvoodoo | 12:49 p.m. said... Why stop at government provided healthcare? We should also expect them to provide our housing and our food! Quit being so short sighted. The government can provide EVERYTHING for us!!!

I dream of the day when there will be no more evil CEOs in this country who just abuse their employees and make them work. Some day we can all work for the government and our productivity won't matter anymore and we won't have any evil CEO's telling us what to do and worrying about profits.

RedShirt | 1:14 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

To "2 bits | 12:40 p.m." I actually hope that the Republicans block everything that comes through Congress. Businesses actually do better when Congress does nothing.

Unfortunately, the Republicans will be like the Democrats were the last few years. They will pass any bill that has pork in it for their districts.

I long for the day when some politician will get enough support to shout loudly to the rest of the nation "ENOUGH" and actually get the government to be concerned with what is right and wrong, rather than what will get them re-elected.

RE wallofvoodoo | 1:20 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

It's not the federal government's job to pay for your healthcare, it your responsibility.

What are you a little child?

Apparently you are also expecting the fed's to pay for your housing and food next.

How much enslavement to the federal government are you willing to incurr for a few handouts?

The Federal government will control all aspects of your life health and diet to control the costs of universal health,

we have liberals in goverment that want to control your diet,
what light bulbs you can use,
they want control the thermostat in you own house,
they want want have oversight to the miliage gauge in you own car,
they already control and want more control over what is taught to your children in school,
the liberals want take way or conrol all guns,
they want to control the media so you only get the message they want you to hear,
they use Poicitical Correctness, to shame into and control behavior and words of others and ultimately to control what you think,

Honestly how much freedom and liberty are you willing give up.

Liberals and the extreme left's trickle up economics have never worked, it just makes everyone poor.

Anonymous | 1:44 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

The conservative Palin/McCain ticket lost.
They lost big time.
Get over it!

RedShirt | 1:47 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

To "Anonymous | 1:44 p.m." McCain is NOT a conservative. He is a neoconservative or "liberal light", but not a conservative. Palin may be a conservative, but I don't know much about what she has done in Alaska tax and spending wise.

Re "Anonymous | 1:44 p.m." | 2:20 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

Who's having a hard time moving on from Palin/McCain? (Hint... YOU).

You are the only one I see continually bringing it up. I think everyone else has already moved on to other things. You are the one you insists on dwelling on Palin/McCain.

You get over it! Everyone else already has. We have new topics to discuss now!

@anon12:45 | 2:32 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

I know, lets try trickle up economics. This sounds like a great idea, or, nothing from nothing leaves nothing!

Mark10:31
Do you really think Obama or any other polititian is taxing the rich because they think they make too much? Polititians are the biggest group of multi-millionares around. Do they really want to tax themselves more? No, they will be sheltered from the tax burden through trusts, etc.. This is just a game they play to divide the electorate and guess what, the mass majority (thats voters to you and me) are not rich. Cater to them and you have your next power grab. Mark, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. Taxing the supposed rich will not get you another step toward financial independence.

re re RE wallofvoodoo | 1:20 p | 2:35 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

the liberals want take way or conrol all guns,

I am pro gun very pro second ammendment. I am for national health care, if we do it right as Taiwan has apparently done. I am pro capitalism, but I am also pro socialism, for a mix if you will.

Public funding of education to grade 12 is socialistic, as is national defense, police and fire protection.

You ask why should this be the governments responsiblity, (national health care). How is this for a reason.

As time goes on and our technology improves, we become more capable of producing wealth. If government doesn't intervien, there are those who will get paid 50 million per year, even if they run companies into the ground. In other words some people will take way more than they deserve or need.

Why not let the government distribute our great wealth a little more fairly. To people who work hard but get paid very little. The janitor, the burger flipper, the secretary etc.

Don't these people deserve health care insurance too?

Or you can let the law of the jungle prevail and some people take (notice I didn't say earn) billions.

Anonymous | 2:36 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

@good for obama 6:50 | 8:05 If you don't like it here, you're free to leave.

Don't play your poor me games with me. "The wealthy pay most taxes." Who gets the most government benefits? I haven't seen many poor folks on welfare get bid free government contracts. We had government contractors lose billions their can't account for. KBR's poor work as been linked to 11 death of the military you lie about supporting. KBR still has their contract.

Sit on your butt, this is a free country!

The more money the middle class spends the more demand their will be for goods and services. Investors will invest to meet this demand. Life will go on without you. Life was here before you were born.

Whatever dude. I'm sick of whining. I always hear rich folks whine about taxes, they blame workers and they never find one darn thing in their miserable life's that is a blessing.

There's a reason the Bible tells us that a rich man has as much chance of going to heaven as a camel through the eye of a needle.

Lew Jeppson | 3:07 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

I agree with the D-News in it's favorable assessment of Obama's proposed tax cuts. The generally maligned John Maynard Keynes (in these blogs at least) saw tax cuts as effective as government spending in providing necessary stimulus in recessionary times. Let's get on with it. While we're at it, the health care funding mess needs to be solved. With a Democratic congress, I think there's at least some chance of this.

Anonymous | 4:03 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

We tried to warn you about Bush and you ignored us.
Now you are whining about somebody who has inherited Bush's mess.
Nuts!

John S. Harvey | 4:05 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

Your editorial board is clueless. What happened is that G. W. Bush reversed every single economic policy of Clinton's which had produced those "surpluses"!

Anonymous | 4:21 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

At waht point do people, Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, the list goes on of the political rich, raise taxes on themselfs?

Lets also remember that thes politicos of either party, have the very rich as their friends. Hollywood types etc. Do any of you really think that you are going to see taxes raised on the rich?

What will happen is taxes will be raised on businesses. These taxes will be passed on to the consumer, YOU.

Raise taxes on the reach, lets get a clue america.

Anonymous | 5:21 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

I swear you far-right Limbaughites get wackier and wackier sounding each day.
It all culminated in the choice of Sarah Palin (further right than Genghis Khan) and now the modern American conservative party is the laughing stock of the nation.

BG | 5:37 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009

I agree with this editorial. Americans must feel comfortable spending money, or this economy will continue it's death spiral! The more money the Government can put in the hands of the people, the more they will spend! This will stimulate production, increase supply, increase demand and create jobs!

Obama is on target with his desperately needed, comprehensive stimulous package, designed to jump start, a prosperous economic environment! Long overdue, necessary infrastructure replacement, satisfies a critical need throughout our troubled Republic, will stimulate our beleaguered economy, and make our Country a safer/healthier place to live! Wow, constructive expenditure of public tax dollars, here in America! How odd! I'm impressed! It beats the 350 billion dollar give away to banks/wallstreet - with no accountability! As a side bar, we sure could use the trillion plus dollars squandered in a black hole, called Iraq!

Obama must make sure there are no earmarks or special perks for anyone, just straight forward need - greater need equals prioity one! There must be no scandal, or appearance of such! Honest Government, will restore confidence/respect here at home! This we need! Let's support our new President elect - he's on the right track!

mark | 9:33 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

What are you talking about, @anon12:45 | 2:32 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009? Have you had a hard time with reading comprehension for a while now?
My only comment was that making 250,000 bucks a year in not "supposedly" rich but is rich.
By the way, where are you people getting this term "trickle up economics"?
Nothing in economics needs to "trickle up" the rich have theirs already.

MEB | 4:36 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009

I applaud Barack Obama for joining the Republican Party. Republicans have waived the tax cut flag for years as a way of stimulating the economy, and they are always fought at every turn by Democrats.

Now that Barack Obama proposes them, they are all of a sudden a good idea.

One question though. If you give $1000 to a couple who haven't paid any taxes, how can you call this a 'tax cut'?? The proper name is an economic stimulus package. GWB tried two of those, with limited success. Fact is, they added to the deficit, which contributed to the decline in the value of the dollar, which contributed to the current financial crisis.

How about we try something new? Let's cut Federal Spending!! That will cut the deficit, which will increase the value of the dollar, and help get the economy moving again!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.