Comments about ‘In our opinion: More of the same’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 14 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
bandersen
Saint George, UT

Lay aside all the partisan rhetoric and return to God! Without God, Liberty does not exist. The great society, without charity, is a complete failure. Compulsion, by government, without protection of our God-given rights is a sham! We will return to prosperity and honest politicians when enough honest people come back to the fold!

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What kind of message is Obama sending when he wants a tax increase on the "wealthy" and, at the same time, he wants to continue a tax holiday on the payroll tax for the rest of us?

He claims that continuing the payroll tax holiday will generate at least $100 billion more in private circulation and that that $100 billion will translate to thousands of new jobs, jobs that take people off the unemployment roles.

Does he really think that reducing taxes on the general public by $100 billion and them raising taxes by $100 billion on the "wealthy" will put more money in private circulation? Can he do the math? Let me help. $100 billion minus $100 billion equals ZERO.

We need jobs. We need MORE workers who pay taxes. We need FEWER people on unemployment. If $100 BILLION in tax cuts will stimulate job growth, then what would $200 BILLION do, or $500 BILLION? What is the magic number? What will it take to get unemployment down to 5%?

JoeBlow
Miami Area, Fl

Spending is at all time highs and taxes are at 60 year lows.

PLEASE PLEASE tell my why it is not reasonable to make adjustments to both of those components.

Esquire
Springville, UT

I don't think you would be happy with anything the President put forward. Look at your arguments in this editorial. And the Republicans were putting out their talking points before they could possibly have reviewed the budget. The response is not in good faith, but no one should have expected a different response from the GOP.

What a comparison of the budget with Romney's plan shows is that Romney proposes higher taxes for the poor and lower taxes for the very rich. Sorry, but this is the wrong direction. The budget does establish a line in the sand and will give voters the opportunity to see that the President is oriented more towards helping the middle class and the poor, and the Republicans are about protecting the interests of the rich. Sorry, folks, but almost none of you are in the very rich, yet many of you act against your own interests. See the NYT article (with video interviews) this week where the reporter went to a Minnesota town and talked to conservatives who much relied on government help, but then voted for people who would take it away from them. Duh!

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I agree with this editorial except the last sentence. Americans do have the government they deserve. I didn't but my fellow citizens elected a completely unqualified person who promised "change" but has only delivered business as usual in DC. A President who completely ignored the deficit commission he appointed and then had the audacity to attack Paul Ryan who put forth a reasonable plan that may not have been perfect but was an earnest effort worth considering seriously. What did he offer in response? A plan? No, another speech.
We do indeed have the government we deserve. It's our children who won't have the Country/Government they deserve.

Informed Voter
South Jordan, UT

Amen..the article is .absolutely correct!

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Republicans need to tax the rich. It is against their principles, but they have to compromise.

Democrats, on the other hand, need to means test for social security and medicare. No subsidized health insurance for retired millionaires. It should be less of a pain for them than for the Republicans. After all it is according to their professed principles.

But I am not holding my breath.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

How many budgets has the President proposed?

How many compromises? Birth control, etc?

How many times has the Republican dominated House voted to support him?

We have 139 filibusters in the Senate.

**'The Rise Of Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate' - Ben Frumin and Jason Reif - Talking Points Memo - 01/27/10

'When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 midterm elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 (From Dems) to a record 139 in 2007-2008.' (From Republicans) - article

Almost DOUBLE from a Democratic majority.

What does this tell us?

Obama is not the one presenting 'more of the same'. He is being Obstructed, every step of the way, by the Republican party.

We have this exampled by the nation's damaged credit score! Try to tell me this 'didn't happen' because of the GOP votin g 'No' on EVERY piece of legislation, including the Budget.

The GOP is putting the well-being of it's PARTY...

OVER, the well being of this country.

And the Ameican citizens, are taking notice.

Why vote for someone...

...who doesn't work to help this country??

L White
Springville, UT

There is no "means test" when the government takes our social security "contributions" so there can be no "means test" when it comes time for the government to keep its promises.

I do not think that any nation can tax itself into prosperity and I do not think that any family can spend its way into wealth.

Taxes take money away from those who work for it and taxes take money out of the hands of those who might want to spent it for someone that they want, not for something that the government thinks we need.

I am 100% for all authorized spending by the government. If we citizens have given the government the obligation to do something for us, we should be willing to pay for that service. I know that those obligations have been written down so that no one can make a mistake. I think that most of the things that the government is doing are things that the government has decided to do are not on that list.

BigRich
Orem, UT

What is obvious about Obama is that fact he is in way over his head. With only two years in the senate for experience, why we elected him is a valid question. He has no idea how to work with both sides of the aisle. Say what you want, but Republicans have been frustrated by his refusal to discuss issues. He may be a nice guy and charismatic, but there is a good reason why democrats and republicans have reached the worst impasse we have had in years. His "my way or the highway" approach has obstructed much possible legislation. He has increased the size of government exponentially, ruined private enterprise, increased the percentage of people depending on government support by 25%, and created a foreign policy that has brought disrespect in the eyes of our allies and enemies. His universalist views of a world-wide government and religion are downright scary. Retirement after one term is critical for our country. The only question history will have is, who was worse, Carter or Obama?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@CounterIntelligence
"Obama's budget is a joke: Taking all the money of the uberwealthy would not make a dent in his overspending."

His budget has a 2013 deficit of 900 billion which is 300 billion less than this years' projected deficit.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards
"Does he really think that reducing taxes on the general public by $100 billion and them raising taxes by $100 billion on the "wealthy" will put more money in private circulation? Can he do the math? Let me help. $100 billion minus $100 billion equals ZERO."

The rich don't spend their money. Look at Romney. He's got 100 million trust fund for his kids. Not that there's anything wrong with it... but that's 100 million that's not in the economy. 100 million in the hands of the middle class gets spent into the economy.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

alt134,

Just where is that $100 million that Romney has set aside for his kids? Is it stuffed in a mattress? Is is sitting on a shelf in a piggy-bank or is it working hard as capital that funds businesses and employes people?

Surely you are educated to the point that you understand how wealth is used.

Surely you are not one of the ignorant who think that rich people are just another "Scrooge McDuck" as characterized by Disney.

If the government seized that $100 million, how many businesses would be foreced to close? How many people would lose their jobs? What would the government do with that money? Would they use it to pay unemployment benefits to the people that they put out of work?

screenname
Salt Lake City, UT

atl134,

$100 million in a trust fund or bank account will do much more for the economy than $100 million spent in grocery stores. Economics 101.

1conservative
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Maybe the arithmetic this administration uses is the "new math".

They probably need remedial help, the numbers don't add up.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Maybe the arithmetic this administration uses is the "new math". - 1conservative | 12:21 p.m. Feb. 14, 2012

If this is true, then I want to know what math justifies the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy will 'create jobs'...

when unemployment shot UP, from the 7% under Bush, to the 9% when Obama took office.

If these are the SAME policies, and the Republican party claims the wealthy 'job creators' have been creating jobs while getting a federally funded tax CUT for the last x10 years....

why did unemployment SKYROCKET, under Republican polices?

Obama's plan to tax the wealthy, makes sense.

Because continuing the SAME Bush polices, have factually gotten the American economy, worse.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Obama would make a better car salesman than president.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

When the republican independents helped nominate Obama as the democrat candidate, I was sure that it was done with the expectation of him losing the election. When Obama was elected I was sure that their plan backfired. Now I feel sure that their plan succeeded.

Obama is the most hated president of my lifetime. Totally blocked in Congress by the solidarity of the party of no and the filibuster threat in the Senate, Obama was completely emasculated and prevented from doing the job he was elected to do.

The misnomer âObamacareâ was applied to a legislative monstrosity that was created for the business part of the health care industry. People who would have worked toward what the people wanted and what Obama promised, health care reform, were forbidden to participate. It is likely that Obama himself had little or no input to the flagrant disregard for the wishes of the people.

It is little wonder that the business controlled media had no trouble in demeaning and antagonizing the public against Obamacare. The business world and their minions picked and poked at everything they could to criticize Obama, there was nothing âover the topâ. The public became convinced of the false notion that there was a conservative and a liberal media. The truth is there is only one philosophy in the media. Itâs called business.

The really bad thing done in the campaign against Obama, was the seemingly deliberate economic recession promoted by republicans and fellow travelers by the businessmen who controls employment of American workers. Ask why they act in such a way, they answered âwe are unsure about the futureâ.

Even now, the anti-Obama, anti-people forces are marshaled against America testing whether or not people have the right, acting through their government, to regulate and control commercial business.
Or whether freedom of religion can be used to exempt their actions from the rule of law outside and beyond the right to believe and worship. Such as in business operations and advertising their belief in the public square.

It is a true fact that business has always ruled the lives of people. It is also true that if the American experiment is to have any chance of success, the people must somehow gain control.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

I was also disappointed with the president's budget but not for the same reasons. As it appears unemployment will remain chronically high, President Obama should have tried some trickle up economics instead of his own trickle down and Bush's He should be proposing the federal government become an employer of last resort, rebuilding infrastructure like the New Deal. We have already had trickle down on a truly massive scale, granting big banks unlimted cheap credit. Why not a little tricke up (and immediate relief for America's massses) for a change?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Marxist,

Who provides the money to hire people for public projects? Is that money just sitting there waiting for a "good cause" or is that money taken from hard working people who are forced to pay for the sloth of a government that would take money out of the private sector and give to the lazy, the incompetent, the slothful; those who would not take a job if they could get government assistance to stay on the dole?

Government projects extend the problem. The money that is taken from you and from me to finance government projects could have been paid to the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker; but, instead, the government would have them go out of business so that it can take its 80% off the top and then give 20% as wages.

Look at history. Read it. Understand it. Run the numbers and see for yourself how little good has ever been done with "public works projects". Those projects extended the misery. They devalued human lives.

My relatives suffered greatly because of FDR. Their lives were made miserable by his "projects".

to comment

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