Comments about ‘In our opinion: Let's get serious about working together to balance the national budget’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Sept. 20 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Far East USA, SC

""Balanced way" in this case means "our way.""

We need to all drop the partisan garbage and get serious about this. And tell your congressmen to do the same.

We gotta cut spending. It is high. We gotta reform entitlements. They are unsustainable. We gotta raise taxes. They are low. THAT, my friends is a balanced approach.

And it is a winner with the General population. It is a winner for America.

Quit DEMANDING that your congressmen put party ideology ahead of America

Tell your congressmen to put America first.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Well said.

Springville, UT

I am astounded that you are stretching so hard to find a way to hang this mess on the White House. Tell the leaders of the official party of this paper to stop their dangerous games. The election is pretty certain and it is now time to put the country above the GOP. The Republicans know what needs to be done, and it isn't to keep coddling the very rich. The GOP is the problem, and if you were on the up and up, not pushing your blind partisanship, you would admit it and call them out.

Kearns, UT

The Republicans in Congress don't care about the debt. If they did, they would have agreed to the offer last summer when they were debating the spending limit increase.

Democrats offered up entitlement reform and deep spending cuts (over $4 Trillion in cuts in 10 years on top of the entitlement reform) and all they wanted was to end the Bush tax cuts and raise rates on individuals making more than $250K and couples making more than $500k yearly. The Republicans wanted nothing to do with it, they didn't like the increases even though they were returning to the rates in 2000 and a 1% increase for the top.

This alone would have balanced the budget in 10 years even without the economy improving.

We have to remember that we had a budget surplus in 2000 and that was 3 years running. It all ended when the Republicans in congress decided to create Medicare part D and cut taxes. They didn't even pay off the existing debt first.

If all things were kept at 2000 spending and tax levels we wouldn't even have a deficit right now.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Once again the "News" is showing its incredibly partisan views. The use of the phrase "balanced way in this case means our way" demonstrates that. Why, DN is the so called "balanced" approach not "serious" but Republican obstructionism is not a obstacle to "working together" to get a balanced budget? You seem to forget that we had a "balanced budget" under Clinton until a Republican Administration Cut taxes (mostly for the benefit of the rich)and engaged us in two very expensive wars.

Democrats are right to insist of a reasonable compromise and not just put the deficit on the backs of the poor and middle class. Your editorial sounds like you agree with the Romney notion that 47% of the electorate are deadbeats.

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

libs want it their way as we continue the obama cliff. keep talking and do nothing. that's the hope and change barry promised.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The greatest red herring of this century is the republican lament about the national debt.

The party of no ,republicans, who have effectually emasculated the possibility of any democrat policy, loudly scream about the lack of results of the democrats.

Republican businessmen who have deliberately held back jobs and investments loudly scream about the high unemployment rate caused by the democrats.

The republican media, Fox News et all, proclaims it’s “Fair and Balanced policy” when it is 100% business and 100% anti-workers.

Salt Lake City, UT

I don't get Ute Alumni's logic "libs want it their way as we continue the obama cliff. keep talking and do nothing. that's the hope and change barry promised."

When Obama took office, Republicans vowed to do whatever they could to obstruct and oppose him. The "do nothing" part of your logic? That is Republican obstructionists. They have cast aside Ronald Reagan as an appeaser, dug in their heals, and are gleefully watching the cliff approaches. They want Obama to fail, and if that means America fails, well... everything has a price.

Salt Lake City, UT

It would be unfair to discard everyting Jay Carney says as untrue, but his record of mendacity is legend. He is a political operachik and anything he says must viewed through the lens of skepticism. As President Obama said about cooperation, We won, get to the back of the bus. Compromise to Mr. Obama means do things my way.

Far East USA, SC

"It would be unfair to discard everyting Jay Carney says as untrue, but his record of mendacity is legend"

Legend? Certainly an overstatement, but in case you have not noticed, White House press secretaries try to put a good light (call it spin if you like) on anything the administration does.

Just like Romneys press secretary. Just like Bush's. Just like Clinton's

Its what they do. And have always done.

Cedar Hills, UT

The US House under GOP leadership HAS produced a budget each of the last 2 years and it then dies in the Democrat senate under Harry Reid. The Democrat senate has NOT even produced a budget for 3 years... and counting. So - who is serious and who isn't about a balanced budget?

middle class
Cedar City, 00

"The idea was that both sides would view sequestration as so undesirable they would work together in good faith."

I don't think "work together in good faith" was ever in anyone's mind. America has become so partisan that working together in good faith cannot happen.

And every Congressperson and Senator views their office as of equal stature to the President. DB, you question the leadership of the White House. COME ON! The White House cannot lead in such a toxic split government.

Passing a budget or making difficult fiscal decisions have not been possible in recent years. The only hope for getting things done will be if one party has 218 Congresspersons and 60 Senators and the Presidency. Then there will be no need for the continual gridlock bickering.

Media such as DN and the Tribune fuel the fires of partisanship, giving the electorate the impression it's OK to take sides and not put forth any effort to negotiate or cooperate.

The media should take the side of cooperative governing, just like the Constitution obviously requires.

Salt Lake City, UT

Democrats aren't the ones trying to dodge the sequestration that Congress agreed to.

Salt Lake City, UT

The fiscal cliff is a funny thing because Republicans think it'll cause us to go back into a recession. Oh, so now deficit reduction harms the economy? Or maybe they just care about defense cuts and only the military-industrial complex part of the economy and to heck with the rest of it.

Kearns, UT


You might be interested to know that only 2 groups provide budgets for the country. The President has a budget that is submitted to Congress. The House is the only chamber of Congress that is legally able to create a budget if the Presidential budget is rejected.

The Senate only votes for or against the budget, it doesn't create one.

The House can pass budget after budget after budget but if the Senate doesn't vote for it, it doesn't mean anything.

On the Senate side, due to Republican filibusters, a single item needs 60 votes to pass as it takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. So why should the Senate spend $500,000 per vote when it won't even be given a chance to pass or fail on its own?

The Senate has saved approximately $75 Million in the last 2 years by not bringing bills to the floor for a vote when they know that there isn't a chance of 60 votes. All votes are known before actual voting occurs.

What would you have Congress do. Give Republicans everything they want? Or compromise and get the country moving forward again. Your Call.

Cedar Hills, UT


Not sure where you are going with your Fiscal cliff stuff? You seriously don't understand the crisis looming due to our 16 trillion national debt? Really? Barack has added 6 trillion himself in less than 4 years .... and he called Bush 'unpatriotic' for adding 4 trillion in 8 years. Go figure. Here's the deal with the debt. Barack is set to take us to 20 trillion after 4 more - borrow and spend - years. Yes 20 trillion!! We as a nation can't sustain that mountain of debt. China and Russia are threatening to raise the lending rates to us which gets passed right on to us the consumer.The Federal Reserve who currently has an insane policy of just buying our debt can't continue that for much longer. This debt buying by our Fed's is intended to keep interest rates low but that bubble is about to burst. The crisis looming is that our debt will become so large interest rates will have to go up - WAY UP and our credit rating as a nation will take another downgrade. The combination of those two will sink ALL of us.

Salt Lake City, UT

Rather amusing to see comments blaming President Obama for the national debt. Is there someone on the ballot who bears more responsiblility? Is there one man who has presided over every single cent of the national debt? There is! Orrin Hatch, career politician. If you are actually concerned about the debt, start the clean up at home.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

Taxing the rich may get a few billion not many, but it will hut the economy. Balancing the budget is the only way. Doing that seems to have been very good for Utah and the states that have it. I don't believe most Democrats want to balance the budget.

Far East USA, SC

"You seriously don't understand the crisis looming due to our 16 trillion national debt? "

I think it is critical. Sounds like you do too.

We have roughly 4 options.

1) Cut spending and entitlements, and leave taxes alone. - Dems will never go for it.
2) raise taxes and continue with our current spending - Reps will never go for it.
3) Cut spending and entitlements and raise taxes - requires compromise on both sides
4) continue to fight, get no compromise and continue what we are doing = CRISIS

Of options 1-3, what do you think has the greatest possibility of passing?

Do you agree that any of the options 1-3 are better than 4?

The choice is obvious.

So, if you agree that the crisis is real, ANYTHING is better than 4

Salt Lake City, UT

I remember the 1980's Reagan supply siders saying "defificts don't matter." What did the D-News think in those days. We ought to go back and have a look.

to comment

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