To "Truthseeker" unfortunately your analysis is wrong. Tax cuts do not
create deficits. Deficits are created by spending more than is taken in.The CBO does not take into account jobs created as a result of lower tax
rates.Tell us, which is better for the government, to collect 5%
more from people who pay taxes, or to have 3 additional people working and not
collecting government benefits?
re:patriotLooking back at the history of the Bush tax cutsIn order
to maximize the size of the cuts, Republicans had to minimize the influence of
minority Democrats on the package. So they chose to run the bill through the
reconciliation process.But that posed some challenges. Budget
reconciliation had never been used to increase the deficit. In fact, it
specifically existed to decrease the deficit. That's why one of its rules
was that you couldn't use it to increase the deficit outside the budget
window. Republicans realized they could take that very literally: The budget
window was 10 years. So if the tax cuts expired after 10 years, they
wouldn't increase the deficit outside the budget window. They'd also
have the added benefit of appearing less costly in the Congressional Budget
Office's estimates, as the CBO duly scored them as expiring after 10 years,
which kept the long-range budget picture from exploding.In total,
since 2001, the CBO calculates that tax cuts have put the Treasury
$6.1 trillion in the red.
The Democrats made an excellent proposal -- $10 in spending cuts for every $1 of
increased revenue. That would have handled everyone's concernins. Of
course the Republicans said "no".
The GOP has already rejected a balanced approach. They made that clear. What they want is to cut services to the old, students, and poor while
giving more handouts to the rich.
If by some miracle we balance the budget, we will still be 16 trillion dollars
in debt (48,000 per person, just short of 200,000 per family of 4). This is a
The ignorance and willful pride and blindness is staggering. The Democratic
answers are all about more spending and making taxes more fair, i.e. soak the
rich, as if that is going to even put a dent into the deficit and debt. What is
wrong with the thinking here? Wake up! Our government has perpetuated a ponzi
scheme, perpetuated by Democrat and Republican corrupt politicians and a deluded
and ignorant citizenry, that would put them in jail if it were practiced in
private. All you do gooders out there that believe that the way to change carnel
man is through compulsion, wake up. You can't do it. Give men and women
their liberty, allow them to pursue their selfish interests within the
capitalistic system, uninhibited nor abetted, by government, and then bring
people to a better world through invitation. It will not work any other way.
Believing that socialism will do it is ignorance and pride beyond description.
Compulsion will not work, no matter what umbrella you put it under. Get America
back to work and serve others, without using the power of the government or your
own selfish interests to "do good".
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.
"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
sides4) continue to fight, get no compromise and continue what we are
doing = CRISISOf 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
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.
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.
re:atl134Not 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.
Patriot,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.
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.
Democrats aren't the ones trying to dodge the sequestration that Congress
"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.
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?
"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'sIts what they do. And have
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.
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.
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.
libs want it their way as we continue the obama cliff. keep talking and do
nothing. that's the hope and change barry promised.
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.
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
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.
""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 AmericaTell your congressmen to put America first.