Comments about ‘Letter: Mia Love has a wise approach to keep our money local’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Oct. 5 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Furry1993
Ogden, UT

The Matheson ads are accurate.

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Furry1993: The Matheson ads border on outright lies, because they are deliberately so deceptive about Mia Love's record and her statements.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Headline reads: Mia Love has a wise approach to keep our money local’

Should read Mia Love has a naive idea that appeals to other simple minded folks!

PeanutGallery said: "The Matheson ads border on outright lies,"
So you admit that although you don't like them, they are still true, right?

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Mia Love, just like Sen. Hatch and Gov. Herbert are ahead in the polls. The Democrats shouldn't crow over Jim Matheson until after November 6th.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Do you oppose having the Federal Government paying for body armour for the Military as well? Police officers are out there daily "providing for the common defense." The price of a vest, which is considerable for a young officer, seems to be a small price to pay.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

Is she really against having the police with body armour? Or is she against sending a whole bunch of money to Washington, having them buy the body armour whether you want it or not, and attach a whole bunch of strings to that action when it would be much simpler to keep the money and spend it locally instead?

Maybe that way the local police department can decide if body armour, better computers, additional training, or some other thing is the best way to spend the money to protect the officers and fight crime.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Interesting...

She's against taking federal dollars for police.

While she's asking for federal handouts to aid her town's fires and mudslides?

You're either for or against federal handouts. Stop sitting on the fence.

Shaun
Sandy, UT

People were crying about a police fee. So I can't imagine they would be happy when property taxes go up to pay for police vest.

boxerdog915
Clearfield, UT

@GZE

"Do you oppose having the Federal Government paying for body armor for the Military as well? Police officers are out there daily "providing for the common defense." The price of a vest, which is considerable for a young officer, seems to be a small price to pay."

Your comment makes no sense because they are different organizations being ran/funded by different governments: federal, state and local.

Last time I read the Constitution, which I have on my iPod, by LAW, the federal government was NOT responsible for state police so states shouldn't be expecting money from the federal government in the first place for police gear. The state and cities are responsible for that and should budget accordingly, so if the police aren't equipped properly then the local governments are failing the departments, not the federal government. The military on the other hand, which according to the Constitution was never supposed to be standing, except for its Navy, is a federally funded department so the federal government IS responsible for their protective gear and required to provide that.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

Mia Love's underlying premise, like that of most conservatives, is that local government is more efficient, more competent, more responsive, less influenced by lobbyists and political donations, and less corrupt than the federal government, and thus would better manage the expenditure of tax revenues. I'm not so sure. One can find corruption, inefficiency, incompetence, and crony capitalism in local government as easily as in federal government.

to comment

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