Comments about ‘Democrats toughen stance on trimming benefits’

Return to article »

President's re-election buoys Social Security, Medicare champions

Published: Saturday, Nov. 17 2012 8:25 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
tabuno
Clearfield, UT

As a moderate Democrat, I don't believe that the liberal social agenda of Democrats was overwhelming mandated by the past President election. Instead I perceived that most of America wants Congress to get the public business accomplished so that America will continue to be strong, it's financial integrity solid while offering reasonable fair social benefits at fair tax rates for all Americans. I can't believe Democrats are still stuck up about increasing the eligibility age for social security - that's a non-brainer. It seems that Democrats are beginning as rigid and stuck in the past as Republicans have been in their conservative image of a 1950s America. It's time for Democrats to face reality and focus on the next generation and deficit reduction. Democrats are becoming too greedy themselves by there insistence on focusing on the needs of today and ignoring what our grandparents put in place for us today. We need to follow their example and look into the future and that requires major reforms in social security and medicare (but also including how the health care industry has maintained unreasonable profits at the expense of the public).

David
Centerville, UT

Obama, Reid & congressional Democrats are playing for political power rather than doing what is in the best interest of our country: stabilizing & strengthening our national debt. Generals have said our debt is our greatest threat.

If congress cut 100% of discretionary spending we would still run a deficit because of the 3 big entitlements: Social Security, Medicaid, & Medicare. For Democrats to now pull these off the table when trying to balance the budget reveals that they really aren't serious about balancing budgets & reducing debt, that they really are intent on turning our country into a welfare state, & that redistribution is their game plan to retain power at the expense of our national strength.

I wonder if Americans will begin to feel buyers remorse soon.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

So much for Obama's "balanced approach" to the massive deficit and debt! Seems he lied again! Anyone really surprised? His REAL agenda showing itself; tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend!

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Perhaps the Democrats have finally learned that a smart negotiator does not give up bargaining chips before he gets to the table. For example, Obama gave up the public option upfront when negotiating the Affordable Care Act and got absolutely nothing for it.

worf
Mcallen, TX

No! You cut foreign aid, NEA, EPA, etc.

And yes! We can cut education in half, and still improve schools. There are a ton of waste right there.

Steve Cottrell
Centerville, UT

worf is mis-informed. The NEA (National Education Association) receives no governmental funds. It is entirely funded by contributions from its members, the educators of the United States, mostly classroom teachers.

metisophia
Ogden, UT

I fear that worf was referring to the National Endowment for the Arts (the other NEA) which would cut , yes, BIG BIRD, and a wide variety of arts programs throughout the nation.

Sure, cut EPA and we can go back to rivers clogged with sludge and on fire, unbreathable air, and dead bald eagles. Not to mention poisons in our drinking water. The EPA doesn't help us ---- yeah , right. We can all enjoy the panoramas of Canyonlands through the haze of pollution from businesses who don't care about the air we breathe.

3grandslams
Iowa City, IA

If dems trim "benefits" who would vote for them?

worf
Mcallen, TX

metisophia,

Big bird would survive, as an investor would buy it out.

to comment

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