Comments about ‘George F. Will: 'Fiscal cliff' is just another name for the Democrats' agenda’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 29 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

So George rolls along here with all the ususal conservative talking points. Points that have been debated in America for hundreds of years. Of course he writes with an air of authority that is false and misleading...but nothing really new here. Then he sneaks in some new stuff. Stuff that is blatantly false, but likely to be the new conservative talking point. Here it is "Liberals' strenuous objection to vouchers is that vouchers, as the functional equivalent of cash, empower individuals to make choices." No George the liberal objection to vouchers is not that it empowers choice. The objection is that at best it limits choices but most likely limits services. Services that are essential to life. You have to gurantee that your vouchers will keep pace with the rising cost of an equivilant medicare health policy..then we can talk about choice.

one old man
Ogden, UT

And all this time I thought the sequestration thing was the doing of the Republican Party.

Have I been wrong?

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

one old man: Yes, but don't let that stop you from insisting otherwise.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

No, no, we just want to take your guns and light bulbs. Soon you won't have to worry about taxes because everything will be owned by the government too.

Seems so silly when I say it huh?

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

The fiscal cliff is no misnomer for a Democratic Party agenda as George Will dishonestly describes it. Will and his fellow Republicans all know that the fiscal cliff is a certainty that can only be avoided by action within the next month regardless of which solutions are negotiated. The proper role and size of government will not be resolved but the continued stability of a still recovering economy is in the balance. Even Republicans who hear Will’s call to flex their muscle know that.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Well, Joe, then how can you explain the fact that the Budget Control Act of 2011, which set up the sequestration plan was sponsored by Representative David Dreier, a California Republican with no co-sponsors?

After bouncing around in various House committees, the bill was taken to the floor of the House for a voice vote on July 28, 2011. On July 30, Mr. Dreier moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended by Republicans in committee.

The bill was passed by voice vote on August 1 so no record would exist of who voted for or against it.

It passed a few days later in the Senate. It is said that it was a "bipartisan" bill. In the Senate, it was sponsored by five Republicans and five Democrats.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

Well, one old man, I see you took my advice and didn't let it stop you....

Whether or not the original bill was sponsored by a republican or not does not matter. The whole thing was passed by both houses and agreed upon by the Obama administration. If the president or the Democrats opposed it, it would never have passed.

It was designed to force a compromise and end the gridlock (good luck with that). Naturally, everyone (i.e. incumbents) were happy with the fact that none of this would happen until after the election.

Your attempt to lay the whole "fiscal cliff" blame on the GOP is baseless. Both parties have caused this fiscal crisis, and both are to blame for it.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

there are clearly people walking around with "chip on their shoulder" but I am pretty sure it is not Obama. once the DN proves it will publish anything it thinks will get its subscribers riled up no matter how childish and un-news worthy.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

".....Liberals' strenuous objection to vouchers is that vouchers, as the functional equivalent of cash, empower individuals to make choices....."
____________________

Any takers here for the offer of an increasingly embittered conservative commentator to explain liberal opposition to vouchers? Liberals just want to keep individuals from making choices. Does any thinking person buy that argument?

Voucher programs are Republican alternatives to public programs from education to Medicare. They kill two birds with one stone by subsidizing the private sector with tax revenues that are needed to strengthen public institutions they wish to abolish. Liberals see through that ruse, Mr. Will.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Craig Clark" you are funny. You say that you don't understand why conservatives claim that liberals oppose vouchers, then you state that vouchers are "subsidizing the private sector with tax revenues that are needed to strengthen public institutions they wish to abolish. Liberals see through that ruse..."

You seem to have done an excellent job explaining why conservatives think that liberals object to vouchers. You don't want people to have individual choices, and want those choices to remain in the hands of government.

Why should we continue to waste tax payer money on inefficient government programs? Did you know that currently the Federal Government runs on a 20% overhead rate? In comparison a private health insurance company operates at a 15% rate for overhead plus profit. Why should we keep using the wasteful government program when the private sector can do the same thing for less money?

As for Education, look at it this way. A public education costs taxpayers on average $10500/yr per child. A private school can educate an elementary school child for just under $8000/yr with better results. Why are we still using the public system when private companies do more for less?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

It's like the GOP is suffering from delusions of Gandure.

Over 60% of American want the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire.

Republicans are still ignoring polls and public opinion.
[Which is why they still can't figure out how the lost the election. Karl Rove and FoxNews do not America make.]

FYI --
Pres. Obama, the Senate and the Supreme Court over-ruled the House over Obamacare.
Pres. Obama won re-election, the Senate Gained D seats, the House lost R seats.

Get over yourselves.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

RedShirt:

"...currently the Federal Government runs on a 20% overhead rate? In comparison a private health insurance company operates at a 15% rate...Why should we keep using the wasteful government program when the private sector can do the same thing for less money?...As for Education...A public education costs taxpayers on average $10500/yr per child. A private school...under $8000/yr with better results. Why are we still using the public system when private companies do more for less?"

Answer: Because for liberals, it is never a priority to see that money is spent wisely or efficiently. If they were worried about such things, then they would be conservative.

Instead it is always about WHO gets the money. Overpaid government bureaucrat...GOOD. Overpaid private company CEO...BAD. Public school teacher who belongs to a union...GOOD. Private school teacher with no union affiliation...BAD. Who cares about actual results!

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "LDS Liberal" please don't lie or distort the truth. The fact is there is no legitimate poll that says that 60% want to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire. In fact there are polls out there that say that 60% want the tax cuts to remain in place for everybody.

The polls say people want to tax the rich more, but they don't say that they want the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. In fact, they don't even give any specifics for how they want to apply additional taxes to the rich. They want to raise taxes on those making $250,000/yr or more. That represents 4.2% of taxpayers.

So, you may have some information, but you don't appear to be able to understand it. Maybe you should leave poll interpretation to others, you are not doing so well today.

Why should the GOP get over it. The DNC spent 8 years on a witch hunt with Bush. They are just following YOUR example.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Joe, no. It was Republicans who invented the idea. Any claims to the contrary are false.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Joe Capitalist..Because for liberals, it is never a priority to see that money is spent wisely or efficiently. If they were worried about such things, then they would be conservative". So Joe I'll see your attitude and rasie you half a dozen private and government studies that show that medicare costs have grown 4.%5 of the past decades while private insurance has grown 6.7% and by 2020 a private medicare plan will cost 40% more than now.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

George Will hits it out of the ballpark again. From the comments posted, the truth hurts.

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Mr Will made an important point about how the GI Bill was essentially a voucher program. He left out an important point about the GI Bill program though. The GI Bill was not available to American citizens based on the fact that they were born in the United States. GI Bill benefits went to people who had served America in the Armed Forces unlike the "Obamaphone" which you can qualify for simply because you are also eligible for a SNAP card.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT
7:59 p.m. Nov. 29, 2012

=============

I was in the military.
Were you?

FYI --
In the United States Military I got free housing, free medical, free clothing, and free education, Guanteed Student Loans I didn't have to re-pay, Tuition re-imbursements, qualified for all sorts of Federal Student Aid programs, free VA home loans, and that sweet-heart GI Bill...to name just a very few benefits.
AND
We were all the same.

It was the BEST Socialist experience of this patriotic American's life!

The Deuce
Livermore, CA

The only problem here is that the US elected a president that has no idea of how to handle financial and jobs issues. He has no experience in either area. So, he makes the same mistake of pounding a square peg into a round hole. And the merry-go-round starts for another 4 years.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Deficit = Spending - Revenue. Increase revenue, lower spending, and you get reduced deficits. Republicans ran on reducing deficits. Now that they're faced with a triggered sequestration that would cut the deficit in half (if you think the fiscal cliff is too painful and you want a balanced budget, now's the time for you to understand how much you are really requesting), they oppose it. Pretty sure Republicans will come out as pro-cat anytime now since Obama has a dog.

to comment

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