Comments about ‘Letter: Mudslinging between both political parities must stop’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Dec. 2 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

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

ahhh No.

one old man
Ogden, UT

A good letter. But it may be missing something important.

Weren't most of the really muddy TV ads produced by PACs and SuperPACs funded by anonymous unlimited donations from who knows who?

Perhaps the first step would be to overturn Citizens United and come up with some campaign finance laws that contain real teeth.

higv
Dietrich, ID

People need to know things that could hamper someones chance at being an effected officer. Besides isn't that protected by the First amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Libel needs to be dealt with. However we employ the representatives. If someone works for you or is applying for a job you need to know if they will or won't be good employees. Some things people need to know.

Ford DeTreese
Provo, UT

Speak for yourself, Nicholas. Sweeping generalities are nice but generally untrue and always misleading. Do you really think all the money the Super PACs poured onto the airwaves had that much influence? I'd call it a big waste of money, but what it really did was took money out of the pockets of one group that has too much and transferred it to the pockets of another group that has too much. The net effect was negligible.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Nice sentiment, never gonna happen.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

I don't think 235 years of precedence will change when you have the 4th Estate as deep into corporate greed as the politicans.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Why would anyone make a political choice based on advertising? Are we a nation of ignoramuses who are expected to believe what a candidate says about himself or what a PR firm says about a candidate? Do we blindly believe the "near slander" paid for by a candidate when he feels he needs to attack his competition?

In a Presidential election, the candidates are well known. They have histories. It is easy to see how they handled large problems. We can clearly see that Obama's solution to budget problems is to fly around in Air Force One and "campaign" for higher taxes and unlimited spending. He did that for his first four years and he's doing it again. It should not be a surprise to anyone.

Nothing that Obama said about Romney could change history and nothing that Romney said about Obama could change history.

Lazy people never research a person's history. Lazy reporters never question candidates.

Ad agencies and media outlets made billions. Nothing changed. Nothing will change. The histrionics will continue.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Actually Mike the President has not campaigned for "unlimited" spending. The ACA alone has over 700 billion is medicare savings. His 2013 budget has thousands of proposed budget cuts (you can look at it on line) and the CBO projects that by 2015 the annual deficit will be below the GWB 2008 budget. Wheter all that happens is still an unknown, but it's patently false to say he campaigned on "unlimited" spending.

one old man
Ogden, UT

I have to agree with Mike when he writes, " Are we a nation of ignoramuses who are expected to believe what a candidate says about himself or what a PR firm says about a candidate?"

And when he says, "Lazy people never research a person's history."

Those comment explain why Romney managed to get 47% of the nation's votes (there's that 47 again), and why Republicans manage to be returned to office after trying so hard to wreck the nation.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Already some people are citing Obama's "campaign promises" about the costs of Obamacare (and the "savings" promised to the American people). They haven't done their home-work. They haven't asked "how" $700 billion can magically be saved without taking $700 billion from somewhere else.

There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine and there is no such thing as "savings" of any kind in Obamacare. If Obama says something often enough, does a "lie" transform into the "truth"?

For years, Obama has demanded that the "rich guy" be taxed at a higher rate. The CBO has told us that taxing the "rich guy" at Obama's proposed rate would increase revenues by $60 billion a year. Obama told us he needed to raise revenues by $800 billion a year. That's 13 times more tax revenue than the "rich guy" is going to pay. Now Obama is telling us that he needs $1.6 TRILLION more in revenue to fund his programs. That's 26 times more than taxing the "rich guy" will produce.

Who's going to pay those taxes?

Watch out. YOUR wallet is under attack. You just don't know it yet, campaign promises notwithstanding.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Mike there's no magic to it and the President has said where ther 700 billion in savings is coming from. It's coming from monies not spent. Not spent on, administrative costs, not spent on reimbursements to providers, not spent on medicines etc. It only has to come from some where if it's going to be spent. Monies not spent are just savings.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Mike Richards,

Are people influenced by political advertising? The folks whose job it is to get their candidate elected sure think so. They aren't spending those billions for laughs.

Does that mean that the voters get good information? No. But advertising does influence people's behavior. If not, capitalism is inefficient (and I do not think that claim would bear up under scrutiny).

Here is my prediction. Despite all the talking heads saying that advertising doesn't make much of a difference, when the next tight election comes around, political commercials will carpet bomb the viewing area. Depend on it.

Money matters. Period.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Let's look at the $700 billion that Obama is going to save Medicare. Who is not going to be paid? If something is saved, money is not being spent. Healthcare providers who take Medicare patients will not be paid at the same rate that they're paid today.

How many doctors take Medicare without requiring the patient to pay the difference? How many seniors cannot find doctors and hospitals who will treat them at current Medicare rates?

Ask your own doctor whether he will take new Medicare patients. My doctors will not. They say that already they're losing money on Medicare patients. The government rejects needed services and underpays others. Cutting payments to doctors and hospitals is the surest method of excluding seniors from health care.

Is that what you want? Is that part of the, "take a pain pill and deal with it" philosophy, that Obamacare is accused of having?

Instead of blindly accepting Obama's talking points, dig a little into the real world. It's not going to be the world that Obama is "selling".

Mudslinging caused many senior citizens to vote for Obama because they didn't accept the truth. Already, the "truth" is changing.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

JThompson we can talk about your facts later the point to this discussion is that Boener and the Reprublicans say that Obama is unwilling to make any cuts in welfare services..yet you yourself claim that he's cutting it to the point of limiting services...which is it?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Let's look at the $700 billion that Obama is going to save Medicare."

Several posters have written to criticize Obama about the $700 billion in savings.

Did you all forget that Paul Ryan touted the same savings number in his plan?

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Let't not confuse limiting payments to doctors with welfare. The government has the right to limit welfare payments when the recipient has made no forced contribution to that "program". We are charged for Medicare. We are charged for Social Security. The government forced us to participate with the promise that we would receive the promised benefits when our time came to receive those benefits. There was no "means test" when it came time to pay. There can be no "means test" when it's the governments turn to keep its end of the deal.

The government spent the money it received for Social Security and for Medicare. It has no authority to underpay doctors to correct that misuse of funds.

Limiting spending is required. Underpaying for services rendered is not the way to limit spending.

Putting people to work so that they are no burden to government is the only way to correct Obama's mess, campaign promises not withstanding. He's going to prove that Romney's campaign statements was 100% correct.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Seriously, my post here this morning was pretty benign, and well under 200 words. Yet it got canned.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I wondering which is worse...

Those who are influencted by political TV ads,
or
Those who walk into a voting boot, select the letter "R" (or granted, some for the letter "D") and then walk out.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

Especially fro the right.
No matter. The voters did the right thing. They chose the left.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

LDS Liberal,

So...which candidate with the letter R after his/her name did you vote for in this past election?

to comment

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