Comments about ‘Letters: Sequestration deceptive’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

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

Actually the projection is 900 billion..you say what's the difference. The difference is Bushs last budget was 1.4 trillion, 2010 was 1.3 trillion. So 900 billion is a reduction in deficit spending of 500 billion dollars in 4 years...not quite the story you all are telling. Projected budget for 2014, 668 billion. Less than half of Bushs 2009 budget. What is going on here, Fox told me....

one old man
Ogden, UT

Yes, it sure is long past time for politicians to begin telling the truth.

But don't hold your breath.

As long as all those dollars are floating around out there for politicians to grab, nothing will change.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

pragmatistferlife: Yes, we all know that the extra $6 trillion or so added to the debt in the last four years was all Bush's fault. We have heard that so many times from the liberal press that all the gullible people believe it now. Just look at the last election.

And yes, if we jack up taxes by another $trillion or so, maybe we can get our annual deficits down below $500 billion under this tax-and-spend far-left liberal president, but I wouldn't count on it. He will find another 50 or so new programs to eat it all up and more.

I'm sure that makes you feel good, but I certainly don't.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Thank you Joe for insightful analysis of my commment...really? And, just where did I claim that it was Bushs fault? Bush reacted to two unfunded wars and a crashing economy with a 1.4 trillion dollar budget. Next Obama reacted with a 1.3 trillion budget...and now we're down to a 900 billion dollar budget. That's a reduction of 500 billion dollars. Next year is projected to be 688 billion half of 2009 budget (there no Bush name, does that make you feel better), end of point. Couldn't care less if you hold your breath or not..But I'll be money it's less than 900 billion.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Obama "executed" payments of $6,000,000,000 in excess of revenues during his first term in office. He can't blame Bush. Bush was not sitting in the Oval Office. Bush had no authority to make any kind of payment or to issue any kind of "promise to pay" on behalf of the federal government. Only Obama had that authority.

Either Obama is the most incompetent or the most corrupt President in history if he thinks that he can blame another President for his own failure to lead this country. No one forced the office on him. He wanted it. He also suggested sequestration as a solution for a Congress that couldn't agree on how to reduce spending.

Was he lying then, when he suggested sequestration, or is he lying now as he demagogues?

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

1-Raise taxes. Anyone who says taxes don't need to be raised is lying to themselves.
2- Cut spending, starting with the military. The US does not need 700 bases worldwide. Bring the military home, for a true national defense. The last thing we need are bases dotting the globe.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

As usual, when amounts are too large to be comprehended, I got mixed up and left off three zeros. Six trillion is $6,000,000,000,000. Six trillion is $18,181 for every man, woman and child in America. Obama spent $18,181 for each of us in excess of the taxes that we paid to meet America's obligations.

Obama wants to blame Bush for that spending. What's even more amazing is that he wants us to believe his lies. For someone who purportedly is above average in intelligence, Obama seems to have no ability to tell fact from fiction.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@pragmatistforlife
2009 is indeed a Bush year, but it would not have been 1.4 trillion dollars under Bush since that didn't include some things like the stimulus. If I recall correctly 2009 would've been around 1.0 trillion if the Bush plan were followed.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

pragmatistforlife: The ONLY reason that deficits are coming down from their record highs during the first Obama term is because taxes are being raised even faster than spending grows. The federal government continues to spend more and more every single year. Just like the national debt, federal spending goes up and up and up each and every year (in spite of any "cuts" they tell you about).

Ernest T. Bass: Since I don't want to lie to myself....of course taxes need to be raised yet even further. After all, there is still some money being spent in this country that doesn't go through Washington D.C. first!

Last year the check I wrote to Uncle Sam did not equal my income so there is still a lot of work for liberals to do.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"The ONLY reason that deficits are coming down from their record highs during the first Obama term is because taxes are being raised even faster than spending grows."

Actually indexed for inflation the past 3 years have seen the slowest gov't spending growth in half a century. If you're middle class your taxes have not gone up at all since Obama got into office.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

alt134 did a little checking and what I found was that CBO scored Bush proposal at 1.2 trillion, By the time Obama took office. Small changes to exsisting proposals put it at 1.3 and it wound up at 1.4 by years end.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Okay, let's stop the blame game. Who is responsible for the deficit spending? We are. The voters. Let's accept full responsibility. We elected Reagan, who started us down the silly supply-side-tax-cut fantasy path to prosperity. We elected Cheney, who, along with his hand puppet, marched us into two unnecessary wars and talked us into paying for them with big tax cuts. Are we stupid or what? I admit, I voted for Cheney-Bush the first time around. How does the saying go? Fool me once . . . Well, I didn't vote for the C-B team in 2004.

Also, we voted in a bunch of Congressmen and -women who are doing exactly what we want them to. They are giving us all the things we want and telling us we don't have to pay for them. No, we can reduce taxes and somehow that supply-side gimmick will magically produce increased government revenue through, get this, a booming economy, which has grown at an average annual rate of only 3.23 percent between 1947 and 2012. Economic growth will not reverse our debt accumulation. Only taxing more than we spend will. So let's stop lying to ourselves.

Miss Piggie
Pheonix, AZ

@Ernest T. Bass:
"Raise taxes. Anyone who says taxes don't need to be raised is lying to themselves."

I think you're right. I didn't send all my income into the government with my last 1040.

"Cut spending, starting with the military."

GAO put out a report awhile back identifying fraud, wast, and abuse that, if fixed, could save the government $billions. The current occupant of the White House must have his head in the sand if he hasn't read the report and taken action. And he hasn't.

@Mike Richards:
"Six trillion is $18,181 for every man, woman and child in America."

Yeah, and the $17.3 trillion national debt is about $50,000 for every man women and child in America. And about $150,000 for every household (if my calculations are correct). If you have any money laying around, send it in to Obama. If you don't, Obama will, of necessity, have to close down kindergartens or the whole government will shut down (except for the White House, of course).

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . let's stop lying to ourselves."

Yeah, let's.

Liberals insists there's only one side to your "taxing more than we spend" strategy -- the taxing side.

They appear physically incapable of upholding their side of any compromise -- refusing to even admit cuts may exist that can and should be made -- though Republicans fully implemented their portion of the compromise by giving in on the President's soak-the-rich tax hikes.

While it may well be true that we'll be forced to raise taxes again -- liberals need too many vote-buying "sacred cows," -- why can't we all agree we should cut first, THEN, once we've figured what the deficit will actually be, we can figure out how much we need to raise taxes?

Knowingly. Intelligently. Instead of just feeding the beast all we have, then more.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

People really need to check their figures before they comment. The national budget has several trillion in front of whatever the billion figure is . Just get the figures correct please.

to comment

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