Comments about ‘Richard Davis: Sequester makes no sense, but it is time to cut’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Your tax dollars at work, always some place that will annoy the most people.

Kearns, UT

"Another example was Amtrak's response when it was threatened with a cut in the federal subsidies it operates on. Rather than pare back a few of the numerous routes in the Northeast where it would not be noticed as much, the train service announced it would eliminate a cross country line stretching from Chicago to Seattle. Since that was the only train service in that part of the country, and it passed through several states and many Congressional districts, many members of Congress complained that Amtrak's budget simply could not be cut."

So, you are advocating that Amtrak cut a profitable train to keep one that is highly unprofitable? If Amtrak was told that they had to operate completely without Federal Funds, only a few lines would operate. The Northeast section would either stay the same or even see more trains, Trains in Southern California would also stay as would some trains to Chicago. The rest of the country would see a significant drop in service if not an end to service.

Why advocate for cutting revenue lines and keeping highly subsidized lines. This type of thinking doesn't work anymore.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The notion currently being advanced by republicans of selective pain is nothing new as the writer points out. And it’s not necessarily a republican only game. The real government divisions in America would be better labeled as Business versus people. The strategy of politics is to punish the people rather that the offending government opposition.

The people who are touting small, restricted and ineffective government are those who don’t want to be interfered with as they oppress the weaker people. And since the only way to legally oppress and enslave people in America is with the economic system, these people are generally know as business.

The apparent willingness to destroy America and it’s government in the name of higher profits, indicates to me that the business operations in America may no longer be owned by Americans.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Actually, we don't have a debt crisis . . . yet. What we have is an economy that unevenly distributes its wealth. If the consumer classes keep getting squeezed, then, yes, we will eventually have a debt crisis. As long as there is too much money available for investment and too little for consumption, government will need to keep spending to try to keep the economy from collapsing.

If corporate executives could see past the end of their noses, they would understand that their economic philosophy is a dead-end street. If they would change their goal from maximizing shareholder and executive wealth to maximizing employment (while still turning a profit), most of our problems would eventually vanish, including the purported debt crisis. With the middle and lower classes getting more income, tax revenue would increase. But the greed sector can't seem to understand this, and unless they do, they will continue to hammer nails into their own coffin.

So, let's keep laying people off and shipping jobs to Third World countries and see how much demand that generates in America. Stupidity doesn't have to be a requirement for either CEOs or politicians, but it certainly seems so.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Time to cut?

Says who? Foxnews and AM radio?

What credible economist believes that a cut in spending won't have detrimental effects on the economy?

Do we really want our economy to go back into a recession?

Tooele, UT

Re: "Actually, we don't have a debt crisis . . . yet."

Yeah -- the fact that my family's [and your family's, and every other family's] portion of the national debt now exceeds our mortgages is not a problem.

To liberals.

To real people, it's a problem. One that needs fixing.

And one that will never be fixed by liberals.

Far East USA, SC

"To real people, it's a problem. One that needs fixing."

Then this country has no real people. At least not any politicians.

John Boehner? Is he a "real person". How about Eric Cantor. Paul Ryan perhaps? What about Mitch McConnell.

These guys all voted for unfunded wars, no child left behind, medicare part D (the largest entitlement expansion in my lifetime) all while cutting taxes.

Nope, the Dems are no better, but this GOP leadership is large part of the problem ( as is the Republican party in general)

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Kent C. DeForrest" Washington has a severe spending problem. Since Obama took office we have been spending more and more money using a credit card. The US typically collects between 17% and 20% GDP in taxes, while spending 25% GDP. In other words, they spend more than they take in, and have done so for 60 years.

Why is it that we have to continue to spend more money on ineffective government programs?

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT


FYI, if government hadn't picked up the spending slack, we would be hip-deep in a major depression right now. After 2007, demand hit rock bottom. You really think austerity is the answer? Do you understand what causes recessions to turn into depressions? Yes, we need to get things back into balance, but doing it by slashing spending will send us directly into depression. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Yes, we can close the deficit, but only with significant tax increases, which, by the way, the wealthy can easily afford and still invest plenty in new production (if there were only corresponding demand to justify it).

Salt Lake City, UT

"The US typically collects between 17% and 20% GDP in taxes, while spending 25% GDP. "

Currently it's taking in 14-15% and spending 24-25% which is why I insist that we have both revenue and spending problems.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

Okay, RedShirt

Let's see an actual plan that shows actual dollar amounts and programs. Your side was decrying cuts to the military saying the military will be decimated, then all the sudden, they say it isn't that bad. Well, which is it?

Which "ineffective programs" do you want to do away with? Let's see something specific with some dollar figures to back it up and the effect it will have on the nation.

I wonder how long I'll wait. The last time I posed this question to a story about cutting was done two months ago and the challenge went unanswered.

O-town, UT

Bravo Kent C. DeForrest for pointing out what is the true nature of the problem. Essentially what is happening here is that cuts that will result in putting us back into a recession and the loss hundreds of thousands of jobs are being made so that billionaires can have their tax loopholes.

Every economist will tell you that austerity doesn't work and that you don't cut government spending when coming out of a recession. You get people back to work and you get the economy growing before you cut WASTEFUL spending (like subsidies to Oil Companies).

I don't want to hear a party that had two wars and Medicare Part D off budget lecture us on debt. With Wall Street doing as well as they have--thanks to the taxpayer bailout, it is time they pay their fair share of taxes before we make cuts to social programs that affect everyday people.

The rich are not job creators as obviously shown this last decade--they are doing great, but are holding onto money and not spending. It is consumers that are job creators. If consumers don't have money to spend--no jobs are created!

South Jordan, UT

No, it is NOT time ot cut... it is time to spend ...TEMPORARILY ... the time to cut is when we are doing well !! Instead, what we did was we cut taxes and lost government revenue that would have paid down the debt. When a pump needs to be primed, it takes water and lots of it sometimes. The fed. government should prime the economic pump and then when the water is flowing take some off the flow to pay it off. The hedge fund managers, bankers, milliionaire and billionaire classes have been fully juiced up to be the 'job creators' but to no avail..

By the way, Obama ahs been a VERY conservative spender !! especially relative to GWBush --- so his problem has been more about UNDERCOLLECTING of taxes then over spending.... go look it up - Bush spending increases VS Obama spending increases!

Elk River, MN

@KentD - if you were right, Zimbabwe would have the best economy in the world.

Price, Utah

Milt: The problem isif we wait to cut there will never be cuts. Reagan was promised cuts and Bush was promised cuts. Show me those cuts and I will happily go along with closing loop holes.

Copy Cat
Murray, UT

South Jordan, UT
"No, it is NOT time ot cut... it is time to spend ...TEMPORARILY..."

I disagree. We have been spending like crazy, temporarily, for 5 years. We are still knee deep in unemployed and now our grandchildren will have to pay for our spending that didn't work.

Save the great-grandchildren!!! Stop the deficit spending.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Milt's right. We have two problems: unemployment and the deficit. They cannot both be solved together--they require different solutions, and so must be solved sequentially. The right sequence is unemployment, then deficit. And it's entirely possible that solving unemployment will make solving the deficit much much easier, by expanding the tax base. The sequester accomplishes nothing.

John Jackson
Sandy, UT

"Every economist will tell you that austerity doesn't work and that you don't cut government spending when coming out of a recession," offers Wildcat.

What we are going through is not 1930, but we are insisting on using the same solutions used in 1930. In 1930, the unemployed did not have the social net we have today. Now, we not only have a social net, but the social net is part of the reason we have such a huge national deficit. Today, we are faced with the charge of curbing a deficit while at the same time not teetering the economy. Today, we are not just learning the principle of force-feeding the economy with government spending, we are dealing with the reality that government spending must be curbed. We have been on the force-feed for so long, it has become our addiction.

Anyway, we do need to consider that it is time to cut. If we cannot achieve so much as the small curbing of growth that the Sequester will bring, what hope do we have of ever beginning the process of controlling the national deficit?

Pheonix, AZ

"Sequester makes no sense..."

Sequestration wouldn't be needed if Congress had the guts to do the work that members were sent to Washington (and being paid) to do. They just can't seem to muster the courage to cut anything for fear of losing constituency votes. That's what we call 'politicians.' what we lack are 'statesmen' in our government... and that include the present occupant in the White House.

"... but it is time to cut"

Yes, we need cuts else we will not only be bankrupt but will have a major economic melt-down... And soon.

Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . we can close the deficit, but only with significant tax increases, which, by the way, the wealthy can easily afford . . . ."

In other words, we are in hereditary thrall to deranged, vote-buying government spending, and the only way our Nation can survive is by robbing the successful to buy off the indolent.


If that liberal concept of America were actually true, we would truly be finished.

Fortunately, for America and the world, real people are neither as evil, nor as stupid as liberals assume.

to comment

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