Published: Wednesday, Feb. 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Your tax dollars at work, always some place that will annoy the most people.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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)
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?
Red: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).
@Redshirt"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
Okay, RedShirtLet'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.
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!
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!
@KentD - if you were right, Zimbabwe would have the best economy in the world.
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.
MiltSouth 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.
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
"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?
"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.
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.Hmmmmmmm.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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments