Comments about ‘President Obama sets meeting with top lawmakers on the same day budget cuts kick in’

Return to article »

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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mcallen, TX

How much are the mid-east countries earmarked to receive?

Bronx, NY

I dont know worf, how about you tell us and tell us why they are receiving the money they receive rather then make vague innuendoes?

Mapleton, UT

Let's see, a $68 billion cut from a $3.8 trillion budget: That amounts to 2.24%. If my household budget of, let's say $100,000, was cut by that same percentage, then I would be $2,400 short, or about $200 per month. Yes, that would be slightly painful, but it would hardly be catastrophic. As we have done many times before, we would tighten out belt, eat out less, cut out some perks...and be just fine!

So, dear Uncle Sam, tighten your belt, cut out some perks, and you'll be just fine--and so will the citizenry!

Cache county, USA

This problem won't be fixed.
It's biblical.

Bronx, NY

right because our government functions on the same economic principles as your household.

Cedar Hills, UT

what a president. He waits till the dam is about the break and then he decides to meet with the engineers to see what can be done to stop it. A bit too late Barack. Maybe had you canceled your golf lessons with Tiger or a dozen of the other time-waste leisure things you do or maybe stopped campaigning and started acting like someone who had clue how to govern and sat down with congress months ago.... but no ....no sir. Let's wait til zero hour and then pretend to care. I guess the foolish and gullible in this country who actually think this man cares ...I am sorry for you. You are being mislead. It's hard to even care about this country anymore ...what a mess...what a joke of a president. The US has to be the laughing stock of the world.

Belching Cow
Sandy, UT

"right because our government functions on the same economic principles as your household."

You must be talking about the economic principle of spending within you means.

Beverly Hills, CA

Republicans howled at the moon for budget cuts but now that they are set to happen they are whining. Now the Republican heavy states are realizing how much they are on the Federal Dole. Both parties ran up the debt, everyone will feel the pain so just stop with the whining about how unfair it is. Especially Republicans who have done nothing in the past 3 years but obstruct on the grounds of spending.

Beverly Hills, CA

"worf--Mcallen, TX --How much are the mid-east countries earmarked to receive?"

I am willing to guess you NEVER COMPLAINED while the payments to Mideast countries under Reagan, GH Bush and GW Bush were going on were you? Stop the hypocrisy of all of a sudden caring about how much we are spending to keep allies in the middle east. It worked for 3 Republican presidents.

Bountiful, UT

White House spokesperson, Jay Carney, said, "…that…such opposition [to tax increases] would mean the cuts, known as a sequester in budget terms, would be the responsibility of Republicans."

According to the CBO, since Obama and Democrats took over back in 2009, there has been in increase of 19% in federal expenditures. That is about a $700 billion increase in federal spending over four years, and that includes over 140,000 new federal employees.

So, if Jay Carney says that the Republicans are responsible for this sequester if they do not approve any increase in taxes, then who does Carney think is responsible for the 19% increase in federal expenses over the past four years – the Republicans?

I think we can well afford to have this sequester cut $85 billion from deficit spending without suffering all the "gloom and doom" predictions being pontificated by this President and his minions.

Colorado Springs, CO

patriot: We are the laughing stock, but not for the reasons you assert!

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

The repubs already gave BO tax increases. When is he going to give spending cuts? All we have seen from him is more spending, not less.

Boise, ID

Looks like we only need about 10 more sequestrations to get where we need to be.

Hyrum, UT

VST is correct. The almost 20% increase in federal government spending since Obama took over is way more than inflation would justify, and the 140,000 new federal employees is not even close to any correlation to population increases since then. It reaks of pork and fat.
The sequester amount is less than one-tenth of the amount of increased spending Obama has enacted since becoming president and only 2% of the current overall budget. As long as the ability to make these cuts in the proper areas is given and enacted, it truly will not be a big deal... certainly not "the sky is falling" scenario some critics are promoting. In fact, when it comes to the important need of balancing our budget, it will be only one small step in the right direction.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Lost in DC,

He has been trying, remember the summer of 11 when we could have avoided all this sillyness but Mr. Boehner couldn't get the tea party crowd to agree to the cuts the negotiated. He has repeatedly said that he is willing to look at entitlement cuts. It is the republicans who are holding that up because for some reason they think the President should propose massive cuts to everything and then they can come back and say which ones they want and blame the President.

Ivins, UT

In all my years I have never seen such a strange President, laking in leadership and trancperency. America deserves better in times like these. He seldom shares or sits down with anyone but his Chicago based crowd. He is against half of the electrate and lets them know it. We need to pray for our country.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

I think your memory may be faulty. It was reid and schumer who told BO the negotiated cuts would not make it through the senate. I did not know reid and schumer were part of the tea party.

Now there may have been tea partiers who rejected some of the proposed cuts, though since the tea party is all about cutting government and its spending, I find that hard to believe. But your failure to recall reid and schumer telling BO to forget it is puzzling.

Salt Lake City, Utah

lost in DC,

Not sure I am the one with the memory problem. Here is a quote from Forbes Magazine (wanted to make sure it was a right leaning publication)on 7/22/2011; "President Obama said that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) had informed him that he would be “walking away” from talks about an expanded deal to raise the debt ceiling in return for billions of dollars in spending cuts, tax reforms and revenue increases.

Those increases — up to $1.2 trillion — would not have come from tax hikes, Obama said Friday, but from closing loopholes and other measures as outlined by a proposal from the so-called “Gang of Six,” a bipartisan group of senators.

Mr. Reid and Mr. Schumer may have said that, but we will never know how the vote would have gone because Mr. Boehner walked away. Maybe the President could have rallied the democrats in the Senate, but again we will never know because Mr. Boehner walked out.

So yes I think I will stick with the Tea Party as the ones who ended that negotiations.

to comment

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