Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama, Republicans cooperate on spending for now’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 6 2013 7:02 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

$85 Billion isn't enough. They are projecting to pull in a record $2.7 Trillion in tax revenue. So that should be the budget for the year. Spend $2.5 Trillion on all of the government programs. Use $.2 Trillion to pay down the principal of our national debt. Stop borrowing money this year.

If baroke wants to have a decent legacy, this could be his chance to prove that he is fiscally conservative. Not only balance the budget, but, pay down some of the $6 Trillion of debt that he brought on us, our children and grand children and even children with down syndrome etc. Why not leave a legacy of getting out of debt and creating a future where our children won't be discussing 75% taxes on everyone?

I'll go in and create the budget for all of the parties. I bet I can keep every single job and program running, and still reduce our spending to less than what we take in. It's really not that hard.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Liberal Ted – “I'll go in and create the budget for all of the parties. I bet I can keep every single job and program running, and still reduce our spending to less than what we take in. It's really not that hard.”

And if we had politicians who cared about balancing the budget, perhaps it wouldn’t be.

Problem is, you have one side who, hiding in the Trojan horse of fiscal conservatism, really want to undo all the social programs from the 1930’s on and make government so small that it can be “drowned in a bathtub.”

While the other side is stuck playing defense and hoping that election loses will convince the other side that the majority of people (who are fiscally conservative) want a different approach.

And thanks to gerrymandering, we may be stuck with this seized engine of government for years to come.

Democracy - the worst form of government… except for all the others.

George
Bronx, NY

I dont say this often but good idea gop but lets extend it to all agencies hit by tbe cuts. I think it makes a lot more sense to let every department decide how to allicoate the cuts rather then having it dictated to them. This is a good place for both sides to compermising a little.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

If the republicans are serious about entitlement reform it needs to start now. Haven't they said the debt is killing us now? Why should future generations bear the brunt of the cost for the stupidity of the last 30 years? What about shared sacrifice. We could start with means testing right now. I don't want to see the person who is trying to survive on a social security check alone have to take money out of their food budget for health care, but most seniors today could contribute more to the cost of health care than they are now.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Fred44" you mean follow Romney's plan for Social Security and Medicare?

To "Tyler D" eliminating the deficit may be out of reach, cutting the deficit back to Bush levels isn't that difficult.

Why do we need all of the social welfare programs? Don't most programs just encourage irresponsibility and laziness?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Fred44,
last time the repubs were serious about entitlement reform the dems lied about it and said they were trying to push granny off the cliff. once bitten, twice shy.

Good to see BO and reid backing off their incendiary lies and actually trying to work wit the other side to get something done.

m.g. scott
LAYTON, UT

Re: Tyler D

Do you really believe that the Republicans want to get rid of all "social programs" like Social Security and Medicare? That's the equivalent of Republicans saying that Democrats want to get rid of the entire Defense Department. Few if any politicians on either side are THAT extreme.

But, cutting all departments by a real 1% (not just projected growth) would be a good start. How could government not be able to function on 99% of what they already have? Has any of our "bright" politicians ever considered something so simple? Most people and families have to think like that, why can't the politicians? As Bill O'Reilly would now say, "where am I going wrong?"

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Redshirt1701 – “Why do we need all of the social welfare programs? Don't most programs just encourage irresponsibility and laziness?”

Yes I’ve always thought our senior citizens (who receive the vast majority of social welfare dollars) were a bunch of irresponsible, lazy moochers.

What grandpa, just because you save the world from tyranny and then build the greatest economy the world has ever seen, you expect the rest of us to pay for your broken hip or give you a monthly check just big enough to insure you don’t have to live under a bridge?!!!

OK, seriously… I understand that entitlements need to be reformed and that we cannot spend so much on current consumption (e.g., grandma’s hip) at the expense of future investment (e.g., education, infrastructure); but there are pragmatic ways to approach the problem that don’t involve destroying the social programs people want (but should pay for up front) for the individualistic dystopia of an Ayn Rand novel.

@ m.g. scott

I agree with you… but many Reps do not. Many do want to kill them all… the programs, I mean.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

lost in DC,

What the republicans did was somewhat different. Vouchers and means testing are not quite the same. Vouchers will throw granny off the cliff if social security is her only means of retirement in a voucher plan.

I believe it was the President who suggested means testing back in 2011 when Mr. Boehner walked out of the negotiations.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Tyler D" so then you agree with me. Most social welfare programs encourage laziness.

Rather then educate themselves on how to invest or even to look into retirement savings programs, we have taught our seniors that they don't need to worry about retirement because the government will take care of it for them.

You realize that if Grandpa had invested his SS and Medicare money (this includes employer contributions) that he would have enough after 40 years of working to retire for ever if no major expenses came up, or would have enough to retire for a long time and be able to replace most hips.

You do realize that when SS was created that only a few lucky people actually received it because age to receive it was higher than the longevity at the time.

m.g. scott
LAYTON, UT

Re: Tyler D

Still not sure what you mean by "kill the programs". Do you mean an entire program like kill all of SS or Medicare? Or do you mean certain aspects of them? I really never have heard a politician say get rid of it all. Some say, privatize part of SS, or some may talk of a part of Medicare "withering on the vine" as Newt Gingrich once did. But an entire program of that magnitude? Even if some politician wanted to get rid of these leviathian programs, he/she knows that far too many American people are counting and depend on them for that to ever get traction.

However, I do wonder just how Obama got away with taking something like 600 billion dollars out of Medicare to use in Obamacare. It did surprise me he got away with it. I don't think a Republican President ever could have. Time was when programs like that were considered the "3rd rail".

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@ Redshirt1701

SS was designed to insure that people who lived past a viable working age (65 might be a bit arbitrary but it’s not too far off the mark) would have at least a basic subsistence level of income. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that this takes the worry out of retirement (i.e., this is all they need to enjoy retirement), which is why most people of means do invest additional funds.

Should SS and Medicare be means tested? Sure. But leaving the working poor (not to mention the many that will experience bad luck) on their own to invest will still leave millions destitute.

@m.g. scott – “Do you mean an entire program like kill all of SS or Medicare?”

I’m simply taking the right wing at their word. Redshirt1701 echoes many voices when he says they “encourage laziness” (and I make the logical assumption that he thinks they are bad and should be done away with).

And to both – “liking” your own comment 2 seconds after you post it is a bit tacky… better to wait at least a minute or two.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@ Redshirt1701

SS was designed to insure that people who lived past a viable working age (65 might be a bit arbitrary but it’s not too far off the mark) would have at least a basic subsistence level of income. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that this takes the worry out of retirement (i.e., this is all they need to enjoy retirement), which is why most people of means do invest additional funds.

Should SS and Medicare be means tested? Sure. But leaving the working poor (not to mention the many that will experience bad luck) on their own to invest will still leave millions destitute.

@m.g. scott – “Do you mean an entire program like kill all of SS or Medicare?”

I’m simply taking the right wing at their word. Redshirt1701 echoes many voices when he says they “encourage laziness” (and I make the logical assumption that he thinks they are bad and should be done away with).

David
Centerville, UT

I cannot believe that I am agreeing with George, but I am. THe GOP has it right and should extend flexibility to all departments.

Obama and Democrats have had it wrong the whole way through: " asked last week whether he would agree to flexibility, Reid said: "No, why would I? I don't have a reason to do so."

Pentagon officials embraced flexibility even before the measure came to a vote in the House."

The President is looking more foolish with each passing day.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Tyler D" and if the working poor had their SS money to put into a retirement account of their choosing, wouldn't that be beneficial to them and their children?

Even if they only invested 1/2 of what is currently being paid into SS and Medicare they would have enough to retire on for a good 30 years. Now, if they don' use up all of their retirement savings the remainder could be passed along to their children to improve their situations.

So again, why keep SS running in its current condition when it encourages people to be lazy with their retirement and it takes away from your children's inheritance?

to comment

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