U.S. & World

Paul Ryan unveils House GOP budget claiming balance


Return To Article
  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    April 3, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    Obama wants to gut the military--down below pre world war II levels. To basically give us the military of Costa Rica. This is well documented. It happened right before the Ukraine crisis, which basically meant Obama's plan to weaken America was round filed. Thank goodness. As for those who want to do the standard liberal playbook of "Raise taxes, never, ever ever ever even consider a cut to spending on anything except for defense--there, eliminate the military entirely!"--yeah, France is trying that.

    It's not worked out well for them.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    To "cavetroll" doesn't it make the most sense to start cutting on the non-Constutionally mandated items? With your home budget, when you need to cut expenses do you start by looking at cutting credit car payments or the cable bill?

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:25 p.m.


    We don't need to have 99 week unemployment, that needs to change. But it is not solely the problem of the unemployed. Why won't employers hire people? Employees do more for less money now. Why won't employers pay a living wage?

    I agree that the government needs to reduce spending. Why do they need my money after I die? Why do we pay ethanol companies to burn food supply? I don't know. Why do we pay farmers not to grow food. Many of these "farmers" are large corporations and millionaires.

    I agree with what you are saying, I'm asking why aren't we cutting most, if not all programs?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    To "Kent C. DeForrest" I am confused. I thought you liked socialism? You do know that socialism funnels money to the top, and eventually you will have to cut welfare, healthcare, and government assistance. You do realize that capitalism has never lowered a country's standard of living, but has always increased the standard of living.

    Tirckle Down econoics does in fact work, and there are numerous studies that show how it works. Capitalism does more to lift people out of poverty than socialism ever has.

    If we are lucky we will have a surge in conservatives get into both houses of Congress. That way we might have a chance of getting out of the socialist quagmire that the Democrats have pushed us into.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 2, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    Surely this was just a bad April Fool's joke. Not a word about reducing corporate welfare, eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy, or increasing the minimum wage. Nope. First, let's create an economy that funnels all the wealth to the top, then let's blame the poor for not being able to find decent jobs. Then let's cut food stamps, unemployment benefits, and government assistance for health care. In other words, "Let them starve, let them get sick, and let them die." Thank you, Utah, for voting for people like Ryan, who will turn this great land into a Third World country in a generation, if given power to do so.

    Again, trickle-down economics does not work! But that's all the Republicans can come up with, so they keep beating their dead horse. Heaven forbid they gain a majority in both houses of Congress.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" actually he has.

    Using the deficit in 2000 as a point of comparison, Obama has trippled the deficit using the same point as comparison. You see Bush allowed $4.37 Trillion to be added to the debt, and Obama has allowed $7.25 Trillion as of September 2013, and is projected to add $10 Trillion by the time he leaves office. Explain why adding $10 Trillion to the debt is ok, but adding $4.37 Trillion is bad.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 2, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    TRUTH said: "No, No, NO! Obama has spent more than all Presidents COMBINED!"

    True, but he never doubled or tripled it as the other 2 presidents did.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    To "Pagan" no. If over my career I have paid $200000 into the government retirement system, and another $200,000 into my own retirement plan, why does the government get to keep teh $200,000 paid into the government system? Why can't that be given to my 4 kids so that they can get out of debt, pay of their house, or be used in some other way to benefit them?

    They won't exactly be "trust fund babies".

    For 99% of Americans, they would greatly benefit from being able to give the money they paid into SS to their children. Their children could use it for their retirement or other needs that would eliminate debt or else make it so that they did not need assistance during retirement.

    Why do you want people to be dependant on the government throughout their retirement?

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    Pagan says....Title: ‘Paul Ryan unveils House GOP budget claiming balance’

    Is this the same GOP that doubled the national debt under George W. Bush?

    Or the GOP that tripled the national debt under Ronald Reagan?

    Can't say either about Obama?

    No, No, NO! Obama has spent more than all Presidents COMBINED!

  • David Centerville, UT
    April 1, 2014 3:04 p.m.


    Your perspective has some value, though you hopefully can see value in the side you speak against. The Book of Mormon cautions the poor to not be lustful towards what they don't have, and that this is also a manifestation of greed. This prophet/king also speaks to the rich and counsels that they give freely to help the poor.

    I ask, what is wrong with working hard, accumulating excess, and passing a portion of it to our children, the next generation? Would you suggest that any excess, upon death, is absorbed by a government that admittedly overspends and lacks fiscal discipline? And why would the government have a right to a person's wealth upon death? Does the state own everything now?

    I call on political leaders to be compassionate, to live frugally, to give of their substance freely (without compulsion). But I also challenge government to back off.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    'Why can't the fruits of my labor be passed along to my children?'

    Trust Fund babies? Really?

    This is the 'Patriots' that people call themselves now?

    Unwilling and unrepentant about working to keep from paying taxes.

    And wondering why a country fails with such citizens call themselves patriots.

    Greed is not a value.

  • TrueAmerican56 Corpus Christi, TX
    April 1, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    Kind of wondering where Obama gutted the military Vanceone, every budget so far has put more and more spending into the military, or are you saying you want your taxes to go up to pay for your military. The Ryan budget doesn't even mention the $1.5 Trillion military budget, doesn't mention the spiraling costs of military health care, doesn't mention cutting waste in the military, not one word, why?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    To "cavetroll" first, you need to explain why we need to have unemployment last for 99 weeks (that is nearly 2 years)? Why is it that a person can get more on welfare than they can working a job for the median income? If I can get $168/day on welfare, why work for $137/day? This is what the Congressional Research Service found.

    Why is it that the government keeps 7% of my income for retirement and keeps that money after I die? Why can't the fruits of my labor be passed along to my children?

    Why do we pay Ethanol companies to burn a food supply? Why subsidize wind and solar companies so that they can be competitive with coal, gas, and nuclear power?

  • David Centerville, UT
    April 1, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    Ed Grady,

    I'm pretty sure the 50 years of cash you've been paying into the government welfare programs has already been spent. Consider yourself lucky to get any of it back.

    I'm younger than you and doubt I'll receive any of my payments because...you'll be receiving money that my generation pays. Demographic projections don't bode well for my generation.

    How's that for balanced budgets and government financial management? Both parties need to go home so we can get a serious group that can reform taxes, reform entitlement programs, reform the military, reform government bureaucracy.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    Title: ‘Paul Ryan unveils House GOP budget claiming balance’

    Is this the same GOP that doubled the national debt under George W. Bush?

    Or the GOP that tripled the national debt under Ronald Reagan?

    Can't say either about Obama.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 1, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    There's another issue that he fails to address. A LOT of money is lost when vulture capitalists send jobs off-shore. Despite that fact, the entities doing the off-shoring can take tax writeoffs for sending jobs overseas. Changes to the tax laws should be made that would not only tax the revenues the entities earn from their off-shore sites but penalize them for costing US workers their jobs. Make it less expensive for them to keep jobs "at home."

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:29 a.m.


    Go ahead and look into the F-35 program. Please explain to me how this is not wasteful spending. I'm not saying we shouldn't cut social welfare programs or other "non-Constitutional" programs, but there is great waste in military contacts and other federal areas. My point is, both sides need to come to the table. Neither side is willing to do so. Also look at the DNews story about Caterpillar and how it is skirting taxes by moving profits off shore.

  • Ed Grady Idaho Falls, ID
    April 1, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    Hate to break it to ya Mr Ryan, but when I turn 65, I will have paid 50 years of Medicare taxes in cash - not vouchers. I expect to be paid in cash not your bogus vouchers.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    To "cavetroll" once we cut social welfare and entitlement programs and other non-Constitutional programs down to the same size as the military, we can talk.

    April 1, 2014 10:47 a.m.


    All military spending is approved and managed by congress, not the president. But thank you for proving my point.

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    Remember when Paul Ryan was considered a serious numbers guy? Even made it to the vp ticket? Krugman was right, Mr. Ryan is a fraud.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Obama's already gutted the military; now its time for Democrat sacred cows to go on a diet.

    Fact of the matter is: if we just eliminated fraud and waste, we could balance the budget.

    Too bad Democrats won't play ball; their constituents are the ones committing the fraud and waste.

    We should pass a bill: for every dollar of waste, fraud, and so forth, we cut congressional pay, and the President's pay. Additionally, we force repayment of fraud and waste from the party in power's election funds. I guarantee you that suddenly waste and fraud would be a top, top priority.

    April 1, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    The republicans cannot even get republicans to support this. Yet when it fails, DN will blame Obama.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    Spot on. This is just more evidence how Congress and Washington are broken. Our politicans serve their parties and their platforms first and the people after that.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    "The legislation promises to serve more as a political and policy statement by House Republicans than a realistic attempt to engage President Barack Obama and Democrats, who control the Senate, in any serious effort to further cut the deficit."

    Does anybody else see a problem with this? Regardless if one is a Republican or Democrat, the politicians are still playing games with our future. However, please notice the cuts are mainly in the social welfare programs, yet none in the military or other wasteful spending areas. Notice how Ryan wants to cut benefits to others, yet does not cut benefits to himself or his colleagues.

    This is just another crap piece of legislation that does nothing to solve the problem. Even the CBO finds his numbers dubious. The claim that this promises a balance is ludicrous.