Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah governor uses colorful language to describe sequestration’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 28 2013 5:15 p.m. MST

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

I am partially in agreement with cuts. The federal employees make an insanely huge salary compared to anyone else in basically the same position. Example, a former employee went to work for the feds doing the same job she did here, but at 3x the salary. One of my co-workers said his wife, who works for the feds, would go on a fulough with this, and lose $700 a month. She's still making a 6 figure salary, but it will hurt them because they've adjusted their lifestyle to equal their salary. While I agree with cuts and furloughs, I'm hoping this will also carry over to the leaders -- from the top down? Just think how much a month would be put toward this if everyone in congress, senate, president, etc. was just cut even 2%. Like that would ever happen, right???? It's too bad no one back in DC can figure out they are there working for us and our (the country's) best interest, and not for their profit and putting money into their pockets and the pockets of friends. Us who are working for a salary allowing us to get by are the ones suffering.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Barack predictably comes out today and tries to blame sequestration on the GOP. The man waits til the last minute and then tries to throw in some more big tax increases and then claims its the GOP's fault when they won't take the bait. Nice try Barack. This man doesn't understand the meaning of CUT anything. TAX MORE and SPEND MORE ... that's it folks. End of story for Barack. We need an adult in the White House.

metamoracoug
metamora, IL

2007 was the last time the GOP controlled the House & Senate. The budget they passed was $2.7 trillion with a deficit of $161 billion.

2013 budget is $3.8 trillion and the deficit will be $901 billion.

metamoracoug
metamora, IL

Truthseeker: the article to which you refer is grossly oversimplified and skewed to make a point -- which is unfortunate because his point is valid.

lket
Bluffdale, UT

point fingers all you want but the real debt is the wars never, where, in any budget, at anytime. so every dollar is in the red that was spent on the wars. the only people that did well, got tax breaks at the same time. the weapons industry, energy, food, and the top 1% got more wealth while sending more jobs over seas, and hiding money in other countries, that could have been here to loan to start new companies. the food industry makes the packages smaller and charges the same, so they can make even more money while the smaller package costs more then the bigger one did. oil industry will not build enough refinneries for the fuel thus kepping prices at record levels. these are not secret just read the newspaper. look at things in the store . i follow the oil market and when there is a lot of fuel on the market prices stay high. capitalism runs this country not the people. so why do we feel bad for the rich paying more? they are making way more. and not making jobs at all.

washcomom
Beaverton, OR

Politicians, in general, are spend-aholics. They do not know the meaning of a budget. As the Governor said, you can't spend more than you take in, and you can't expect to borrow money and delay the repayments forever.
This is also a good warning for every single one of us. Know how to manage money. Don't spend beyond your means. Know how you are going to pay off borrowed money. Create plans for the future, and seize the day!

JWB
Kaysville, UT

One factor in the equation is that are entitled will vote for the person who is giving the aid package that election. Who will continue to push for federal money to be pumped into each district. In 1972, when the federal government changed the funding process to have partnerships with cities, counties, and states, it became a different ballgame and now all those entities crawl and beg for the redistribution monies except for the earmarks that are a separate issue. Those depend again, on who is in power.

Lobbyists became a significant factor for the organizations of counties, cities and state type groups.

Now we will see what the next month or more for the furloughs to take place and the process that each agency will use to equitably send home employees for their 114 hours.

I Choose Freedom
Atlanta, GA

Let's put the “sequester” in the context of an average American family. The median annual income for an American family is $50,502. If that family spent $73,417 last year and had an accumulated credit card balance of $322,205, that family would look like America. Clearly, that family is headed toward disaster financially, and so too is America. Sequester isn't so bold that it would ask this family to live within its $50,502 means; sequester asks only that the family reduce its spending from $73,417 last year to $71,655 this year.

And yet politicians continue to run around screaming that the world is about to end as we know it.

A bunch of liars. That’s what they are. And they are spending us blind. Wonder who is profiting from all of their excessive spending? They are, of course. And you and I and our posterity for generations to come will pay for it.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Turn on cable news and you'll hear the words "deficit" and "debt" used interchangeably as if they're the same thing. Not too long ago, Sean Hannity ran a segment in which he aired a clip of the president discussing in his State of the Union address how his proposals won't "add a single dime" to the deficit. Then, with a satisfied gotcha! tone, Hannity illustrated how the debt -- the debt, not the deficit -- has increased by $5.86 trillion since Obama took office. Therefore the president must be lying about the deficit.

The final Bush administration budget bill authorized spending for 2009, creating a deficit of $1.2 trillion by the time President Obama was sworn in. An additional $200 billion was added by Obama by the end of that year, creating a total of a $1.4 trillion deficit. From that high water mark, the deficit has steadily decreased to a projected $845 billion by the end of 2013. The CBO projects that by the end of 2016, the deficit will have dropped to $433 billion, for a total of nearly a trillion dollars in deficit reduction in six years.

Herbert Gravy
Salinas, CA

Really silly use of the English language! I'm sure you can do much better Governor. Not impressive AT ALL! I'm certain you could have gotten your message across much better without resorting to the inane expressions used. Just stick to the subject at hand and the facts. That will suffice nicely. Thanks.

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

What I think happened, is all that unfunded stuff got added in when Bush 43 left office. People forget he was an MBA, not an attorney. I'm sure he knew how to get wars and programs, not to mention contracts with Halliburton funded and have it look good. But they were still there and had to be paid. It has to be like getting a payday loan, sooner or later it comes due, and people either have to pay on it, get another one, or pay some of it and get another loan to pay some more debts. And it keeps on going. Just a thought. Another thought is that maybe we should not elect MBAs.

joseywales
Park City, UT

What about the rest of us who have lost over 20% of our income since the disaster of 08? Suddenly some gov. employees lose a day of work, and they make it sound like the sky is falling. Tough! The government has never offered to bail out my small business, and guess what? They shouldn't, and I wouldn't let them anyway. I took on this responsibility and I have accountability to no one other than myself for making it work. Why do employees get an entitlement attitude that someone owes them more? Everyone should have to work on a farm or in a service based business at some time in their lives to understand the hard work it really takes to make a living in America!

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Truthseeker

Using the correct terms, can you see that if this year's deficit is the same as last year's, it puts us a trillion dollars deeper in debt? And that if the deficit is "only" $433 billion in 2016, we will still be going deeper in debt?

Do you not see anything wrong with this?

I can't lend my support to any political party that finds this acceptable, Republican or Democrat.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:Nate
Most Democrats aren't oppposed to spending cuts--the issue is timing.

If only we could go back to the Clinton era with a booming economy and tax increases which resulted in a lowering of the deficit. Imagine where we would be today if Bush hadn't implemented 2 tax cuts, 2 wars and a sweetheart deal to pharmaceutical companies in the form of a prescription drug plan. Instead, we could've used the budget surplus to stabilize Social Security or Medicare--or pay down the debt.

Bottom line, the economy is still weak, employment is still weak. Cutting people's pay through furloughs or laying off teachers etc. is going to reduce demand (lower paycheck=less money to spend). Less demand, less hiring, more layoffs etc. All we have to do is look at the EU and see how austerity is working there. It isn't.

My guess is that Eric Cantor, representing VA, a state which relies a lot on military spending is going to start feeling some heat when the cuts begin to be implemented. Perhaps he will be more willing to compromise?

Doogie
South Jordan, Utah

Again, they are all just blowing smoke, politics as usual in Washington. This is not even a cut, it is a cut in the increase in the budget. So what they are telling us is that they can't even run the country on last year's budget (ha what budget?) deficit and are crying that the sequester is cutting into the increases for this year. Washington DC is boom town USA and they aren't living in reality but they sure as heck are stealing our tax dollars to line their pockets. It is disgusting really. Why don't we send them all home and make them earn an honest day's wage for a change like the rest of us? Their spendthrift ways are STEALING my retirement and standard of living as well as everyone else who is in the middle class in this country.

JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt
Beverly Hills, CA

When I was a Republican the thing I disliked most was UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES. Obama spends but let's slook at unfunded mandates from GW Bush that he left for Obama.

Medicaid Part D, NOT PAID FOR, will cost 8 trillion according to the COngressional Budget Office.

Stimulus packages and tax cuts: UNPAID FOR and still causing revenue shortfall and not sparking economic growth.

2 WARS: UNPAID FOR costing roughly 3 TRILLION. You Republicans think war is free for some reason.

JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt
Beverly Hills, CA

All you fiscal hawks that voted for Romney, he was on the record as saying he would ADD 2 TRILLION on top of Department of Defense budget request for defense. He is no fiscal conservative just like GW Bush and his UNFUNDED Federal mandates. 2 TRILLION, look it up.

Canyontreker
TAYLORSVILLE, UT

JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt "Republicans 2000-2008: Let's spend like there is no tomorrow. Trillions on 2 wars, 700 billion for banks, Trillion unfunded mandate Medicare Part D, unpaid for stimulus packages."

These may have added to the national debt (not part of the sequestration debate), therefore the interest payments can be argued as part of the deficit.

The real problem is that GNP is down from 2000-2008, government revenue is down, therefore spending should go down proportionately to have a balanced budget. This argument is about the deficit, not the debt.

Canyontreker
TAYLORSVILLE, UT

@I Choose Freedom "politicians continue to run around screaming that the world is about to end as we know it. A bunch of liars."

The resulting sequestration is far worse than you are depicting.

Companies will sometimes scare their divisions about a possible liquidation of the firm asking everyone to tighten their belts. Those that comply save the company money. Other divisions though will start grabbing all the limited resources they can get. If the company continues to lose revenue and has poor leaders that don't know how to find the cheating divisions, they may just cut across the board.

The divisions that have already cut to the bone will be cut to oblivion. Without a good leader the firm will not survive. A good leader is needed to cut from the fat divisions.

Examples:
The FDA doesn't have enough meat inspectors today. Tomorrow good meat may not be available for sale and may rot.
The NPS and the USPS are finally self funding as they are no longer forced to give their revenue to the general fund. Yet they will be forced to cut, when they are already lean.

Not a bunch of liars rather stupid leaders.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Truthseeker: "Most Democrats aren't oppposed [sic] to spending cuts--the issue is timing."

They don't seem to mind the poor timing of higher tax rates, new mandates, and burdensome regulations.

"If only we could go back to the Clinton era..."

You know what we had in the Clinton era? A Congress that produced an annual budget. Let's start with that. The Senate under Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in four years, although they are required to by law. It's time for them to do their jobs.

"Bottom line, the economy is still weak...."

Stimulus spending does nothing to increase prosperity. Here's why: because the government has to remove money from the economy before it can put it back in. The ripple effect of a dollar spent by the government is cancelled out by the negative ripple effect of having taxed that dollar out of someone's pocket in the first place.

Why send our money on a round trip through Washington? Why not just leave it where it does the most good? Do you think they know better than we do how to spend our money?

to comment

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