Comments about ‘Sequestration is pro-growth’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 6 2013 9:45 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Provo, UT

@Mountanman -- Google it. You'll find the cuts I'm talking about if you take 5 seconds and do that. You will probably be surprised.

Durham, NC

@moutainman... I will give you two examples. the first was the one where Obama cut the amount of money given to the insurance companies for administrative cost... that during the election every republican running vowed to restore. The second is the consolidation of data centers the government runs, reducing the cost of these IT centers 40% Google FDCCI....

I have plenty more.... lots more.

Now your turn. Name one Republican Administration in the last 100 years that ended their term with the US government owing less that when they started To use your words... "just one"

Problems is, those people you listen to... then didn't tell you about the cuts..... and they didn't give you any proof to back up their claims, because there is none. Do your self a favor. Google either Idaho or Utah State debt and then select US debt clock. I will give you a hint what you will find. Even in these bastions of balanced state budgets - both states have debt that is increasing by the second. Even with a "balanced" budget - debt per citizen is increasing - in both.

THere is no proof tbacking these fiscal conservative claims. None. I wish there was.

Othello, WA

RE: SS Again more deception! Hard to compare Clinton to Reagan, because Reagan had a tax and spend, out of control, hold over Carter era Democrat Congress to deal with on the budget. He gave in to them to much. Clinton on the other hand had the opposite. He had a Careful, "efficient" GOP Congress to deal with on the budget during most of his term, and a strong economy. The GOP saved Clinton from himself, by restricting spending and tax increases.
Another false premise of yours is the presidential deficits. In the past 70 plus years only 2 presidents have presided over years when the deficit dropped. Truman and Eisenhower, one a Dem and one a Rep. Not your beloved Clinton, not Carter, and no not Reagan or the Bush's. And Obama has set all new records for increasing the national debt.

Durham, NC

HaHaHaHa.. and SS..... the funny thing is both of you are right to some extent. But statements like "because Reagan had a tax and spend, out of control, hold over Carter era Democrat Congress to deal with on the budget. " just don't reflect much of the complexity that was going on.

At the close of Vietnam, there was huge anti military spending sentiment after that "conflict". Clinton inherited a rusting military infrastructure that wasn't capable of much - culminating in the failed rescue attempt in Iran as a result of equipment that wasn't up to the task. Embarrassed, the US, under Reagan spent like made men to rebuild our military capability and blunt the advances the Soviets were having at the time. That spending was hardly a liberal congress driven buildup. And it is easy to argue that is was the right thing to do. When we later again returned to the region, this time in Iraq, the results were far different.

Reagan did what he did, because he needed to. Not all agreed, but it was his buildup...no doubt. Obama did what was needed. It just was\is the cards dealt to these men.

Price, Utah

Obama can't find money to do White House tours but he had money to play golf with tiger and now he's flying to Illinois.
He doesn't want the authority to decide what gets cut. Could it be he is so afraid of making any decision that might lower his favorability ratings that he's paralyzed. No decision is worse than a bad decision.
What a leader. Move over Millard somebody else wants to to supplant you at the bottom.

to comment

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