House Republicans propose $4 trillion in cuts over decade

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    April 4, 2011 4:15 p.m.


    Regan would not have pushed our debt to 20 trillion. Thats a silly argument. We are at an unsustainable point. I'll betcha that the interest on the debt over a one year period will be what Regan spent in one year total.
    We have a major spending problem and some Americans want to revisit the miniscule amounts of the past (compared to today)

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2011 2:59 p.m.

    'I cannot believe you are still trying to say BO is better at deficit control than bush.' - lost in DC | 12:02 p.m.

    I did not say that.

    That would be foolish, both have debt.

    And, since you have admited that Bush was, if anything, just as bad (at least until this point) than Obama with debt...

    why do you feel that the Republican party, George W. Bush's Reupublican party...

    will somehow 'erase' that debt?

    No, really. I want to know why you think Republicans will do 'better' with debt...

    when Ronald Regan factually tripled the national debt.

    For Obama, to be ON PAR with Geroge W. Bush and national debt, he would have to add $10 trillion dollars. (Double it)
    Ronald Regan? Add $20 trillion dollars. (Triple it)

    I cannot believe you are trying to imply that Bush was better at deficit control than Obama.

    When Bush doubled the national debt.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 4, 2011 12:02 p.m.

    the too-big-to-fail "rescue" facilitated by the bush administration (bank stock purchase) will MAKE money for the treasury. the part of TARP BO directed, automaker bailouts, will LOSE money. Blaming bush for a problem there is inaccurate.

    Dodd-frank, supposedly designed to end too-big-to-fail, is a failure in that regard. Right after its passage, credit ratings for regional banks fell, while they stayed high for technically insolvent mega-banks. The markets clearly recognized too-big-to-fail still exists.

    as for deregulation, much of the problem was the admitted failure of clinton's treasury dept to regulate derivatives in 1997 and barney frank's insistence in 2004 that fannie and freddie were not taking ENOUGH risk making financially irreponsible people homeowners. dem senators ALL voted to not regulated FHLMC & FNMA.

    time it took bush to accumulate $4 trillion in debt - 96 months.
    time it took BO to accumulate $4 trillion in debt - 26 months.
    Average bush deficit with repub congress - $470B
    Average bush deficit with dem congress - $767B
    Average BO deficit - $1.9 trillion
    I cannot believe you are still trying to say BO is better at deficit control than bush.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2011 11:06 a.m.

    'If the Republicans fail to stop this insane spending, America will fail with them!' - Mountanman | 7:25 p.m.


    It won't.

    Because you didn't 'fail' them the 1st time.

    *'Republicans promise $100 billion in spending cuts' - By Andrew Taylor - AP - Published by DSNews - 02/10/2011

    *'How the House GOP promise to cut $100b became $32b' - By Luke Russert - NBC - 02/03/11

    And how EXACTLY did the Republicans do from '01-08?

    *''Audit: US can't account for $8.7B in Iraqi funds' - By Tarek El-tablawy - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/27/10

    'The funds are separate from the $53 billion allocated by Congress for rebuilding Iraq.'

    cut $4 trillion? That would make it....


    *'Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt' - Posted by Mark Knoller - CBSNews - 03/04/10

    'With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.'

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    April 4, 2011 8:55 a.m.

    And now Obama announces that he will seek re-election.....

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    April 4, 2011 7:32 a.m.


    I am a Liberal in social issues, but pretty conservative in fiscal matters.

    1. A lot of that 3 Trillion of debt under Obama was him finishing the deal Bush made with corporations "too big to fail." Why do they get to be socialists when the rest of us cannot have good health care?

    2. If Congress (both Dems and the GOP) would have forced the tax rebates to expire on the top 2% of the U.S. in terms of income (a 3% raise), it would pay for all of the cuts they say we need now to fix our problems.

    3. A lot of our 14 Trillion in debt, created in the past 10 years was because we went into Iraq under false pretenses, instead of concentrating on Afghanistan.

    4. A big part of the financial crisis was due to Clinton and Bush deregulation the Housing market and Stock Market.

    President Obama has fallen short of a lot of expectations, but let's put the blame where it belongs.

  • Northern Logan, UT
    April 3, 2011 11:17 p.m.

    One more question why do we allow, private banks to PROFIT from our debt?
    The federal reserve is not federal and it is not a reserve.

    This means that wealthy individuals from Europe and the US profit from Americas debt.
    You can debate allot of issues but that is the root of your problem right there.

    I'm proud to be an American, lets get back to what the USA once stood for.

  • Northern Logan, UT
    April 3, 2011 11:13 p.m.

    Getting rid of foreign Aid is a great peice of the puzzle. How can we take care of others if we can't take care of us first. Why does the US give 3 billion to Israel each year? Please answer that for me?

    Like a plane put on our oxygen mask then the worlds.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    April 3, 2011 10:55 p.m.

    "Talk about income redistribution - take from poor old granny's Medicare and give to the Kennedy's, the Rockefeller's, the Trump's, the Buffet's, the Bush's, the Johnson & Johnson's of this world."

    When every voter in this country is paying income taxes, we can talk about wealth redistribution from the the poor to the rich. Until then, let's have some reality.

    I'm not rich by American standards. I work hard to provide for myself and family. I've been blessed, and I am generous with my own money to the tune of about 15% of my gross annually. I also give my time in service. I've been blessed, but I work hard too.

    And I'm tired of seeing more than 25% of my gross income taken before I even get my check and then having "poor" people who "can't afford" rent, or power or food get subsidies even as they drive new cars, carry fancy cell phones, eat out and vacation.

    Our lowest tax rate is now negative: people get paid just for filing taxes.

    That is wrong.

    Everyone should pay an equal percentage.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 3, 2011 9:42 p.m.

    Do you guys realize our debt problems could be solved in a few short years with out raising taxes and without reducing spending?

    All America has to do is change how money is introduced into the economy. Currently, money is only introduced into the economy buy going into debt. If the government or American citizens did not go into debt then there would not be any money.

    The government could simply issue debt free money into the economy. We wouldn't owe federal taxes and we wouldn't be having talks about eliminating vital programs.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    April 3, 2011 9:23 p.m.

    Again, before cutting domestic programs, get rid of foreign aid. You can't help others if you don't take care of yourself first, the old flight analogy if your air mask drops down.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2011 8:54 p.m.

    Same old GOP... those subsidies they would provide to the elderly won't be nearly enough to pay for a private insurance program. You know why? Because it wouldn't reduce the deficit if it didn't.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    April 3, 2011 8:43 p.m.

    Way to go repubs with tea party folks pushing from behind and pulling from ahead. If you keep keeping promises our country might have a fighting chance.
    What will the dem demigogs say about this foolish political ploy of trying to be fiscally responsible? Stay tuned...

  • Patrick Henry West Jordan, UT
    April 3, 2011 7:59 p.m.

    Not good enough. We want a balanced budget.

    Spend less than or equal to what you bring in. It's insane that we allow our Government to spend more than what is brought in each year. In my house we spend less than we bring in because eventually nobody will want to loan us money. Hello Ameria....eventually that will happen too. Eventually nobody will buy the paper money you keep printing. Then what will happen to America?

    Sometimes we ask God to save us from a situation. Maybe we should be asking God to save us from ourselves? Because we only have ourselves to blame for electing these officials year after year who keep spending like there is no tomorrow.

    Wake up fellow citizens and demand that your representatives actually represent you and the future generation. Demand they protect our fiscal future.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    April 3, 2011 7:42 p.m.

    It is to be commended that the Republican Party is taking on Medicare, the political sacred program that,however, significantly contributes to the Federal Budget Deficit. By taking this political gamble, it demonstrates that not everything the Republican Party is about capturing votes and getting re-elected as opposed to really caring about what is happening to the federal budget deficigt and its impact on future generation of this Country.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 3, 2011 7:25 p.m.

    Imagine that! Politicians doing what they were elected to do! If the Republicans fail to stop this insane spending, America will fail with them! What will the Democrats do? Parade of victims as usual! The solution is like it always has been; do what you have to do to be self reliant! You may have to work two jobs (like I had to do for many years) to pay my own bills!

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    April 3, 2011 7:04 p.m.

    Whats wrong with Medicare?
    An elderly lady who has been in poor health for years tells her family that she is going to die and wants to do so at home. She becomes unconscious and her family calls for an ambulance. She is taken to the hospital and put in intensive care. Heroic measures are taken by the hospital staff and she regains consciousness. Her kidneys shut down and she is placed on dialysis. After 8 days in intensive care she dies. The costs are in excess of $50,000. The hospital says they had to do what they did or face a law suit. I dont believe it but if it is true then lawyers are the ruination of our country. They are literally bankrupting our nation. But if the hospital is simply running up the tab for profit, as I am inclined to believe, then they are to blame for most of our budget problems. This scenario is not an isolated or rare incident but as common as the cold. What is the solution?

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 3, 2011 7:03 p.m.

    Seeing as how we're $14 trillion in debt, $3 trillion of which Obama has racked up in 2 years, I don't think $4 trillion over 10-years is going to do the trick.

    That's like trying to bail out the sinking Titanic with a bucket.