Short-term spending deal 'kicks the can' a little further

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 3, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    The big problem is that everyone has something they want government to do, but no one (especially the Republicans) want to pay for it. When the R's were in power, they started two wars and Medicare Part D without any means of paying for them. They even went further and cut taxes, especially on the top 1-2%. They (with a lot of help from Dems, including Clinton) deregulated the financial industry with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and caused the economic crisis. Now, with taxes at the lowest point in 50 years, they are still screaming that taxes are too high.

    Interest rates for the government have never been lower. Europeans are flocking to put money into US bonds - they see it as giving a very bad return, but as the safest place to park their money. We need more deficit spending to get the economy moving again, and then we need to increase taxes and pay off the debt, but only after the economy is doing well again. Deficit spending in bad economic times, paying off the debt in good economic times. That's the best recipe for success. Unfortunately, everyone forgets that second part.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 2:32 p.m.

    @VST -- Yes, but billions of dollars spent on a couple of wars is not what most people would call progressive, now is it?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    Just stop paying the bills, that's all you have to do. Espacially the trillon dollar a year Pentagon bill.

    All over America republican men are buying record numbers of guns and ammo on thier credit cards and blaming thier wives for spending too much money when they pay the credit card bill.

    It IS just like your kitchen table.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:47 p.m.

    I read a letter in the DN this week from a lady criticizing Mia Love for saying that she thought the Dept of Education should be eliminated. That's the commenter's opinion and she's entitled to it but it illustrates the fact that we just can't cut anything without some special interest singing the blues.
    We just found out that the USPS is going to default on a required payment of 15 billion to it's retirement fund but every time Postal Service executives propose closing post offices or processing facilities or eliminating Saturday delivery to cut costs our Congress won't let them.
    We're actually spending money at the USDA to advertise to people that they should sign up for the Snap (food stamps) program. We're working with Mexico to help us find Mexican nationals in America to enroll in our Snap program. Are you kidding me?
    Where does all the spending end? Not in a good place. Left, Right, or Center I don't see how a sane person can conclude that we do not have a spending/money printing problem in this Country.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 7:40 p.m.

    Are parties the problem?

    When we go to a baseball game, do we expect to see "teams" play each other, or should we all demand that eighteen "independents" take the field; after all everybody knows that big money controls sports and that we'll never see a real game until each player plays only for himself.

    In every situation there are always two choices. When the democrats and the republicans clearly stand on opposite sides of each choice, why would we prefer to have people who straddle the fence?

    One party tells us that they're comfortable having 47% of the people on the dole and then charging the "rich guys" $60 billion a year to pay off $15 trillion in deficits. Does anyone in that party know how to do math? Do they really think that we have 250 years to pay down the deficit - at no interest?

    It's not the parties who at fault, but the false ideals espoused by those parties.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 1, 2012 7:10 p.m.

    The Democrats want higher taxes. Fine! They're free to pay the government anything OVER the amount that they're assessed. Of course, when it comes to THEM paying more taxes, they scurry for cover. They stammer and stutter that what America needs is for Obama's mythical "rich man" to pay for the services that THEY, themselves, receive.

    They refuse to open their own wallets, but they demand that somebody else open his.

    They demand equality, except when it comes to paying for the RESPONSIBILITY of being a free citizen in America.

    They want someone else to work longer hours for less pay so that they can join with Obama in removing all incentive from being "successful".

    When Obama has sense enough to ask successful business people to show him how they became successful, he may begin to see that his leftist ideas left him I'll-prepared to lead this FREE country, but he's so sure that he's got the right idea that he will destroy this nation just to prove that he's wrong.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 6:57 p.m.

    The problem with our politicians is that they have sworn loyalty to the "party" rather than the people who chose to represent them. In fact it reminds me of Soviet Communists or German Fascists who talked of nothing other than the "party." You know a nation is in serious trouble when the "party" becomes the all important aspect of a politicians life. The fix is simple in returning America back to the citizens: Drop party affiliation. Anyone who has registered with a political party is also part of the problem. If people would simply drop their registration as a democrat or republican and become independent, the politicians would be forced to forgo their party allegiances or risk losing their jobs. Politicians are motivated by money and power. It is their weakness. They seem to be able to find plenty of money from a handful of wealthy donors (aka puppet masters) but the power to rule comes from the power of the vote. If they can no longer take votes for granted via party membership, then they have no choice but to become answerable to the people thereby placing power back into the hands of the people where it belongs.

  • twells Ogden, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 6:05 p.m.

    There is a simple solution to this problem. Instead of 50% of Americans paying taxes, lets have "all" Americans pay their fair share. Instead of blaming each political party, let's just face the facts that both parties are to blame for the problems we now have. Why? Well, because the average American was "trusting" his or hers elected offical to do what should be good for America. We were working, raising our families, paying our taxes and the government official kept spending and spending and then it was gone. Imangine that!

    Yet, we still look to the government to fix the problem. What a foolish thought. We need the courage to force term limits, live within our means and stop expecting hand outs. Someone somewhere is paying for the handout. It is not the government. It is the people paying the taxes. The 50% taking care of all the rest that think there is a money tree in Washington. Oh yea, I forgot there is, it is called the Federal Reserve and they print fiat money. It is worth the value of the paper it is printed on. You can pay more taxes-I am taxed out.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 5:35 p.m.

    Sorry, but I've got to blabber on again. You seem to be putting a lot of faith in what CEOs think should be done. JP Morgan Chase just lost, what, perhaps $9 billion in bad investments, despite prior reassurances from its CEO that they were not engaged in risky investments? If a CEO didn't see that coming within his own company, why should I believe what some say about national economic policy?

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    "why should conservatives compromise on something that is bad for the country. Would you have your daughter compromise her values when out on a date"

    Oh dear, talk about comparing apples to kumquats. It's telling that you view national fiscal policy with the same absolutism as you do your religious moral codes.

    Here's the problem with that: economists can't agree on how to get the economy back on track. Some say the stimulus was necessary, others say it makes matters worse. Multiple hypotheses, and no control group with which to test them. You think the economy is ruined because of Obama's policies, but you have no idea what this economy would be like if McCain/Palin had been in office since 2008. It may have been worse. Or better. Here's the difference between you and I on this: I won't say that the economy would have been worse with a republican in office. Because, like you, I can't prove it. When you can travel back in time and change the course of the 2008 election, let me know how the economy looks during Alternate Reality 2012.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 4:23 p.m.

    Bush was a progressive????? That's a good one.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 3:59 p.m.

    To "JoeBlow" and what is your point? Bush, with the help of Obama, set into motion the public policies that kept bleeding jobs. You forget that Bush was a Progressive, which is not a conservative.

    If you look at the BLS numbers, when congress was run by Democrats, and we tried their plans there was nearly 0 job growth. Once Congress had its control split, job creation took off. Why did it happen like that?

    According to some economists, the best party to control congress is neither. It is best to have congress so busy fighting with itself. With congress in continual gridlock businesses don't have to worry about much in terms of new regulation and taxes. However, Obama has found that he can use executive orders and federal agencies to bring about his agenda.

    To "ThatsSoUtah" and "alt134" read "Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President" in the WSJ and "Obama Secretly Courts Big Business" in the Daily Beast. There 2 CEOs are quite clear about how Obama and his policies make them scared to expand and end up making the companies lay off employees.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    A large portion of the uncertainty comes from the republicans who at times have wanted to do things like smash into the debt ceiling limit.

  • ThatsSoUtah Fredericksburg, VA
    Aug. 1, 2012 2:25 p.m.

    "Many CEOs of large companies state that Obama's erratic and unpredictable nature with respect to business regulation is what makes them not want to hire."

    I don't buy that for one second. If there is such a problem with regulation, why are there so many companies out there making record profits? Why are these same companies still laying people off?

    The answer is because they have discovered that people will put up with about anything in order to keep their job because there aren't a lot of jobs out there. Thus, work your few employees hard enough to make up for the slack. Pay them poorly, cut their benefits and then show them the door whenever you feel like picking up someone even cheaper.

    Do you really think these companies are going to acknowledge that greed is their motivator? Of course not, they're going to pass the blame onto the easiest target.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 1, 2012 2:09 p.m.

    " If you liberals could figure out how to inspire the assurance and stability in government "

    Hmm, looked to me like the economy started tanking under GOP leadership. I guess the conservatives "couldn't figure out how to inspire the assurance and stability in government"

    Nice try red. But, we were ALREADY bleeding 700,000 jobs per month when Obama was elected.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 12:07 p.m.

    Many posters are partially correct. We need more tax revenues and less spending. Unfortunately the liberals only know of one way of generating more revenues, and that is by raising rates. The best way to raise revenues is to get more people working. If you liberals could figure out how to inspire the assurance and stability in government that businesses are seeking we can get more businesses hiring. Many CEOs of large companies state that Obama's erratic and unpredictable nature with respect to business regulation is what makes them not want to hire.

    To "Emajor" why should conservatives compromise on something that is bad for the country. Would you have your daughter compromise her values when out on a date?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    Which party is it that very much wants to avoid scheduled and passed spending cuts that go into effect January 1st? Oh right, the Republicans.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    "And the Obama administration has demonstrated it will not cut spending!"

    Mountanman .

    Care to tell me which president or congress HAS demonstrated that it WILL CUT SPENDING?

    From what I have seen, it is neither party.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    In 2008 Obama derided George Bush for using a Chinese credit card, calling in irresponsible and unpatriotic. Obama and the Dems have made Bush's spending look small. It's time for a regime change.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    Re Roland Kayser: "We need both higher taxes and lower spending. The American people don't want to hear the truth, so you we really can't blame our politicians for not telling us." Minor addition to your excellent comment we need higher tax revenues devoted solely and specifically to reduce debt. Just having increased revenues have never led either to less debt or lower spending. And, the budget for lower spending needs to be approved before revenues are in place. Otherwise, the reduced spending never will come.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    When you have a polarized party system that considers "compromise" a dirty word and leadership in the Republican Party stating that they want to make the President fail at any and all costs, "kicking the can a little farther down the road" is about the best you can expect.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:02 a.m.

    @ Roland. It doesn’t matter how much taxes we pay if the government doesn’t spend less! And the Obama administration has demonstrated it will not cut spending!

  • ThatsSoUtah Fredericksburg, VA
    Aug. 1, 2012 8:02 a.m.

    Grr! My apologies in regard to my last comment. When I first saw the story it wasn't under the opinion heading.

    Thus, my rant that an article was full of opinion when it is, in fact, an opinion article is unjustified. Please disregard.

  • ThatsSoUtah Fredericksburg, VA
    Aug. 1, 2012 7:15 a.m.

    It would be pretty awesome if you could get some news articles that were simply news with facts and relevant data than a few supposed facts with large amounts of opinion thrown in. Let people make up their own mind about how to feel about things rather than telling them how to feel.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 1, 2012 5:44 a.m.

    "an expensive but underfunded government without any serious plan for making revenues and expenditures match,"

    "serious plan" is the key here. Neither party wants to do what is necessary. And neither party has put forth a plan to make revenue and expenditures match.

    The Dems dont want to hit entitlements too hard and the GOP has vowed to NOT raise taxes one cent.

    And both sides get what they really want. STALEMATE. They get status quo.

    The GOP would be in a real pickle if they had the numbers to pass the Ryan budget. They are very happy voting for budgets that they know can not pass.

    Fixing the budget will take massive spending cuts and modest tax increases.

    The "we dont have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem" crowd has yet to show how to put that bumper sticker slogan into a solution. And, the reasonable people know it cannot be done.

    If the right continues to take a NO COMPROMISE approach, nothing will change.

    And the resulting non solution is worse than a bipartisan agreement.

    But too many are now so hard line right that they cant see it.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 1:12 a.m.

    We need both higher taxes and lower spending. The American people don't want to hear the truth, so you we really can't blame our politicians for not telling us.