President's proposals show no concern for precarious financial condition

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 1, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    Mike Richards,
    When you say "the Senate unanimously voted against President Obama's budget," you say something factually inaccurate. You describe a situation that never happened. The facts are not in dispute. Senator Sessions presented a phony budget which he called "President Obama's budget." It was around 15 pages long. The actual federal budget, including President Obama's real budget proposal which was properly and constitutionally presented to Congress, was over a thousand pages. All this can be found in the Congressional Record. None of this has anything to do with 'reading press clippings' or being fooled by a charismatic speaker or any of that.
    You are perpetuating a falsehood. I urge you to stop.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 31, 2012 3:04 p.m.

    Look at how many posters are attempting to change history by claiming that two Senate votes never took place, that Obama's budget did not get turned down by 100% of the Senators. They would want us to believe that Obama had the right to submit legislation when they should clearly understand that the President cannot submit legislation, but that he is required to submit a proposal. When his proposal was turned into legislation, it was defeated by 100% of the Senate - no matter what his press releases say.

    Those who cover up for him and try to deceive us by stating that truth is false are showing that they will do or say anything just like Obama does. They will blame anyone for Obama's failures except Obama. They deny the fact that under Obama the deficit increased from $10 trillion to over $16 trillion. They deny the fact that Obamacare and Obama's failure to understand anything about business has put business in America into a tail spin that may be fatal to our economy. Instead they blame Bush for the things that they did, starting two years before Obama took office when they controlled the House and the Senate.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 31, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    @JoeBlow: "These are not Budgets. They are additional spending recommendations of presidents."

    I'll leave it to you to dance around the difference between a budget proposal and a spending recommendation. Whatever you want to call it, Obama made one in 2012; the Republicans pulled their stunt; and the proposal got zero votes.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 11:40 p.m.

    What a bunch of total misinformation (lies) through this page.

    Romney never proposed a tax hike on the middle class.

    The president says he hasn't raised taxes on the middle class, but I don't make half the president's line for what is rich, and the government gets more of my money than it did 4 years ago. Seems like the president did raise middle class taxes, i.e. lied.

    "Doesn't the constitution require that budgets begin in the house?"

    Uh, no, all bills for raising revenue must originate in the house, but budgets are not just about the money coming in. Budgets are a comprehensive income and spending plan.

    If the president wants to bypass the house, all he has to do is have his spending match the revenue available. That should be easy for such a brilliant guy.

    And the presidential recommendation is supposed to be a budget proposal. To say otherwise is a farce. All other presidents have understood this. Why doesn't Obama and his disciples think he has to propose a budget?

    Businesses don't deficit spend indefinitely. They fail, as will our economy if we continue to deficit spend.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 30, 2012 9:20 p.m.

    [The president] shall...recommend to [Congress's] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...."

    "measures judged necessary and expedient"

    These are not Budgets. They are additional spending recommendations of presidents. The Bailout would fall into this category, but it does not constitute a budget.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 8:33 p.m.

    @JoeBlow "Doesn't the constitution require that budgets begin in the house?"

    Article II Section 3 says: "[The president] shall...recommend to [Congress's] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...."

    Obama's budget proposals -- like those of all presidents before him -- have been offered under this provision.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 30, 2012 7:02 p.m.

    Mike Richards

    You wonder why people don't buy your argument that morality can only be found through a belief in god? Maybe because those that claim it is the only way to morality constantly lie on these treads.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 6:42 p.m.

    To "ECR" explain how Obama's plan reduces the deficit? Do you know what the FY2013 budget is? How can you reduce something that we can't measure until the end of the fiscal year since no budget has been set?

    Also, is it really a deficit reduction when the CBO states that at best Obama's plans will add $20 billion to tax revenues while maintaining a $1.2 Trillion deficit? The additional revenues. That is using an optimistic estimate that the tax increases won't further slow the economy and result in lower tax revenues.

    To "The Real Maverick" you want to know what else added to the deficit.

    Welfare payments to individuals.

    International welfare programs.

    Obama's bailout of Unemployment benefits to allow people to remain idle for 99 weeks.

    Stimulus programs that fund state welfare programs, and "shovel ready" projects.

    You see, you can't give money out to every Sally Sob Story unless you have money.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    Mike, if you really desire for your comments to have any shred of credibility or for those commenting to have any respect for you, then you really need to ditch the Foxnews and AM radio stories which are so egregious and lacking in factual substance. Seriously man, you're really not doing yourself, your party, your cause, your religion, and our country any good by simply lying. I mean, that's the honest truth. What you're doing is lying. You've been called out many times over this already. Please stop.

    What jumps out to me is the class warfare being waged here.

    The GOP is ok with raising tax rates on the middle-class. Mitt Romney's own budget raised the rates on middle-class while giving huge breaks to the rich.

    I think instead of bringing God back into our school system we bring virtue back to the upper classes.

    Folks, you cannot keep ripping the 99% of us off. This war must end. I understand that folks like Mitt can and should keep some of his money. But how much is enough? Must we really go over this fiscal cliff to further destroy the 99 percent?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 3:25 p.m.

    You know what's sad?

    What caused this amount of debt?

    1. Tax cuts for the rich.
    2. Two Wars which gutless repubs refused to include in their budgets.
    3. Defense spending doubling in merely 1 decade.
    4. Bailouts for banks "too big to fail."

    We saw just complete and utter lack for the Constitution and common sense between 2000-2008.

    You cannot cut taxes and wage wars!!! Silly!
    You cannot deregulate the banking industry and then bail them out without severe reform or consequences! Instead, repubs quickly ran to hand out golden parachutes!
    You cannot give blank checks to defense contractors. Of course they're taking advantage of us!

    As a result, we're going to cut cut cut. Because the crazy right wing has successfully scared everyone that the debt is the #1 issue. they have successfully guilt everyone into thinking that "we" are the selfish entitled ones who have driven up the debt.

    So public programs like student loans, SS, and Medicare/Medicaid will face cuts.

    While the primary causes of the debt, banks, the rich, wars, and defense contractors receive a free pass.

    It's sad the state of politics in this country.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 30, 2012 2:40 p.m.

    "Obama has presented his budget."

    Uh Mike?

    Doesn't the constitution require that budgets begin in the house?

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    Mountanman Hayden, ID

    There is a reason that California leads the nation in innovation in high technology and biotechnology. Just look at Silicon Valley and the L.A.-San Diego corridor and you'll see a vibrant and thriving community of progressive development. Young minds, inquisitive minds, are what makes such a world possible. Reactionary policies only maintain the status quo and lead to intellectual death.

    Listening only to the movement conservative hacks on wingnut radio and restricting your information sources to Fox News would certainly make someone think and regurgitate extreme right-wing opinion. However, get out into the real world and you'll see how your arguments lack coherence. and objectivity.

    The propaganda coming out of conservative media today is locked in a time warp, and warnings about "socialism" have as much relevance as Mitt Romney following the disaster that resulted from a negative campaign of fear and anger. It's all shouting into the wind.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 30, 2012 1:25 p.m.

    And so Mr. Richards we're backing re-baking last years myths. Plus..the deficit will never, let me repart never be zero. Businesses don't run with zero debt and never will. Multi milionaires and billionaires don't function with zero debt..that's not how the economy works. You continually use this false equivilant "No banker would ever approve a loan if the applicant refused to submit a repayment plan that guaranteed that the loan would be satisfied." Neither do other governments or lenders that's why the good faith and credit of the government is important. When they buy a bond from us/loan us money they want that bond satisfied..that doesn't mean that the US can't float other bonds that will be due in the future. The point..while we may have 16 trillion in debt the world still believes that individual obligations will be met as they come due..even as we accumulate more obligations.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    Okay, Mike, will you tell us exactly what that House plan is?

    So far none of the rest of us have heard anything that sounds like a real plan.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 12:02 p.m.

    Mike Richards,
    Once and for all, it's time to retire this ridiculous talking point about the President's budget receiving NO VOTES in the Senate or House.
    The facts are absolutely clear, and are a matter of public record. Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Miss, presented a phony gimmick budget, which he called "President Obama's budget". That was the budget that was unanimously defeated. A similar fake measure was introduced in the House, and was similarly defeated.
    The DN won't let me link to the source, but check out a story by Jake Tapper of ABC News, from May 16, under the headline "House and Senate Unanimously Reject President Obama's Budget--or do they?" That story, and many others, show what really happened.
    You have repeated this false allegation many times in this forum. Please desist.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 30, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    Here we go...the defict..the deficit..the deficit, as though Obama invented the deficit. As many have said here and coutless times before, the Republicans have no problems with deficits it's simply deficits should be created to 1)funnel monies to the top 1% and 2) to fight wars..any wars. It's the same nonsense with free markets..Obamas socialist agenda..yet Repbulicans are massively in favor of government intervention, regulation when it's purpose is again to funnel monies to the 1%, or to social engineer society.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 30, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    Obama has presented his budget. The senate shot it down. He receive NO votes. The Senate has no proposal. The House has a proposal. There is only one proposal on the table. Only the House is willing to do anything except block and veto.

    Obama is not willing to outline an entire plan that takes us from $17 trillion deficit to no deficit.

    No banker would ever approve a loan if the applicant refused to submit a repayment plan that guaranteed that the loan would be satisfied.

    Obama has no plan. Reid has no plan. That only leaves the House plan.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    I watched the interview with President Obama on Meet the Press this morning.

    What struck me most of all was how articulate and intelligent he sounds. A very real contrast to what we saw whenever someone could manage to drag his predecessor before cameras for an in depth interview.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    Darlene sadly fits the stereotype perfectly spewed from the "right wing" media of ill-informed voters.

    "The president's proposals show no concern for the precarious financial condition of our country. That is not leadership."

    On one hand Darlene would accuse Obama for doing nothing to help the economy. Then on the other she accuses him of not doing enough to address the debt.

    You cannot tackle both issues. During difficult economic times, the government must make up for the lack of spending and employment in the private sector.

    Where was Darlene when Bush ran up huge deficits during good economic times?

    Why doesn't Darlene attack her precious GOP for their stance on bloated defense spending and tax cuts for the super rich? Why can't the rich pay a little bit more? Their standard of living won't be affected to the extent of us joe sixpacks if our taxes were to go up.

    Ultimately, Darlene assumes that the GOP has ideas. What are their ideas other than to filibuster everything the Democrats propose?

    Time to get informed Darlene. You cannot do this by drinking everything that AM radio and Fox News report.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 30, 2012 9:52 a.m.


    Can you name specific proposals Republicans have made? No, because they haven't. They haven't specified any tax loopholes they would recommend closing or budget cuts they would make. The Republican Party has not been in the game. They've offered broad, vague general statements without any specificity.

    "Boehner, on Fox News, wrongly stated that the administration has proposed “$400 billion worth of unspecified cuts.” The administration has itemized nearly $600 billion worth of what it calls “cuts and reforms to mandatory programs” — half of that from Medicare.

    Boehner repeatedly (and falsely) says the president’s fiscal 2013 budget plan will create “trillion-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see.” It’s true the fiscal 2013 deficit is projected to be close to $1 trillion, but annual deficits would fall each year thereafter — dropping to $488 billion by Obama’s final year in 2017."

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 30, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    Here are the facts, plain and simple. The president's plan, like the Republican plan, does not balance the budget for decades. But it reduces the deficit immediately and it maintains low taxes for 98% of the population. It is believed to have the support of the majority of the House but the Speaker refuses to present that bill because it isn't supported by the majority of his party, which, of course, would make his party look bad. The president had shown great leadership and has offered his help in crafting a bill that can be supported by the majority (Democrats and moderate Republicans). But the children in charge of the Republican House members won't present a bill that could get us away from the cliff. Mr. Bohner and his party are being held hostage by the Tea Party.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 30, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    Please tell us Mad Hatter, how we are going to pay for Obama's new socialist America? You can rant all you like about the "red" states but history will prove Obama's socialism can not be fiscally sustained! Perhaps you should look to California as an example of "blue" state's future?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 9:01 a.m.

    I think we do have the finest minds in our government. The problem is that they are the minds of businessmen unconcerned with the welfare of people.

    The founding documents of this nation imply that people are the principal concern of the American experiment. Nothing in those documents indicate the notion that business should be placed ahead of the people. Or making the U.S. a favorable place for business to succeed. Yet that is exactly what has happened, Business that is supposed to serve the people, has turned it around and made people the servants of business.

    The president is the only elected representative of the American people as a whole in our government. State representatives represent small groups, mostly business and commercial groups of their state. Only a person with an extraordinary mind along with great courage would have the ability to face the nearly insurmountable odds working against him.

    Any president who leans toward the welfare of people will have a hard time. I believe that President Obama faces the greatest amount of opposition, lack of support and just plain hate that I have seen in my lifetime.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 8:24 a.m.

    Low taxes? Welp, this letter writer shows no concern for our financial condition... or math.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    As they used to say: "It takes two tango." Only a mindless partisan could see the current standoff as anything other than both parties being responsible for the standoff and unable to agree on the best course...but then the Congress is full of mindless partisans of both parties.

    Finally, how does one come to the letter writers conclusion when so little has been published about the details of what each side is proposing. The name of this game is to let the other side propose something and then trash it and say they are not serious. It is called "politics" and it takes the place of statesmanship when the parties are bankrupt of ideas.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 8:02 a.m.

    I love this classy leader we have representing our Nation. Even with obstructionist unpatriotic Republicans acting like whiny sore-losing Utahns, my President remains steadfast in his desire to help the middle class. Boehner, McConnell, Hatch and their sorry counterparts are responsible for the financial crisis our Nation faces. And uber-partisan Utahns are a huge part of the problem....They voted for the most disastrous presidency in our history...TWICE!

    I'm so proud that I voted for a real patriot!

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 12:26 a.m.

    When a politician tells you that he cares about your child's future, and then runs trillion-dollar deficits, you know he's lying.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Dec. 30, 2012 12:22 a.m.

    The election is over. The campaign is at an end. The rhetoric is old.

    So it will be Hillary in '16. Quite possibly there won't be another Republican president for a generation providing the GOP cannot change direction and provide a message of hope and stop with the fear.

    The nation is changing. It is understood that many conservatives (particularly the extremists on the Far Right) don't like the change, but they are decreasing as an effective force and will be relatively obsolete by the next election. Hopefully, voters at the state and local level will recognize the need for moderation and demand a more centrist approach from their representatives.

    Even in Utah, the percentage of Far Right conservative voters will decrease. However, it will continue to be the reddest state in the nation for many years to come. Not a particularly good place to be when adaptation to change is necessary to gain innovative businesses and attract a highly-educated workforce.