Recent events and statements show the country is in trouble

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    I would suggest that if the choice is going bankrupt, and thus having no money for anything, or cutting some of those programs, I would cut. Are we down to that choice? I hope not, but we are not inching closer to it, we are sprinting closer. We need to get serious about some cuts, and some program suspensions, until we stabilize funding. For example, we could suspend NASA projects, for now. Many businesses have had to temporarily suspend projects, so why not government too?

    Medical research grants should end. These grants are really just a form of corporate welfare. The drug companies get government money for the research, then soak patients with exorbitant prices supposedly to pay for research for the drugs. It is a double dip and a huge scam.

    Still most government funds are pre-promised, so the real choice is to make deep cuts in discretionary spending, and/or promote long-term growth, or we never get balanced.

    Blue Devil

    Did you hear the president today? I did. The message, just raise the ceiling and don't talk about spending cuts. It seems pretty clear that "A balanced approach" is just lip service.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 14, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    "Single quote or not, all Obama stands for says he does not think we have a spending problem"...

    I am sorry Christian, but is this based off of anything real, or is thia another Limbaugh like "I know what the President is thinking" thing.

    Obama may have prioritize things differently, stack things differently, but I think making such a broad statement that you know what the President thinks despite the lack of quotes or any any imperical evidence doesn't do the cause much good.

    Lets not assume what the others are thinking, and instead concentrate on working on things we know we can do.... Lets not try to boil the ocean, but first stop the leaks.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 6:36 a.m.

    I didn't ask you those questions so I could set you up for an attack. The problem I see is that we all know government spending needs to come in line with revenue, but no one has a very good idea of what to cut in order to make that happen. Not even our elected leaders. It's very easy to holler for spending cuts & attack liberals for preserving spending without taking time to understand how deep the cuts will need to be and the consequences they will bring.

    I appreciate your answers, but I have some concerns with them. Wonder is right, if you eliminate all discretionary spending you are removing some very important services that benefit everyone. In addition to the health & safety problems, extreme austerity measures also will damage the economy, create more unemployed people drawing unemployment benefits, and reducing both consumer and business confidence. So, we would likely be plunged back into recession, and despite spending less the government will be taking in less revenue and the deficit will continue. Your defense comments seem reasonable to me.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 11:54 p.m.

    @Christian -- I won't attack, but I suggest you think about the things you want to cut. So, you're saying no more government inspections of food, no CDC, no air controllers, no screening at airports, no NASA, no federal money for freeways and bridges, no Coast Guard, no FBI (I could go on....) Seriously?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 9:31 p.m.

    I get the game you play. As soon as any cut is suggested then the attacks escalate. For example, "You can't cut Big Bird! That is heartless and won't do any good!"

    So at great risk, I play the game.

    How about cut ALL discretionary spending except for Veterans benefits (which shouldn't be in the discretionary anyway, we owe that big time), 5% cut from medicare and no raises until the budget is balanced, and freeze SS payments at current levels until the budget is balanced or until the income from the payroll tax will supply the needed money, and shelf Obamacare until we can actually afford it and have the time to take all the pork out of it.

    Defense - this is complicated because we don't pay for the wars we are in from the defense budget, as we should. We pull out the credit card from China, which is pretty well maxed out. To trim that budget, all military actions would have to be funded through the defense budget. That will be a large cut, unless we bring the troops home immediately, which would be even better.


  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 8:14 p.m.

    Recent events show we're in trouble?

    I agree. Repubs showing that they would rather stand up against the majority and run our country off a cliff rather than stand against Grover Norquist.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 4:27 p.m.

    Your comment is full of nonsense. First of all, Clinton as Father of the Year? Could. Not. Care. Less. Take it up with the National Fathers Day Council if it gives you fits. Part of the criteria is his philanthropic work with the Clinton Global Initiative, which he does deserve credit for. Certainly a better example of a post-presidential statesman than his successor.

    "He spends his time campaigning for tax increases constantly, adding new entitlements, and railing at congress not to dare try to cut anything. It seems pretty clear."

    No, not clear at all. Obama has repeatedly said that the deficit solution needs to include both spending cuts and tax increases. Repeatedly. Since you are such an expert on the matter and find all fault to be on the Democrats side, perhaps you could lay out for us exactly what the GOP plans to cut from the budget? How much, and from where? How close will this get us to closing the deficit? Conservatives like yourself are all rhetoric and no specifics on this issue. But you are good at distractions.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    Single quote or not, all Obama stands for says he does not think we have a spending problem. He spends his time campaigning for tax increases constantly, adding new entitlements, and railing at congress not to dare try to cut anything. It seems pretty clear.

    I know that laying out the truth about Obama gets a lot of liberals riled and sends them into distraction mode, since they can't cope with the thought Obama is not perfect.

    How about this distraction?
    What about Clinton, the philanderer, as father of the year? Where is the outrage? This is the sickest indicator of how much trouble our valueless country is in. I suspect too many people are wishing they could be him instead of being outraged by his animal behavior. Someone who would use other people's daughters the way he did can never be father of the year. Sick!!!!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said, "Deficits don't matter?" Or was it George W. Bush?

    I just checked. Cheney said, "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    re: Hutterite 9:03 a.m. Jan. 13

    I agree with your tongue in cheek reply about fighting (gun) fire with (more gun) fire. However...

    "We're in trouble when we abandon science and reason in favour of fantasy and mythology."

    There have been numerous articles in the DN lamenting that people are becoming less religious.

    People IMO are abandoning the supernatural as well as science for easy money and their 15 minutes of fame.

    What do you expect when people like William Hung & Lindsay Lohan are deified & get non stop news coverage? Then Mitt, Trump, Jim Cramer, & the rest of Wall St who are treated the same as those above but just on different media outlets?

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Mr. Van Tielen is using the "we don't have a spending problem" quote without any context. This quote is 3rd hand from a conservative columnist with the Wall Street Journal interviewing John Boehner, who claimed this is what the president said. Obviously Boehner is not going to provide any context to the quote that wouldn't toe the Republican party line, so it is essentially worthless. What we can tell from the interview is that the President said something to the effect of, "we don't have a spending problem, we have a health care problem". The specifics of what he meant by that are not being discussed.

    But carry on, right wing blogs and pundits. Peddle your wares, you have plenty of eager buyers.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    I know we're in trouble when the only answer we have to runaway gun violence is more guns. I know we're in trouble when we abandon our societal responsibilities to one another in favour of tax breaks. We're in trouble when we abandon science and reason in favour of fantasy and mythology.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 13, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    When exactly did the current president say we do not have a spending problem?

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 13, 2013 12:44 a.m.

    Please quote for us when exactly the president said we do not have a spending problem.