Nothing new

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 15, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    @ Mountanman:
    You are not wasting your time, your writing is being read and understood.

    I don't mean this as an offense but as a fact, you seem to suffer from "tunnel vision".

    I have never read any one's entry indicating that we need to get rid of Private Enterprise. President Obama is a champion in helping business to succeed.

    On the other hand, I have read many comments on this paper making the case that the government is a malady of sorts.

    Taxes are good! Taxes gives our government the resources to create and maintain the infrastructure that businesses need to operate. Highways, defense, public schools, medicine,

    Nobody can get rich outside a society. In our society we need businesses and government. This is a symbiotic relationship and we should all pay taxes according to the quantifiable benefits or services we receive from the government and society. In other words, you should pay proportionately according to what you earn.

    If you earn more you pay more. If you earn less you pay less.

    Is not government against private business. They should work together for "the common good".

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 15, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    @mountainman.... so what you are saying, that paying people for services rendered... such as providing you with a drivers license, is a form of a handout to these people? That "Business" doesn't derive any benefit from having highways, air traffic controls, etc. That the money invested - yes, that word again - in NASA that gave birth to the whole semi-conductor industry, means absolutely nothing? That these industries would have spontaneously erupted from the ground without any stimulus or funding?

    Boeing, United Airlines, or for that fact, the entire air transport business got their early funding and substance from the USPS. Oracle - home to one of the richest people on earth - was founded on US DoD money. The company I work for - SAS - funded over 30 years ago from USDA grants. My boss - worth several billions. Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific - funded on land grants. Not one of these would have been born without government participation.

    Before there was a single viable company on this content, the capital to develop this nation came from government land grants - from the Crown. Sure, private money has funded plenty of business, but to ignore\discount the hand of government is truly naive.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 15, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    @ Blue Devil and Baccus. Ok, I know I am wasting my time but I will try again to express why the government doesn't create wealth. Suppose you work for the government and earn a salary of $50K and you pay the back government 20% in taxes. Who pays the other 80% of your salary? Other tax payers! Unless there are a vast majority of private sector tax payers, government employees would have no salary! So how can you say that the government creates wealth? Without a vibrant private sector economy, guess what? NO MONEY! No money equals no investments, no inventions, nothing is produced and no jobs, especially for government employees! So in any way you want to look at it, the government didn't build that! Never has, never will because it can't!

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 15, 2013 6:11 a.m.

    Why is it that the Editorial Staff of this right wing rag has such a hard time saying anything good about Obama. Still smarting over the loss by your favorite son?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 10:02 p.m.

    He must have said something right to get all these repubs angry at him. Good. 4 more years 4 more years!

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 14, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    In my opinion: Nothing new from the Deseret News. The President's speech was many times more refreshing than your pallid reply. Get behind something, please, and support it wholeheartedly.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 14, 2013 9:50 p.m.

    Again Mountianman, I have to wonder about the sources of your information.

    Trauma Centers - where do you think they were invented? Private companies? Some board of directors decided we need to invent a way to treat people from traumatic injuries?

    Od could the concept have been developed and perfected, or perhaps, by DoD doctors, for say, battlefield injuries... just maybe? Many of todays life saving treatments for traumatic injuries were developed by military medical staff.

    This country has such a rich a deep history of using federal dollars to fund business growth. The majority of the west was funded by land grants to railroads and homesteaders. If the current government were to reproduce what the homestead and follow on acts gave away, the value of that "free" land would equal nearly a half million dollars per each grant - totaling trillions of dollars worth of land in todays dollars. And this started in the 1860s. Free land - you just had to start a business on it.

    The list is long and deep of government funded businesses. I know, it doesn't fit the narrative you all have created, but it is throughout our history - ignore it if you will.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 14, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    @ Mountanman
    Yes, that is exactly what we said.

    You and I pay taxes. The government allocate those resources according to the various needs of the nations. They call contractors to bid for the jobs. The contractor (private business) that wins does the job.

    The military is way ahead than the civilian world in technology. All that is government.

    N.I.H. the largest site for medical research in the world.. is run by the government.

    Mountanman we are ina "representatie Democracy". Our government is a reflection of us.

    The majority of the people in the United States elected and re-elected President Obama that is why he is our President and why he acts the way he acts because of "we the People".

    Come on, is not that hard.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 14, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    @ Baccus and Maxist. The government never constructed highways and infer-structures, private contractor construction companies did 100% of it all paid for by taxpayers! The government does not conduct medical research, never invented one medicine, one medical advance. Private pharmaceutical companies brought you 100% of your medicines. The internet was invented by Al Gore, before he was a politician, remember?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    "No one trusts anything the man says. "

    I think roughly 52% of voters do to varying degrees, at least more than they trust Romney.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 14, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    @ DN Editorial
    I didn't hear anything new, that is true. But then again, many major initiatives are already on their way, immigration reform, Repeal of DOMA, Health Care, Tax Reform, Gun Control, etc.

    @ Obama Detractors
    I agree with Marxist. Taxes and spending that you so much decry is revenue that goes back to the economy and to the hands of private contractors. Defense which is an item that Republicans just adore, is paid by taxes. Lockeed Martin and other defense contractors are paid with our taxes...(is this news)

    @ Mountanman
    You wrote: "The reality is the government has never been the key to prosperity and never will be. In fact the government is the enemy of prosperity. Why? because the government doesn't invent anything, it doesn't create anything, it doesn't produce anything, it doesn't generate wealth."

    Basic economics: Health and technological research, nation infrastructure,etc. all that is paid by the government and carried out by private concerns.
    When Democrats are in office Republicans get rich, common history of the U.S.A. They fill their pockets and then complain that they have to pay taxes and that the government is too big.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    Republicans, can you please at least acknowledge that the president identified important work that inarguably needs to be done? Especially now that we can bond for these vital-to-our-economy projects at essentially zero interest?

    Does our national infrastructure _not_ require urgent attention?

    Is the 10-1 ROI for early childhood education programs _not_ an important fact to consider?

    Do gun control proposals _not_ deserve at least to be put to a vote?

    Is the accelerating gap between what a full-time minimum wage job pays and that worker's shrinking potential for financial self-sufficiency _not_ a cause for national concern?

    Should the president _not_ articulate a vision for how to address the serious issues we face?

    The president spoke clearly and passionately on a variety of important topics for a solid hour without a hitch, but Rubio couldn't rehash Romney-Ryan banalities for ten minutes without choking. HE is the guy you want us to get excited about for 2016? Seriously?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 14, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    Patriot.... common, lets jump back into real world. For example, you claim,

    "He has added 1.5 trillion each of the last 4 years to the deficit"

    How exactly is he the one responsible for this? Does he write and approve the budget all by himself?

    "With Obama it is a painful experience."

    Yes - every time I look at the balance of my 401k has doubled in the last 48 months, or the fact that my house appreciated 28k, just last month, and nearly 100k in the last 12 months.... I feel that pain. Or the fact that my company had its 32 year of continuous growth, and profitability.... I feel ill.

    Give it a rest. While you might not like the man, to pretend there is nothing redeeming from the last 4 years is absurd. No, I don't agree with all that he has done, but then again, I don't agree with everything anyone I know does. What, you would prefer having the wars continuing? You want a market that lost half its value in 2007-2008. You want an economy that was shedding over 300k jobs a month.

    Lets step back from the edge here.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    Boy, that's not the speech I saw. I saw a tremendous piece of political theatre, with the President calling on Congress to at least vote on his gun bill. I saw a call for bi-partisan cooperation on voting reform. I saw some fascinating ideas about industrial innovation.
    As for your call for bi-partisanship, you seem to suggest that Republicans are holding to their principles in ways Democrats are not. That's nonsense. And I have to say that I'm getting pretty tired of Republicans ruining the economy, then carping at every Democratic attempt to fix it.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    But, back to Obama. Obama often fails to get from the abstract to the concrete. If he thinks we need a new version of the Public Works Administration (I think we do) he should say so. But instead he deals in examples like "fixing bridges" which lack punch. All in all it was a pretty disappointing State of the Union.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    "... because the government doesn't invent anything, it doesn't create anything,..." Well, the original internet was a government creation, the interstate highway system was a government creation, air traffic control is a government creation, mass transit is mostly a government invention, the business environment is mostly a government creation, the exploration of space with all of attendant technology is a government project, water systems and sewage systems are built by government, public health and disease control are government initiatives. It turns out that government is pretty creative and inventive.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 10:12 a.m.


    One BIG problem is that Obama's facts aren't real facts. No one trusts anything the man says. We have had 4 miserable but predictable years from the man and his words are stale and meaningless. For example he makes the silly claim that his new spending won't add a dime to the deficit. What a sham. He has added 1.5 trillion each of the last 4 years to the deficit and now suddenly it will all just go away magically. Again - his words are meaningless and not believable. The State of the Union under Reagan and even Clinton during his second term was a time to celebrate great accomplishments. With Obama it is a painful experience.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    spend more + tax more + regulate more == the last 4 state of the unions. Make promises which don't ever happen. Same ole same ole same ole......

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    I think it's time to get rid of the focus grouped hyper analyzed speech entirely. It's a report to congress, as required, about the state of the union. A written document, facts, figures, analysis. That's what it could and should be. No theatrics, no statements based on who invites whom, none of it.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Feb. 14, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Invest is 0bama's translation for spend! He thinks we are all so dumb we can't figure that out. Well it's obvious from the comments on here he is right!

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    barack, just go play golf the next 4 years. We'd be better off if you did absolutely nothing at all.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    You're right. And the Republican reply was filled with equally stale ideas.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 14, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    And DN there are plenty of studies that show a modest raise in the minimum wage does not increase low wage unemployment. The key is the variety of responses available to both workers and businesses that don't include laying off workers when the minimum wage is raised. Companies can raise prices slightly, they can delay bonuses or pay raises to others, they can demand more productivity, they can sit back and enjoy less employee turnover, they may get just get voluntary productiviy gains..all the while the extra wage is going stratight into the consumer economy and boosting everyones profits.

    What was shocking though was the DN proposal that we hire more teenagers in low wage jobs by paying them less. You think you're going to get a teenager to work 8 hours a day for $5 an hour. Work all day for a single tank of gas? Heck even I didn't have to do that 50 years ago.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 14, 2013 6:00 a.m.

    I wold agree, there was nothing new here, but then again, I didn't expect much in the vain anyway. All parties concerned delivered the standard party line arguments. Rubio what a party line discussion with an immigration twist. I think it is safe to say the Republican position will move left to take the issue away from the next election cycle. Otherwise it was Tea Party rhetoric playing to the audience, just as Obama's was playing to his... even including the gratuitous mention of "no matter who they love" comment.

    In the end, both base crowds should come away their person did good.... and have warm fuzzes.... with little actionable coming from them.

    The only thing I really liked about Obama's talk was a call for votes..... either way.... just vote on something - up or down - take a stand. Vote, and let the chips fall where they may.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 14, 2013 5:47 a.m.

    Obama used the word "invest" 14 times in his speech. Translation: He thinks the government is the key to prosperity. The reality is the government has never been the key to prosperity and never will be. In fact the government is the enemy of prosperity. Why? because the government doesn't invent anything, it doesn't create anything, it doesn't produce anything, it doesn't generate wealth. Only the private sector can do that and the only place government can obtain any wealth is to confiscate from the private sector, which of course leaves less investments available in the private sector which is countermanding to growth and prosperity. Obama is a slick smoke and mirrors politician but he is no business man! If you need proof, ask yourself, what's the national debt up to now?