Lawmakers: Obama wooing might break budget logjam

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • David Centerville, UT
    March 11, 2013 4:50 p.m.

    HS Fan, my perception of the Clinton presidency was that he finally came to the table to change welfare and work to balance budgets only after midterm elections gave Republicans the House for the first time in decades.

    Granted that Clinton positioned himself as a moderate Democrat. He did not, however, act the part until after those midterm elections that gave Newt Gingrich the speakership. Until that time Clinton spent time on nationalized healthcare, gays in the military, and other liberal aims.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    Mountanman and Joe Blow-
    Deficits only matter to the party out of power because they use it for politcal purposes only. Both parties have proven deficits mean little to them when they have power. The only exception to that was Clinton as he actually created a budget and legislation to pay down the debt when the economy was healthy on his watch. I'd like to say the Republican controlled Congress at that time also played a role but not one voted yes for the landmark 1992 Deficit reduction act because it increased taxes.

  • David Centerville, UT
    March 11, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Get to work and compromise on a deal that puts the American people first and individual and party politics a distant second (Joe Blow).

    I have to agree.

    The past 4+ years have been full of power grabs, finger pointing, and efforts to weaken the opposition. It seems that very little work has been done that has solved real problems.

    The blame lies with both parties. I applaud the president for engaging and putting forth efforts to establish a new tone: listening, working together.

    Do I completely trust the president at this point? For the past 4 years he hasn't shown anything but arrogance and disregard for Congress and others viewpoints. While I applaud the president for reaching out to Congress, it will take time to see if he really is sincere.

    I feel the immediate problem is federal spending. It must be reigned in, and specifically entitlement spending. We'll see if the president will pursue a path of working together to reduce federal spending...without raising additional revenue. The State of the Union, with dozens of new programs, still lingers as a warning: is he sincere?

    After some success, move on to immigration, fixing Obamacare, etc.

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    March 11, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    So, the president brings a pile of manure into the room which he calls a "budget". Now, after years of 'do it my way, or else' tactics, he realizes he needs to smooze the Republicans so he can get his way, no matter how ineffective the plan.

    Voila, here's the result: disinfect the manure and offer a few smiles, turn on the charm, offer a meal, and what have the American people got: a pile of non smelly manure.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 11, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. "

    - Vice President Dick Cheney 2002

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 11, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

    ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 11, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    So, some blast Obama for not meeting with GOP congressmen. Some blast him for not proposing a budget.

    Some blast him for meeting with GOP congressmen. Some think we should "lock him out of debates and discussions"

    Takeaway? Obama will get blasted regardless of what he does.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    March 11, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    "I don't think this is just a political change in tactic." Sen. Coburn are you that naive. Obama does nothing I repeat nothing that is not political and in his favor.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 11, 2013 6:09 a.m.

    One can easily and correctly assign partial blame to Obama for the "frosty" relationship with the GOP congress.

    Sole blame? Not even close.

    But, who cares about blame...

    Get to work and compromise on a deal that puts the American people first and individual and party politics a distant second.

    Like that will ever happen...

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    March 11, 2013 5:47 a.m.

    Hopefully the houses of congress will come to their senses and learn that sometimes you have to do what you gotta do to get out of debt and economic strife, like tear up your credit cards.

    The first rule of order is to lock the president out of the debates and discussions, its not his right or authority to be present. The president is limited by the congressmen and he must conform to their plans and limits. What congress does in not up for discussion with the white house.

    So far the president is going around punishing the american people for the sequester being enacted by shutting down essential government agency's to keep his non essential welfare and education programs in place. Why this congress is allowing the president to shut down essential government is irresponsible and irrational and illegal.

    The congress can defund welfare and education and all nonessential government aid to states social programs which would save a lot of money yet an agenda of evil hate is putting essential government out of business. This is what happens when government becomes to big.