Robert J. Samuelson: Obama's budget is a politically expedient and lazy approach

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    Now is the time to buy gold because the President is gong to ruin the economy. This safe haven will go to $3000 soon as Glenn Beck has been hyping for years. Tea partiers should speculate on gold more and bet the farm.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    That pretty well sums up the president's approach. He will probably file a workers compensation claim for a foot injury due to kicking the can down the road so many times. But at least it got him elected and for a politician, that's the end game. As our grandchildren shoulder the astounding debt, they will not thanks him.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 13, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    Worf - when you adjust for inflation - yes. Many.

    But that isn't nearly as much fun, now is it. You could make like comments about many things.... and people... if you don't adjust for inflation.

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    April 13, 2013 12:43 a.m.

    Why does Robert Samuelson keep using the word 'lazy' when speaking of President Obama? Who uses that word to discuss a budget? Is it a shiftless, fried chicken loving budget too?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 12, 2013 9:56 p.m.

    Has anyone, ever spent more money in a four year span?

  • David Centerville, UT
    April 12, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    Kent, to be honest, you and I both know that Democrats and Republicans employ the same campaign tactics. Republicans have pushed for entitlement reform for years. Then when a Democratic president puts SS reform on the table, the GOP criticizes him for hurting seniors. This is diheartening, frustrating, and feeds the poor trust that voters and Americans have for their political "leaders".

    But Democrats do the same thing by stating one thing then doing the opposite. Politicians are laughing behind our backs because too many Americans don't follow and understand history and current events. Too many Americans are clueless, and are allowing ourselves to be led into bankruptcy and a form of Communism.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 12, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    @Eric Samuelsen "But they [sic] incredibly easy to fix without cutting benefits."

    So why hasn't Obama done anything to fix them? It's his job to recommend "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Why hasn't he done this with regard to preserving Social Security and Medicare?

    The writer said Obama is unwilling to grapple with these basic questions, and you haven't shown me that he is.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    April 12, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    If Social Security and Medicare are left COMPLETELY alone, yes, they will fail. But they incredibly easy to fix without cutting benefits. Just adjust the payroll tax ceiling.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 12, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    Rather than complain about media bias, why not consider whether what is being said is true? This, for example:

    "Obama remains unwilling to grapple with basic questions posed by an aging population, high health costs and persistent deficits."

    I have not seen Obama engage on the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare. The fact is, if these programs continue on the same trajectory, they will fail. What is Obama's plan to change the trajectory? He has presented no such plan. To this point, he has been acting as if the problems do not exist.

    I do give him credit for addressing Social Security in his latest budget. That is a positive sign, and should have been encouraged by the GOP. Instead, they invoked the same ugly politics they decried when it was done to them. This is no way to solve the problem.

    "Compared with the size of the problem, Obama's proposals are tiny."

    This is true as well. But at least it's a first step. Republicans are stupid to discourage Obama from taking further steps in the right direction.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 12, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    Doesn't matter the source, if it's anti-Obama the DN will print it.

    Mr. Obama's budget is realistic. The SS adjustment is perfectly engineered to keep the system solvent over time. Now Republicans are attacking it because it will be "hard on seniors."

    These people have no shame at all. One day they are clamoring for the President to save SS and when he tries to do just that, they attack him. It doesn't matter what he does. Like the DN, no matter what Obama does, they are against it -- even if it's their own idea.

  • photographermom South Jordan, UT
    April 12, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    Everything Obama does is lazy!

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 12, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    I usually find something of worth in Samuelson's columns. This one? Not so much. So President Obama is "timid" for proposing modest cuts to Social Security. These proposed cuts incensed his own party. You'd think the GOP would be dancing in the streets, because he finally put SS on the table. Well, you'd be dreaming then. Instead, the GOP's House Reelection Committee chairman blasted away at the President, calling this proposed cuts "a shocking attack on seniors." Is there no limit to their hypocrisy? They've been screaming for years to slash spending on Social Security and Medicare. When the President finally gives in, do they say, "Finally, now we can come to the table and bargain"? Of course not. Their hatred for this president knows no bounds. They criticize him for proposing Republican ideas, again and again. So, keep voting Republican, Utah. We certainly need more of this sort of irrational behavior in Washington.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 12, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    20 years ago 1000,000.00 was [I thought] enough money to save for retirement. Now I don't that a
    million will be. Not that I had any money in the first place. Now after our elected thought that they where entitled to SS not any of the deserving.

  • caleb in new york Glen Cove, NY
    April 12, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    but at least the deseret news got this editorial from the Washington Post which is considered to be a liberal newspaper.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    April 12, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    THe DNEWS as a whole ... this papers opinion is always anti=Obama. I thought journalism was non-biased?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 12, 2013 6:27 a.m.

    Oh wow. What a surprise. The dnews produces one my article blasting the president.