Sequester cuts would barely make a dent in national deficit

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Feb. 27, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    "Congress and the president, on the other hand, do not target waste or non-essential spending."

    Umm, that's a design feature, not a bug, of sequestration. You know, those draconian cuts that were supposed to be so ridiculous that Washington would *have* to compromise with a more rational plan? Only Congress is foolish enough to pull the trigger of the gun they aimed at their own heads when they enacted sequestration a year and a half ago.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    everything is dire because we refuse to take responsible steps and proactively manage ourselves. There is no longer a longterm plan... only what gets us through the next election cycle. Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die... only when you don't die tomorrow, you've just overeaten, laughed away all your resources, and have to slough off one heck of a hangover... and who's that girl lying next to me? Ugh.

    It's time for Washington to grow up, and stop acting like a bunch of frat-boys during a kegger.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 8:50 p.m.

    It all comes down to two things -- greed and stupidity.

    Greedy politicians hoping voters are too stupid to vote them out of office.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 7:52 p.m.

    Re: "800 banks failed during this short period."

    That would have been important only to a tiny, wealthy percentage of pre-war America, or maybe to an economist or social "scientist." Most real Americans never entered banks, let alone used their services, until well into the 20th century. The activities of bankers and the super rich were a matter of surpassing indifference.

    Even today, most people in the world don't have bank accounts. Try living among real people in the third-world. The issues of importance to liberals and academics interest them only to the extent they induce mirth. At our expense.

    By every relevant measure, most of the world's real population benefited from American exceptionalism, from after the Civil War, until we succumbed to unexceptionalism, and joined the socialist welfare movement before and during WWII.

    Since then, contrary to revisionist socialist dogma, things have grown steadily worse for real people outside the US.

    And socialism is now forcing America to the same tipping point. It may irreversibly plunge us back into a dark age.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 7:28 p.m.

    I like how Republicans paint Obama as "spend, spend, spend" and now try to blame the sequestration on him. "That Obama is cut, cut, cut!!"

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 26, 2013 6:19 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal - your version of history is completely ignores far too many historical events to be even close to accurate. It overlooks major events like the Great Depression, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and Mexican American war, the indian Wars.

    For example the Panic of 1896 wiped out in 6 months 25.2%percent of the GDP of this nation. There were over 40 of these like events from 1770 and the present.

    in 1836 there was a recession that wiped out over 32% of business activity. 800 banks failed during this short period.

    In 1873 we saw the like named Panic of 1874 which lasted over 5 years, 10 months, erasing 33 percent of business.

    The US economy only emerged as a major powerhouse during reconstruction after World War II. You do realize that in a large part our fight with the Japanese was over the oil reserves in the Philippines controlled by the US and British..

    This "peaceful, prosperous near-utopia never before seen in world history" isn't backed up with facts. Those who lived in these times would hardly say the world they lived in was anything resembling Utopia.

  • 1Observer Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 6:13 p.m.

    Re: Open minded Mormon

    To characterize the Iraq/Afghan war as a "response" seems odd since that unfunded experience started a decade ago. Clearly both the Rs and Ds are at fault and, as the article states, there is a lack of leadership in Washington. You mirror the problem we face - blame, blame, blame, but change nothing. Both parties are at fault, as is our current President and our former President. Pointing fingers at one side or another hasn't been productive. We need,and the American people deserve RESULTS. I don't mind paying more taxes if they cut spending and balance the budget. I would not favor paying more taxes while we continue to grow our national debt. It is unsustainable and pure stupidity on the part of Washington to believe we can spend our way out of this mess.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 26, 2013 5:15 p.m.

    are you sure you even know what the terms are that you are using? did you really just equate socialism to totalitarian and nationalism? You do know they are three very different forms of government that have as much in common with each other as they do capitalism, right?
    Yes I am well aware of the terms I have an advanced degree in the social sciences and no the terms re not interchangeable and you are not using the terms correctly.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    Re: ". . . there is not a single example of one system being blanketly [?] worse or better than another."

    That's just not true.

    US capitalism, mercantilism, exploitationism -- whatever you choose to call it -- was demonstrably the greatest engine of personal economic well-being ever. As legitimized, fine-tuned, and institutionalized over our history, at least up until the forties, it pulled the world along, and poised it on the brink of a peaceful, prosperous near-utopia never before seen in world history.

    Then foreign and domestic socialist, nationalist, totalitarian -- whatever you choose to call them -- movements and governments brought it all to a screaming halt, requiring the US to engage in devastating and protracted cold and hot wars, as well as to restructure our economy into a welfare, rather than a mercantile state.

    Today's condition shows the failure of that socialist experiment.

    People are demonstrably NOT, in real terms, better off than they were in pre-war times. Medical, social, and other well-being indicators have gone up, not because of, but in spite of the welfare state.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 26, 2013 4:35 p.m.

    you want to blame socialism so why would it be far fetched to claim they are doing well because of it. You cant blame socialism on the one hand and then deny it may be the cause of countries doing well. By the way your list of socialist countries is very subjective, of that list I would say maybe Ireland actually would fit. Greece by no measure could be considered socialist with its relatively small group of fat cat billionaires soaking up all the wealth, paying no taxes and controlling the means of production.

    I do have a question though does personal restraint and responsibility extend to the fat cat corporate owners or just those that actually produce the goods they sale for massive profits?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 26, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal - the problem with your argument, is there is not a single example of one system being blanketly worse or better than another. You can rattle off these countries, and at the same time we could do likewise for US states that have equal problems. Red States, Blue states.... each and everyone has had issues with income versus expenses gaps.

    You drag out Greece thinking that proves something.... what is that supposed to prove? I could drag out the names of dozens of US states, blue and red, that have fiscal issues. Saudi, Qatar, many others have no debt, I don't think we want their model either. China has little to no debt....

    As to the "conservative" rhetoric about being "fiscally" astute.... there is nothing in history that bears this out. Find me a single "conservative" president that ended his presidency without growing the national debt. The only difference is in priorities. LIberals spend on social programs, conservatives spend on military and corporate handouts. In the end, the results the same. And both need to be checked. There is nothing in history that proves otherwise. Even Reagan left Washington with a 3x growth in the national debt.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 26, 2013 3:52 p.m.

    And the Republican response is ...what?

    Do nothing?
    Cut taxes, and start un-funded muti-decade wars with no budget and no limits on the other side of the world?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    Re: ". . . Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany.... even France... all poster children for "socialism" have much lower national debt to GDP ratios than does the US."

    You're not seriously suggesting their socialism explains their low debt?


    If that were the case, why do so many other socialist nations, from Greece, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, and Japan, to Lebanon, Zimbabwe, and Antigua/Barbuda have so much trouble?

    We can certainly agree that a lack of individual responsibility is the heart of the problem. But which side is advocating restraint and responsibility, and which is, not just advocating, but implementing and augmenting a deranged spending policy that everyone agrees cannot possibly be sustained, even through the end of this regime?

    Socialism -- the polar opposite of personal responsibility -- IS the problem.

    NOT the solution.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 26, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    "Yeah. That's what liberals, "progressives," and socialists do."

    Umm... no. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany.... even France... all poster children for "socialism" have much lower national debt to GDP ratios than does the US. You wish this was a partisan problem, but looking at the growth of the problem, you just don't find anything that supports statements like this.

    That is the real problem... some 40 +/= percent of American take no responsibility for the problem... blaming only the other side. Until there is a responsible mature response that acknowledge issues on all sides.... we are doomed to play this continuing game of " I know you are - what am I".

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the federal government refuses not only to do with less, but wants to continue to grow at an unprecedented pace."

    Yeah. That's what liberals, "progressives," and socialists do.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 26, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    "Congress and the president, on the other hand, do not target waste or non-essential spending. Instead, they target cuts that will have the largest, emotional media impact."

    I thought that was the point. To make the other options so stupid that congress would be forced to come together to come up with a reasonable answer. Instead, we have this never ending "it their fault" response from both sides.

    Yes - the situation we find ourselves in is absurd. It was advertised to be so. Problem is, it wasn't absurd enough to remove the shackles of partisan politics and force adults to spend more time finding solutions than self promotion in press conferences and on TV.

    Just my opinion.