Quantcast
Opinion

What others say: Anemic Democratic plan

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 20, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    First of all, Bill Clinton did not balance the budget during either of his terms, Newt Gingrich and the Republican House did that during Clinton's second term. The President does not produce the budget, congress does that, (when they actually do their constitutional job). Secondly the Democrats will NEVER balance the budget because if they do, entitlement growth will decrease and increasing entitlements is the only way they can win elections. Go figure!

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 20, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    @mountainman
    So then we are not going to have to read any comments from you blaming Obama for the failing state of or federal budget right?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 20, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    @ Spring Street. Obama has never called for a balanced budget nor has the Democratically controlled Senate produced a balanced budget, only ever more tax increases and more spending as far as the eye can see! Paul Ryan (R) from the House has proposed a balanced budget, twice! And you are aware of the reaction from the Democrats! Point proven!

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 20, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Decrease unemployment, and the budget will balance itself.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 20, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Unable to fault the policies of government that are beneficial to people as well as business, the republicans and their conservative backers, attack the people’s benefits from the view of the costs. Yet they cannot provide any evidence that costs, budgets, balance has ever had any effect on the lives of Americans or it’s business. All they have is their phony predictions.

    Republicans and their conservative backers have heaped the blame of the stagnant government on President Obama when in reality it was the republicans and their conservative backer that prevented any meaningful action on Obama’s part. The unified position and goals of the republicans and their conservative backers was to prevent any action by Obama and to remove him from office as soon as possible.

    The question for voters in 2014 and 2016 is whether to proceed with the American experiment or return to the government of the rich and powerful as proposed by the republicans.

    Yea Eric Samuelsen.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 20, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    @mountaiman
    I thought you and the right thought that Obama had no right to demand anything since it is the houses that gets to decide the budget.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    March 20, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    So, the Ryan budget, which is based on pure fiction and fantasy, is better than the Democrats' budget simply because it pretends to produce a balanced budget in ten years? Pleeeeease. Paul Ryan has no credibility at all, except among those who are severely arithmetic impaired and blinded by bad ideology.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 20, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    @ Pharanc. Our founding fathers called it the balance of power! Wisely designed to keep dictatorships and tyrants from becoming established in this country. The sad irony is the Senate and the SCOTUS have been taken over by liberals and only the House of Representatives remains to keep a dictatorship from occurring. Then there is the media (first amendment freedom of the press) that have advocated their responsibility to hold government leaders accountable, as per Benghazi, fast and furious and White House intelligent leaks, out of control spending and on and on!

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 20, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    "The President does not produce the budget, congress does that,"

    ========

    Then why is Mitch McConnell -R Kentucky saying the Senate cannot act on a budget until the President presents one?

    To give the Republican Congress credit for the balanced budget in the 90's and then blame the Democratic President for the mess in 2009-Present is nothing but partisanship at its worst.

    Both parties have shown their incredible ability to spend. Both Parties got us here, and it takes to both the Congress and the Executive to spend money. We need to stop trying to assign blame, and start trying to fix the problem. Trying to come to agreement on blame 1) will never happen 2) if it did, still does nothing about our situation.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 20, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    @ Darrel. According to the constitution congress passes all spending budgets. The President can and often does propose budget items but congress must pass them into law. The last budget Obama proposed never got one Democrat vote from either house of congress!

    Which party controlled both houses of congress in the last year of GWB's term? Which party implemented the so called sub prime mortgages for unqualified home owners that ultimately caused the housing bubble to burst and the domino effect of the recession? If Barney Frank’s unethical relationship with the government-run mortgage giants he supposedly regulated is a Democrat, you have your answer.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 20, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    @Mountanman

    Again, it takes two to Tango. Congress cannot spend without the President signing it into law (unless the veto is overridden) and the President cannot spend without Congressional Approval. Placing blame fixes nothing. Even if you could pin the entire collapse of our economy on Barney Frank, what does that fix? Does that re-employ people? Does that put money into my pocket?

    We need to move on to finding actual working solutions.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 20, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    I cringe when people claim that Clinton had a balanced budget. The best clinton did was reduce the deficit to $23 billion. There was still a deficit.

    The other problem here is the reporting on the debt that the US holds. This article is doing a dis-service by reporting the debt held by public accounts. That means that everything taken from SS is not included in the debt. If you look at the gross federal debt, we are sitting around 105% GDP.

    If the problem is to be fixed deficits must be eliminated and surplusses generated. This will require cutting entitlements.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 20, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    The Democratic budget is not at all unrealistic. It reflects the needs of our society and stimulates economic growth at the same time. The Republican austerity budget cripples GDP growth, as we are seeing in Europe right now.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 20, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID
    First of all, Bill Clinton did not balance the budget during either of his terms, Newt Gingrich and the Republican House did that during Clinton's second term. The President does not produce the budget, congress does that, (when they actually do their constitutional job).

    ===========

    So then,
    Second of all, John Boenher and Republican House should be held responsible for the budget deficeit, sequesture, and budget impass.
    [but somehow, I don't think you will ever man up and own it that either.]

    Like you said,
    The President does not produce the budget, congress does that, (when they actually do their constitutional job).

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 20, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    @mountaiman
    Interesting string of theories mountainman but what does any of that have to do with my comment?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 20, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon

    Since Mountanman has used up his allotment --

    Congress consists of two houses. They both should be held responsible for the budget, along with the president who signs it into law. There's plenty of credit and blame to be shared by both parties.

    @Eric Samuelson "Decrease unemployment, and the budget will balance itself."

    Your comment hits the nail squarely on the head. A thriving economy goes farther to generate federal revenues than any other factor. Pro-growth policies, including tax polices, are the best way to close the deficit.

    Instead of waging war on our productive individuals (and taxing and regulating the life out of them), we should get government off their backs and let them produce. Our leadership needs to end its hostility toward prosperity. One of the reasons the Great Depression lasted so long, is that the big money decided to stay on the sidelines and wait Roosevelt out. Similar decisions are being made today. It doesn't have to be this way.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    @Kent C. DeForrest
    yes - The Ryan budget is far far better than the non-existent Democratic Senate budget and the irrational Obama budget proposals that are even laughed at by Democrats

    Also: Mountainman is correct

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    March 20, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    Dictionary definition of "counter": contrary, opposite.
    Dictionary definition of "intelligence": the skilled use of reason, the ability to learn or understand new situations, mental acuteness.

    You've got me confused. Does this mean you mean the exact opposite of what you say?

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    March 20, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    Republicans are frightened by false fire. The absolute amount of debt is not the issue. Just as with any business or household, the more income you have, the more debt you can handle. The country's "income" is measured in GDP, and the national debt must always be talked about relative to GDP.

    With that in mind, the most important part of this article is the part that states:

    "As a share of the economy, the debt Democrats envision would hardly shrink at all - going from 77 percent of gross domestic product this year to 70 percent in 2023. The Republicans, by contrast, would slash it to less than 55 percent of GDP - much closer to the historical norm."

    We are in a global economic downturn. Now is not the time for "austerity" (which has not worked in Greece, Spain, or Italy). And the Democratic plan DOES drop the national debt in the right direction.

    The biggest problem with Republicans these past two election cycles has been their stubborn insistence on all-or-none thinking. They have become so radical they have eliminated "compromise" and "moderation" from their vocabulary.

    What a shame the GOP is no longer grand.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2013 9:31 p.m.

    Ryan's budget isn't balanced. He doesn't list a single tax loophole he'd close, just pretends that we can just close a bunch of them and be fine (twice as much as Romney/Ryan would've needed to close). He keeps all the taxes and Medicare cuts in Obamacare, getting rid of everything else (you know, the things people like in Obamacare) as if Republicans would support that.

    @Counter Intelligence
    Apparently you can't read since this editorial talks about Murray's budget (so that's hardly non-existant).

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 21, 2013 6:08 a.m.

    @southmtnman "The absolute amount of debt is not the issue. ...[T]he more income you have, the more debt you can handle."

    I don't think anyone is arguing this. The problem is trajectory. After Bush took office, debt-per-percent-GDP ramped up. After Obama took office, it ramped up even more steeply. What we are talking about is changing the trajectory before it becomes too late. Our current course is unsustainable.

    "[T]he Democratic plan DOES drop the national debt in the right direction."

    Only for a time. Looking beyond 2023, deficits begin to rise again.

    "Now is not the time for 'austerity' (which has not worked in Greece, Spain, or Italy)."

    The problem for these countries isn't austerity itself. Their problem is, they waited too long to begin correcting their course. Let's not make the same mistake.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    March 21, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    May I remind you all that the government's income is not equal to the GDP, unless you want all 400 million people of the US to go naked, homeless, heatless, transportationless, and foodless. The federal government's income averages about 17% of GDP, meaning our current national debt is almost 7 times the annual revenue. Try running any house or business on that ratio.

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    March 21, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    Nate

    "The problem is trajectory. After Bush took office, debt-per-percent-GDP ramped up. After Obama took office, it ramped up even more steeply."

    Nobody is disputing "trajectory," which is why even the Democratic budget turns trajectory around the other direction. "Only for a time"... well, that's a bit nit picky. So are you implying that Ryan's budget will forever cure the problem of debt? "beyond 2023, deficits begin to rise again." Says who? Isn't that up to the Congress seated at that time?

    "The problem for these countries isn't austerity itself. Their problem is, they waited too long to begin correcting their course."

    That is an opinion that is NOT shared by any respectable economist I can find. Even Mitt Romney recognizes that you cannot "cost cut" a company, or a country, into prosperity. That is a fundamental principle of economics as well as business.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    @atl134
    For the last 4 years a Senate budget has been non-existent
    Murray’s budget might as well be non-existent because it will go nowhere

    @Lew Scannon
    Technically counter intelligence refers to efforts made by intelligence organizations to prevent hostile or enemy intelligence organizations from successfully gathering and collecting intelligence against them.
    I just use the term because smart (intelligent) people reject (counter) vapid politically correct bullying
    But I suspect you knew that