Quantcast
Utah

Taxmaggedon means families will pay $3,500 more, causing a recession

Comments

Return To Article
  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    Oh, this is absolutely horrifying. To think struggling families will have to pay even more to the incompetent and corrupt powers that be. Well, I guess someone has to pay for things like the AIG-GM-Solyndra debauchery.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    yes, but some are getting free obama phones and other things. barry keeps buying the electoriate with taxpayer money. he is a total disgrace.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Oct. 8, 2012 10:37 a.m.

    Settle down, Ute. He's not going to win. And then you can lay high praise on your annointed one for four years, and continue to blame Obama for anything that doesn't go right for Romney.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    Don't worry, you cen elect mittney. He'll do to GM and the FDA what he's going to do to big bird, just as long as you keep a tax break. After all, we're an entitlement society and the biggest entitlement these days is that taxes are modeled on the dim sum concept. We only select and pay for what benefits each of us as taxpaying individuals, and everyone else is a mooch.

  • caleb in new york Glen Cove, NY
    Oct. 8, 2012 11:01 a.m.

    its not going to be painless for the U.S. to stop deficit spending and to start to work to pay off the national debt. Repubs and Democrats alike give lip service to the national debt while just continuing to further kick the can down the road. Just to get back to even without even paying off any of the debt is going to take huge changes, yet Romney says he wouldn't cut defense spending, not even a little. Americans in general don't want to hear the cold hard truth about the huge danger of out national debt and politicians on both sides are very eager to oblige the Americans.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 11:17 a.m.

    @caleb in new york

    "Americans in general don't want to hear the cold hard truth about the huge danger of out national debt and politicians on both sides are very eager to oblige the Americans."

    I hope you are wrong. Most Americans were opposed to the bank bailouts. Most were opposed to bailing out GM. I think Americans in general are tired of elected officials, in direct defiance of the will of their constituents, giving hard earned taxpayer money (or borrowing that money from China and Japan) to special interests keeping them in power.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    @ute alumni
    "barry keeps buying the electoriate with taxpayer money. "

    As opposed to the party that wants to hand out more tax cuts we can't afford?

  • Aloha Saint George Saint George, Utah
    Oct. 8, 2012 11:24 a.m.

    Pay More Taxes + Election year = NOT

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 11:25 a.m.

    Strictly speaking, these are not tax increases - they're the expiration of temporary tax cuts.

    Killing off Big Bird and other Republican nonsense will get you about one tenth of one percent towards where you need to be in terms of deficit control.

    Eventually, you need to take a hard, realistic look at defense spending, non-Social Security entitlements, corporate subsidies, and yes, at overall tax revenue including what you and I pay.

    Do you, or do you not, want serious deficit reduction?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Oct. 8, 2012 11:38 a.m.

    Government paying for PBS programs (including big bird) is just a symbol of all the programs the government is paying for that it should not be! If we want to save our economy we must cut federal spending and end wasting money on Solynda loans, funding GSA parties, and reduce or eliminate unnecessary the federal government departments of energy, US fish and wildlife, education, the EPA and many others and turn these tasks over to the state where they belong. Washington DC needs to look like a ghost town compared to the money sink hole it is today!

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 11:53 a.m.

    atl134,

    Did you really just call tax cuts a handout? Awesome.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 2:00 p.m.

    Mountanman,

    Try this - take all the money the federal government spends on PBS, and spent on Solyndra and GSA parties, and add them all together and tell us what percent of total federal spending they represent. Let me know if you succeed in getting up to one half of one percent.

    You don't like the Fish & Wildlife service, or the EPA, or the DOE? So you're saying you're OK with poisoning our air, land and water?

    Oh, you say you're going to have the states take care of this?

    You think they'll do all that for free? State taxes won't have to be raised to pay for services previously provided by the feds? You think fifty separate EPA's and fifty DOE's will be better than just one?

    Who do you think you're persuading with that argument?

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 2:07 p.m.

    Why do I feel like I'm standing on a school playground watching children hurl taunts at one another? This thread is simply ridiculous with all the nonsensical blather being bantered about. It will be a good thing when this election is over!

    As for those who claim a university education and can't develope a coherent argument, were you asleep for four years (or however many it took)? Simplistic insults don't go far in convincing others that your position has merit. It only denigrates yourself as someone without intelligence.

  • mcdugall Layton, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 2:30 p.m.

    These were temporary tax cuts that are set to expire. They were never intended to be permanent, all Republicans should be rejoicing, the deficit will be well under the 1 trillion mark.

  • Dixie Dan Saint George, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 2:33 p.m.

    The Bush Tax Cuts were "temporary" and were suppose to expire two years ago. Now is the time to let them expire. This NOT a tax increase. Congress should do its job and protect the people who voted them in to office and not the special interest who seem to control it.

  • caleb in new york Glen Cove, NY
    Oct. 8, 2012 2:38 p.m.

    @ mad hatter - maybe you have been reading the wrong thread. This thread has been full of few insults and actual policy discussion and has minimal political rhetoric. Arguments have for the most part been quite coherent although not perfectly developed because this is a newspaper thread and there's not enough space for extensive argument support. Also in this thread not a single claim has been made about the level of education the commenters have. Maybe you should form some thoughts about the national debt and participate in the discussion instead of acting as thread monitor handing out citations that you have imagined.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 2:38 p.m.

    Blue,

    Barack Obama has gotten us $5 trillion more in debt than when he took office. Yes, I blame PBS, Solyndra, and the GSA. Yes I blame the Fish and Wildlife, DOE and the EPA. Yes, I blame countless other special interests you have failed to mention. No one can really know where all of that money went. We are headed towards bankruptcy. It shouldn't cost $5 trillion dollars to clean the water and air. Smells to me like corruption, inefficiency and incompetence. Given the fact that we are well over $15 trillion in debt and counting, I say no more PBS, no more Solyndras, no more Fish and Wildlife, and on and on down the line of backscratching special interests looking for a handout.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 2:38 p.m.

    @killpack
    "Did you really just call tax cuts a handout? "

    If we have a trillion dollar deficit and you're demanding to pay even less in taxes than currently... then yes, you're looking for a handout because as far as the budget is considered, less revenue and more spending both increase the deficit. There is no functional budgetary difference as far as the deficit is considered between paying 1,000 in taxes and looking for a 250 dollar program for yourself and wanting to pay only 750 in taxes instead of 1,000. Either way you're passing on a 250 dollar bill to future generations. I don't think they care if the deficit they're being handed was called a tax cut or a spending program, they just want you to get it under control.

  • Built2Last Provo, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 2:50 p.m.

    Blue,

    "Try this - take all the money the federal government spends on PBS, and spent on Solyndra and GSA parties, and add them all together and tell us what percent of total federal spending they represent. Let me know if you succeed in getting up to one half of one percent."

    Yeah, unfortunately, the Dems say this about everything. "It won't even put a dent in the overall deficit." And then they just keep spending like there is not tomorrow. The logic is "It won't reduce the deficit completely; therefore, don't cut spending anywhere." Brilliant.

    We have to start somewhere, whether or not it solves the entire problem. And it is only common sense to start with non-essentials.

  • non believer PARK CITY, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 3:10 p.m.

    At 16 trillion in debt, we are all going to have to pay more! Reduced spending is nice, but that will only eliminate a very small portion of the deficeit. We have to generate additional revenue and tax cuts have not worked and will not work! How many times do we have to go down this path to realize this? Looks like one more if Mitt gets elected and thinks trickle down is the answer like all of those before him!

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 3:29 p.m.

    I'd trade Big Bird for a job and $2.00 gasoline anyday. In a second.

  • luv2organize Gainesville, VA
    Oct. 8, 2012 3:57 p.m.

    Nearly 50% of people pay nothing in federal taxes and many receive a couple thousand dollars a year to stay broke so most likely this tax change will go to those who already are footing the bill.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    Don't worry, John Boehner stated today that they won't do anything to stop the fiscal cliff before the end of the year.

    Republicans don't care about the country because it would mean compromising. His statement today more than justifies this view point.

    Had he stated that he was willing to work to stop the impending crisis than it would show that Republicans care about the average family and not just the rich.

    Here comes another recession, given to us at the hands of the Republicans because they won't compromise. Higher taxes for all rather than a few, cuts across the board rather than selectively choosing which to defund.

    Aren't we all proud of the Do Nothings, Party of No, Republicans in Congress. 3 cheers for them in causing a recession...Hip Hip Hurray, Hip Hip Hurray, Hip Hip Hurray.

  • mcdugall Layton, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 4:29 p.m.

    @killpack - Where do you come up with the 5 trillion dollar budget for the EPA/Solyndra? The FY 2011 EPA Budget was 8.6 trillion and the loans to Solyndra were ~500 million. So lets assume 9 billion dollars. 9 Billion dollars out of 1.3 trillion is 0.0069%. of the budget deficit. Lets get serious, cutting PBS, EPA, DOE is nothing more than political posturing. If you want to honestly reduce the deficit, you need to cute defense (FY 2011 712 billion) and other high budget departments and increase the tax base. Its tough medicine.

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    I would not mind taxes going back up if I knew the money was going to be used to pay down the national debt. But it won't, they'll find some other program to spend it on.

    If the US would keep it's nose out of every other countries business, maybe we could reduce defense spending. I'm not an isolationist, but we have no reason to be in Iraq or Afghanistan and the same powers that got us into those wars are trying to get us into a war with Iran too.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 4:39 p.m.

    killpack and Built2Last,

    Two points -

    First, check your facts. Google "Obama portion of the deficit" and look at the factcheckdotorg discussion on that topic.

    Here's the relevent portion: "The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office... It is the combination of historically high spending and low revenues that is producing the current string of trillion-dollar annual deficits, and piling up debt. Those who blame deficits solely on spending ignore the other side of the ledger."

    Second, since you insist that every little bit helps as justifying ending federal funding for PBS and the Fish & Wildlife service, and since those items, Solyndra and GSA parties combined don't amount to one half of one percent of federal spending, then please tell us precisely _where_ you'll get the other 99.5% of expenditure reductions needed to "dent" the deficit if you're unwilling to raise taxes?

    Either start offering specifics about significant budget cuts, or admit you have nothing meaningful to contribute here.

  • madmen Grantsville, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 5:25 p.m.

    Ok non believer- how much more are you willing to pay? 10% How about 20%,30%. After all, 16 trillion is a lot and it sounds like you haven't been paying you "fair share" to begin with.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 5:40 p.m.

    Plunging into a recession? You mean we are not in one already? When did we pull out of the last one cause I sure can't tell.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 6:32 p.m.

    This situation is the result of sheer cowardice on the part of politicians.

    Only Congress can solve this problem, and they are working hard on it.... Oh, wait, they are off on another break campaigning to get reelected to do more nothing and further delay making any tough choices. Fire them and get a NEW Congress!

    The ONLY solution is to start by eliminating spending on EVERY program that is not absolutely essential to our national survival. Yeah, that includes Big Bird, college loans, corporate subsidies, free drugs for Granny, foreign aid to our enemies, and most of the "pork" projects that politicians love.

    Then, and ONLY then, we can talk about revising tax laws. And that discussion should start with elimination of all "refundable tax credits" and insist that every American, including "the poor" pay some percentage of their income in income taxes.

    Popular? No! Essential? Yes?
    The only alternative is to go over the cliff and default on our obligations, making our money worthless. Any politician who denies this is lying!

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    Oct. 8, 2012 6:36 p.m.

    People bash Bush for implementing the tax breaks, but then they don't say anything regarding Obama extending it for two years longer. Just a bunch of throwing mud at the other party and not seeing the "beam" in your own party's eye. If you want to be enslaved by foreign powers, vote for Obama. 5 TRILLION ADDED TO DEBT. If you want to see the deficit come down, vote for Romney, his experience in the political and business arenas have been nothing but excellent and successful, history has already proven him worthy of the task. Obama promised and didn't deliver, what makes you think he would do any different this time? If your doctor or mechanic was so undependable would you keep going to him? I doubt it, think logically America!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 6:54 p.m.

    First, anyone who writes a headline that ends in -mageddon or -gate (watgergate) is not working hard enough. Second, yes we always point out that the stuff that you want to cut like pbs or fda or fish and wildlife are inconsequential in the federal budget. That's because they're insconsequential in the federal budget. Either you just can't do math or you have no idea how bloated the military budget is. Anyway, one of the things so many fail to see is that fish and wildlife and the fda actually do some pretty important stuff for us. If you think that simply wiping government, and the society it supposts, off the map is such a good idea have we got a nation for you. Somalia, they call it. Your paradise awaits. No pesky government. Certainly no gun laws. Please go...

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 6:55 p.m.

    Somebody has to pay for the wars; we don't just invade another country and then don't pay for things; for 200 years, each time we went to war, we raised taxes-- until 2003 that is. That is the first time we went to war and cut taxes, quite a concept. Perhaps 911 did bankrupt us.

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    Oct. 8, 2012 7:01 p.m.

    atl134,

    As I see it, a tax increase is simply a hand out to the government.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 7:09 p.m.

    "You don't raise taxes in a recession." Barack Obama, August 2009, interview with Chuck Todd NBC News

    This shouldn't even be an issue. GDP growth is even slower than in 2009. Obama seems excited to have a game of 'chicken' with the GOP over 'the rich.' There is a reason his campaign is unraveling right now. He lacks the ability to reach across the aisle and lead. He could very easily say, "We are not going to raise any taxes for the time being. It didn't make sense then, it doesn't now. We will revisit this next year." Does he lose face by doing that?

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 7:30 p.m.

    Here's what I just don't understand about the left. In 2008, it was all about CHANGE (and supposedly HOPE.) How have things changed when Barack Obama did the same thing GWB did? Obama called Bush unpatriotic for adding $4 Trillion to the debt. Then he added $5 Trillion more. Now we are $16 Trillion on our way to $20 Trillion in the hole. Believing that raising taxes is going to help the economy is naive. Believing that the government will use that money wisely is beyond stupid. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...you can't get fooled again. But apparently some Americans can.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 7:49 p.m.

    Yea this is the Obama version of sticking it to the rich........from the party that gave us Carter! And to think there are are actually 46% who think voting for Obama is a good idea......the dumbing of America on full display!!

  • PTM ,
    Oct. 8, 2012 8:17 p.m.

    Reagan took office with unemployment at 7.5%; re-election campaign October 1984, 7.2%. In-between it went to 10.8%. That recession's cause was runaway inflation and the Federal Reserve crushing it with high interest rates. It took until 1987 before unemployment went below 6% to stay. Reagan used supply side, but it still took 6 years to get back to something approaching normal.

    Obama took office with unemployment of 7.9%, caused not by inflation, but economic contraction culminating with a 2008 4th quarter GDP contraction of 9%. Obama used a demand side approach, and it helped. Oct 2009 unemployment was 10%; enter demand side; we now sit a 7.8% unemployment. Reagan is revered, with a similar result, Obama is despised by some.

    Romney isn't even close to explaining how he will deal with the deficit his tax cuts create; PBS and BigBird won't make up the difference. An energetic, on your game debate performance doesn't make up for a lack of detail. Proposing to cut taxes is the easy part, telling what gets cut is the hard part, but owed to the American People.

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    Oct. 8, 2012 9:03 p.m.

    You can't honestly be comparing Obama to Reagan . . . If I remember right Regean didn't increase the deficit by 5 trillion dollars and the military was at an all time high during his administration, while Obama continues to weaken the military. You can't compare anybody on the basis of one statistic. If Obama was honest and had any integrity at all he would not even be running because he personally said he wouldn't if he didn't cut the deficit in half. Obviously he didn't. So either he didn't understand the situation he was in or he lied. Either situation disqualifies him for the presidency.

  • BarkforSark PROVO, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 9:06 p.m.

    So asking to keep more of what ourselves earn is asking for a handout. This is where America is, folks. Shame on us who want to keep more of what we earn.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 10:02 p.m.

    caleb in new york Glen Cove, NY

    You were saying? I'll provide you with two examples.

    killpack Sandy, UT

    "Oh, this is absolutely horrifying. To think struggling families will have to pay even more to the incompetent and corrupt powers that be. Well, I guess someone has to pay for things like the AIG-GM-Solyndra debauchery."

    ute alumni Tengoku, UT

    "yes, but some are getting free obama phones and other things. barry keeps buying the electoriate with taxpayer money. he is a total disgrace."

  • Salsa Libre Provo, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 10:08 p.m.

    USAlover Salt Lake City, UT

    "I'd trade Big Bird for a job and $2.00 gasoline anyday. In a second."

    The federal budget has nothing to do with the price of gasoline. If you want $2.00 gasoline, you need to talk with Big Oil and make the government force them to set lower oil prices in the U.S.

    The price of oil is governed by market forces and the growth in China, India, and elsewhere. Even if U.S. production continues to increase (as it has under the current administration) there is nothing to prohibit oil companies from selling their product abroad.

    It's called Capitalism and neither Democrats nor Republicans will interfere. So be happy with the gasoline you get. Otherwise, buy an electric car.

  • Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena Provo, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 10:23 p.m.

    A1994 Centerville, UT

    There continues to be a lot of misinformation about how much the Obama administration is responsible for increasing the federal debt. When Obama took office, the federal government was spending in excess of $1 T per year. Much of this, I understand, was from two unfunded wars, a massive tax cut, and an unfunded entitlement.

    Perhaps you have the figures on the cost of these four items, but they were massive recurring expenses in the budget adding to the federal deficit and, ultimately, to the federal debt. Whether these costs occurred under Bush or Obama, they were set in the federal budget, and were passed on from one administration to the other.

    Now, if you correct for these built-in budget costs, how do you calculate that part of the federal deficit due to Obama administration policies? Remember that these costs were established before Obama assumed office and, not being initiated by his administration, are recurring costs for which his administration is responsible.

    If Romney becomes president, do we say he inherited these recurring costs (minus one war) from Obama or from Bush because his administration will be responsible for continuing to for them?

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 10:37 p.m.

    Just say No.

    Thank you John Boehner and Eric Cantor.

    You've exactly what you've worked(?) so hard to accomplish.

    Special kudos to Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint for their complicity.

    The Republican Party sacrificed America, at any cost, to defeat President Obama.

    The bills are coming due.

    A massive tax bill awaits all Americans.

    It will be worth it...

    Right Republicans?

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 12:27 a.m.

    WE own a small business, we already pay 30% of our income in taxes. We are paying our share and we will be paying more, and more, and more. If no one stops the out of control government administrations that are taxing, regulating and charging us out of business.
    The question is does America want to work?
    Do you want to someday own your home, have a few nice things, maybe even a little savings, and sometime think of retiring?
    Do you want to leave your children and your childrens children with so much debt that they will never see a way out?
    Both parties sit around blaming the other! Both are at fault!! Bush took us to Iraq, Obama entered Afganistan remember, "Afganistan is the right war!" Blaming solves nothing.....
    Lets stop the over reaching regulatatory boards, stop the out of control EPA, USDOT, Dept of Interior, etc. and get America to work.
    Then when our economy has picked up, we can discuss what of these entities we need to keep.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 6:36 a.m.

    As always, this President's lack of leadership for 3 years, without a real budget is leaving us in the lurch. Having a Secretary of the Treasury that didn't pay taxes and doesn't know how to manage money for the non-elitists that we are is appalling.

    As many Czars as the President has allowed into the White House and executive branch is a crime when they cannot manage their own $200,000,000 vacations.

    People have allowed this President and Congress to run however they want to do. Making commercials that appear to be the government wanting people to vote early may have some agenda by the administration that should be looked into. Most people would think it is just a Public service announcement but it is a definite campaign message. The President wants people to vote before the Vice-President's debate and the President's next two debates. He is throwing out anything with his $1B campaign chest to get him elected and be able to do anything for 4 years without a beat of the drum.

    The Fed chairman will be around for awhile even if Mitt gets elected and that will be interesting.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Oct. 9, 2012 7:42 a.m.

    Wow. Such shortsightedness.

    CONGRESS is the big problem here, and you children bicker about Obama and Romney.

    From my perspective, every member of Congress has been derelict in their duty for the last 4 years. Are you going to vote them out? Send a message by voting out all incumbents. And if the next Congress does not make progress, vote them all out.

    Public Servants? Yeah, right.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Oct. 9, 2012 7:46 a.m.

    First of all this whole "were heading to bankruptcy" is nonsense. Secondly we're leaving our children a debt they will never pay off is hyperbolic tripe. Every modern generation has left the following generation a deficit..and deficit does not equal bankruptcy. Every large business or enterprise (including charitable enterprises) carry debt. Debt and deficits are the modern econonmy from governments to individuals. Without it ther would be no modernity, so to demonize debt as a principle is to say you want to go back to a time without credit.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Oct. 9, 2012 9:40 a.m.

    Everyone needs skin in the game. Everyone but those below the poverty line need to pay taxes (Maybe even below?). I don't care if it is writing a check for $20 dollars for the poorest. If you raise taxes, then all people need to see an increase. The $20 dollar check increases to $40 and my taxes go up $10,000. We all need to feel the pain of a tax increase.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    Maybe we should vote out the entire lot; President, Congress, and Senate? Remove any branch of government that is not nessesary to the sirvival of our nation and start over?
    The problem is I believe we need regulations, taxes, and limits to keep each of us from infringing on one anothers rights.
    Incumbents know how to negotiate around with modern politicians and how to get what each state needs. Remember our Senators and Congressmen are there to represent UTAH. To make sure our voice is heard!!!
    The curent problem is with a President that would rather golf and vacation then meet with the other leaders. He doesn't hold the purse strings but he is supposed to work with the other parties to find solutions to the issues facing our country.
    He has allowed his appointees in the DOJ, EPA, USDOT, DOI, etc. to run-amuk. These administrational branches of our government are creating laws and taxes through over regulation. Our President doesn't even care or know what they are doing, and Congress is unable to work with each other let alone stop these departments.
    The Supreme Court ruled against them but, that hasn't stopped them.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 2:45 p.m.

    The reality is that you could literally confiscate the entire income of all the wealthy and it would not pay the deficit for a single year. Look up the study on youtube and you can see the math for yourself.

    So if that is the case, why do the liberals spend 99% of the time talking about taxation as a solution of some kind? Clearly the issue is spending.

    Liberals apparently would rather listen to their big spending representatives in DC and regurgitate talking points than do some simple basic math themselves.

    Sure everyone wants this and that but does anyone stop to think whether we can afford it? What tough choices/sacrifices will have to be made?

    People probably would be willing to pay more in taxes but when they can't go 10 minutes without reading yet another story of obama-phones and other govt waste I guess we should understand why they don't trust the govt with the money we currently give to them.

    The only certainty we have is that the government will waste a significant portion of all that they extract from us.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 5:01 p.m.

    We have become like the seagulls that rely on food from the rubbish thrown over the ship's side. We have been living in the land of entitlements for too long. People have come to rely on government for their needs not from working to produce goods or provide services for our nation. We have lost sight of what is important. People complain about Mitt Romney earning money and providing jobs for tens of thousands of people. However, how many multi-year sports contracts are in the tens of millions to make such people very rich working only a part of the year. The movie industry and other entertainers makes very high salaries and may provide a service but not necessarily production.

    President Obama spends so much of his time entertaining or being entertained to relieve his stress from organizing. He lives a protected life and has not shown us a budget of his own for his time in office. Paul Ryan comes up with an alternative and instead of saying thanks, the President criticizes Ryan since he is a fiscal conservative. President Obama wouldn't want to get enlightened by a person that knows money. He uses Geithner economics.

  • Fern RL LAYTON, UT
    Oct. 9, 2012 6:12 p.m.

    "But the resulting macroeconomic tightening could well push the country back into recession in 2013."

    Like at least one other reader, I have a hard time seeing how the last recession supposedly ended in 2009. If we are not now in a recession, why is the unemployment rate still so high? Why are interest rates so low, so near zero?

    The real GDP per capita (year 2005 dollars) dropped in 2009 to a level below what it was in 2004 and has not yet regained the value it had in 2005.

    In my opinion, Romney is the one man who best understands economics--understanding it better than any former president, Democrat or Republican, even Ronald Reagan--and he can help revitalize the economy. It would also help if he had the support of a mostly Republican Congress.