Quantcast

Comments about ‘Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee oppose new debt deal’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 31 2011 10:44 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
ouisc
Farmington, UT

We are not in danger of a default. We will still make our payments, though it may come at the expense of some less-than-vital services. We could shut government down, if necessary, to reduce expenses so we can keep our loan commitments. Debt default is merely "fear mongering" by the Democrats.

We simply need to get our spending under control. We should get our rating reduced, because our debt to income ratio is simply embarassing.

I am not a tea partier, but I do believe Hatch and Lee are right on this one. We need to balance our budget! In addition, we can't keep giving this President more money to spend that we simply don't have!

williary
Kearns, UT

@ouisc

"Debt default is merely "fear mongering" by the Democrats."

And economists all over the world.

And Wall Street.

And investors all over the world.

And Speaker John Boehner.

And Mitch McConnell.

Yep, big conspiracy theory created by the Democrats!

FYI - Balancing the budget simply cuts off further debt spending. How will you address the already existing debt? While conintuing tax cuts? Simple math says both cannot happen.

sid 6.7
Holladay, UT

"My Word Is My Bond"????? BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

I seriously did a "Spit Take" with my morning coffee when I saw that quote by Hatch.

Steven S Jarvis
Orem, UT

Mike Lee was already a clown. By aligning himself with Lee, Hatch too became a clown. Both need to go at election time.

This is not a time to hold the US taxpayer hostage. Both should be listening to the majority of Utah and vote FOR the proposal. It isn't perfect but that is because they CHOSE to waste seven months before addressing this crucial bill. They harmed the economy and public faith by putting it off THIS long.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The Amendment process of the Constitution was designed by the framers to be difficult with more than majority and an extended ratification process. Senator Lee and Representative Jason want to force it be done by a simple quick majority vote. This is an unconstitutional position.

XelaDave
Salem, UT

While I have certainly not always agreed with Hatch it is sad to see him become the step child of Mike Lee- what irony that the senior senator from Utah now takes all his political direction from a guy that pursuaded a couple thousand very conservative Utah voters to support him and thus avoid a real test of his political power by having to defeat Bennett in an open primary and now Hatch is little more than a lap dog so he can try and have six more years and not leave in disgrace- very sad day in Utah politics

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

This deal won't do anything. There are ways of saving more money than the politicians claim to save. There are ways of cutting costs without disrupting anything that the government currently does.

According to Bloomberg's article "U.S. Auditors Say Duplicate Programs Cost Billions" there are hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted on redundant programs. Even if there was only $100 billion saved, that right there is $1Trillion in 10 years.

Turning Medicare over to private companies would save another $30 billion/yr. Currently Medicare loses money to fraud at twice the rate of private insurance. So, according to "Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime" at CBS News, we could save a lot just by getting government out of Medicare WITHOUT reducing services.

Last year the Federal Government spent $165 billion on long term unemployment, giving people 99 weeks of unemployment checks. If we cut that back to the original 26 weeks, that would save us another $100 billion. Plus, it will further save money by forcing people to humble themselves and to do the jobs that they claim American's won't do. For every person that starts working, that further cuts unemployment costs.

bballjunkie
Cedar Hills, UT

I support both hatch and Lee thanks for saying no to this joke. My kids as well as yours are screwed. We better get people in place or this will get so far out of control the rest of the world will stop wanting to deal with us.

WhatsInItForMe
Orem, Utah

Quote of the Century on the U.S.'s Big Debt:

"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 U.S. Government can not 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

Doesn't practice what he preaches, does he?

Liberals, spin it however you want. Won't matter. He said it!

WellBehavedWomen
Highland, UT

Without a Balanced Budget Amendment, we will just be back in this mess in a few years. We cannot keep spending money we don't have and mortgaging our children's future. Senator Hatch and Lee are right to oppose this deal, it is a good start but falls short on real long term reforms.

Kearns_Dad
Kearns, UT

I'm sad that Hatch and Lee work for tea partiers and not for all the Utahns that elected them. I'll be unable to support either of them. There must be a bump in the debt ceiling (commitments already made, not new spending) and cuts in "unnecessary gov't spending" - Mr. Obama. A Balanced Budget Amendment won't fix it and will pretty much insure that each recession becomes a depression. Just ask non-political Nobel economists. Cuts aren't going to happen overnight and tea partiers are ruining the GOP. Sorry...I'm becoming more and more unhappy with the tea party movement. I guess we'll know for sure at the next election if Obama gets 4 more years.

Danish American
Payson, UT

Raises debt limit $900 billion. Lowers spending this year $7 billion. $7 billion this year when Obama is spending $401 Million dollars a day more than we take in. The deal doesn't seem like it does a thing. They should vote against it. And where is the Senate's budget plan. This bill contains a gimmick to pass a budget, the deem to pass, that doesn't allow for a vote. The same gimmick they rammed Obamacare through with. This is a horrible bill as it stands now and should be voted down.

byronbca
Salt Lake City, UT

This is appalling to me that our senators would rather sabotage our economy than compromise with democrats. Hatch got my vote the last 2 elections, but he wont be getting it again.

As a moderate Lee never got my vote. I will never vote for an extremist from the right or the left. People who are not willing to comprise are incapable of accomplishing anything in Washington.

E. Matscheko
St. George, UT

Just like voters will oppose Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee at the next elections...

jimhale
Eugene, OR

I am glad Senator Lee's word is his bond. But what the debt limit increase is really about is the word/bond of the United States Government not Senator Lee's personal word/bond.

The Congress (current and past) has ordered all kinds of spending. Now the government needs to get in and borrow the money to pay for those obligations. Doing less would be dishonest. When you don't meet such obligations, you can expect your (personal or governmental) credit rating to be down-graded.

Holding the debt limit increase hostage so that the GOP could get the White House and the Democratic Senate to get serious about the deficit - obviously against their will - was a good plan.

But now, the government needs to pay the obligations Congress has already authorized.

For Lee or Hatch or Chaffetz or Romney to now oppose this deal is irresponsible. This battle is over.

There will be plenty of fighting to do in the follow-up aspects of this bill as the new committee reports its recommendations. And the deal requires a Congressional vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment.

But the next real battle about spending is the 2012 election.

DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

@Nick: "The road to serfdom cometh."

The GOP and their rich friends in big business have been working on that plan since the Reagan era. America's middle class hasn't gained any ground in 30 years, and we've been losing for the past 5. Extinction of the middle class is all part of their plan to put all the wealth and power into the hands of those 5% and let them run things the way they see fit. The real estate market crash was engineered to boot out millions of homeowners so their houses could be bought up by investment firms for next to nothing. High gas and food prices put a damper on consumer spending and a shrinking job market means more and more of us go off to join the "working poor" at McD's or Wal-Mart. It's class warfare and as it continues we'll soon all be making just barely enough to rent a roof over our heads. They want to put America back on a level with China and Mexico so it will be profitable for them to manufacture things here again.

mohokat
Ogden, UT

@Esquire: Would that be anything like "We have to pass the Bill to see whats in the Bill"? I like that approach.

byronbca
Salt Lake City, UT

Re whatsinitforme

Obama just became the first president in my lifetime to make serious cuts in government spending. Doesn't that prove that Obama was right in 2006? Since he was able to make real change to the debt issue when no one else could doesn't that mean that he is providing good leadership?

Yes he increased the debt limit, but unlike every other president since Eisenhower he also reduced spending by a significant amount. Half truths are half lies too.

jimhale
Eugene, OR

It is time for all good men to come to the aid of the country.

That means that Romney, Huntsman, Hatch, Lee, Chaffetz and others now need to get on to a positive track for 2012.

They all need to get behind Senator Tom Coburn (R-OKLAHOMA)'s $9 Trillion deficit reduction plan...or something like unto it.

He would cut $8 Trillion and raise $1 Trillion...a balanced approach if we ever saw one...over a ten year period.

This current budget deal is a tiny step in the right direction. It is the best we can do at this moment...with this President and this Senate.

But the next president had better be pointing us to a way to balance the budget.

An Amendment would be a grand thing. But we need a vision of how it can actually be brought to pass.

Clearly, Obama has no such vision.....even out ten years.

The GOP must do better.

As someone important once said "It's a vision thing."

Furry1993
Somewhere in Utah, UT

To WellBehavedWomen | 12:38 p.m. Aug. 1, 2011

Actually, no. President Clinton didn't need a balanced budget amendment to produce balanced budgets (with a surplus each time) the last two years he was in office. He just did it because he was a good financial planner (and he had to fight Gingrich and other Republicans to a standstill to get the balanced budgets). This whole balanced budget amendment rhetoric is just political gamesmanship. Nothing more, nothing less.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments