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
Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

WhatsInItForMe said: "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. ...

-- 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!

And now the rest of the story...

In fact, every Senate Democratincluding Barack Obama and Joe Bidenvoted against boosting the debt ceiling, while all but two Senate Republicans voted in favor.
It was Bushs fourth debt-ceiling hike in five years, for a total of $3 trillion.

How many times has Obama tried to hike the debt ceiling?

Some people learn from their mistakes while other continue partisan politics always.

Howard Beal
Provo, UT

Neither party seems to want to address social security, medicare, or the defense department, the three biggest slices of the budget pie. With the interest being so extreme on the budget, any real budget solutions that leave these slices untouched is smoke and mirrors. It's time to face the reality.

really?
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Sens Lee and Hatch are two of the most hypocritical Senators currently in office. They both know that a great deal of the current debt was created by republican spending during the Bush years. They also know that a balanced budget amendment is not practical and would not take effect for at least 2 years while the states voted on its ratification. They both just want a reason to disagree with the president and pretend to be "sticking to their guns." BTW, I was a Obama supporter prior to this deal. He will no longer have my support due to his unwillingness to fight for new revenue (taxes) to pay down this debt. Anyone who thinks that big oil should keep getting tax breaks while our country is trillions in debt needs to have their head examined.

floridian
navarre, fl

@ Howard Beal et al:

It is the defense budget and those troops who are paid through it that allow social security, medicare, and all the other programs in the federal budget to exist. Having served 23+ years in the AF I recognize that waste exists, but to arbitrarily establish a future defense cut not based on projected threats is absolutely unacceptable. By establishing "triggers" the WH and Congress have,
IMO, recognized that agreement will not take place so they are going to "punish" each party's "favorite" part of the budget. That is certainly no way to run a government. Washington D.C. has failed us, again!

Daryl Acumen
PLEASANT GROVE, UT

Senator's Lee and Hatch correctly understand that this budget "deal" solves nothing. All it accomplishes is kicking the REAL discussion down the road a couple of feet. Without a balanced budget amendment, it's just the same old rhetoric on a different Washington afternoon. We expect leadership form Washington, and with the exception of Senators Lee and Hatch, I haven't seen very much of that. If anything, this whole ruse has underscored the need to replace Obama and to take the Senate in 2012.

Senate Majority Leader Hatch anyone?

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

after the dust settles if we still get our AAA rating downgraded then Mike Lee was correct. Stay tuned over the next few months.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Furry1993 | 1:45 p.m." but Clinton never produced a balanced budget. The best year was about $23 billion in deficits. We haven't had a surplus or balanced budget since 1963.

Here are the figures for the Gross National Debt during the Clinton years:

Year Gross Debt (millions)
1991 $3,598,178
1992 $4,001,787
1993 $4,351,044
1994 $4,643,307
1995 $4,920,586
1996 $5,181,465
1997 $5,369,206
1998 $5,478,189
1999 $5,605,523
2000 $5,628,700
2001 $5,769,881

A balanced budget or surplus should be indicated by a decrease in the gross national debt. Where is the balanced budget?

christoph
Brigham City, UT

Hatch hopes to be in office 42 years; same with Mr. Lee. Neither has ever run a business; their passion is to live off the government, shrink the government so they have a Tues-Thursday work week and tell the rest of us to believe in capitolism.

christoph
Brigham City, UT

Hatch and Lee support two wars but are wishy washy on the funding of them. Perhaps 9-11 bankrupted us and we refuse to believe it; maybe the enemy did win. I am confident Hatch is in favor to continue sending Israel 3 Billion every year just because we should put them up on a pedastal (never mind all the wars they drag us into).

SamESmall
Salt Lake City, UT

Good to see our Senators standing together. It is a bad deal--no real cuts in spending.

durwood kirby
South Jordan, UT

Time for Hatch and Lee to go. They've both been there too long. Oh yeah, Bishop and Chaffetz too.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

It is easy for Hatch and Lee to oppose the deal. Their vote is irrelevant. They knew the bill would pass, so they knew their vote would not matter. Let's see how they feel when their vote really does matter.

Hatch is a marionette totally having his strings controlled by Lee. It is pretty pathetic to watch.

TMR
Los Angeles, CA

Shame on Hatch. In his head and heart he knows a "yes" vote is the right vote, but serving one more term is more important than the economic well being of the country. Lee is a nut; that much he proved during the campaign; however, Hatch has had his moments of lucidity during his long service. Tea-partiers may clog the D-News comments, but this eccentric group is a minority, except, of course, amongst delegates, and this is the contingency that Hatch unfortunately has to impress.

JLFuller
Boise, ID

Most folks do not realize that ther eis an automatic 8% increase built into next years federal budget. Congress doesn't have to do anything for it to happen. It is the new baseline budget that becomes the floor which Congress THEN adds additional increases. so when you see the Democrats whining about "cutting" they are talking about reducing the an additional amount over that amount.

To put it another way, the 2011 base is $100 but the base for 2012 is going up to $108.00 automatically. Then, on top of the $108.00, Congress proposes to add more money. The so called cutting they are talking about comes from the amount Congress proposes to add beyond the new 2012 baseline. So a 3% increase is really an 11% increase from 2011 level. The so called cutting is nothing but a big lie.

JLFuller
Boise, ID

In order for us to get control over the budget, we have to freeze spending. That means what the government got in 2011 is what they get for 2012. Romney proposes to do that and increase just for inflation minus 1%. Zero base budgeting then, if Romney is elected, requires each government agency to justify requests for increases. There is no automatic 8% increase in the baseline budget after that.

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has proposed merging all programs where there is duplication. He says the GAO has found $200 billion per year spent on duplicated programs. But to listen to the Democrats you would think the Tea Party wants to kill everyone's dog and throw old people out in the snow. There is no justification in the attacks on the Tea Party by Democrats other than for partisan political reasons. There is no truth in what they are saying.

Shaun
Sandy, UT

People people people we as a nation never have to go into debt period. It is a farce brought on by corporations. We can issue money debt free into the economy but we gave that authority away to the federal reserve and now we pay interest they create out of thin air.

It's magical isn't it.

nitestik
FORT MYERS, FL

The short way to spell HYPOCRITE is HATCH. Whenever a republican is in the White House, the debt ceiling goes up with his blessing. Whenever a Democrat is there, he suddenly finds his inner fiscal conservative. Thank goodness he's not playing politics with this issue, huh?

goatesnotes
Kamas, UT

With all the negativity registered here, we sometimes devalue the privilege to come into an online forum board like this and spout off to our hearts' content. For all the problems we face, and the unresolved challenges ahead, let us never forget, the informed as well as the uninformed, may shout it from the housetops without fear of reprisal, imprisonment and death.

That's worth celebrating once in a while . . .

MelancholyMe
Ogden, UT

We as a nation now have more people getting handouts than we have people paying into to pool. We have run out of money, and yet we are unable to stop the entitlements that we promised.

Our fate is sealed. Our government will collapse as a result of corruption, over spending, and poor management.

Everyone hold on and enjoy the ride.

really?
Cottonwood Heights, UT

My support for Pres. Obama is now officially over. He once again showed me how little he cares for his "base" and caved in again to the tiny minority of tea party nutjobs. How can anyone with a shred of honesty in their brain not see the need to find at least some new revenue in tackling the debt issue? No one has to like it, or even support it, you just have to acknowledge the necessity of it. You have a huge amount of debt? Stop spending so much and try to find a way to bring in more money - its a simple economic principle that all Americans understand. I will never vote for any of the current crop of republican presidential contenders but I will certainly not vote for Pres. Obama ever again.

to comment

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