Quantcast

Comments about ‘House OKs debt; Giffords brings down the House’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Aug. 1 2011 5:36 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Just Do it
OREM, UT

patriot | 3:26 p.m. Aug. 1, 2011
Cedar Hills, UT
re:ER in EUR

your numbers are bogus. The spending over the next 10 years is nearly 5 times the amount of cuts proposed and that is why Moody's and others are not impressed with the bill.

"Moody's expects us to get serious about cutting spending and controlling it long term and it is quite obvious that Obama is not serious about either."

The reason our credit rating is likely to be reduced isn't spending because most credit rating organizations understand that spending isn't the problem. Most credit ratings are based on the fact that you spend money. Those who do not spend money have LOWER credit ratings. Its on our ability and willingness to pay and to do what is necessary to pay all current debts that the credit rating organizations consider.

Once you spend money the question they ask is "are they willing to do whatever is necessary to pay bills." We recently saw talk of deliberately defaulting on current government debts and a Republicans argued that finding more income was not even an option and we would default before finding more income.

Just Do it
OREM, UT

Spitvalve | 6:22 p.m. Aug. 1, 2011
Denton, TX

"This bill is all smoke and mirrors and DOES NOT address the problem. When we rank and file people run up our credit limit, we can't use our credit cards anymore. Why should our leaders be held to a different standard?"

Your analogy is seriously flawed. This bill' sole purpose (with all the added nonsense necessary to get certain people to agree to it) was to raise the debt ceiling so the Treasury would have authorization to pay current debts. This is comparable to authorizing your bank to pay your creditors what you already owe them.

It's not about whether the government should continue to spend more money so the the government wasn't held to a different standard. All arguments about cutting spending and raising taxes were not central to issue and were only political theater. Over the long term we will need to cut spending and raise taxes and those who refuse to do either are pathetic. Try that with your creditors in your personal life and you won't need a second job because you will be homeless after they seize your assets and garnish your wages.

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

After reading the anger in the above posts, I would like to ask this question: "With their storied history, why would anyone expect the US Congress to solve any problem?"

Just Do it
OREM, UT

Re:Fred44

"For those who want cuts, what are you going to cut? Defense, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare account for 80% of the budget. If you don't raise any taxes, you will not be able to cut without touching the big 4. The Republicans want to cut, but they don't want any defense cuts, so that means we are down to the big 3. Republicans you cant get us out of debt with cuts only unless you hit the big three its time to put your plan for cutting social security, medicaid and medicare on the table."

Those who want to reduce the national debt need to look at seriously cutting defense spending if they want to rely on cuts and not raising revenues. They simply don't understand that Defense spending represents 54% of all spending by the federal government and 80% of all interest on the National Debt is the interest accrued on defense spending. So the bulk of the interest on the debt is defense related so increases in the debt itself are primarily defense and not entitlement programs.

Removing defense spending from the table means we must eliminate 100% of all other government spending to reduce debt

The Politics of Listening
A Tropical Paradise USA, FL

Don't ya just love those 2 RINO's from Utah that can't get enough Pork and Earmarks and know how to play that game very well, and can't stand a Constitutional balanced budget amendment, Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Mike Lee will both vote against the legislation when it comes before the Senate. I say it's time to retire them both come 2012. The last few weeks are proof that politicians are incapable of solving anything.

My outsider view.

peter
Alpine, UT

How do you solve a borrowing/spending problem by borrowing and spending some more? This is like placing a bandage over a gaping wound. Lending institutions would have to close their doors. No correct thinking parent would give their child a new credit card if that child maxed out another card. No wonder the world despises America. This is utter stupidity to even conceive such a plan, let alone go along with it. The blind are leading the blind. It's time to find and vote in new leadership, ones who can actually lead with vision and common sense.

Richard Saunders
Provo, UT

@Fred44 I'm a registered Republican and I would like to see Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cut but also major cuts to Defense spending. Luckily there is a candidate that I agree with in this regard, Ron Paul. One Republican who is serious about balancing the budget and not needing a balanced budget amendment as political cover. One Republican who is serious enough about the budget to talk about all the money poorly spent overseas and the trillions that the wars cost us, along with the invaluable loss of life. It's time to say no to compromises that punish unborn generations and prolong the inevitable. Ron Paul 2012

Resolute Voice
Salt Lake City, UT

Time will tell if Rush and Beck were wrong, I doubt that they are. This deal stinks and should be killed. Obamacare needs to be killed; no new taxes, cut all discretionary spending, cut redundant programs, refund left over porkulus money, force the liberals and Rinos to live within their means, eliminate base line budget gimmicks, and get serious. This "plan" is not aggressive or hard enough.

Nice to see Rep. Giffords but I question her mental competence to cast an informed vote. This is no time for symbolism or showmanship. She needs to heal not be part of a photo opportunity by a liberal and complicit media.

2012 matters folks and if you want to repeal this crap then real Conservatives need to be put into office with veto proof majorities in both houses and the Presidency.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Resolute Voice,

Feel however you like about the debt vote, but Rep. Giffords has endured more in seven months than most of us will have to deal with in a lifetime and for you to question her "mental competence" just so you can throw a partisan temper tantrum is just sad to see. Stay classy.

As for the particulars, they say that if the extremists at both ends of the spectrum are angry at you, you've probably made a decent deal. Based on the reactions here and at uber-liberal sites like Daily Kos, I'd say that sounds about right...

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Banks,Wall Street, and business are going to have to look long and hard at the 2 parties and figure out if it makes sense to keep backing the party that put the country's credit rating at risk, causing untold anxiety and uncertainty. The inmates are in charge of the asylum called the Republican Party.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@Resolute Voice

"...force the liberals and Rinos to live within their means..."

So the tea party can ram their budgets through for increased military spending, more aircraft carriers, more tanks, more bombers.

All the tea party does is yell CUT and CONSTITUTION yet offer nothing concrete to cut. How about act like adults and actually tell us what to cut. How about farm subsidies, how about base closures, how about tax breaks for oil companies, what about bonuses for congressional staffs? No, it is much easier just to shout CUT.

No thanks - I'll take the balanced approach any day.

Resolute Voice
Salt Lake City, UT

To:KJB1

Rep. Giffords was shot in the head by a maniac. She has suffered a certain degree of brain damage. Questioning her mental ability after only seven months of intense rehab is not out of line. Her vote was not needed. The numbers were there to pass this bad deal. Her handlers should have known better than to use her in such a pawltry way.

As for my "tantrum" every American should be outraged. The future of my children and my state have been sold down the river by a bunch of people who have no idea what living within their means really is all about. I do not want Utah to go the way of California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Illinois, and New York. Taxed and regulated into oblivion. Liberals are destroying this great country. All this deal did was give a bad President another blank check now and cuts later. That may play well in liberal California or Oregon, but here in the real West our way of life and our Western values are under attack. Classy is standing firm and holding the line as opposed to the west coast plan, cave, capitulate, and spend.

No thanks.

Wastintime
Los Angeles, CA

re:Resolute Voice
CA was not "destroyed" by liberals. In fact, CA had a surplus until the Enron debacle (courtesy of Rep Phil Gramm) which cost the state $40-$45 billion. CA also suffered when the dot-com bubble burst. It is difficult, nearly impossible to raise taxes due to the requirement of 2/3 majority in the legislature for approval. CA has had to deal with its recent budget issues without raising taxes. It was actually a Utahn, Howard Jarvis, who added to the budget constraints with Prop 13 in the 70's.

I would assume the "bunch of people" you are outraged at include Bush and Republicans...

MormonDem
Provo, UT

The Tea Party approach to avoiding an economic apocalypse sometime down the road is to have a preemptive economic apocalypse now.

The Tea Party is truly dangerous to American ideals of compromise: they say "Give us what we want, or we'll take the whole country down with us." It's hard to win in a game of brinksmanship against an opponent who isn't really afraid of taking the country over the brink.

You have to admit, though, the Tea Party is getting more efficient: it took them two years to determine if Obama was a citizen. They almost destroyed the economy in a matter of days.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

Resolute Voice,

To question Rep. Giffords motives speaks to the problem we have in this country. To imply that her motives were political is inappropriate. America, both the right and the left should celebrate her courage and her perseverance. But it seems we have a need to politicize and demonize any action by the "opponent" what a sad commentary on our society.

You are right that our children's future is being sold down the river, as is our own future. Blame however is not owned by liberals, it is owned by all of Washington. This problem did not happen in the last 2 years, it has taken years of mismanagement by career politicians to get us to this point. It is time for grown-ups to sit down and solve the problem. That means both sides working together, that means both sides compromising, that means the extreme positions of both parties need to be marginalized, and real solutions need to be generated. The blame game is not the answer. someone, anyone needs to come up with real solutions, not sound bites that are designed to advance a political career not solve a real problem.

one day...
South Jordan, UT

The gobernment spend money like americans spend money, without brain and not thinking about the future, the spending problems started years, years ago not with Obama (he is helping to add more).
Politicians don't care, because we will pay, they will get their paychecks without any problems.
Maybe another loan from China will help!!! ha ha that was funny

to comment

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