Deseret News | Obama pushing to rein in $11.99 trillion deficit

Reader comments
Obama pushing to rein in $11.99 trillion deficit

GTO | 12:58 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Obama was going to spend us into prosperity, but now he is going to "save" us into prosperity! Is this what he meant by "change" as in changing his policies every week? Keep trying Obama, someday you will get something right! Even a broken clock is right two times a day!

Just a Ploy | 6:45 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

The first step to reducing the deficit is to abandon all new spending initiatives. That includes medical care reform and the stimulus package. Obama and his "something-for-nothing" supporters of course want nothing to do with that approach and will no doubt use this faux concern about the deficit to initiate a huge tax increase that will likely kill the economy.

Repay debts. | 7:00 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Cutting spending is just the start, they must also repay our debts to establish a solvent economy and country.

This mindset of other countries buying up america is also dangerous and disastrous for america. We should be buying back america, not selling it out. This would require a triple digit cut in spending as well.

Not only must our congress and legislators remember is that there are millions fewer americans paying taxes on top of the 20 million illegals that don't pay either. As well as the business that employ the 20 million illegals don't pay.

We not only need limits in spending we need a reversal of all long and short term debt. Reversing debt is the only thing that will curb inflation and add more value to the US dollar in the world. This country is way over its head with debt that cannot sustain or provide growth in jobs or the economy.

The efforts of spending cuts must be real and not a paperwork shuffling event.

Comments continue below

If he is serious.... | 7:12 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

he can start by terminating the stimulus program. Then return the program's unspent "borrowed money" whose source was a piece of paper from the red ink and no money-containing "federal budget". At least returning unspent funds would help reduce the red ink.

Then he can do his part to reduce spending by staying home more. That's what the rest of us are doing. He should lead by example.

KM | 8:20 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

This is one confused communist leader. He doesn't know which way is up. I understand that he has had a lifelong education from the likes of Ayers and Wright and Alinsky, and this is why he is so misguided. If only the telepromter would tell him to say something that makes sense.
Either he is for balancing the budget (not) or he is for breaking us financially (yes) He cannot play it both ways and deal in a world of reason.

Dead Broke | 9:12 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

I can't take any more with any government officials making cuts to the budget and adding taxes on my back anymore. If they don't tax us out of existence, they will be soon selling off citizens to other countries to pay back the enormous debt load that has been accumulating for the last several presidencies. It has to stop now or as a country we are finished.....

Koker | 9:44 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

The great Obama experiment is a proven failure. Let's impeach him and move on.

Utahn | 11:49 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

The magic of tax and spend liberalism. When you declare you want to pull back a bit, its called reining in the deficit. Then you go and ask Congress to increase the debt ceiling and continue to spend. Its sophistry at its finest.

MormonDem | 2:28 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Half of our debt is from Bush's tax cuts for the rich that we couldn't afford and from Bush's war that he shouldn't have waged.

Republicans whine about taxes on the rich, then whine if budgets are cut.

The fact is, Republicans have NEVER been fiscal conservatives. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all ballooned the debt. The last president to have a balanced budget was Clinton.

Obama didn't take office wanting to increase the debt, but disastrous Republican fiscal policy left him no choice. Now he's trying to get things under control.

And of course, all the Obamaphobes can to is complain no matter what he does.

Blatent Hypocrisy! | 2:31 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Spend money like a drunken sailor and when that backfires, pretend you are "saving" money! Democrats, you reak with hypocrisy!

RE: MormonDem | 2:28 p.m. | 5:05 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Clinton had a REPUBLICAN congress that wrote all spending and budget bills,

perhaps they should get some thanks too,

after all, anyone can sign a bill.

(although I heard the clinton people were doing some creative accounting in those days)

Ace | 7:07 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Let's start with the military. If we were to eliminate the bulk of the military and keep only a small group of highly trained and mobile commandos we'd save a boatload of money. We face no danger from nation states and the military is useless against terrorists so it's time to let them go.

I'm also sorry the US government saved GM and Chrysler. US automobiles are not competitive in the world market and it's time to let them go too. Americans will still buy cars so let's just let the Japanese, Koreans and Germans build their cars here and employ US workers. Their cars are better anyway.

Next I think we should eliminate the wage cap for Medicare. All people should pay the same percentage for social taxes, not just the poor and middle class.

We could consider selling the interstate road system, in all or in part, to private investors. In real estate alone that would raise enough money to make serious progress toward eliminating our debt. The private companies would certainly run it better and collect tolls as the market allows.

Re: ACE | 7:18 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Yes, we don't need the military do we? Let's not defend ourselves, lets surrender to our enemies and all convert to Islam!
We don't need any successful businesses in America, do we? We can buy everyting from China and Japan. Only problem is, where will people work and pay taxes and support their families! Oh I forgot the government will give us everything we need, right?
Yes we don't need highways do we? Why should we, nothing needs to be transported because nothing is produced and no one has a job to travel to.
Utopia!

Anonymous | 7:55 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009

So what you are telling me is that we DO need a government to do all these things. It seems spending all this money ISN'T a waste of money like most posters here claim. I was posting a satirical comment just to provoke a response like yours. Of COURSE we need all this stuff. We need to spend money for the common good, don't we? Where are we going to get that money? I'll give you a hint: Form 1040!

All you anti-government folks crack me up! When someone shows you what life would be like without it you just about fill your breeches! The military IS part of the government. So is much of the nation's infrastructure like roads. The bailout SAVED American jobs at GM and Chrysler. Now if I can just get you to see that the common good will also be served once the government reins in the out of control health insurance industry and real reform makes coverage universal I'll be satisfied.

Utopia doesn't exist but we could do a much better job than we have been doing!

Charlie Brown | 11:21 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Good grief.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

1 photo

Charles Dharapak, Associated Press

President Barack Obama speaks during a joint news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, not pictured, at Kantei, the official residence of the Japanese prime minister, in Tokyo, Friday.