Quantcast

Comments about ‘My View: Congress needs to realize we're broke’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 16 2013 12:12 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize new spending, it just pays for what has already been spent by congress.

And we are not broke, we simply have too many people that don't want to pay for the warfare and infrastructure of america that they demand.

And as afar as I can tell, republicans are cashing those social security and farm bill checks as fast as any democrat.

one old man
Ogden, UT

And exactly who is responsible for the excessive spending?

Hint, it's not just Democrats. And it certainly is not Obama.

But trying to research the truth is much more difficult than just listening to hate radio for all your "information."

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

"So it is time for them to suck it up, and cut down on spending. They should not raise the debt ceiling again. Our government needs to learn how to live within its means."

Simplistic reasoning. Yes, we need to learn to live within our means, but part of that involves increasing our means by paying for what we really do need with taxes rather than debt. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be disastrous on all sides. In fact, the only positive I can see out of that scenario is that the Republican Party might blow itself up in the process. It just might be worth it. The debt ceiling is just a stupid self-imposed limit that no other country has the idiocy to adopt.

And we're not broke. When I had a mortgage, I had lots of debt. More than I could pay off with my annual income. But over time I paid it off. The government can and should do the same. But it will never happen if we keep doing things like paying for wars and drug programs with tax cuts.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

3 hours reading the spending bill you say?

Let me ask this then --
Where WERE you for 8 years when BushCo went on his unbridleed spending spree?
Where WERE you for 8 years when he not only spent like a drunken sailor, but LOWER the revenues to pay for it?

I suugest spending less time reading HOW the current President is trying to fix the mess he inherited,
and more time on how we got here in the first place!

Grundle
West Jordan, UT

Re:Open Minded Mormon

Your comment, IMO is the crux of the problem. First of all, I have been on these forums since they started. WHERE WERE YOU? I have seen your tag only once.

Next statement. Your assumption that criticism of the current administration is an implied acceptance of the former is part of why it is so hard to have a dialog.

I disapprove of the current administration for many reasons.

I disapproved of the Bush administration for many reasons.

Those reasons are different.

By 2006, I felt completely unrepresented. I think many felt this way. That is why the tea party rose to prominence. I do not associate directly with the tea party but am sympathetic with some of its grievances (OWL also!)

The statement you made "...when he not only spent like a drunken sailor, but LOWER the revenues to pay for it?" is ignorant in that the revenues for the majority of the Bush years actually increased.

The statement you made "...BushCo went on his unbridleed spending spree?" Is what alienated a lot of conservatives from the Republican party.

Lets focus on the task at hand.

Oh..And I was right here...speaking out.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . who is responsible for the excessive spending? Hint, it's not just Democrats. And it certainly is not Obama."

You're right, in suggesting our spending problem is not limited to Democrats. ALL deranged, vote-buying liberal politicians, of whatever political stripe, are responsible. Along with the "low-information" voters who place them and return them to office.

But to suggest the President is "certainly" not responsible?

I'm embarrassed for you.

Just this morning, he proposed half-a-billion in new, unnecessary anti-gun spending. This, notwithstanding the fact we're already spending almost double what we take in, and that his latest spending spree will buy nothing valuable for America, though Democrats hope it will buy them a few, very expensive, votes.

As the article points out -- Congress does, indeed, need to realize we're broke and immediately begin the necessary task of defunding the looney scams being perpetrated on American taxpayers, including this latest in a long, LONG series of the President's.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Procura -- I guess I do have to agree with part of your post. It's those "low information voters" who returned Hatch and Chafetz and Bishop and most of our state legislature and our governor and who selected John Swallow who are the real cause of the problem.

You got one thing right at least.

The Taxman
Los Angeles, CA

Dear Barbara JolleyMumm,
I commend you for your accomplishments in life and your desire to learn about the legislative process, but caution you to keep reading and studying. Members of the Joint Committee on Taxation, their staffs, and other very talented Congressional staff members spend countless hours crafting, discussing and educating Members regarding tax legislation. There are incompetent unknowledgeable Representatives for sure, but the notion they have "three minutes to read, understand and then vote on any bill" does not accurately describe the legislative process concerning tax legislation.
Also, the notion that the United States is "broke" couldn’t be more false. Because of its sovereign power to tax, the country’s wide economic base, and the ability to print money, the US Government cannot be compared to a family, a business, or a country like Greece. Truly we need to spend less and continue to grow our economy, but people who claim we are "broke" (like Pro-whatever) are displaying their ignorance or dishonesty, and come across as foolish to people with economic training. As you continue to learn, you will realize that too. Continued...

The Taxman
Los Angeles, CA

@Barbara JolleyMumm

I am most disturbed by your conclusion that we "should not raise the debt ceiling again."

The only real risks our country faces as a result of spending beyond our means are future inflation/borrowing costs (which are very low today). However, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, we will immediately bring that result upon ourselves. Truly, GOP Congressmen are acting like little children threatening to burn down the house if we do not immediately do what they want. This does not need to ever happen if we work together and act responsibly.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . people who claim we are "broke" . . . are displaying their ignorance or dishonesty . . . .?

Possibly. Or maybe it's those who claim we're NOT broke. Let the evidence decide.

When you're in hock in your operating accounts in an amount greater than the total you can expect to receive over the coming year, and when 40 cents of every dollar you spend is borrowed -- real people would say you're broke.

When you've borrowed against your long-term, "investment" accounts, leaving only IOUs as security, and when you're upside-down in those accounts to the tune of some 20 times your expected annual receipts -- real people would say you're broke.

When the only method you have available to you to surrender those deranged mountains of debt amounts to ripping off your creditors by inflating your payback currency -- real people would say you're broke.

There may be some gnostic, arcane, taxman definition of broke that posits you're not broke until you can't dig any deeper into that hole, but real people would say it's WAY past time to stop digging.

The Taxman
Los Angeles, CA

@procuradorfiscal

Knowlege and the common sense application of that knowledge (regarding accounting and economics for example) may seem "arcane" to you, but they can be mastered and applied to understand the world.

1) Fact: leverage is good. It has serves our country and buanesses around the world well. Without leverage, our economy and businesses would be much smaller and we would not have our high standard of living. For many many years we have spent more than we brought in, so for many many years we have been "broke" under your nonsensical definition.

2)RE: "When you've borrowed against your long-term, "investment" accounts, leaving only IOUs as security" This statement is pure nonsense. We've invested our funds in Government Securities issued by the most credit-worthy government on earth. What would you have had us invest in?

3)"When the only method you have available to you to surrender those deranged mountains of debt amounts to ripping off your creditors by inflating your payback currency..." This is a total lie. We can tax, we can issue new debt, and we can grow our economy.

If we are broke, why are interest rates low? Your view doesn't align with reality.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Fact: leverage is good."

I think we've discovered your problem -- faulty logic.

Leverage -- defined as the use of borrowed capital, in the expectation of a return higher than the interest paid on the loan -- is, and should be, a foreign concept to government financing.

We can't "leverage" government debt, since the interest on the "loans" -- government securities -- is a sunk, unrecoverable cost, that can't be paid back out of investment "profits."

Liberal sophistry aside, the federal government will never make a profit by "investing" in its own debt.

The federal government should be required to operate in a fashion similar to many states -- on the basis of mandated balanced budgets. Except for true emergencies, when it's out of operating capital, it should be required to stop operating.

I know that cramps the political style of liberals, who've become accustomed to buying votes by leveraging our future, generations out.

But such a policy has the advantage of being based on sanity, unlike current policy.

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

"We can't "leverage" government debt, since the interest on the "loans" -- government securities -- is a sunk, unrecoverable cost, that can't be paid back out of investment "profits.""

This is the silliest thing I have ever read by an obviously confused person. What does that sentence mean and who suggested that debt can be leveraged?

By the way, states have debt (Utah has lots of debt). A "balanced budget" means a state is generating enough revenue to service its debt, not that is doesn't have debt or is not continuing to borrow.

The bottom line here is that in today's world, nobody makes loans to anybody who is "broke". So either Proconfusidorcal and the letter writer are wrong, or the whole world (who are eagerly loaning funds, even bidding interest rates on US debt to near zero) is wrong.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

These same people would never think of refusing to raise the debt ceiling when a republican is president. It's all about pride and spite.

to comment

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