Comments about ‘Letters: Deficit spending OK’

Dems are usually happy to Deficit Spend.

Republicans only rail against it when they are out of power.

This is why we run deficit after deficit.

If we had entered the Great Recession with little debt, I might agree a bit more. But we came in top heavy. We simply do not have the luxury of adding more debt. We need to abide by the guidance we gave so many other countries when their debt load was too high and learn to live within our means.

A letter from someone who actually understands that the economy of a nation is different from the economy of a family? Prepare to be eaten alive by the right wingers.

Deficit spending is never ok! Just ask your banker before he confiscates your credit cards or your lawyer before the judge sentences you to jail!

My usual disclaimer - Dems are big spenders.

However, I find it ironic that the GOP leadership that is harping daily about the spending problem that we have all (Boehner, Canter, McConnell, and even Ryan) voted for tax cuts and spending increases which ballooned the deficit.

Many want to retort with "Well, Bush was not a conservative".

Well then, neither are todays GOP party leaders.

The GOP is not really concerned with the deficit. They are concerned solely with lower taxes, regardless of anything else.

I like this approach. Want to lower taxes? Great. Cut the spending first and THEN lower the taxes.

When your debt is over $16,500,000,000,000, and your credit rating has been downgraded twice within the same presidential administration, that's the wrong time for more deficit spending. Even if you think Congress is smart enough to play around with the money supply, America doesn't have any leeway.

People who advocate deficit spending either by the government, by individuals or businesses ignore a very important fact: INTEREST. There is an old but accurate statement that teaches us this principle; Those who understands interest earns it, those that don't understand interest pays it! Interest never gets sick, it never takes a day off. Its is your unseen companion every minute of everyday. Deficits turn into debts and ours is $17 trillion and growing by $10 billion a day and paying the INTEREST on our debt will soon take 50% of our entire GNP. No economy can support that weight!

@ Mounta(i)nman: If you have a credit card or owe money on a home or car, you are carrying debt. And unless you pay off your credit card every month, every time you charge something on it you are deficit spending.

"Interest never gets sick, it never takes a day off"

Let me add

Interest doesn't care how the debt was incurred. So, whether you decide to Feed the Poor or Fight a war, the unpaid balance incurs interest just the same. People need to realize this when they support deficit spending for some things and not others. To your point, Interest doesn't care where the debt came from, or which party incurred it.

I'm really angry when Dems deficit spends.

I happily ignore it when Reagan, Bush I and Bush II did it.

@ Ernest T. The difference is Obama is such a hypocrite about it! During his campaign for his first term, Obama blasted the Republicans for the national debt of $10.5 trillion as being "un-American and unpatriotic, a lack of leadership". So what does he do? Adds another $7 trillion in his first term- record debt growth with no end in sight! Roars of protest from the left have mysteriously turned all quiet from the left these days!

The juxtaposition of the comments by isrred and Mountanman couldn't have been better. First, isrred complimented the letter writer on understanding the difference between national and family economics. Then Mountanman followed up with a comment illustrating the opposite. Pretty funny.

The problem the letter didn't address, however, is that we have been in a pattern for three decades at least of not running surpluses in times of economic expansion, excepting a couple of years during the Clinton administration. If Republicans would let us increase taxes during economic booms, we might get the debt under control. But no, we can't pay for what we've already agreed to spend. That is somehow more immoral than keeping taxes so low that we'll never come close to breaking even.

So, Mountanman, let's increases taxes enough to provide healthcare to every citizen, rebuild our badly deteriorating infrastructure, take care of the elderly and disabled, defend our country (without attacking every Tom, Dick, or Saddam we don't like), invest in educating our next generation, and a thousand other things we seem to think are important. Maybe we could save a little money by reducing the salaries of our elected Congresspeople.

@ Kent C. DeForrest

The problem the letter didn't address, however, is that we have been in a pattern for three decades at least of not running surpluses in times of economic expansion, excepting a couple of years during the Clinton administration.

=======================

I would have loved to address that, however, even letters to the editor must be under 200 words. That is where politicians seem to fail in running an economy. It's hard to get reelected on "tightening our belts." President Obama may have been the first politician to successfully run on a platform of "raising taxes."

When it comes times to make cuts, nobody can agree on what to cut. Every proposed cut affects some Congressman's district, or Senator's State. I think the best way to make the tough chouces is to place term limits on Congress. It's easier to make a tough vote when one knows they cannot run for reelection.

Yes debt can help accomplish things like buying a house, which would be impossible for most families without getting a loan. Similarly debt can do things for the government. The problem comes when the debt becomes the norm, rather than a temporary means to an end. Debt then becomes the method of living beyond the means. But that can only last for so long, and then disaster comes.

Our government has moved into the danger zone and is normalizing living beyond its means. Anyone who can't see that has their head in the sand.

What a relief, to read a letter by someone who actually understands macro-economics. As for Twin Lights' comments, I do take your point, sir. But as we look around the world, we can clearly see how damaging European-style austerity has been. We can actually sustain, short-term, a bit more debt.

Thanks, Darrel. Excellent points.

You can behave one way they complain when someone else behaves the same way. Shouldn't that be a rule? It was a conservative think tank that invented the philosophy to run up the debt when in power then blame the opposition when the other side came to power. They have played it brilliantly for 35 years.

Then why hasn't deficit spending worked in places like Japan? They continue to stagnate and yet continue to deficit spend.

Ok liberals, if deficits are so good, why did the 2008 Senator Obama say "And that's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay -- and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control." Isn't he saying that deficits are bad? If Obama said that a $400 billion deficit is bad, what does that mean about a $1 Trillion deficit?

To "Wanda B. Rich" I have a better plan that will leave us with a smaller government and eliminate the deficit. How about we set the budget to pay for only those things specifically mentioned in the Constitution? You will have to be responsible for your own healthcare, and will need to actually put effor into taking care of your neighbors.