Yet another study that's WAY too far behind the trend...
The plain and simple fact of the matter is that federal government growth and
spending has increased under President Obama at unprecedented levels. He's
added more to the federal deficit than all other previous presidents combined.
Our federal deficit has grown exponentially faster than our population growth
and at rates that fiscal conservatives have been trying in vain to warn about.
Other countries can see what our spending issues will be doing to
us. China (our biggest debt holder) has now quit buying more USA debt (bonds)
since they understand our current policies will unquestionably result in
inflation, thus eroding the value of the dollar. Its inevitable since we're
currently adding $85 billion in new paper money each and every month, which our
Federal Reserve has been doing as part of it's "quantitative
easing" program without any corresponding increase in GNP. Almost every
college student who passes their macro-economics 101 class understands that
inflation will eventually have to be the result. Without further action,
economic chaos will eventually result. Unfortunately, this latest
warning about our out of control federal spending will fall on mostly deaf ears
in Washington, since getting re-elected is a higher priority.
OK all you Obama supporters, note that this article comes from AP, not DN. I do
laugh at the "New study" warning us of this. How much of a study does
one have to do to understand that a 17 trillion dollar debt and growing (see
Debt Clock. org. real time) is going to eventually bring budget problems? If
one goes there, note the difference between the amount being spent (borrowed
money) vs. the amount of income to the treasury. We know Obama and the
Democrats will never do anything to change this trend. Therefore, unless the
Republicans get the White House, House, and a super-majority in the Senate,
nothing is going to be done, and the well will run dry. It will take
legislation as big as Obamacare was to fix the problem.
Telling this to Democrats is a waste of time. They don't care! In the
meantime, the ice at Antarctica is at an all time high for this time of year and
the quantity of ice at the N. Pole is 60% more than normal.
People are entitled to what they earn.They are not entitled to what
Lets see. A country that is 17,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt, and that has
fiscal surplusses for 4 of the last 40 years, and that would consider a federal
defecit of 500 billion dollars to be a year of painful, draconian restraint;
that country is headed for trouble. Well, duh!
It takes a study to tell us the negative consequences of these things?
The irony is that two of Obama's biggest "wants" are Obamacare, and
MORE illegal immigration.Between those 2 issues the 17 trillion, (if
he gets his wishes)will be chump change!
Only 8 comments so far, but I do notice that no Obama supporters want to try to
defend this spending. And if they do come aboard, watch for the name Bush to
appear. So many times on this issue I've read that Bush spent us to 10
trillion with his two unfunded wars, but that the 7 trillion added by Obama is
no big deal.
We need to properly fund retirement benefits. And get health care under one
umbrella as a single payer system. We spend plenty enough on health care but
lose it all to greedy insurance companies and so called providers. Since I know
none of this is going to happen, and we had nothing but surpluses and happy
people before President Obama was elected, I'm sure we can go back to a
republican president in a few years, and they'll fix everything.
That's what I expect them to do, nothing less.
What "recent improvements to the deficit" are you talking about. I
contiues to grow. There is NO recent improvement.
@Tators"The plain and simple fact of the matter is that federal
government growth and spending has increased under President Obama at
unprecedented levels. "Actually growth from 2009 to 2013
(budgets are submitted the October of the previous year so 2009 is a Bush budget
year, though influenced by things during 2009 so it's really Bush/Obama) is
one of the slowest growth rates for an administration in over half a century.@SCfan"And if they do come aboard, watch for the name Bush to
appear. "Wouldn't want to disappoint you.
@Mountanman"and the quantity of ice at the N. Pole is 60% more than
normal."That is completely false. The statement with the 60%
that would be accurate is "Arctic sea ice area is 60% larger this time of
year than it was last year" and last year was frankly extremely anomalous
shattering the record by a massive amount. It's still significantly below
average (7th lowest out of the 30+ year record) despite natural weather patterns
being unfavorable for ice melting (unlike last year).
@ atl134. Environment, News Releases, Research, Science "Despite
warmer air and oceans, there’s more sea ice in Antarctica now than in the
1970s – a fact often pounced on by global warming skeptics. The latest
numbers suggest the Antarctic sea ice may be heading toward a record high this
year." Similar ice increases have been measured at the N. Pole this year! So
you see, the hoax is being exposed! But you go on believing if you want to.
Let us not lose site of what this study was telling us, lest we fall again into
a favorite past-time of blaming the other party..."It was Bush! No,
it's Obama!"Ridiculous.We are heading to
bankruptcy. We are enslaving future generations so that they will have
NOTHING. We must wake up and insist that leaders change government spending.
Obama is in the White House now. Will he hear this message? Watch to see what
he does.And Republicans only seem to care about eliminating
Obamacare. I still say we need statesmen who will stand and speak
the truth, leading the country in the right direction. Will there be enough
voters to give sufficient political power to such a statesman?
David: Well said. My concern is not whether there is enough voters to give
sufficient political power to such a statesman, but whether such a statesman
even exists. The closest we have come in the past 50 years are Ronald Reagan
& Bill Clinton. But I have not seen anyone in the current political realm
even remotely close to their caliber.
To Mountainman,Ice pack in the Arctic is 60% above what was seen
last year (2012), not as you sayabove normal. Last year, 2012, was the lowest
icepack recorded. Icepack for 2013 is still 30% below average for years dating
back to 1982. Using statistics bring with them greater
responsibility to be accurate because they carry such weight. When they are
wrong, and because a number is easier to remember, they often are spread
(erroneously) more than what someone's erroneous opinion might be
spread.If your point is that Democrats spend a lot of money and
often look at an issue, and even more importantly a solution to an issue, from
the wrong angle, then I agree with you. But using wrong data to support an
opinion undermines not only your position, but often the correct solution for
Whenever I am reading an article in the Deseret News and smell the stench of
"spin" I look to the top expecting it to be an Associated Press author
and it almost always is.