Quantcast

Comments about ‘Short-term debt deal won't mask big barriers ahead’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 16 2013 9:04 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Here's a solution. Instead of cutting a program or a few programs. Let's just do 20% cut across the board in everything.

Boom! That just reduced our bills by 20%. If that doesn't balance the budget, then cut across the board whatever % will do that. Then you cut another 5% from that number. And use that 5% as revenue to pay down the principle of our debt. Once the debt is paid off then you use the money that was servicing the interest and create a rainy day fund. Once that fund has 5-10 Trillion in it, then you move 80% of that money into the general fund and spread it around.

That wasn't soo difficult now was it? That's what my household would have to do during tough times. We wouldn't be allowed to borrow, tax, print and spend our way to "prosperity".

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Nothong is going to happen, except this comedy of errors will be repeated in a few months and the Tea Partiers will once again bring us to the brink.

Tea Partiers are immune to facts and reality. They live in their own world.

We can't placate extremists--we need to repel and expel them.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Who caused this ask Jason?
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), presiding over the chamber, told Van Hollen that the rule he was asking to use had been "altered" and he did not have the privilege of bringing that vote to the floor. In the ensuing back and forth, Chaffetz said the recently passed House Resolution 368 trumped the standing rules. Where any member of the House previously could have brought the clean resolution to the floor under House Rule 22, House Resolution 368 -- passed on the eve of the shutdown -- gave that right exclusively to the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.
"The Rules Committee, under the rules of the House, changed the standing rules of the House to take away the right of any member to move to vote to open the government, and gave that right exclusively to the Republican Leader," said Van Hollen. "Is that right?"
"The House adopted that resolution," replied Chaffetz.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

The only trouble Ted is that, unlike real people like you and me, no one cancels the government credit cards if they go over limit. And, on top of that, when it comes time to pay the ones holding our debt, we the people will be asked to foot the bill. Can't wait for that one. 75% tax rates (rats) on the horizon, especially if the Dems win all of Congress again in '14.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Liberal Ted. Democrats refuse to cut ANY government program except the military. No entitlements will be cut and Obamacare entitlements alone will explode the debt by trillions every year, thus they must borrow ever more money. One party is working to restore financial sanity to the federal government and the other party wants to keep borrowing, even after they handed us a huge tax increase (tax the rich). Think about the last sequester that forced minuscule reductions in some spending and how Obama told us how it would destroy life as we know it! Nothing he predicted actually happened. Democrats need dependency because it wins elections and keeps them in power. How's a $20 trillion debt by the time we choose a new President going to effect our grandchildren?

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

I can think of nearly 17 trillion reasons why raising the debt limit is a very, very bad idea.

Some might claim "Tea Partiers are immune to facts and reality. They live in their own world." But that is the real world, where unicorns do not magically drop unlimited money to pay for programs that do not work, or duplicate other programs (which might also not work). Tea Partiers also do not ignore that this is a dangerous world, where we are at war (not of our choosing) with radical Islam, and Iran is near nuclear weapons, and the resurgent Russians are becoming a threat again. Thus the TP folks are more concerned about national security than expanding welfare programs.

Democrats talk about compromise, but to them that means "Republicans must give use everything we want and we will delay until the last minute and then blame them if they demand even tiny concessions."

The time for "compromise" with liberal Democrats is long past, and our nation's very existence depends on confronting the ugly truth that we are broke and cannot continue spending at current rates. Raising debt limits fixes nothing, only hides our perilous condition.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

“some advocates say the president and the courts must find a way to stop congressional factions from extracting concessions from the president's party by threatening a default on U.S. obligations… Aaron wrote in The New York Times”

The AP started to write a non-biased article, then the above sentences appeared, showing again that the AP supports the dems not budging, that it is all the GOP’s fault, though BO and harry have shown obamacare matters more to them that everything else in government, including the constitutional requirement that the government’s credit be maintained.

And there will be no default on the debt if Lew abides by the constitution and services the debt before making other payments.

t-seeker,
obamafiles live in their own fantasy world, they are immune to facts and reality. the GOP house voted to open the government, BO and harry voted to shut it down.

rw123
Sandy, UT

I really hate this. Both parties being stubborn as mules. The Tea Partiers being idealogues, not happy till everything is perfect right now . . . in their eyes. And the Democrats being just as unwilling to negotiate. Instead of doing something constructive, they sit across the aisle and point their fingers at one another, saying, he's responsible for shutting the government down, no, he is. Do they think the public is that naïve. What is it with a $16.7 TRILLION debt that doesn't shake some people up? That's a number that should be used in astronomy or physics, not in describing our nation's dept.

As far as I'm concerned we need a lot more strong moderates with character, honesty, and wisdom. Apparently, not many currently in Washington know the meaning of the word, *compromise*, so I'll give it here;

Compromise: *a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.* It's not a dirty word.

Another definition of *compromise* could be: Get off you tails and work together instead of pulling us into oblivion. Quit the gridlock.

SG in SLC
Salt Lake City, UT

@Liberal Ted

Across-the-board budget cutting is one of the worst possible ways to reduce government spending, because it tends to penalize lean, efficiently-run programs that don't have "fat" to trim (e.g., the CDC, generally speaking); conversely, it also tends to under-target "pork" programs that can often absorb at least some of the cuts without achieving significant efficiency gains (e.g., the Department of the Interior's former Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, again generally speaking). Strategic, targeted budget cuts are a vastly superior way to reduce government spending, because they are much more likely to maximize savings while minimizing negative impacts from the cuts.

Unfortunately, for lawmakers who don't know how to compromise and collaborate, and who are afraid to incur the wrath of various interest groups for targeting their pet programs, across-the-board cutting is probably the only viable option they have.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

rw123

I love the line about trillion should only be a number used in science. Not American economics. Especially when talking about debt. I think that what we Republicans, and or T-Party people need to hear from the Democrats before we feel we can work with them is that they even CARE about this massive debt. I actually believe that the liberal mindset, even coming from some economists, is that the debt does not matter and can go on being raised forever. If Obama, (today as President, not when he was smart as Senator) would go back and acknowledge this major problem, as he once did, then I think some compromise could begin. But without that, we really have no beginning foundation from which discussions could begin. It ends up apples and oranges.

to comment

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