Published: Wednesday, Sept. 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
If cutting the deficit was a priority then Mike Lee wouldn't be talking
about creating more entitlements and handing out more money to irresponsible
people. His family tax credit only proved how much of a phony his "deficit
hawk" desires really are.
This is a really stupid idea! I can't just go to my bank and say,
"Gimme more credit." I've got to live within my means, why
can't the goobermint?
Nah, too reasonable. There's no way they'd go for that.
Absolutely right. The debt ceiling shouldn't even be a matter of political
debate. Most countries don't have anything like it, and it's not
constitutionally mandated. It's routine business, and should be routinely
Every time they raise the debt ceiling, Congress just spends until we face the
next crisis. What would make this time different? When does the circus stop?Personally I have no problem increasing the debt ceiling but I am very
skeptical it will bring Congress to serious discussions on the budget or
spending. So, a year from now, or two or five years from now, we'll be
right where we are ... only worse because the hole is deeper.My
children have borrowed money from me and I have increased their "debt
ceiling" now and then due to their changing circumstances. But we sit down
and review their financial situation before I bail them out, not after. That
doesn't make any sense at all.
Give me another drink of alcohol then we can talk about going to an AA meeting
to get help.
Congress controls spending. Congress determines where the money goes and through
what channels. Congress determines borrowing limits. Congress controls the debt
ceiling. All of these things are managed by congress. Who is in charge of
congress? John Boehner. The government cannot spend money without his signature.
If the current congress cannot manage the country's finances in a way that
inspires confidence, then they need to be replaced. Including John Boehner. But
they cannot be replaced with a group of people who just say no to everything.
They have to be replaced by a group of people willing to compromise and work
together on spending. Unlike the current congress. The problem is not national
leadership. The problem is not state leadership. The problem is congressional
Richard, stop it! You're talking common sense. You're being
reasonable. Stop it. We can't deal with this sort of talk. We prefer wild,
reckless, irrational, dangerous, partisan political rhetoric, especially if it
proves that we hate the president. That's really all that matters. If we
oppose Obama on everything, somehow this country will be a better place and all
of our problems will magically disappear. Compromise is so 1787.
Give the president more debt capability, so he run off and campaign for gun
control is more like it. Once he gets the money, he will be gone from the
Washington governing scene.No thanks. I don't want more debt,
although I know it is inevitable, but at least have a spending reduction plan
firmly placed into law, and I don't want gun control either.
joe5,The problem here is that both parties (but especially the GOP)
are half-Keynesians. They agree that deficit spending is necessary during
downturns to prevent catastrophe, but they refuse to tax sufficiently to produce
a surplus during economic expansions. Instead, they somehow think they can
simply slash their way to a balanced budget. But drastically slashing government
spending would simply produce another recession. Ideology has held both common
sense and sound economic policy hostage for some time now (since Reagan). We had
a brief reprieve during the Clinton years, but the Bush tax cuts and the
absolute refusal by the GOP to allow them to expire has left us with no way out
of this corner we've painted ourselves into. Ever wonder why Romney/Ryan
never were willing to put any numbers to their bizarre balanced-budget claims?
Nonconlib: My company has had four labor reductions this year. They had staffed
to support a certain business level, then found that they could only earn about
3/4 of their projections. The quickest way to get healthy was to reduce the
labor force and suffer the negative results.So goes the government.
Earnings will provide only a certain level of spending. They can never earn
enough to put everybody on the government payroll. The quickest path to fiscal
health is to reduce their budget to match their earnings.I disagree
with the half-Keynesians. Deficit spending offers no long term benefits. It just
kicks the problem down the road. Are we really so selfish that we will saddle
our children with the bill of our self-indulgence?We will never be
confused with the "greatest generation;" those who gave their lives in
WWII so we could be free of tyranny. We won't even sacrifice our lusts for
the next generations, much less our lives. Do we really need the latest cell
phones, big screen TVs, satellite dishes, and video games? What do you have that
you would be willing to sacrifice for the future?
@Noncomlib@joe5Noncomlib is correct, the government should act
to smooth the ups and downs of the economy. The government should spend more
than it takes in during recessions, and should make up for it by taking in more
than it spends during the good times. This will keep the economy going during
recessions and will keep it from getting superheated during good times. Even Milton Friedman, conservative economist extraordinaire, didn't
think deficit spending is bad. What is important is that the deficit spending
be on items that have value. If we do deficit spending, it should be spent on
things that will need to be done anyway, like (1) repairing/expanding
infrastructure, which benefits the economy in the long run, (2) educating our
population, which again benefits the economy in the long run, and (3)
diversifying our energy sources, so we are not so dependent on forms of energy
with hidden long-term costs. And yes, we need to run the government
with a surplus during good times, rather than cutting taxes. It's like
saving money when you're employed, so you can live off your savings when
you're laid off.
skeptical: I don't disagree. As I mentioned in my first post, I don't
have a problem with raising the debt ceiling. In my own finances, I have periods
of deficit spending when I've purchased a car or a home. But whenever
I've done that, I had a plan to satisfy the incurred debt. Where is the
plan from the government and where is the commitment to adhere to the plan?You're living in Normal Rockwell world with the paradigm you
propose. It ain't gonna happen because spending buys votes. So what
legislator is going to want to make the hard decisions when times are tough and,
even more, make the rational decisions when time are good.The
argument you make is sound. But I hope you don't consider me naive enough
to believe it will work with our current way of managing the country.
The article had merit until he included the part about the rich paying their
share. They should, but their contributions would not make a dent in the now
almost 17 trillion in debt. Just today I was reading an article about the
richest Americans and at about 70 billion sits Bill Gates. Take every penny he
has, and that 70 billion is a drop in the debt bucket. Take even 50% from the
rich and it won't come close to solving the problem. FatherOfFourYou do realize that the Republicans control only 1/3
of government don't you? Boehner signs the legislation that ultimately get
to him by Obama and Reid in the Senate. So your idea of throwing the bums out
is noble, just don't forget to throw them ALL out.
Skepitcal---We were paying down the debt during good times, when Clinton was
Pres. Then Bush and "deficits don't matter" Cheney decided that was
too responsible, let the next guy (Obama) worry about it.
mcclark: Like most liberals, you have your facts confused. The debt was not
being paid off during the Clinton administration. In fact, the national debt
increased every year Bill was in office. However, the Republican Congress
demanded a balanced budget and growth of the national debt was very low.In 93-94 (two years), under a Democratic Congress, debt increased ~$500M
($250M/yr).In 95-2000 (six years), under a Republican Congress, debt
increased ~$700M ($116M/yr).The same situation repeated itself in
reverse since Clinton.In 01-06 (six year), under a Republican
Congress, debt increased ~$2.8B ($467M/yr).In 07-12 (six years),
under a Democratic Congress, debt increased ~$7.85B ($1.31B/yr).Facts can be messy things, can't they?
Current revenues ARE sufficient to fully fund SS and medicare, pay interest on
the debt, and fund defense.“The Obama administration is
correct in refusing to play politics with the debt limit.”Eric,Absolutely right! BO’s misadministration WOULD be correct in
refusing to play politics with the debt ceiling, but that is just what he is
doing. Why do you think he went on a rant monday against the repus? he was
playing politics.Fatheroffour,Blaming it on the house when the
senate won’t even vote on the house budgets, and BO says he would veto
house budgets is disingenuous at best. Everything coming out of congress is
loaded with dem pork or the senate won’t even vote on it and BO would veto
it.mcclarknope, no debt reduction during slick’s
administration. According to the treasury dept, gross federal debt INCREASED
every year under slick. No reduction, no balanced budget. Please stop
Lost in DC and Joe5You need a lesson in modern economics.
Government debt has always been based on its ratio to the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). Relative to the GDP the debt did go down under Clinton. By the way the
biggest debt creator in recent history was Ron Reagan, he tripled the federal
debt. Obama will never come close to that.
After dealing with this idiotic issue for decades now, I think my biggest
complaint is with the corruption of our language.When this arbitrary
and seemingly meaningless amount can be raised so often and with such little
regard to rules of simple economic common sense, why do we STILL refer to it as
a debt "limit" or "ceiling"?Both of those words, in
this context, are meant to convey some sense of limitation or maximum. However,
as we've seen so many times and for so long, our national debt
"limit" is anything but!!
Joe 5 1998 99.28 B Surplus 1999 176.16 B Surplus 2000
320.76 B Surplus 2001 168.16 B Surplus Bush's first year
2002 205.2 B Deficit 2003 47.8 B Deficit 2004
511.14 B Deficit This does not count Bush putting two wars on the
country's credit card that we will be paying for the next 25 years. Facts
are facts and combining years to come up with the math you want does not change
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments