Published: Friday, Feb. 14 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
Why do they keep calling it a debt ceiling?
It is just such commen sense that any person who works for money, needs money,
or spends money should understand. Whether Democrat, Republican, or Communist,
everyone should see that it is impossible for anyone, or any government, to
continue to borrow and increase a debt forever. So when will any of our leaders
in Congress or the White House, with the exception of people like Mike Lee,
finally realize that something has to be done to stop this expanding debt? If
it isn't stopped by us, it will be stopped by a financial meltdown with
inflation looking like Germany in the 1930s. And some of you might actually
remember what came out of that. History repeats itself.
Before I die, I would like to meet ONE Democrat politician that cares about the
national debt! They don't care but our children and grandchildren will
care. What is our entitlement greed doing to their futures?
"Using the debt ceiling as a political football is telling the American
people that this country’s full faith and credit can be sacrificed, and
that’s not irresponsible." Huh? That is too irresponsible. This
must be a typo. And I agree, it's time for everyone to get
together and rein in social security and medicare. Our politicians are
chickens. Don't join the AARP until they get reasonable. And to the
majority of well off older persons, be willing to give up some benefits for the
fiscal health of the country.
I echo "Nate", from Pleasant Grove, who asks why we still call this a
debt "ceiling".Referring to this completely meaningless
number as a ceiling or limit while routinely ignoring what both those terms are
meant to imply (a point beyond which we will not go) is now far beyond being the
almost comical example of irresponsibility that some comedians used as joke
fodder 30+ years ago.Now, with a debt exceeding 17 **trillion**
dollars (not including "entitlement" debt, which would raise it to
beyond 100 **trillion**) and steadily climbing, it is a Damoclean sword, ready
to smite us for our chronic fiscal imprudence.Our continuing
dishonesty and denial are no defense for the inevitable economic calamity that
is absolutely inevitable unless we reverse our course. I desperately hope we
do. But, if only for the sake of honesty, I must admit I doubt we will.
Hello Mountanman, I'm Pragmatist. Nice to meet you. I to care about the
debt, and guess what most democrats do care. We care differently than you do,
so maybe that counts as not caring, I don't know. First of all
from a national perspective it's not true that a debt can't continue
to grow forever. It doesn't mean it should, it just can, if the GDP
continues to grow. As a nation's citizenry continues to grow
and an economy continues to change entitlements will always be
"unsustainable" if you look far enough out. Again it doesn't mean
they are bad or faulty it simply is a snapshot of a moving object compared to a
static process.There are all kinds of levers to pull to re-adjust
such a situation. It's just the conversation about which lever to pull and
how much, needs to be had within the realm of reality, and that's the issue
with likes of the tea party. They are fighting two hundred old wars
within the walls of a made up world.
Was there any mention of revenue reform in this article? How can you discuss
debt reduction without mentioning how revenues are collected and how much is
needed? I'm all for Mike Lee pushing the issue of debt but let's not
forget his and Ted Cruz's foolish strategy last Fall cost this country over
25 BILLION dollars. Not since Bill Clinton's passage of his 1992 Deficit
plan(which not one Republican voted for) has there been a serious effort by
Washington to reign in our Debt. A leader has to lead and Mike Lee has not been
able to do that. So far, outside of BO and Ted Cruz he's been one of the
most divise, do nothing members of Congress.
There is no doubt that the GOP is to blame for our debt problems, but it
isn't the current crop of radical right wingers that are to blame. The GOP needs to remove the historical blinders and review the well
documented monetary failures of the Bush/Cheney administration. It
will take more than Obama's 8 years to repair the Republican damage.
What's wrong with raising taxes? If we want to resolve our
national debt then we need to stop playing around and realize that a tax
increase is necessary.
FT has hit the nail on the head. There will be no debt reduction without
revenue reform. Looking at historical tax revenue as a fraction of GDP, we (the
United States) are collecting almost 5 basis points to little in taxes. For
example, during the God of all Republicans (Ronald Regan's) administration,
the federal government collected an average of 18.5% of GDP in taxes. During
the entirety of the horrible socialist Barak Obama's we are averaging just
over 15.5% of GDP in tax collection. All while dealing with a much larger (as a
percentage of the total population) population of retirees using Social Security
and Medicare. The editors of this paper are as foolish as the general public
when it comes to federal debt. There are two ways to lower debt (although you
would never hear it from the clowns who run this paper); you can reduce spending
or you can increase revenue (or both if you really want to bring the debt down
fast). I would really love to see an adult discussion that includes both
options. Unfortunately, all you will ever hear from Republics is "cut
spending, cut spending!!!"
Prag....Our debt right now is surpassing GDPFTI'm
glad that you at least recognize that BO is very divisive.Lib
LarryAlmost too wrong to even comment on. But here goes. Since 2009
Obama and Congress have added 7 trillion to the debt. The Dems have been a HUGE
part of our debt problems.Real MavYou could tax all the
billionaires, and millionaires 100% and hardly even touch the trillions of
dollars we have in debt.
An excellent opinion piece.We do need to get our house in order.
That must include entitlements to be meaningful at all. And sidestepping the
foolish brinkmanship of the past year or two was essential.Two
additional points.First, the bad blood created over the past few
years is a serious problem. Nobody wants to consider doing anything that
originates from the other side of the aisle. Besides the sheer question of
votes (you need a majority to pass legislation) this is really too bad - because
both sides have good ideas (once you get the shouters to sit and be quiet in a
corner somewhere).Second, as mentioned by FT above, we need to
consider revenues. Much of that could likely be handled by simply patching many
of the holes in the current tax law and making the effective tax rate closer to
the nominal tax rate.
Barack has added as much to the national debt as almost all past presidents
combined.And he still thinks he's not spending enough
Our monetary system is debt based. It always has to expand otherwise monetary
contraction will occur.The only way to solve this, is to move to a
debt free based monetary system.
@LiberalLarryOur kids deserve more than this. Every discussion
can't degrade into "He started it!" If we continue to care more
about the blame game than the present opportunity to fix the problem, we will
never get anywhere. Obama hasn't done anything to fix the debt problem.
Even if Bush has started it, Obama has been every bit has reckless.
A major problem is states, like Utah, demand the feds spend money. But, of
course, we want other states to have fed funding cuts - but not us. Look what
happens every time cutbacks at HAFB are proposed. Our leaders spring into
action to keep the money coming in. Utah is a welfare state. It receives more
in fed funds than it pays into the system. WE are the problem.
Obama is taking a measured approach to reducing the debt. The deficit has
dropped every year of his administration. As to the big 2009 outlay, sometimes
you have to borrow a lot to save yourself from disaster. Then you pay it off
gradually. That's the way we all work. No need to panic as long as GDP
continues to grow.
Re: "Why do they keep calling it a debt ceiling"? (Nate)Because it limits how much the government can borrow in our name.We may keep changing what the limit is... but it's still a
"ceiling"/upper-limit. The current ceiling/limit prevents the
government from borrowing more, when that limit has been reached. Then they
have to fight to get more money from their mom's purse. But I
acknowledge that we will always just increase it.===RE:
"What's wrong with raising taxes?" (Maverick)You
evidently don't think things through. Every tax increase takes money out
of the economy (and puts it into the Government). A tax increase means people
have less to spend every 2 weeks. That means business have their revenue cut
by that percentage. So profits dip. So people get layed-off. Those people
have no income to tax, and instead drain the government coffers.So
if you think it through... in the long run you have less working people to tax,
less sales to tax, less investing to tax... so LESS Tax revenue overall, if you
just raise taxes every time you want more money.
Are you kidding! What is this, Saturday Night Live?
Let's translate the "debt ceiling" debate into terms we can
understand.Your friend has gone to Wendover, and spent every dollar
they have gambling. They have maxed out their credit cards, mortgaged their
house, hocked the family jewels, and put their car up for collateral. It is
obvious they have a gambling addiction problem.Now, you want to help
them overcome their problem. As a good friend, you can either (a) loan them a
million dollars, or (b) drag them out of the casino and force them to stop
gambling.Well, Congress chose to loan themselves another million
dollars (borrowed from their children's credit card, by the way...)We need some adults in Congress who recognize that the problem is not
the amount of money being borrowed, but the amount being spent.Some
say just raise taxes. Well, every time in the past they have promised to cut
spending if taxes were raised, the tax increase happened, but none of the
spending cuts. Fool me once...Stop the spending, and borrowing, and
pay off the debt!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments