Comments about ‘U.S. federal debt continues to grow’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, July 4 2014 9:20 p.m. MDT

Updated: Friday, July 4 2014 9:20 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

IS this perfectly harmless or is it going to come back and bite us bad?

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

We really need to get rid of Reaganomics ASAP.

Reducing taxes for the highest earners was supposed to create jobs.

Where are the jobs?

Let's learn from our mistakes and double taxes for the top bracket . . . like they were in pre-Reagan days . . . when we spent on much needed infrastructure and other good causes and STILL balanced the budget because we had enough REVENUE.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

barack has added as much to the national debt as almost all past presidents combined

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

barack promised he'd cut the deficit in half in his first term.

He increased it.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@GaryO

Do you understand you can not spend more than you bring in.

And you cannot continue increase taxes on the people and expect a healthy economy.

The need to n be responsibility in spending. The people money should be considered sacred. Handling the people's money should considered a sacred responsibility. Spending is done for too thoughtlessly.
in

And taxation is bringing plenty of money. more taxes is not needed. Proper and scared handling is what is needed.

We do not need the government to do more for us.

jbiking
Madison, WI

Couldn't agree more with @GaryO

Article seems disingenuous as it doesn't accurately discuss what has happened over the past 8 years. President Obama inherited 2 unfunded wars that finally got put on the accounting books. Deficits are still high but are finally going the right direction.

David
Centerville, UT

jbiking,

The 2 wars Obama funded were designed to keep America and our society safe. Without war against the Taliban, disrupting al-Queda, killing bin-Laden and chasing terrorists to Europe, Africa and elsewhere, we would certainly have suffered more attacks like 9/11.

But since you wanted to discuss what happened over the past 8 years, you should throw in cash for clunkers, Obama's cronyism, such as Solyndra, huge financial bailouts for banks by Bush and Obama, an extremely expensive Obamacare website, Obamacare itself, extending entitlement programs,…

We recognize both in programs and the financial numbers that Obama has been a very expensive president.

intervention
slc, UT

@chris b

its funny when it comes time to pass a budget conservatives go on and on about how it is the congress that holds the press strings but when it comes to finding blame for loose purse strings they want to blame the president.

@the truth

you get it half right we cannot spend more then we bring in if we are going to do anything about the debt but pretending that continuing to allowing the wealthiest americans to pay even less taxes then they did under reagan is some how going to solve our revenue problem is beyond reason, the idea you propose we stick with has been in place more then a decade and has done nothing but push the debt up and forced more and more people down and out of the middle class. Trickle down has never worked in the past and it is not working now.

Hamath
Omaha, NE

No amount of political spinning will change facts. Let's try to put it in perspective.

1776 - 2014 is a total of 238 years. It took 233 years to get to a point where our debt was 6.3 trillion. It took 5 more years to get the debt to double. If we take this down to something we can understand, it would the same as taking 23 years to get $60,000 in credit card debt and then with a change of who controls the credit card, 1/2 a year to get another $60,000 in debt.

It's unsustainable. It's shameful that President Obama, the Democratic controlled Senate and the Republican controlled house did not follow the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. Until Republicans voters start demanding that Republican elected officials get it in their heads that there will have to be tax increases AND until Democrats voters start demanding for cutbacks in spending in entitlement programs, we are doomed to continue on this path. And if we fall, it will BE the Democratic voters fault for not holding their party accountable and the Republican voters fault for not holding their party accountable. Long Live Simpson-Bowles!

I Bleed Blue
Las Vegas, NV

Not to worry. We have wonderful, powerful printers and we can print money really fast now! We can hire more people to work to wrk at the mint. Job creation,

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey "The Truth" -

“Do you understand you can not spend more than you bring in".

WRONG.

Ronald Reagan and GW Bush spent more than they brought in all the time. That’s why Reagan tripled the debt and GW Doubled it. It’s called deficit spending, and the Republicans are masters of deficit spending.

“And you cannot continue increase taxes on the people and expect a healthy economy.”

WRONG again.

Both Ronald Reagan and GW Bush shamelessly and irresponsibly bought votes by decreasing taxes, and as a result, revenue was much lower than it otherwise would have been.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, raised taxes for the highest earners, enjoyed a booming economy and balanced the budget four years in a row.

Sorry, but your claims are demonstrably false.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

David -

"Obama's cronyism, such as Solyndra, huge financial bailouts for banks by Bush and Obama, an extremely expensive Obamacare website, Obamacare itself, extending entitlement programs,…"

Let's lend some truth to your distortions, shall we? Solyndra was an investment in an American solar panel company that went belly up because it could not compete with less expensive Chinese solar panels. We NEED to invest in alternate energy and in our own nation. Yes, Solyndra did not work out, but that doesn't mean we should give up on America. BTW Solyndra cost half a billion dollars. That's one ten thousandth 1/10,000 of the estimated 5 trillion we've spent on GW's two wars already.

911 and both of the wars could have been avoided BTW, if GW had been performing the duties of his office . . . instead of lowering taxes for his high rolling friends.

Huge financial bailouts were necessary to keep this entire nation from going belly up, and it's one of the few things GW Bush got right. Those bailouts, BTW, were initiated during GW's administration.

An "extremely expensive Obamacare website??!" Compared to what?

"Independently, the Sunlight Foundation estimated it cost $70 million . . " . . . A pittance relatively speaking.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I don't think you can barrow from Peter to pay Paul. Retribution will come when the the Piper want's to be payed.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

GaryO

Blaming Reagan for billions in national debt, when Obama has added 7 trillion? Buying votes? Which is something the Democrats have done all throughout American history. REALLY?You lose any credibility with nonsense arguments like those. Reagan left in 1989. You want to have any credibility with readers, then defend Obama raising the national debt by 7 trillion in less than 6 years. Anyone and everyone reading this should go to debt clock. com and watch the red ink pour out. Those are the facts. All else, by people like GaryO, is just partisan politics.

P.S. Hamath is correct. Obama asked for Simpson-Bowles, then roundly rejected it. Not smart, and we will be paying the price for the inept Obama for decades to come. And it's technically on the shoulders of those of you who voted for Obama twice.

Forrest
Natchitoches, LA

Let's all listen to what Senator Obama had to say about the rising government debt in March, 2006: "Leadership means that, "the buck stops here". Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." So we got him. Just talk. That's what we have in the White House. Any questions?

FT
salt lake city, UT

Please folks understand how the goverment operates, with revenue (taxes). Revenues as a percent of GDP are the lowest since the 1950's. Currently we are not spending ourselves into debt. We simply are not raising the percent of revenues we have historically done in the past 60 years. The GOP is responsible for this and the growing debt is not what BO is spending it's what the GOP led congress refuses to collect. Our kids deserve better than this, vote the GOP and the radical tea party out of office.

Loconic
Alpine, UT

I read a report this morning about a poll taken by Quinnipiac University here in the USA that was quite extensive covering each region in our country. It was about who the worst president in the US since WW2 is. There have been 12 presidents covering 69 years.

Barrack Obama was the winner of this award, followed by George W Bush, who was 7% behind Obama. Nixon was third in the balloting followed by Jimmy Carter in fourth.

Obama's lack of control of federal deficit spending was one of the reasons he was voted the overall worst. However, there was other reasons given, such as Obamacare and his foreign policies.

Loconic
Alpine, UT

@ FT and GaryO:

I don't know where you two get your information, but some of it is very skewed and unreliable.
In actuality, we have been collecting more money in recent years than at anytime in our country's history. But our spending has been growing at an even faster rate with the size of the federal government growing over 30% since Obama took office. War was responsible for some of the earlier spending growth. But social program spending is currently at an all-time high, which is to expected from Democrat policies and their self-described agenda. Objective observers often refer to such spending habits as buying votes.

Do some reading and investigating for yourselves rather than accepting info from a known ultra-liberal at face value. There are multiple ways of skewing and interpreting data to make some results appear different from what it actually is.
It appears FT is now playing that game. The government has relatively recently redefined what GDP is. That skews recent GDP ratios when comparing to earlier numbers. It's like comparing apples and oranges and can be very manipulative.
Use independent sources in your investigation and read the fine print.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Amazing how someone can be slapping you in the face, and you're blaming people from thirty years ago.

Has Obama improved this country in any form?

worf
Mcallen, TX

I thought our political leaders were to protect the people of this country.

Are there any evidence of our commanders love for this nation?

to comment

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