Economic chaos ahead

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Feb. 9, 2012 12:32 p.m.

    The way failing leaders get out of economic chaos is by starting a war.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    Folks like redshirt and Earl are right.

    Lets quit investing in America.

    Lets just give more tax cuts to the rich, deregulate wall street even further, create a needless and wasteful new part of Medicare (lobbied by Big Pharm and voted in favor by Newt Gingrich) and start a few more wars.

    That worked so well over the past decade...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 9:02 a.m.

    To "marxist" so you want us to take the word of a highly leftist economist? You realise tha Richard D Wolff fully supports the Occupy movement, and that movement is nothing more than a liberal front that would add more socialist entitlements to the US government.

    Before people go looking up Richard D Wolff's ideas, they should realize that he is a known Marxist, and that any of his writings will be in support of marxism.

    If the US was a fully marxist state, I would trust his opinions, but since we are not, I will go with the economists that believe in capitalism.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 12:18 a.m.

    For a very different perspsective on the debt situation go to Richard D Wolff's website - Wolff's acandemic pedigree is better than Williams' but more important he looks at issues Williams and his Deseret News handlers cannot see.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:50 p.m.

    Could a war in Syria or Iran, cause more economic chaos?

    "U.S. military beginning review of Syria options

    By Barbara Starr

    Although the U.S. focus remains on exerting diplomatic and economic pressure on Syria, the Pentagon and the U.S. Central Command have begun a preliminary internal review of U.S. military capabilities, CNN has learned."

    The options are being prepared in the event President Barack Obama were to call for them. Two senior administration officials who spoke about the review to CNN emphasized that U.S. policy for now remains the use of non-military options.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 6:21 p.m.

    We will soon have an opportunity to elect a republican. In the past four years, they have learned all the answers, and in the next four years will fix all the problems.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Feb. 8, 2012 2:20 p.m.

    Earl,

    If, as you say, "government will ALWAYS outspend whatever taxes are collected." Then there is no hope and no need to try to change anything as the end is coming.

    Either we can and will learn to do better or we will not. If the latter is true, then discourse is futile and our fiscal and political death warrant already signed. Eat, drink, and be merry . . .

    As Roland Kayser points out, Ron Paul (who is a Libertarian, not a Conservative) proposes eliminating at least as many taxes as he does expenditures. Your worry would remain unabated.

    I believe we can live within our means. And it will not be under the meat axe proposed by Mr. Paul. Unless we are bypassing the Constitution (is it passe?) there will need to be agreement from at least the Congress (if not the Supreme Court as well) for such sweeping changes to be put in place.

    Our Constitution specifically protects us from the perils of an imperial President - even from a President with whom we agree. That is the way it should be.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 1:47 p.m.

    To Earl: Eisenhower delivered three balanced budgets, and the rest were very close to it. He did that with tax rates being much higher than they are now. That's why I think he is the best President of my lifetime.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 1:34 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    I do not receive Social Security. When I am old enough, I WILL receive it, or I will be reimbursed by the Federal Government, with interest, for all "contributions" that I and that my various employers made into that fund. There was no choice. There was no "opt out".

    Until FDR packed the Court, EVERY ONE of this programs was being found unconstitutional.

    "it (the Court) voided the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act. It struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act on January 6, 1936, the Guffey Coal Act on May 18, and the Municipal Bankruptcy Act and a New York state law setting minimum wages for women on May 25."

    The Railroad Retirement Act, which was the model used for Social Security, was declared unconstitutional.

    Only after Van Devanter resigned from the Court and FDR appointed one of his followers as a Justice was he able to get the votes necessary to keep Social Security.

    The Court wrote: "We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open." It was never declared to be Constitutional!

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    our country needs to grow its wealth so that the babyboomers can afford to retire.

  • Earl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:44 p.m.

    Federal spending declines are not actual declines. They're a decrease in the rate of spending, but total spending ALWAYS goes up. There have been brief episodes where receipts exceeded spending, but that was soon followed by an increase in the rate of spending and a dip in total revenues because of tax cuts. When taxes are cut, expenditures need to be cut, too. Wake me up when that happens.

    Our economic problems are not caused by taxing too little, and "a little more" taxing is not a cure. The federal government's appetite is insatiable. That's why we're headed for serious trouble.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:36 p.m.

    J Thompson | 12:01 p.m. Feb. 8, 2012
    SPRINGVILLE, UT

    FDR ignored the Constitution and instituted Social Security in 1935. He violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution. It took 80 years, but now we can see the folly of his unconstitutional action.

    LBJ ignored the Constitution and instituted Medicare in 1965. He violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution. It took 45 years, but now we can see the folly of his unconstitutional action.

    ====================

    If that is so - and what you whole-hertedly believe,
    As a senior citizen and recipiant of said Programs,
    Are YOU willing to take the moral high ground, obey the Constitution and for-go them?
    or
    Is this just more empty rhetoric?

    BTW - They were both challenged in Court and upheld as Constitutional,
    Politics and Differences aside
    as a Tax payer myself - I have no problem helping you out.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    The problem would be eliminated IF the Federal Government did only what it was authorized by the Constitution to do.

    FDR ignored the Constitution and instituted Social Security in 1935. He violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution. It took 80 years, but now we can see the folly of his unconstitutional action.

    LBJ ignored the Constitution and instituted Medicare in 1965. He violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution. It took 45 years, but now we can see the folly of his unconstitutional action.

    Money is collected and then mixed with the general fund instead of being held for the purpose that it was collected. If a lawyer did that, he would be prosecuted. If an insurance agent did that, he would be prosecuted. When a politician does that, he is re-elected to office.

    Because the CITIZENS are too lazy to stop Washington from passing illegal legislation, the CITIZENS will continue to be lied to. They will continue to be taxed for illegal programs. Dishonest politicians will continue to be elected and re-elected.

    It is up to the CITIZENS to stop the nonsense. Washington never will.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 8, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" once again you are wrong.

    The conservatives have proposed many cuts. You forget that the Republicans on the debt committee proposed many spending cuts. The Democrats stopped the cuts from being implemented.

    If increasing taxes is the way to go, explain how you get people and businesses to spend more when they have less to spend?

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 8, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    The Apocolypse has arrived. The Koch Brother's tea party activists are either warming up to the GOP presidential front-runner or reluctantly backing him after abandoning hope of finding a nominee they like better. You know something else here, Mr. Obama has ordered new sanctions against Iran's central bank for engaging in deceptive practices. You know, I got a better idea. How about sanctions against our GOP banks for deceptive practices?. It's like a game of survivor. Who can lie, outlast and outwit to the end will win. The difference may be who is willing to pay the most to get into office. It's all about these cafeteria style Constitutionalist that uses their political theories if and when it fits them and when it effects them alone, with a no waiting staff table service, in their private Patriot restaurant or within an institution of the Tea Party. That's what they think is their "Constitutionalist Platform" is to spout off about. That crashed America.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    Whatever the motive, it's bad, divisive, destructive politics - the defining feature and long-term legacy of the Koch Brother's, Tea Party and RINO GOP plus ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics regime.

  • Earl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    @ Roland: there's lots of muddiness in that assertion. The question it doesn't answer is this: does spending EVER equal less than revenues? Can you show me a time when government spent less than they brought in, or even equaled it, especially since the time of FDR? That's my whole point. Their spending is ALWAYS significantly more than revenues, tax increases or not. That's why Dr. Williams is correct about the coming economic chaos.

  • The Politics of Listening A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:44 a.m.

    Yawns LOUDLY, Walter E. Williams failed to bring up real economic chaos ahead in this election year. With Republican's like Newt (there's plenty more like him still in Congress to), that still wants to build a 5 star resort yet on the moon, and for security guards do more costly research and then development for "star wars." When the GOP Congress still bows down to K Street and Wall Street Corporate sneakiness, outright-scams and con-games, Koch Brother's and ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics, deregulated for kickbacks for the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams," (of corn and sugar cane), with more corruption, and "crony capitalism" game of survivor. Who can lie, outlast and outwit to the end. So what's the difference?. Does the GOP Congress want the poor and middleclass to use reflective tape on their horse-drawn buggies rather than bright orange triangular signs because they can't afford a auto?. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it's possible to sustain today's level of federal spending and even achieve a balanced budget, if we tax the rich more. That, right now, pay no taxes, they just stuff their monies in off shore tax save havens.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:33 a.m.

    Walter E. Williams failed to bring up real economic chaos ahead in this election year. With Republican's like Newt (there's plenty more like him still in Congress to), that still wants to build a 5 star resort yet on the moon, and for security guards do more costly research and then development for "star wars." When the GOP Congress still bows down to K Street and Wall Street Corporate sneakiness, outright-scams and con-games, Koch Brother's and ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics, deregulated for kickbacks for the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams," (of corn and sugar cane), with more corruption, and "crony capitalism" game of survivor. Who can lie, outlast and outwit to the end. So what's the difference?. Does the GOP Congress want the poor and middleclass to use reflective tape on their horse-drawn buggies rather than bright orange triangular signs because they can't afford a auto?. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it's possible to sustain today's level of federal spending and even achieve a balanced budget, if we tax the rich more. That, right now, pay no taxes, they just stuff their monies in off shore tax save havens.

    My views.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    To Earl: Ron Paul has indeed proposed a trillion dollars in cuts. He has also proposed eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, the estate tax, and taxes on dividends. If he did that, he'd have to eliminate virtually everything the government does to balance the budget.

    William Niskannen, the head of the ultra-conservative CATO Institute, published a study a few years back in which he analyzed tax rates and federal spending for the past several decades. He found that when taxes are cut, spending increases, when taxes go up, spending declines. Apparently if you make people pay for the cost of government services, they'll settle for less.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    President Obama has made it pretty clear he isn't interested in funding social security with his "payroll tax cut" (and he's not interested in cutting spending anywhere else to offset that) so can we please stop calling Republicans irresponsible tax cutters now?

  • Earl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    The only real conservative running for president is, of course, Ron Paul. He's offered a plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget in one year by eliminating the Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments, the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that what you'd call a "cut nothing" conservative? I'd say that's a pretty good start.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:46 a.m.

    What we have here is:

    The same old Tax and Spend "Liberals"
    vs.
    The Tax reducing, Cut Nothing, Deregulate, and Spend even MORE $$$ "Conseervatives" of the last administration.

    Given those 2 options, I favor the first.

  • Earl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:20 a.m.

    Why is the answer always a tax increase (among the more socialist-prone, anyway)? Here's the problem: government will ALWAYS outspend whatever taxes are collected. If revenues increase by 1%, our benevolent politicians will increase spending by 1.5% or more. When will the tax increases stop? For those of us against tax increases, we see no end. What's wrong with now? Why always later (a later that never comes)?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:17 a.m.

    It is always somewhat disingenuous when people lump Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid together as one problem. Social Security currently consumes 5% of GDP, by 2035 that will rise to 6%, where it is projected to stay. That is not a crisis. A tax increase equal to 1/2 of 1% of GDP combined with a benefit cut of the same magnitude will take care of it.

    Medicare/Medicaid is entirely different. The problem is not really about numbers, it is about how we practice medicine in this country. No amount of tax increases and benefit cuts will make Medicare solvent. We need to reform our medical system and everyone will have to give up something.