Debt-ceiling showdown coming in the Senate

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    2bits, you are absolutely wrong on your assumptions.

    Conservatives do not want to really reduce the debt. That is just a talking point they use to attack democrats. But they are definitely not serious about it. Nobody is serious about debt reduction if their position is for increasing defense spending, getting involved in more wars (Iran) and cutting taxes.

    You are also wrong about what led to the increase of debt after the Clinton years. You claim increased spending did this. You are wrong. Increaed spending AND cutting taxes did it. You cannot have huge spending increases, including two wars, AND massive tax reductions and expect anything BUT a huge increase in deficit and debt. Also the people that did this WERE conservatives. You might want to run away from that, but Cheny and Bush and the Republicans in Congress WERE conservatives.

    Also, are you aware that if W Bush had followed the debt reduction plan left for him by Clinton the national debt would have been paid off in full long ago? It's true. We would not have a national debt right now if Bush and the conservatives had not messed it up.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    Let's put the blame where it belongs: regardless of the administration it's the House that must initiate spending bills, and the House that can refuse to fund.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    No, I do not think Republicans care about deficits or the national debt, but Conservatives do. Not all Republicans are Conservatives, just as all Democrats are not Liberals.


    History shows Republicans spend almost as much as Democrats.

    The last time we actually CUT the deficit was during the Clinton Administration. And lest you think Clinton did it... you need to realize that CONGRESS controls the budget (not the President).

    That's why I don't join the bandwagon blaming Obama for all our budget problems and our debt. The President sets the priorities, but he doesn't set the budget. Only Congress can cut the deficit.

    The Congress we had during the Clinton Administration cut entitlements (remember "welfare reform", and "contract with America", and the "first 100 days" promise)? It worked (but not permanently). We eventually slid back into yearly debt increases because most voters really WANT spending on entitlements (both parties). Even though they won't admit it, BOTH parties like votes, and spending buys votes.

    CUTTING spending is painful (especially for politicians who need votes). Eventually the majority loses sight of the target and want liberal spending again.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Feb. 13, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    What a crock. Both parties are bought and paid for by offshore globalist bankers. This whole thing is just a dog and pony show to distract you from the real issues like fukushima radiation off the coast of California.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 13, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    Maverick and Roland. This article is about the debt, not the deficit and yes I know the difference. The deficit is what causes the debt to increase and comparing the deficit to the GDP is irrelevant and not an honest measurement of our economy. Did congress just raise the debt ceiling again or didn't it? That is exactly the point. All the deficit tells us is how fast the debt is going up, nothing more.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    Mountain man, please stop getting debt and deficit confused. They're not the same thing.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    Mountanman: Nowhere in my post did I discuss the national debt.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 13, 2014 6:27 a.m.

    @ Roland Kayser. You and others need to be called out about using false numbers about the GDP and the national debt. According to Wikipedia, "The United States' nominal GDP was estimated to be $17.1 trillion in December 2013, approximately a quarter of global nominal GDP." Since we know the actual GDP is about $17.1 trillion and our national debt is now about $17.3 trillion, our GDP to national debt is over 100% and increasing. Please stop trying to deceive people.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 9:03 p.m.

    @2bits. Do you honestly think republicans care about deficits and the national debt? If you do, then how do you explain Reagan's, Bush Sr and GWB contribution to the national debt?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 8:57 p.m.

    Passed again. Tea party loses again big-time. tough to take a no compromise stance that leads to compromises.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 12, 2014 6:33 p.m.

    "and now the President is asking for yet another blank check to keep increasing our debt without doing anything to reform Washington’s spending problem,”

    Still dont get it, eh?

    Raising the debt ceiling allows the country to pay for things that they bought in the past. It has nothing to do with future spending.

    That is the job of congress. It has nothing to do with the president. Every dollar spent was voted on in the house and the senate. And passed both.

    Not the bill is due.

    It is not a tough concept, but one that so may seem to either misunderstand or purposely mislead.

  • Michael Matthews Omaha, NE
    Feb. 12, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    @ Real Maverick,

    So if in 200 or so years, your company or family or whatever, went into debt by 100,000 dollars. Then there is a new person in charge and in 4 years, they bring the debt up to 170,000. They do this in just 4 years! Would you say that he or she was not as big of a spender as previous leaders of your group? Instead of just saying "the fact is", use facts please. Roland's argument is much more convincing.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Feb. 12, 2014 3:36 p.m.

    “I intend to object to any effort to raise the debt ceiling on a 50-vote threshold. I will insist instead on a 60-vote threshold, and if Republicans stand together we can demand meaningful spending restraint to help pull our nation back from the fiscal and economic cliff.”

    The bill passed 55 - 43. Hopefully the first step in the senator's road to irrelevance.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    Judging from 2 bits first post, it's pretty obvious that he got the sequester and the tea party government shutdown mixed up.

    The truth is, Obama isn't near the spender Reagan or Bush were. If you don't want big spending then please don't vote republican.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    The sequestration was not what the Obama team and Democrats wanted, they wanted a clean debt ceiling increase. It was Republicans who forced there to be cuts, and because there was no agreement on which things to cut from that's where the sequestration came from.

    Defense is one of the highest rated things in surveys of what Americans want to cut. It's still below 50% supporting those cuts but less than 50% support any category of cut when asked about a particular other than foreign aid. People want defense, they just don't think we should spend as much as the next 10 highest nations in defense spending combined.

    If the debt ceiling isn't increased spending would have to be slashed around 20% instantly (was 30% in 2011 but our deficits are smaller now) which is going to affect things a lot of people like in some form or another. Whatever is chosen there'd be complaints.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    I wasn't talking about the shutdown (but you have to admit the administration tried to insure that was as painful as possible too).


    I was talking about Sequestration. The last time Congress got tough on increasing the debt limit. Remember the administration's threats to cut only stuff Americans want (Defense)?

    Remember the standoff when Congress stood firm on the debt limit unless cuts were made to entitlement programs? The Administration refused to cut anything unless Defense was cut equally (or more)? So there was a standoff. So they had to resort to sequestration. Remember the painful sequestration cuts?

    Goggle "Budget sequestration 2013"...

    Sequestration was setup as a fail-safe in the standoff between the Administration and Congress in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), and were postponed by two months by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 until March 1 when this law went into effect.

    The Administration insisted DEFENSE be cut first... which is what most Americans want the Federal Government to fund (it's in the Constitution).

    There are also examples of threats to cut law enforcement and education first (IF Congress dares not increase the debt limit).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    "the current administration has already proven that they will do everything in their power to make the cuts as painful to the American people as possible (And that's NOT the way to do it)."

    Those weren't cuts. That was what happens when there's a gov't shutdown. By law those things (parks, etc.) were unfunded and had to be shut down.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    @2 Bits;

    What planet are you living on?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    I think we need to wait on any debt limiting measures until there is a Republican administration in Washington. If we pass limits now... the current administration has already proven that they will do everything in their power to make the cuts as painful to the American people as possible (And that's NOT the way to do it).

    We can't just cut across the board, or cut some non-critical temp workers, or paper-pushers, or admin staff. We have to make sure the first things cut are the most painful to the people (military, police, national parks, education, etc).

    No wonder people have been trained to hate cutting back. Even though we COULD do much of it painlessly... to play politics with it in Washington... they must make it as painful and noticeable as possible.

    If there were a Republican in the White House when spending easing starts... he may have an interest in making sure it's sustainable and as pain free as possible (instead of cutting the most important things first).

    IF you cut spending now... I guarantee the administration will make it as painful and intrusive to our lives as they possibly can.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 12, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    The budget deficit for FY 2009 (Bush's last budget) was 9.6% of GDP
    The deficit for the current fiscal year is 3% of GDP, and for next year is projected to be 2.6% of GDP, which is about for the last 40 years.

    You just can't make the case that the President has not been dealing with spending and budget concerns.