U.S. federal debt continues to grow

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RBB Sandy, UT
    July 9, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    GaryO apparently forgets that revenues to the federal treasury nearly doubled under Reagan. But you know, facts are so inconvenient.

  • Patrick Henry West Jordan, UT
    July 9, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    Trickle down economic policies need to be reversed to help turn this country around. In theory trickle down economics sounds great, but its reality is polar opposite of the theory. What Reagan and others failed to comprehend is that the cup of the wealthy would only increase in size - to contain the additional wealth now granted from tax cuts - in almost perfect relation to the size of the tax cuts. It ( Money and wealth) can't trickle down to others if the cup (ahem greed) has increased in size.

    If we want the wealthy to share more with their workers we have two great solutions that work rather well.

    Solution 1: Unions----> Unions increase the ability of labor to protect jobs and capture more of the profit.
    Solution 2: Progressive Taxation------> A highly progressive tax system like in Sweden still encourages making gobs of money, but provides a great incentive to spread the wealth around to others besides yourself.

    I'm ready for the written onslaught by Reagan fans now. GaryO., please support an economic brother.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    July 8, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    What GaryO does not realize - or conveniently omits - is that government revenues when UP every year under Reagan. Carter's last year revenues were $571B. Reagan's last year was $909B. The problem was the spending went up even more. Despite leftist claims that Reagan cut the government to the bone, spending went from $590B in 1980 to $1.064T in 1988.

    Why did revenues increase if Reagan made such a give away to the rich? He did not. Reagan lowered the top marginal rate but eliminated a large number of loop holes. He also implemented the alternative minimum tax to ensure that the rich were not manipulating the tax code. The change, however, encourage people to invest and move their money (allowing the government to tax it). What followed was the longest economic expansion in the nation's history.

    Facts - they are so inconvenient.

  • YoungPuppy west Jordan, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    @Chris B

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

    Lets look at the facts on this one. First The US Deficit is defined as the amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year. Ok lets simply look at the year before he took office and the year of the end of his first term.

    US Fiscal year deficit
    2009 - $1,413 Billion
    2013 - 680 Billion

    So that shows that he cut the yearly deficit by 52% in his first term. The projected Deficit for the next 2 years is

    2014 - $649 Billion
    2015 - $564 Billion

    So by the end of FY 2015 Obama would have cut the yearly deficit by 61% since coming into office. I am sure that you will join me in giving credit where credit is due and thanking out president for living up to his promises.

  • ER in AF Harare, Zimbabwe, 00
    July 6, 2014 2:07 a.m.

    GaryO is right about taxes. We currently are paying on average 14.5% of our individual income in taxes. Prior to President Reagan we were paying 20%. That means we are down around 30%. More spending and less taxes. Yes, someone said we are collecting more than ever, but that is an illusion. Yes it is more, but it is a much smaller percentage and so in the long run it is in real terms much much less.

    Taxes are the governments income. By decreasing taxes in the last 30 years we have decreased our income. At the same time we have increased spending. OK, I am gonna make all ya'll happy. I propose decreasing spending and increasing taxes. It ain't rocket science. More in, less out. But what it is, is painful for all. Less government help and less government pork.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    July 5, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    Hey... politico posters....perhaps per personal pleas will produce pecuniarial parity! Ok.. that was fun..

    But seriously, we have to start demanding that your own elected officials from your party start attacking their own party's guilt in this budget fiasco. Focusing on the flaws of the other party will do much less than making your leaders focus on their flaws. They will fear losing your votes. They don't fear losing the votes from those who didn't vote for them in the past.

    Dems....start demanding a lessening of money toward welfare and other entitlement programs. Repub... start demanding your leaders stop with the tax breaks, and be OK with some logical tax increases.... Or apologize to your kids and grandkids and if you are young...get ready for some serious pain.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2014 11:08 p.m.

    The economy is finally getting over the 2008 crisis. Great work by the present Administration. Dow over 17,000.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 4, 2014 6:16 p.m.

    Obama could issue an executive order to balance the budget.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 4, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    Remind me again which branch of the government creates the budget.... has hat responsibility somehow move from the legislature to the executive branch without us all noticing the change?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    July 4, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    Here's the reality with taxes:

    It is true that the government gets their revenue from taxes. Therefore when taxes are raised the government theoretically gets more revenue, BUT it hurts the economy (does anybody honestly believe that taxing businesses more will lead to job creation?). Thus with a worse economy, the revenue isn't increased much more; they take a higher percentage, but people's wages freeze or drop due to a hurting economy.

    On the other hand, while lowering taxes decreases the government revenue theoretically, it helps the economy. With a better economy the government gets more money. It's a smaller percentage, but a larger number to take from (which is more, 5% of $10 or 10% of $5?).

    The problem we face today is the government is spending too much. Seemingly the only way to pay for government programs is to raise taxes (hence the "tax and spend" name the Democrats get). Raising taxes hurts economic growth, so it's a long painful process for everyone and the government goes into deeper debt to make up for it.

    The solution is to shrink the government and its spending. That will allow them to lower taxes and boost the economy.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    July 3, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    And nobody cares. They may care when they wake up one day and can't access their bank accounts.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    Great jobs report, recovery moving forward. Tea party up creek without paddle.Maybe they can root for someone else's economy to fail.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 3, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    Our leaders want hold school students accountable for math test scores, but can't balance a checkbook.


  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 3, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    To all those hypocrites whose pants are in a twist about the deficit: You have mortgages, don't you? Why don't you stop being such deadbeats and pay for your houses in cash?

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    July 3, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    With the stock market moving up along with the debt, who is making the market rise? Obamamian?

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 3, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    There You Go Again

    And that black guy in the White House also said deficits matter. What do you have to say about that?


    What would we cut? Everything. 1 or 2 percent on every program. You'd be amazed at how much money that would save. And how little it would hurt anyone. One or two dollars per hundred would not kill anyone or any job or any program. Plus get rid of the baseline budgeting which automatically increases certain budgets. Then we would get this deficit spending under control.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    July 3, 2014 12:28 a.m.

    What would you guys cut? Everybody whines about deficits and the debt but there is not one person among us who doesn't have their hand in the cookie jar.

    Do you want to cut defense spending? Fine. What are the economic affects of reducing spending money on defense? Job losses. When a defense contractor lays off his employees who make ships, planes and tanks then it starts to ripple through the economy causing more layoffs.

    Do you want to cut SS and medicare? Fine. What happens when the elderly cut back on their spending? Job losses ripple through the economy.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:20 p.m.

    "we have been collecting more money in recent years than at anytime in our country's history. "

    Due to inflation and population growth. As a percentage of GDP it's lower.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    July 2, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    Probably the most amazing thing about all this is the extent that Obama supporters will go to in an attempt to justify and rationalize the complete abandonment of all accountability and responsibility. If Obama burned down the White House, they'd probably jump up and claim that bedbugs had reportedly been sighted there, and that now they were thankfully eradicated. Astounding.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 2, 2014 10:07 p.m.

    Republican Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter.

    Republican Dick Cheney said that President Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

    Republican S. Carolina Congressman said it is good politics for the Republicans to oppose the black guy in the White House

    Now that there is a black guy in the White House, deficits matter.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 2, 2014 11:21 a.m.


    Thank you for responding to FT, as it saved me from repeating pretty much what you pointed out. The simple fact is, Bush took us to 10 trillion in debt in 8 years. Obama has taken it to 17.5 trillion in a little over 5 years. Simple as that. No amount of convoluted twisting of statistics and percentages can refute that. And, yes, Obama is now standing at worst since WW11. And possibly on his way to being worst ever. I wouldn't defend a Republican President this bad. Why do the Democrats drink so much grape Koolaid for this guy??

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 2, 2014 11:10 a.m.

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

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

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 2, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    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?

  • Loconic Alpine, UT
    July 2, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Loconic Alpine, UT
    July 2, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 2, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Forrest Natchitoches, LA
    July 2, 2014 6:40 a.m.

    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?

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 2, 2014 6:38 a.m.


    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.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    July 2, 2014 6:19 a.m.

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

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 2, 2014 5:01 a.m.

    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.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 1, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    Hey "The Truth" -

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


    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.

  • I Bleed Blue Las Vegas, NV
    July 1, 2014 8:39 p.m.

    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,

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    July 1, 2014 8:26 p.m.

    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!

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:19 p.m.

    @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.

  • David Centerville, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:16 p.m.


    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.

  • jbiking Madison, WI
    July 1, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    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.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 1, 2014 6:24 p.m.


    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.

    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.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2014 4:31 p.m.

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

    He increased it.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2014 3:33 p.m.

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

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 1, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    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.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    July 1, 2014 3:24 p.m.

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