U.S. debt limit has been stretched far enough, just say no
Please urge your U.S. senators and Congressman not to vote to increase the debt limit above $14 trillion for any reason. All the gloom and doom stories about default are (balony).
If the government can no longer borrow on our grandchildren’s future, they still will collect plenty of money from current taxes. However, they will then have to prioritize what is important to pay and what is not. They need not default on the debt.
However, foreign aid would have to stop. Uncle Sam could no longer play big shot with money he does not have. Whole government programs that have been in existence for years with no benefit to taxpayers like the Department of education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Homeland Security (which is currently waging war against the American people), Department of Energy (which is presently controlled by environmental extremists like Al Gore, etc). All these wasteful, illegal (as defined by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) federal bureaucracies should be eliminated.
The taxes the federal government collects are sufficient to pay on the debt plus pay for needed programs as determined by a priority evaluation. In other words the government will have to prioritize just like individual citizens have to do. In truth, the insanity of borrowing on our children’s and grandchildren’s future should have never been started.
Gerald N. Wiggins
South Lyon
Comments
Mike
Sat, Aug 6, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.
Welcome to the downgrade nation! Our affirmative action President has taken us to the precipice of collapse. Impeachment hearings need to start now!
John B.
Mon, Aug 8, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
Huh? You make no sense whatsoever. The Republican party hijacked the AAA-credit of the United States and manufactured a 'crisis' for political posturing. Their only concern is to limit Obama to a single term, even if that means plunging the USA into another Depression. They should all be removed from office ASAP for that crime.
David Briegel
Tue, Aug 2, 2011 : 4:26 a.m.
nosuv, ghost, I prefer to more accurately call it Perpetual War Profiteering. The last war America won was WWII. We sent 55,000 to their death to stop the spread of Walmart? Oops, I meant our friend, ally, trading partner and banker, Communist China! Disgraceful!! It is completely irresponsible to pay the debts of the duly elected govt in a timely fashion.
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Aug 3, 2011 : 12:47 a.m.
In fact, the book by Smedley Butler points out that many fortunes were made by "patriotic" companies charging what the market will bear during war time while our young men and women are dying. This has been true of every war since the Civil War and most likely before. In fact, many of the so-called wars were initiated by politicians and/or corporations working together - not for the good of our country and not for the good of another country, but specifically for the good of a corporate interest in sugar, bananas, oil, minerals, and rubber. In fact, it is a natural result of a country militarizing to look to a military as a tool for someone's gain. Intelligent people who read history know it isn't the soldier, the common man, or a higher calling. It is about power and greed.
David Briegel
Tue, Aug 2, 2011 : 4:27 a.m.
to "not" pay. In fact it is unconstitutional!!
NoSUVforMe
Tue, Aug 2, 2011 : 2:09 a.m.
I roll my eyes when someone suggests the the Industrial-Military Complex is somehow responsible for the U.S. not being a third-world country. Only someone who doesn't know economics or history would think this is true. Look at the wars we have fought since WWII and ask why we fought them. The Industrial-Military Complex fuels the wars for profit. If you don't think this is true, read "War is a Racket" by Brigadier General (and war hero) Smedley Butler. Anyone who thinks these wars were for the good of the American people or the good of the people in the country where the war took place (Iraq) isn't paying attention.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 8:46 p.m.
Mike K wrote: "GWB spent around 3x that of Clinton, and now Obama is on a 3x rate of Bush." Wrong on both counts. Clinton's first budget (FY '94) was $1.4 Trillion. His last budget (FY '01) was $1.8 Trillion Bush's first budget ('02) was $2 Trillion His last ('10) was $3.4 Trillion Obama's first was ('11) was $3.8 Trillion The budget for FY '12 is $3.7 Trillion Sources: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/</a> --and-- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget</a> Obama did not triple Bush. He has not doubled Bush. His first budget increased Bush's by 11%. His second budget went DOWN by 3%. Yes, if you take Clinton's first budget and compare to to Bush's last, Bush nearly tripled Clinton (actually, by a factor of 2.4). But this takes into account neither population growth, nor two ongoing and unpaid for wars, nor inflation. The last is easiest to account for is inflation. Clinton's $1.8 Trillion budget in 1993, adjusted for inflation, is $2.8 Trillion in 2011. Then add on for wars. Then add on for a population that has grown from roughly 260 million to roughly 310 million, a growing population that places additional demands on its government--infrastructure, Social Security, Medicare, education .... etc. Understanding all of this, the current expenditures are not out of line. What is out of line is the lack of revenue due: 1) To the Bush tax cuts 2) To the recession Note that the Bush tax cuts DID not grow the economy. The economy collapsed only a few years later. Get the economy back on its feet, tax revenues will increase, and the deficits will decrease. It's that simple. And, for what it's worth, cutting $2-4 Trillion in spending over the next 10 years will harm the economy, not help it--but that's a story for another day. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
You are correct--my bad and good catch. Bush's last was 2009 at $3.1 Trillion. Doesn't change the point whatsoever. Obama has not doubled that, much less tripled it. And if one compares Bush's last with Clinton's first (the most extreme comparison possible), the factor is 2.2, not 3. And the forces driving up the budget--inflation, population growth, and two wars--remain the same. But, you are correct--I got the last Bush budget in the wrong year. Thanks for correcting me! Good Night and Good Luck
outdoor6709
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.
You have your budget years wrong. Bush's last budget was 2009 Starting 9/1/08. President Obama was sworn in as President 3/09. No wonder you blame Bush for everything, you think he is still submitting budgets 1 yaers after he was out of office.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 10:59 a.m.
"How can poor and rural Americans vote for the republican party when their track record in Washington is ONLY to protect the interests of the very wealthy and corporations? Truly baffling." Two books provide insight into the answer into that question: "What's the Matter with Kansas" and "Deer Hunting with Jesus" Good Night and Good Luck
Ross
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 3:23 a.m.
Bob, there were surely winners! The ultra rich benefited disproportionately from Bush's tax cuts. The ultra rich have not suffered during this economic crisis - just look at the number of billionaires by year. It continues to blossom under the de-regulation of wall street that Clinton and Bush II allowed to ferment while in office. I cannot understand for the life of me why ensuring reasonable tax rates are paid by the richest 5% of us is not on the table right now. They pay only 17% in taxes, on average, annually. I.E. far less than their secretaries (or you and I) do. How can poor and rural Americans vote for the republican party when their track record in Washington is ONLY to protect the interests of the very wealthy and corporations? Truly baffling.
Basic Bob
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 2:39 a.m.
"Note that the Bush tax cuts DID not grow the economy. The economy collapsed only a few years later." Yes, and the warning signs were evident before Bush took office. The Bush tax cuts temporarily put more cash in some people's pockets, but in the end the collapse of the economy wiped out any benefit for anyone. There were no winners. (except arguably the Chinese)
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.
The level of government spending are fair subjects of debate. Well-informed people of good will can disagree on these issues. But anyone who seriously believes that the debt limit ought not be increased is either an extreme ideologue or they are extremely ignorant. There are no other possibilities. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 11:20 a.m.
Representative Michelle Bachman's response to the proposed deal: "Mr. President, I'm not sure what voice you're listening to, but I can assure you that the voice of the American people wasn't the 'voice that compelled Washington to act.' It was you that got us into this mess, and it was you who wanted a $2.4 trillion dollar blank check to get you through the election." I rest my case. An extreme ideologue. Or extreme ignorance. Or, in this case, likely both. Good Night and Good Luck
Bogie
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 5:29 p.m.
Even though I think we are too close to and need to raise the debt ceilings (if, for any other reason; to keep those "do nothing" wall street babies happy), I dont see anything wrong with this post. It is funny to hear people say that it is more complicated than that. The banks that are threatening the aaa rating are the same da@# banks we bailed out! The stock market is nothing more than a east coast "vegas." It is emotionally driven, and stock prices have nothing to do with sucess or failure of those listed companies. Maybe it's time to thumb our noise at those stock traders, pull our money, and live in a "real economy" with a "real budget" with "real (gold standard) money." Instead of this central bank that prints money freely; gives it banks, and then borrows it back from them! This is not real! Is it?
1bit
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 5:54 p.m.
Bogie: This is kinda what I was getting at with Ron Paul's ideas. He has some interesting thoughts along the lines of where you are coming from - if you haven't had a chance, you should read his proposal. It would be a very significant shift from what we are doing now.
Maxwell
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
Foreign makes takes 1% of the US budget - <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-foreign-aid-makes-1-percent-us-b/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-foreign-aid-makes-1-percent-us-b/</a> Your assertion that the tenth amendment precludes the US government from governing is the use of "logic in a vacuum" that disregards the rest of the US Constitution - for example Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 aka The Commerce Clause. I always have to wonder where all the Tea Party Constitutional Savants where when two unfunded wars were instigated last decade, when Medicare part D was passed but not funded, and when a plethora of other candy grabs for American corporations happened.
outdoor6709
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 9:02 p.m.
Where are all of the anti-war protests for the war in Libya and Somolia?
NoSUVforMe
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.
Too bad we can't punish Reagan, Bush I and Bush II for running up the trillions of dollars of debt. Most of it went to the Industrial Military Complex that the last decent Republican politician, Eisenhower, warned us about. The Republican combination of tax cuts for the rich, more spending on bombs and war, destroying unions, and deregulating banks has ruined this country. Now the Republicans that have ruined us are trying to deliver the final blow! Actually, there is no more Republican Party. Just Tea Party , ultra-conservatives and worse.
Mike
Sat, Aug 6, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.
We don't have a military industrial complex. we have a media industrial complex dominated by a chattering class that overwhelmingly votes Democratic. For all the yammering and complaining about Fox news it is the exception that proves the point.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 11:05 a.m.
@IT: Yes. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5-star general, USMA grad, and career Army officer, the man who coined the phrase "military industrial complex" and warned us, with good reason against its development, was a kumbayah sort of guy. The fact of the matter is that our exorbitant spending on the military over the last forty years has robbed our schools and our infrastructure of vitally needed funds and is, in large measure, responsible for our declining economic status. Good Night and Good Luck
Independent_Thinker
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 5:02 a.m.
Our "Industrial Military Complex" is the only reason we're not a 3rd world country. I know you'd like to think if we all sat around singing "Imagine" the world would be a realm filled with unicorns and Care Bears, but unfortunately, that's not the case, never was, and never will be.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 8:06 p.m.
What today are "ultra-liberals" are yesterday's moderate Democrats (e.g., Harry Reid). What yesterday were firmly conservative Republicans are today's RINOs (e.g., Bob Bennett). The political center of this country (or at least its discourse) has swung wildly to the right. For all of its worshiping of Ronald Reagan, today's Republican party would reject any presidential candidate who stood for the things he did and who had said and done the things he had. Good Night and Good Luck
Aaron Wolf
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4:52 p.m.
Mike, there are not ultra conservatives because there are ultra liberals. There are both because humans are not inherently rational. People are susceptible to extreme ideologies and emotional manipulation and mob mentalities. Fundamentalism is a big problem, but it feeds on basic human issues.
Mike K
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
Oh, forgot, we're far, far, far from rich. Do you know why there are ultra conservatives? Because there are ultra liberals.
Mike K
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
Let me guess, just a hunch, you're a democrat?? Tax cuts for the rich? I benefitted from the Bush tax cut. I also benefitted from Obama's tax cut as part of the stimulus package and well as the cut to social security from last December. Candidly, I'd love to have less taxes going forward. I can invest it myself in things like my children's education, home improvements that will stimulate the local economy or save it (which creates liquidity in the banks so that they may lend it to businesses and individuals).
Mike K
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.
At the risk of being branded a "teapublican" by those who like to throw that label around, I appreciate Gerald's comments. When one of our family members abuses a credit card, most of us cut it up. By raising the limit, Washington will simply continue to spend until we bump up against the next limit which is 16+ trillion dollars. Their track record on raising the debt ceiling speaks VOLUMES. GWB spent around 3x that of Clinton, and now Obama is on a 3x rate of Bush. What makes any of us believe this trend will be reversed? What makes any of us believe this trend is not going to continue in perpetuity? All I ever see is steep curves in future expenses. The consequences of not raising the limit appear disasterous; hence it will be raised. But candidly, I have ZERO faith in Washington getting us on a balanced path. The only way something is going to happen is if one party gets total control of the house, senate and executive office, and as we have seen, that has created a lot of tension at both the state and federal levels in the recent past. As many have seen right here in these forums, the right and left have very different ideas on the role of government.
Ross
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 3:16 a.m.
Yes, your facts are pretty sketchy. Plus the reality is that Bush spent much more than Clinton by taking us into two unnecessary wars! All of the same republicans who now refuse to pay for anything they have already voted yes on endorsed these massive cash burning wars as the patriotic thing to do. And after de-regulating wall street and ignoring the economy, Bush helped plunge us into a recession that Obama has tried to dig us out of with stimulus, i.e. government spending. While controversial and sometimes inefficient, stimulus does create jobs.
Oregon39_Michigan7
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 9:05 p.m.
Check your facts on "Obama is on a 3x rate of Bush." You might have to look to another source outside of Fox "News". Free your mind!!!
outdoor6709
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
Michigan's constitution requires a ballanced budget. How far in debt would Michigan be if we allowed Lansing to spend all of the money it wanted to? Why is Washington any different? 16 years ago a balanced budget admendment failed by 1 vote. Different outcome had it passed? A better outcome? For all of you who want big spnding from Washington, I suggest for the next year you over spend your personal budget by 42% and see what havoc it wrecks for you. Why should we hold Washington to a different standard?
demistify
Sat, Aug 6, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.
Yes, Michigan has had a balanced budget amendment. No, it does not come close to having a balanced budget. Instead, the Legislature goes through an elaborate exercise each year with smoke and mirrors. The net result (just as without the amendment) is to kick the can down the road. Waving a magic wand does not make problems go away, and the dodges are inefficient and expensive. The Legislature spends money by passing appropriations and tax loopholes. It gets money by passing taxes and fees. It should be more intelligent and more responsible in both respects. Once it decides how much to put on both sides of the ledger, a balanced budget amendment merely triggers cooking the books.
DonBee
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4:10 p.m.
outdoor6709 - It may be true the budget has to be balanced in Michigan but we are BILLIONS of dollars in debt for pension underfunding, borrowing for unemployment benefits and other things that we have done to balance the budget. Overall the debt from these items (not including roads, bonds and other instruments that in the budget to be repaid) total more than $20 billion dollars from one source and more than $40 billion from another. The difference is in how much the sources think the length of time people will live, rate of inflation and cost of health care in the future. In other words how good the forecasting of the future is at each firm. If we did nothing with the state budget (e.g. laid everyone off, stopped paying any bills, did not transfer money to schools, staff the prisons, etc) and just paid the unfunded pension liability it would take more than 18 months to pay it off.
Tesla
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.
Because Michigan can't invade other countries costing us trillions of dollars and 10's of thousands of lives. They are also not going to bail out other states if they fail financially. Michigan can't print money. I'm not saying they don't need to get spending under control, but they do have additional burdens, responsibilities, and inherent issues that states do not have.
racerx
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.
What tea has he been drinking?
Ross
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 3:12 a.m.
I'm thinking more like mushroom.
unrulyfan
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.
I'm guessing Long Island
debling
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
Gerald, The current "crisis" over the debt ceiling is nothing but party politics. The President wants to get the budget out and pay the bills and the Republicans want him to look bad (even fault on our debts). Both sides hope their strategies will win the election next year. And so they posture. There is no one simple solution to Washington's financial problems because there are short, medium and long term issues to deal with. Short - raise the debt ceiling several trillion now. With $3.4 trillion on spending and $2.2 trillion in revenues, there is no hope on eliminating the deficit in 3 days. Fact is, while the debt is significant, it is not dangerous nor alarming. As a % of GDP, it is not serious. The US HAS the ability to pay its debt, if it chooses to. What the market worries about is whether the US will deliberately choose not to pay it. Medium - Social Security and Medicare and stand alone programs and bring in their own revenues. They have run surpluses in the past decades. These must be eliminated from the general budget and run as self sustaining programs, raising revenues and curbing payouts as they see fit. And by the way, the Feds need to pay back the $2 trillion to Soc. Sec. and $600 bill to Medicare. You are now left with $1.9 trill expenses and $700 bill revenues. Defense and Security is $800 bill by itself. Clearly the Bush tax cuts must end, defense must be cut (by about 50%), the wars ended and subsidies, tax breaks, incentives and other give aways must end. Long - the long term strategic issue facing the US is rising medical costs to the public. Congress has not dealt with how to cut medical costs to the US society.The Ryan plan is a health care rationing plan. It caps the payout but does not deal with cost. Cutting patent coverage from 20 to 7 years on pharma products, increasing the # of doctors in the US to put wage pressure on physicians and mandating hospitals post prices and give cost estimates are some ways of starting.
1bit
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.
debling: Great post. One comment on your last point is that physician supply might not be the problem but rather geographic distribution relative to need. It has been shown that simply adding physicians to an area does not necessarily improve care or reduce costs.
DonBee
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
Debling - The President also wants to force a tax increase, so that he can make political hay, there was a deal that was close and it fell apart because after the Democrats in the House and Senate basically agreed, the President reopened the deal to add taxes. NO ONE in Washington is clean on this deal, EVERYONE is playing politics.
outdoor6709
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
The Affordable Health Insurance act also reations health care. It cuts $500 billion from medicare. It also has government bureauctates dolling out healthcare.
Terrin Bell
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.
The US give billions of dollars away to foreign countries every year in the form of so called economic aid. Last I checked, we were spending 10 billion a day in Iraq. So, I can understand the sentiment that this spending should stop. If we can't pay our own bills, why are we giving billions away of borrowed money to foreign Countries? Yet government entities like the Department of Education and the Department of Energy (which is actually controlled by Big Oil currently, hence BP getting away with what amounts to a slap on the wrist for the biggest environmental disaster of all time) are what tax dollars should be spend on. Certain things should be a right, like education, health care, and clean air.
John B.
Fri, Aug 5, 2011 : 9:49 p.m.
Your numbers are vastly incorrect. I don't like the immoral and illegal wars we are fighting, but if we were spending $10 Billion per day in Iraq, that would equal $3.65 Trillion per year. No way. $10 Billion per month - that I would believe. Our entire defense budget (which is ridiculously large) is $700 Billion per year. And Foreign Aid, in total, to all nations, is maybe 1% of the budget. Cut it all, and you would not even reduce Federal spending by 1%.
DonBee
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4:02 p.m.
Mr. Ball - I would suggest that you really look at where the Department of Energy budget goes before you claim it is in the pocket of big oil. Most of the budget goes to Nuclear programs, mostly related to military programs - in a $29 billion dollar total request - $17 billion is related to military matters for 2012. Less than $1 billion goes to fossil fuel related programs and most of that is COAL not OIL. The Bureau of Land Management and other parts of the Federal Government are far more focused on "Big Oil" DOE actually is far more focused on wind, solar and energy efficiency these days than "big oil". If only the whole budget for the military programs was in the Department of Defense we would have a better idea of what defense actually cost. But of course there are over 200 programs that support low income folks, including programs in every cabinet department, so getting a real handle on any cost in the Federal Government is almost impossible.
outdoor6709
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.
I realize it is fun to give money to other peopl, but how long can we afford to borrow $.42 of each $ we spend? We need to stop baseline budgeting, which grows spending evry year evn in recession. <a href="http://membership.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_Baseline_Budgeting" rel='nofollow'>http://membership.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_Baseline_Budgeting</a>
Jack Gladney
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:53 p.m.
The self-serving, power hungy (some call them leaders) in Washington (Their names have the letters D, R or I after them) like to speak in trillions and billions of dollars in savings over X number of years. What the hell is a trillion or a billion? They are numbers big enough mixed with language to make you think they are doing something. I would wager that 75 percent of American taxpayers could not tell you what is the debt, deficit or debt ceiling. Let's restart the conversation and then decide where we want to go from here. America: You made $22K last year. You spent $37K last year. You are holding $140K in credit card debt. The so called "Grand Plan" proposes that you call Citibank and ask them to increase your credit limit by Tuesday by another $15K. That will get you through the next 12 months. In return, you are pledging to reduce your spending by $400 every (well it now sounds like that the magic number is now $300) year for the next 10 years. Leave interest and inflation out of the equation, and you will only be roughly $300K in debt in 10 years time. Sounds like a grand plan for financial stabilty.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 1:27 a.m.
Mr. Gladney, Well, inflation exists. Something that costs x this year will cost more next year. And the population grows, so more of x will be required next year. And that notwithstanding, the money they are cutting is off projected spending into the future, spending that would increase due to inflation. That is REAL money. And they will result in REAL cuts. And that will result in REAL job losses, both in government and in the private sector. But, if it makes your tummy stop hurting, go ahead and pretend these cuts aren't really cuts. Good Night and Good Luck
Jack Gladney
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 1:19 a.m.
Mr. Morrow @Diagenes is absolutely correct. Just like the national debt and the deficit most people are not familiar with baseline (sometimes referred to as zero-based) budgeting. If we spend $100 this year on Program A. Next year we use projections for inflation to set next year's budget for Program A. So if the smart people project that we will have 4% inflation over a 12 month period, next year we will budget $104 for Program A. If we only budget $100 for Program A, and 4% inflation is realized, we will have cut that program by 4%. As of 9:00 Pm 07/31/11, as it stands, The President and the Congress have reached an agreement to more than double the national debt over the course of the next 10 years.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 11:54 p.m.
"The dirty little secret that the Washington types are not telling us, is that they are reducing the increase in spending not actually reducing the amoun to be spent." OK. I'll bite. Please explain the difference. Good Night and Good Luck
Diagenes
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4 p.m.
Very good synopsis. The dirty little secret that the Washington types are not telling us, is that they are reducing the increase in spending not actually reducing the amoun to be spent.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.
while I disagree with much of the Letter, there is one thing I do agree with....at some point the madness of deficit spending needs to stop. We can't keep racking up a bigger deficit year after year after year with no end in site. Believe it or not we haven't always lived like this.
John B.
Mon, Aug 8, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
That's correct - it has only really been this way since Ronald Reagan started the process and both Bushes accelerated it. Republicans accumulated the vast majority of the current National debt. They've been working feverishly since 9/11 to push us even farther into debt. Remember ol' Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney?
snoopdog
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
Good letter Gerald, too bad you are not our President. Good Day
Ross
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 : 3:08 a.m.
Man, how can people read the other, well thought out comments that completely destroy Gerald's pathetic editorial, and then vote for this comment? I just don't get it.
westsidemom
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
The US debt ceiling keeps getting raised allowing more money to be spent. Do you think I could do that with my credit cards? Do you think that the credit card companies would happily raise my limit each time I reach the top when I cry that I don't have enough money to pay my bills? No, they would tell me to spend within my budget. What is good for the little person should be good for the government.
Tesla
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
Actually you are wrong and make a good point. But unfortunately your credit card company would likely increase your debt ceiling too. This is a little different in the sense that the money has either already been spent or is appropriated through legislation where as you could only get an increase "on future purchases" This is the biggest mis conception with the debt ceiling, as redundantly pointed out in the posts here.
yaah
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.
The ignorance of this post is astounding. The debt limit is not the reason why spending is so high. Spending has already been approved. If you want to decrease spending, decrease spending. Not increasing the debt limit would result in a tax on everyone (much higher than any tax increases that were proposed to help solve the debt crisis). Does no one who shares the views of the author see this? Why are so many people allowing such ignorance to get out there as part of legitimate politics? There are so many things in politics that are wrong, including many listed in the post, but to state that not increasing the debt limit (or a "balanced budget amendment") will magically solve this is almost beyond belief. The tea party needs to stop living in a fantasy world.
yaah
Tue, Aug 2, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.
And it still is!
snoopdog
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.
"The ignorance of this post is astounding." Yes it was. Good Day
Kafkaland
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.
This is crazy talk. In the short term, the debt ceiling needs to be increased, no strings attached. Even thouhg I'm not fond of the analogy between family finances and the federal budget, in this case it would be like having written checks for purchases in excess of what's in the bank. If you do that, any reasonable person would go to his or her bank, fess up, and ask for an increase in the credit limit to cover the checks, instead of racking up big fees or perhaps even going to jail for knowingly writing bad checks. In the long run, we will have to decide how much government we want. Usually, this is a fraction of the GDP. In the US, for all levels of government combined, this has been since the 1950s more or less steadily been around 30%, with occasional spikes. Generally, the more complex an economy becomes, the higher the government quota gets, because regulating and nurturing something more complex takes more effort. For instance, you need more people to run air traffic control, or homeland security, or bank oversight now than in the 1950s, because back then, because air traffic has multiplied, sophisticated terrorist threats have emerged, or complex financial derivatives have been invented. I think the growth in government has been commensurate with what we reasonably expect it to do, but whether we want to scale back our expectations is certainly subject to debate. Finally, it should be noted that the government does not have to budget like a family, as it has control over the supply of money to the economy. The wealth of a nation depends on full utilization of its resources. Right now, capactity (plant, human) is grossly underused because of a lack of demand. Government can and should temporarily step in and use these resources for the public good by building infrastructure and productive resources, like an educated workforce, for the future. Stimulating demand this way is much more effective than monetary stimulus, which is mostly pocketed by the banks.
Basic Bob
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.
"Right now, capactity (plant, human) is grossly underused because of a lack of demand." There is plenty of demand, that is why we import so much of our good from overseas. It is our own ignorance and lack of foresight that allows us to keep buying this stuff even though we have people available to do the same work. This is the kind of stimulus that every person in the US can do on their own. Before you buy that well-made Japanese or German car, think of what it does to your neighbors.
fjord
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
Possibly the most ignorant, delusional, irresponsible thing ever published by AnnArbor.com. Gerald, you do not understand how finances work. If the Congress were to follow your advice, the damage to the U.S. economy would be unthinkable. This is fire that you and your Tea Party friends need to stop playing with before we all get hurt. It's time for this dangerous group of Tea Party know-nothings to lose their influence on national politics. They clearly operate on emotion alone, without the slightest dose of logic.
Tesla
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
Lol.....ok. You sit there all day deleting posts for 7 dollars an hour. I'm going out on the boat and enjoying the day. Ciao Bella.
DonBee
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Wiggins - The situation globally is complex. In some countries, food aid is critical to continued life. The US provides much of the food aid globally (even though the media does not report it). The Military situation is also complex - we build a dozen or so C-130's every year, even though we have hundreds of newish ones mothballed because we have too many of them. While I agree our various governments spend too much. Stopping the spending suddenly by not raising the debt ceiling is like throwing the emergency brakes on a train, it will toss us all around and may end up with a lot of people hurt. Yes, $0.40 of every dollar the US government spends is borrowed. That number needs to come down. Yes, 50% of all households pay ZERO federal income tax. Yes, we have TRILLIONS of dollars in tax deductions and loopholes (including the mortgage deduction). Getting a government that would honestly tackle these issues head on, fixing ALL the issues would be useful, probably critical to the future of this country. I for one am not happy with any part of the Federal Government right now, but I will vote to change it when it is time.
DonBee
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.
Gorc - My comment reads "deductions and loophole", not "deductions that are loopholes" I include both in my comment because the study I have does not break out one from the other. I am NOT claiming any are illegal, I am pointing out that a big part of not enough tax revenue is that people have ways to lower their taxes. With a tax code that runs to tens of thousands of pages, it may be time to simplify the tax code. I personally do my taxes, and would love a very simple form: Line 1 - enter total amount of income from all sources Line 2 - consult table for amount owed Line 3 - total amount of taxes withheld from all income Line 4 - subtract line 3 from line 2 Line 5 - If line 4 is negative - please check the box if you want a refund, otherwise overpayment will be applied to next year's taxes. Line 6 - if line 4 is positive - please enter a credit card number here or enclose a check. That kind of a tax form would be real reform.
Mike K
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.
Gorc - many use "loophole", "subsidy" interchangebly with deduction. For example, the left likes to talk about "subsidies" to "big oil". 3 of 4 deductions apply to any corporation. They were enacted by law by our government for some seemingly benefitial reason. The other deduction is specific to oil, but it's the smallest of the 4. I don't understand how "loopholes" by your definition aren't exposed?
Gorc
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
By saying the interest mortgage deduction is a loophole is misleading. A loophole is when some one takes a deduction they don't deserve or illegally takes a deduction. Mortgage deductions are written in the tax code, which makes them legitimate. I'm more than happy to hear your reasons why mortgage deductions should no longer be considered a legal deduction and the tax code should be changed.
amlive
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
I'm sorry Gerald, but this is simply delusional ideology, with no basis is any reasonable economic strategy at all. Pure fantasy. Time to quit listening to the head-in-the-clouds Tea Party crowds. If you want some good sound conservative fiscal advice, you should listen to a more reasonable economist like Reagan/Bush Sr. economic advisor Bruce Bartlett. If anything, this letter should serve to strike fear in to the hearts of concerned Americans as to just how delusional the extreme right has become today. It should serve as a reminder that though they are still a minority, they are a sizable one, and very active at the polls and in putting pressure on their representatives. In spite of the what I believe to be most Americans still being of reasonable mind, it has become this very irrational, extremist, and active minority which is calling more and more of the shots. This should serve as a poignant reminder that 50% voter turnout is simply not going to cut it anymore. The extremists come to the polls in force, while too many reasonable moderates stay at home thinking their vote won't make a difference, or that it's not worth the effort just to choose a lesser evil. If we continue to work this way, the the devoted extremists will continue to get their way as they did in 2010, our nation will become more and more crippled, an the effects will be felt by all. Save this letter, hang it on your fridge, and make sure to read it again when voting comes around. Gerald and his friends will all be at the polls, and you do have the power to do something about it.
Ross
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
WELL said. Thank you.
1bit
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 1 p.m.
I think A2.com put this up not only because of the impending deluge of comments, but because Mr. Wiggins' letter exemplifies a certain brand of thinking, priorities and misunderstanding of economics that has grown very popular. First off, the debt limit is to pay past debts - not necessarily future ones. It will be raised, everything else going on in Washington is for show. The only way to avoid doing it would be to go the route of Ron Paul - and his proposal and its implications are too complicated to go into here. Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are the biggest spending targets. Defense must be cut and the wars need to be wound down. More revenue is also needed because you can't increase spending and decrease revenue and then borrow money (particularly in a time of war) as has been done for the past decade. I'll leave parsing the inflammatory rhetoric of Mr. Wiggins to other posters, but will agree that we've run up the tab on the binge we've been on for the past decade and now it's time to pay up. Both political parties have been responsible for this and it's time that they both worked together to solve it. Yes, I'm talking about that dirty word - compromise.
David Briegel
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.
Yup, Gerald had his steak with sillyTea and now he doesn't feel he should pay the tab. It is the responsibility of govt to appropriate the monies to fund govt and to RAISE the monies to pay for itself. They just don't want to pay! It is their job as outlined in that sacred Constitution they all carry in their pocket to raise the revenue to PAY the tab.
just a voice
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 12:34 p.m.
Defense spending is nearly a trillion dollars, why is that not one of the things we need to cut? Why did Ann Arbor.com put this up? I'm guessing that it will cause a ton of comments and that is why they did it.
jcj
Sun, Jul 31, 2011 : 12:39 p.m.
Would it more appropriate to "put it up" next Feb when no one is discussing it?