Use Debt Ceiling Vote to Fix Washington's Spending Addiction

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I really think wether deal or not the united states will lose its tresured credit rating status.

don of TX 7:08PM July 22, 2011

Hairy Reid is a liar. He is using women's health rights as a diversion, when the real issue is Obama and his corrupt cronies waited till the last minute to push through a ridiculous budget, sacraficing crumbs, while irresponsibly squandering Trillions. Save America and Dump the traitors, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi !!!

Howard of CA 12:58PM April 08, 2011

It is interesting that there is such a divergence in opinions on the debt when we are all in the same boat. Raising the debt ceiling implies that we are not ready to make the right changes in the nation and stop the insanity. Many people who hail from the entitlements side of the issue may see the handouts come to an end.
The simple fact is we have a government we can not afford. When times are tough, we all have to make a sacrifice. I say we start by sacrificing all the czars and disbanding the alphabet soup of federal agencies that are useless.
People, we don’t have to take this. The government works for us, the government does not produce any thing of value. We started going down the wrong road by allowing generations of people to remain on welfare, keeping out borders wide open, and failing to regulate those we have hired to take care of business for us while we are working and living.
There should be no resistance to stopping the debt ceiling . A better move is to lower it, and clean house . If we need to spend money beyond basic essential services then it should be on education and defense. The fact a congressman earns more than a teacher is proof our priorities are upside down.

Mark Koenig of WA 9:26AM April 03, 2011

Republican Big Idea #1: Raid Iraq & U.S. Treasury to wreck the Economy.
Republican Big Idea #2: Refuse to Raise Debt Ceiling to wreck the Recovery.
What to do for an Encore? Bring in the Tea Party!

Ray of NJ 11:30AM April 02, 2011

"If you have a weight problem, the last thing you want to do is up your food intake"
Nor do you deal with a weight problem by chopping your legs off with an ax. You would miss them.
Refusing to raise the debt ceiling directly implies that there is a plan to cut estimated borrowing for the remainder of the year- Just over 700 billion.
We would have to stop all defense and discretionary spending combined starting in June to achieve that.
Rubio's threats are helpful only to his base. It's disastrous for America if he's even remotely serious.

Cletus Amlung of KY 12:39PM April 01, 2011

Failing to raise the debt ceiling would be insanity. There currently is no question of confidence among borrowers. There would be if the limit is not raised. You think 2009 was bad, wait and see how the economy looks then.
Should we really be risking complete economic ruin to make political points? Spending has increased under the Obama administration because the nation faced the most troubling economic situation since the great depression. They aren't just spending for the fun of it. Grow up.
This writer also seems to think that forcing lawmakers to spend less is somehow appropriate payback to those lawmakers who would seek to spend. What about the people who rely on the programs that are cut? Maybe in the Washington inner circle, scoring points and exacting revenge against politicians who you disagree with matters, but outside of DC there is an entire world that doesn't care. We just want things to work better. Playing politics with the debt limit is the absolute wrong place to start

Ed of MA 12:26PM April 01, 2011

Government spending is not a problem – borrowing our own money is.
The one program that should be cut completely is a nonproductive program, benefitting a very small number of citizens while costing a great deal of money – the national debt. The national debt is a discretionary welfare program benefitting only banks, bankers and Wall Street brokers.
The debt is discretionary because the United States is a sovereign nation, having the full authority that is inherent in nationhood, including the authority and power to issue our nation’s money. When congress faces a budget deficit, it has the option of borrowing money or simply issuing it -- as President Lincoln did during the civil war.
Borrowing Federal Reserve money is expensive, issuing AMERICAN CURRENCY IS FREE.
Interest on the national debt cost the U.S. $7.5 trillion ($7,500,000,000,000) in the past twenty years. Interest payments made up 75% of the $9.9 trillion debt added in that period. This year, 2011, the interest on the debt is expected to add an addition $500,000,000 to the debt. If the government continues borrowing money, we will pay more than $5 trillion for interest in the coming decade.
Had the government opted to issue currency rather than bond, America would not have a national debt, nor interest payments, nor income taxes.
Furthermore, with the exception of coins, the Federal Reserve banking system, including its member commercial banks, creates all the money in the economy as the principal of loans. Creating money out of nothing and lending into the economy does not produce anything of real-world value. The banks do not turn a shovel full of dirt nor provide a brick for any project, yet they double the price of every project they are involved in. People pay as much in interest on their long-term mortgages as they borrow, often doubling the price they pay for a house.
The U.S. government can issue all the money we need or want debt and interest free.
The government is our only hope of stability. It is the only institution that has the authority, power, and flexibility to create a stable currency necessary to generate a sustainable economy. It can create money by fiat, lend money like commercial banks, pass laws to regulate the value of our currency, and it can fine-tune the money supply with taxes. No privately owned institution can do that job.

BILL PARKS of MD 9:03PM March 31, 2011

Republican's and Dems would do well to listen to the Tea Party and cut spending. But, while they are at it, they need to lower the debt ceiling accordingly. Other wise, Dems will spend us right back to current levels.

david of ID 5:47PM March 31, 2011

Take out the $105 billion for funding in obamacare when passed.
In my wildest dreams, the $ 105 billion as well as 2012 budget would be part of the bargain. That budget being limited to 2008 spending.
Ron W. Smith of UT, that would be for military as well. Imagine some bases would have to close.
What got us to recession was Clinton’s bad housing plan. The bad paper hurt the Wall Street companies. Why some went belly up. Military spending did not affect Wall Street banks...

Bill Hedges of MO 5:20PM March 31, 2011

I find it interesting, Peter Roff, that nowhere in your post on spending by the federal government do you point out a principal reason for it. Doesn't it bother you that in all the discussions of where and how much to cut spending "National Security" doesn't receive much attention? We spend on it more than the rest of the world COMBINED, more than $1 trillion annually.
Doesn't it bother you that China spends only 18% of what we do on national defense, one of the five areas comprising "National Security"? Doesn't it bother you that we spend 50 times as much on Intelligence than Great Britain does each year? Doesn't it bother you that no other country--or, for that matter, group of them--spends what we do on nation building or veterans affairs or strings-attached foreign aid designed to gain the cooperation of other countries?
Doesn't it bother you at all that we, the world's biggest debtor nation, now with a $14+ trillion national debt and an annual federal deficit of about $1.5 trillion, keep making foreign policy decisions that force us into extravagance when thrift is called for? Doesn't it bother you that the spending cuts pushed for first (especially by the Right) are to domestic programs of worth and importance when the obvious target with most room for cutting is "National Security"? It has no revenue source other than receipts from taxes, unlike Social Security (FICA tax) and Medicare (premiums), and it heals no one as Medicaid does. It doesn't accomplish long-delayed, MUCH needed upgrading of national infrastructure--bridges, sewers, parks, highways, etc. It does nothing, in fact, but prop up our insistence, at taxpayer expense, on being the world's leader through the projection of our power (and its often flashy use) everywhere in the world.
Isn't it appropriate for us to call time out on the extravagance until we're flush again and can resume squandering to support our giant military-industrial complex and our lust for hegemony?
I grew up during and following WWII, Peter, and remember well the way we were as a nation interested in its own citizens' well being before ALL else. Things have changed dramatically despite President Eisenhower's warning, those who prefer showy power to domestic needs now ascendant.
Aren't you bothered at all by all those decisions in folreign policy that have led us to this point, Peter Roff?

Ron W. Smith of UT 1:37PM March 31, 2011