Comments on: Deficit hypocrisy

By: Hour glass

Hour glass — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:31:25 +0000

…so the more the US borrows from China, the more China gets control over US cash flow and assets to maturity ? (not to be confused with local debt, GDP’s and Reserve Currencies). The ironies, Commies taking over the World. Cheers, have a good one !

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:58:03 +0000

This story is too much about good democrats vs. bad republicans and not enough about the catastrophe of our national debt. Mr. Goldstein advocates just going the heck ahead and borrowing more for a national health program, which is want a lot of folks on the left would like to see. What’s another trillion?

People don’t understand that there are already signs that our national credit is maxed out. Treasury auctions have started to show weakness, driving up yields (i.e., our nation’s cost of borrowing) because no buyer sees a reasonable plan to contain the debt. A lot of this debt is owned by foreign countries, esp. China. Unless it is brought under control, we risk losing control of our own financial sovereignty and with it, our ability to control our own economy. I find that people on the left often lack the most elementary understanding of economics, one of whose most basic rules is that there is no free lunch. You might as well jump out of an airplane and declare that the law of gravity “shouldn’t be used as excuse to squelch a potentially worthy government program.”

As an aside, Mr. Goldstein has confused the annual budget surplus under President Clinton with the national debt, which certainly was not paid off at that time.

By: Down Time

Down Time — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:07:20 +0000

The same old routine. This won’t ever get fixed just like so many other causes. No need to get exicted about things one has no control over. That’s what I tell myself…

By: Hour glass

Hour glass — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:20:37 +0000

that is very funny, clearly the US will have to sell off assets and/or borrow from China, haha, imagine the Lincolns being exchanged for Junkboats.

By: MrBill, Eurasia

MrBill, Eurasia — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:09:44 +0000

That’s right. If running a $1 trillion deficit is okay then why not a cumulative $9 trillion one? Heck, why not $18 trillion for good measure? Why not a cash for clunkers program every year? If a $11 trillion debt makes Americans feel good, why not ramp it up to $20 trillion, plus $45 trillion in unfunded future liabilities, just before all the Baby Boomers start heading into retirement and start consuming more healthcare? I mean why not? You can always blame it on Bush. Or blame it on Reagan. Or blame it on the Chinese for saving too much!

By: Hour glass

Hour glass — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:07:50 +0000

Go June & John Q Public ! The world has been at war and in depression since the coming of the industrial age. As Warren Beatty said in ‘Reds’: ‘War is about profits’. The US will recover its money on that account. It will however have to beg, steal, print or borrow. Only the latter option is left open. From where ? and how will the debt be serviced ?

By: Harry K Kalas

Harry K Kalas — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:41:29 +0000

ok, you people need to do some fact checking and its quite simple. Got to the US treasury website here:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogi n?application=np

then enter in jan 20th,2001 (bush’s first day) then enter Jan 20th 2009 (bush’s last day) and you will see that during his tenure the debt increased 4.9 trillion….and then add in the cost of the Iraq war at that time (roughly 660 billion) and then add 1/2 half of the tarp payments (350 billion)that were not added until obama was in office. Then try doing the same historical check for the last 7 months of president obama and see how much hes spent. And don’t forget that the iraq war and the tarp bailouts have all been added recenty not before bush’s last day.

By: Robert Gardner

Robert Gardner — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:38:13 +0000

What happened to “Pay as you go”? North Carolina’s constitution requires a balanced budget, why can’t the USA? Plus, stop with the ugly comments on both sides. Work together or get out of the discussion!

By: June

June — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:36:35 +0000

I believe the great majority of politicians are responsible for our debt from the federal level to the state level down to the towns through all their greed, corruption and fraud weather they be Republicans or Democrats. Maybe if these self-serving donkeys actually did what they were supposed to we wouldn’t have these problems. Maybe if they did their job by way of the constitution as they are supposed to we wouldn’t have to worry much which party got in. Got forbid they be fair and honest.

By: Mel

Mel — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:16:41 +0000

Actually NO *President* has EVER increased the National Debt. You wag that Lie real well, sonny. So do some of the Syncophants that Point Out that it is under Republican Presidents that Debt increased the most.

Interesting Statistic, but not relevant. More relevant: Almost always, after being in office for 2 years, the Party that controls the White House loses seats in congress to the other major party. That trend generally continues throughout their administration as an overall trennline, even for a two term president.

What that means is that when Bush had Democrats controling the purse strings for the end of his term, it was *not* an aberation. The same can be said for Clinton, and others as well. So the *spending* of Bush is actually the *spending* of the Congress he was working with. Ergo, Democrats ran up the bill under *their* watch. So whose debt is it? Again, tell me clearly JUST WHO VOTED TO SPEND ALL THAT MONEY???