Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Too many questions about administration

November 3, 2013

To the editor: Does anyone in this country want the national debt to continue to climb above $17 trillion. President Barack Obama doesn’t care....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(47)

debray

Nov-03-13 7:03 AM

Floyd, Good letter and I want to let you know, the 2nd Revolution Begins Nov. 19!

Larry Klayman calls on millions to amass at the White House to demand Obama's resignation on Nov. 19, 2013 in Lafayette Park beginning at 10:00 am.

****reclaimamericanow****

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lindalea

Nov-03-13 9:27 AM

It's too bad people didn't see this in the beginning. I didn't vote for him either time but a lot of people (way too many people) fell for his BS. How's that working for you now!! lol

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lindalea

Nov-03-13 9:32 AM

dad, what the*****are you talking about?? The only time you will get the truth is from FOX. What do you listen to? Thrill up you leg Chris Matthews? God help us all!! The debt is 17 trillion!!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lindalea

Nov-03-13 10:14 AM

So dad, you're telling me the deficit was 34 trillion and obama cut it to 17 trillion. Is that right? I guess you really are listening to 'thrill up your leg Chris Mathews!! lol!!!!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Echobravo

Nov-03-13 9:20 PM

If our deficit is such a problem, close ALL the tax loop holes. Its that simple. We all want something, but don't want to give up nothing. It's the WHOLE GOVERNMENT that is the problem.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-03-13 10:12 PM

"Reasonable person: We could do that by raising the top tax brackets."

Our federal government just collected more taxes than ever in our history. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

What core is proposing is Wealth Distrabution. SOCIALISM.

"The people it would affect have an inordinate amount of America's wealth,"

Translation: They earned it, I want it. SOCIALISM.

"Those people earned their money. RP: Yes, by gouging the working poor"

Translation: Wealth Envy. To core, anyone who works hard, builds a business, creates jobs, is a bad person. Feel free to start your own business, pay top wages, free health care, sick days, a month's vacation a year. Let us know how that works for you.

"If you want to reduce the debt, why not charge the people who can afford it?"

That's known as Proggressive Taxation. One of Karl Marx's 10 planks of, you guessed it, SOCIALISM.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Moteman

Nov-04-13 7:53 AM

Core says 1/3 of the debt is money borrowed from Internal gov trust funds. Six Trillion. OK That would be manageable. What about the other 2/3 borrowed from Foreign Gov and the Fed. Eleven trillion.

Yes we need to reduce the debt like any household would do. Tighten the belt Stop spending, cut up the credit cards, and pay it down.

No increase in taxes The Gov takes in enough money now to get us out of this mess If we do the things outlined above.

Cutting Social Security is not an option. These people paid into it from a lifetime of work and deserve it. Stop taking the money and putting it into the general fund and giving it to people that don't work. 1.5% increase for SS recipients 20% for lazy good for nothings. The numbers should be reversed. I wouldn't oppose that the limit of how much you pay in be removed and that Congress and others that never pay into SS not receive a check every month. They have their own retirement accounts that the Gov. doesn't touch.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RPG0340

Nov-04-13 9:57 AM

Core, to understand the economy, you have to support the economy. The only way to do that is by getting a job, standing on your own two feet, and experiencing that there is a chance to have a really good life if you WORK FOR IT!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-04-13 10:58 AM

Interesting that core has no problems asking questions, but a very difficult time answering them. I am not like core, for which I am very glad.

1 - Do you think we need to reduce the debt? YES

2 - Do you oppose increasing taxes? YES, except for those who now pay none. Everyone should have a horse in the rase. 3 - Do you oppose having your social security benefits cut when you retire? Yes. But it is inevitable. That's why I sacrificed, worked hard, got educated, put money aside, invested in our nation.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-04-13 11:02 AM

Besides, the debt we owe is largely money that was borrowed from Social Security.

Nope.

baselinescenario(dot)com/2012/11/28/social-security-and-the-national-debt/

It is impossible for Social Security to incur a deficit over the long term, since it can only spend money it already collected. In the words of Dean Baker:

“Social Security is prohibited from spending any money beyond what it has in its trust fund. This means that it cannot lawfully contribute to the federal budget deficit, since every penny that it pays out must have come from taxes raised through the program or the interest garnered from the bonds held by the trust fund.”

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-04-13 11:38 AM

Here are some interesting quotes, one from The One himself. Are you calling your president a LIAR, core?

“As I’ve said, Social Security is not the primary driver of our long-term deficits and debt.”

— President Obama, July 11, 2011

“Social Security has never contributed a dime to the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt…not one penny to our federal budget deficit this year or any year in our nation’s history.”

— Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.). July 8, 2011

From the Washington Post:

washingtonpost(dot)com/blogs/fact-checker/post/social-security-and-its-role-in-the-nations-debt/2011/07/11/gIQAp1Wl9H_blog(dot)html

Beccerra looks at the pile of $2.6 trillion in assets built up by Social Security, and says, correctly, that Social Security did not add to the debt; it is indeed a creditor to the United States.

See, core. It was easy. The debt we owe is NOT largely Social Security.

Now, how about that Uganda law.....

And who is a lier....

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Echobravo

Nov-04-13 9:24 PM

RPG - (YOU) The only way to do that is by getting a job, standing on your own two feet, and experiencing that there is a chance to have a really good life if you WORK FOR IT!

So what do you have to say to all the coal miners who just LOST THEIR JOBS and there is NO JOB to be gotten in their area.

You should not point a blind finger. Are they now no loads/lazy/welfare frauds in your group book?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-04-13 9:38 PM

" is confusing the words deficit and debt"

I quoted your president. Are you calling him a LIAR?

"I said it the debt is largely money owed to the SS trust."

$2.4 trillion out of $17 trillion is nowhere near "largely".

Here. Let me help:

largely: adverb 1. to a great extent; in great part; generally; chiefly:

large·ly (lärj l) adv. 1. For the most part; mainly. 2. On a large scale; amply. largely ['l??d?l?] adv. 1. principally; to a great extent. 2. on a large scale ...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-04-13 9:40 PM

"So what do you have to say to all the coal miners who just LOST THEIR JOBS and there is NO JOB to be gotten in their area."

I would say, blame Obama. He said he would destroy the coal industry.

That was one promise he kept.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Echobravo

Nov-05-13 3:27 PM

Hagrid - Classic answer when you don't have one. Blame Obama. You and others ridicule others for being a burden on America for not having a job. Now what do think of the no loads/lazy/welfare filing coal miners in Kentucky. Should they starve and kicked out of their homes? Who cares if they can't support their families. SOUNDS FAMILIAR TO ALL OF YOU FINGER POINTING HYPOCRITS. Not everyone is what you classify them as. These are those times a social net is needed, but perhaps that only applies in certain areas of America. Now, may I ask...What is the Christian thing to do?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-05-13 10:03 PM

"Classic answer when you don't have one."

EB, do you understand that Obama said openly that he would kill the coal industry? When the leader of the nation makes such a claim, when he enacts legislation to kill coal as a fuel source, and it comes to be, yes, he is to blame.

"Now what do think of the no loads/lazy/welfare filing coal miners in Kentucky."

I feel very sorry that their President deliberately targetted their jobs.

"Now, may I ask...What is the Christian thing to do?"

Charity, of course. The Christian way is certainly not to take from the producers by force and give to others. That is why conservatives are more charitable than liberals.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-05-13 10:16 PM

"The word "largely" is a general non-specific qualifier."

I provided definitions. 14% is NOT "largely". It's more like barely.

"If I say - for example, that your house is largely over-run with termites, does that mean that your house is necessarily 51% or more composed of termite?"

If you said that, you would be wrong. AGAIN.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lindalea

Nov-06-13 9:25 AM

OMG!! WILL YOU PLEASE STOP BLAMING BUSH!! IT'S TIME YOU START PUTTING THE BLAME ON obamA. HE'S THE ONE WHOSE TURNED THIS COUNTY UPSIDE DOWN. YOU ALMOST DON'T RECOGNIZE IT ANYMORE. BETWEEN obama, THE POLITICALLY CORRECT, NATION OF WUSSEYS, HIGH PRICE OF THIS THAT AND THE OTHER THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA I GREW UP IN. DO YOU REALIZE WE'VE GOT A SOCIALIST PRESIDENT? SO DISGUSTING!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lindalea

Nov-06-13 9:31 AM

Look, i don't mind helping the poor, but I want to do it because I want to do it, not because the idiots in Washington are forcing me to do it!!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-06-13 10:10 AM

In 2011, Romney gave 29.4% of his income to charity.

Obama gave 21.8%.(Only 14% in 2010.)

Here are Obama's charitable contributions prior to his running for President:

2005: $77,315 to charity out of income of $1.66 million (4.6 percent)

2004: $2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent)

2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent)

2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)

Do you think the poor would have more food if your president was more charitable, rather than forcing others to give more of their money?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-06-13 9:43 PM

"This country ran up that debt when Bush was president"

core doesn't mention that it was a DEMOCRAT controlled congress, and congress makes budget and spends money, not a president.

So, yes, he IS blaming Bush (wrongly so, for the most part.)

"Obama has slashed new spending to the lowest level since Ike but he can't make old debt just disappear."

Under Bush, the National Debt went up about $607 billion a year.

Under Obama, it has risen $1.723 trillion a year.

And revenue has recently hit the highest amount, ever.

FACTS. Gotta love 'em.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-07-13 9:03 AM

"That's true. I tend to not mention things that are not germane."

Translation: core doesn't want to consider that FACT.

"Does he not have a Congress?"

Yep. A split one. The failed stimulus was his and the Democrat's idea. Obamacare was his and the Dems idea.

Do I have that correct?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-07-13 2:49 PM

Now, that's funny right there.

The Five Biggest Failures From President Obama's Stimulus Law ...

usnews(dot)com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/the-five-biggest-failures-from-president-obamas-stimulus-law

Verdict on the stimulus: A failure - Chicago Tribune

articles(dot)chicagotribune****/2011-06-30/news/ct-oped-0630-chapman-20110630_1_claudia-sahm-tax-cuts-stimulus

The Final Verdict On The 2009 Stimulus: A Failure

outsidethebeltway(dot)com/the-final-verdict-on-the-2009-stimulus-a-failure/

Review & Outlook:Why the Stimulus Failed - WSJ(dot)com

The political failure of Obama’s stimulus package : The New Yorker

newyorker(dot)com/talk/financial/2010/09/20/100920ta_talk_surowiecki

Why the Stimulus Failed | National Review Online

nationalreview(dot)com/articles/328432/why-stimulus-failed-arthur-c-brooks

you really need to get yourself some new sources, core. Fox News, perhaps. They had it right.

I'll address the Heritage lie later.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-07-13 9:27 PM

Let me see if I understand.

You want us to ignore the Chicago Tribune, New Yorker, National Review, Townhall, Weekly Standard, CNS News, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Time, Washington Times, Forbes, and dozens and dozens of others...

... and believe......

........ YOU?

Seriously?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hagrid

Nov-08-13 8:28 AM

You mean some liberal economists who use Keynesian theory rather than reality, and liberal "history", correct?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 47 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: