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

Debt Is Destructive

October 12, 2013

To The Reader’s Forum: Debt is the most destructive force that we face. Seventeen trillion dollars in debt and absolutely no plan to repay one red cent; that is our national policy....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Oct-19-13 10:06 AM

The following should have read 2006 instead of 2008, and 2007 instead of 2009.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-19-13 10:05 AM

Somebody blamed democrats for ballooning the deficit in 2008. Well, the election was in November of 2008, the budget was already written and passed by republicans in 2008 and was effective through most of 2009. AND, in 2009 the dems didn't have a majority until June or July because the contested races hadn't been resolved yet...Al Franken. So, that person was clearly wrong to blame the democrats. It was the republicans. Im just happy to have pro-Americans running things again. Thank you for reading, may all good corporations go to heaven.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-19-13 10:00 AM

What a bunch of blabbering ninnies. When you compare debt with each administration, remember, budget deficit not equal to debt. Example: Budget deficits under gwbush averaged about 500 billion. But every year he racked up another 200-800 billion of debt that was not on budget(emergency appropriations). After Clinton's last budget, debt was 6.7 trillion. After Bush's last budget, debt was 13.6 trillion. When Obama came into office, we were still operating under Bush's last budget for the next eight months. Suddenly, Obama wants everything on budget, and all the knuckleheads think that deficit spending shot through the roof. The budget deficit looked higher, but the annual debt didn't change significantly because it was all accounted for. 17 trillion - 13.6 trillion, doesn't look so bad anymore.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-16-13 6:08 PM

Most of you voted for our slow witted so called president. Deal with the mess he has plaaced our once great country in. Vote dumocrats out and you will see improvements. Vote Teaparty people in !

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-16-13 5:54 PM

I thought maybe HH would have been back by now to straighten everybody out.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-16-13 5:32 PM

The only government shutdown is hand picked by Obama to give fools the idea it's the tea party's fault.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-15-13 7:09 PM


2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-15-13 5:51 PM

Blame the president!!!!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-15-13 5:38 PM

Where can someone like him go? A Dem appointment to some useless bureaucratic clerk position answering Schumer's hate mail?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-15-13 7:41 AM

Fed up, you want to know why no one listens to you,because of comments like "McConnell and Boehner make much more sense than Reid/Pelosi". All 4 are morons, and yet you support the 2 biggest morons. Your party allows the 15% tea partiers to call all the shots, and as in the last 2 presidential elections, you will continue to see your party lose. And by the way, if you think letting the country default is a good thing, you really do have no clue on things.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-15-13 7:17 AM

It doesn't make any sense what-so-ever! By shutting down the government, they are adding too the debt. A good start would be to get rid of these career politicians on both side of the aisle, because they are pretty much worthless. Obamacare's bad, but you don't stop living just because you don't like something. The real issue is to fix the economy, but I haven't seen any of these politicians do much when it comes to this, instead they shutdown the government. It just doesn't make sense!!!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-15-13 3:16 AM

Doggie, just in case you need a picture see ht tp: // / 15ZCTMa. Of course you know you must remove the spaces. Just helping you find the mundane to grasp and hold up as insightful causality.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-15-13 2:41 AM

I'll leave this here for the Peanut Gallery. I refer you to my first post.

******* / pVpxtv

I think we are done here.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 6:39 PM

Bluesman, if prefer the financial times but that assumes you have a basic understanding of the social sciences. You can stick to the spoon feed media of you like. It trends to limit one's understanding as you exemplified. I'm still trying to figure out why you are laughing alone. I do not consume media I've not paid for so what's your joke?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 6:34 PM

OK 50s and Doggie, you guys win. You are both brilliant. I'm sure you'll lead the way to our salvation. The rest of us reasonable folk will keep to ourselves and await your blinding insights. Oh, and Doggie, go find West Point's military theory on guerrilla warfare and terrorism, also called the american revolution, and put my comments to that context. And 50s, as always, you are boring. At least Doggie attempts to fake it with his use of straw man fallacy to try to avoid addressing the question at hand.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 5:55 PM

HH you are in such a hurry to dazzle us with your self proclaimed brilliance, you didn't actually read the letter before you started running your mouth making it something that you could get miles of blah blah out of.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 5:49 PM

Hill is about as qualified as Obama.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 4:53 PM

Doggie, you choose a 75% cut in spending to call me liberal? You are comical when you are grasping for straws. Pitty that the PJ does not allow for the posting of graphics as I could show you why a 75% cut in spending preserves the strongest military in the world while removing the pork. You've hear that the Army wanted to not buy 2,000 A1 tanks, yes? Pork. You heard the Navy wanted to downsize many of its high tech fleet because they were not helpful, yes? Pork. You know we have 700 military installations around the world, many of which have no offensive positioning? BAD SPENDING!

Go ahead, Doggie. Tell me we should spend more on a military which is already has a budget 15 times bigger than the next 10 largest armies combined. Seriously! Know how the Romans fell? They spent to much on non-value add activities. In particular, a war machine in a time of peace when there was no more enemies to fight. Tell me Doggie, why am I wrong?

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 4:48 PM

Bluesman, you are not using my words against me. If you think you are, then you'll have to be a bit more overt.

You do not understand the academic world. He is an associate professor in the Columbia School of Education. My point, clearly made, was that he is not fit for comment. It is like choosing the guy who hangs out at the Cherry Lounge bar as an expert on debt. Now, if you wish to quote full professors (by the way, that is a title to be earned) then do choose a professor who has undertaken rigorous research in the area of public debt and financing.

Am I clear? Oh, and Bill O'Reilly is not a person who I would empower to select knowledgeable guests to discuss a topic. One thing they do teach you at JCC is that you need to choose 'good' sources and a Fox News talking head probably does not qualify.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 3:27 PM

Bluesman, I call BS on your last statement. First, was born in 1978 and is not a professor but a junior faculty member at Columbia. Second, he is in education and culture so he has no economics background and his PhD was in education anthropology. He is unqualified outside that of a normal voting citizen to compare and contrast the types of debt between the two administrations. If you are going to be disparaging, at least do so with a credible source.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 3:13 PM

50s! You went back to the well again for the same insult? If you are going to insult me twice, at least be a bit more creative. I keep wishing you'd invest yourself, bet it with an argument or with committing to a creative way of insulting me. I feel cheapened that I get neither from you. Show some effort, man!

I'd like to point out your insult is superfluous in that you clearly have engaged with my comments as have others so that means I'm not talking in front of a mirror. But good try though. I'll give you a D+ for the lacklustre effort to make it about me instead of showing up with a well articulated opinion. Oh yeah, and like I told Doggie, read my first comment on this article and tell me I'm wrong.

Come on 50s, one more time - WITH FEELING!

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 3:09 PM

Doggie, you really need to take that political philosophy class and figure our your left from your right. Read my first comment and then call me liberal. Your rose colored glasses are really preventing you from engaging in a discussion which could be fruitful. Frankly, it is really getting old.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 2:41 PM

Correction. You must spend a lot of time talking in front of a mirror.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 9:53 AM

Oh 50s, is that your best rebuttal? A personal attack of which all you know is a reasonably articulated opinion. It would be fantastic if you leveraged the resources in our community, advanced your opinion and found a way to articulate it without the slant diatribe which you commonly spout.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 9:21 AM

HH I suspect you spend a lot of time in front of a mirror.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 40 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web