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 6:58 PM

It's OK to admit you watch PBS. We never thought for a minute you were one of the cool kids anyway. That's one thing you can't fake. (Are you sitting next to Irony? You sound just like him.)

5 Agrees | 1 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 6:28 PM

Double H, A talking head from Fox News does not qualify? I'll use a talking head from PBS next time. Can you give me some though? I'm sure you hang on their every word. Remember, your station adds to the 17t. Kinda funny isn't it.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 6:07 PM

"In particular, a war machine in a time of peace when there was no more enemies to fight"

So, according to you Hank, we have no more enemies to fight? Tell that to the families of 911. Tell that to the parents of our dead military killed in Afganistan. Tell that to the survivors and families of the dead in Bengazhi. How amount those injured and killed in Boston.

You're right Hank, there are no more enemies to fight, or no more animals in the Muslim world that want us all dead. Pull your head out of the sand and open your eyes. There are millions that want us dead and without a military, we are at their mercy - of which they have none.

4 Agrees | 1 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 4:22 PM

I hope you won't resort to a personal attack. I know you're way above that. You even said so. Sorry to keep using your words against you. But they are your words. Want to sound intelligent, use my words. Won't be any problems that way.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 4:14 PM

HH, Marc Lamont Hill is old enough to be President of the US. You're saying he's too young to be a college professor. Oops, you stepped in that one. I shall enjoy watching you get out of it. I suggest you claim you were misquoted in your own post. It might even work.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-14-13 3:58 PM

Do you think I just came across his name somewhere and decided to pretend he said something he didn't say. Why would I choose him? He was always introduced as a professor at Columbia. He never said otherwise. As far as his age, many professors are younger. Surely you know that much.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 51 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