Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Let's not find out

Comments

Return To Article
  • Int'l Businessman SLO, CA
    July 12, 2011 12:14 a.m.

    There you have it. I believe I just witnessed the DN editorial staff call Republican members of Congress immature and irresponsible. I guess this is what happens when you abandon reason and turn your back on the rest of the country to keep a pledge that only benefits your most wealthy constituents.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2011 12:20 a.m.

    Capitalism has ALWAYS been an unstable and volatile system. History shows that. We are about to find out just how unstable it is. The result will be a catasrophe which will make 1929 look tame. I think its time to go on to a democratic brand of socialism, but I blanche at the suffering this transormation will entail. The Deseret News is right on this one.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 12, 2011 12:30 a.m.

    Good editorial, if anything you minimize the possible risks of not extending the debt ceiling. A crash far worse than the crash of 2008 is entirely within the realm of possibility.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    July 12, 2011 6:15 a.m.

    "So it makes no sense for Congress to run up a tab in its budget bills and then turn around and block the Treasury from paying those bills by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Such a vote would be the height of hypocrisy.

    "Passing a balanced budget is the equivalent of cutting up the credit cards, and that is a smart idea. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is the equivalent of cutting up the credit card statements, and that is idiotic."

    Such clear and concise analysis, not to mention blunt statements, are just what needs to be said in regard to the current crisis, created not by the over spending but by those who think that political theatre is a game, regardless of how many lives it negatively impacts. Thanks you so much, DN, for speaking the plain truth in relation to this congressionally made crisis that could be avoided by simple honestly in meeting our obligations as a nation. Extortion is an ugly word, no matter who is praticing it.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 12, 2011 6:26 a.m.

    These are words of wisdom. It would be easier for me to empathize with the Republicans on this, but they keep voting for more spending on the programs they like, Recently, Hatch and Lee voted to keep a duplicate F-35 engine that the Pentagon did not want and said was wasteful. So if Hatch and Lee are truly serious, why do they keep doing this? They SAY they want to balance the budget, so how are they going to do it when mere cutting will not do it but will instead actually increase the deficit? They are more about advancing personal greed, selfishness and narcissism than they are about the common good. They get teary eyed about the Constitution, then spit on one of its basic reasons for being, the common welfare of the people. Against the prevailing assumptions of the right, if the dire consequences of the game being played by the Republicans come true, it will lead to the loss of our freedoms, bit by bit. Our nation is more threatened by the right than by the left. Be responsible and raise the debt limit, then stop being hypocrites on government spending.

  • T-Jeff Uinta Basin, Utah
    July 12, 2011 7:25 a.m.

    The 14th Amendment was passed right after the Civil War. The purpose of the language cited was intended to stop the southern states from refusing to help pay for that war. There is no way that clause can rightly be interpreted to include a presidential power to borrow money 143 years after its ratification. This ludicrous concept is being put forth and advocated by the progressive wing in a bid to create an even more so Imperial Presidency.

    So, by what authority does the country borrow money? Article 2 describes the creation of the Executive office and its limited powers. There is no such power to borrow included in that article. Article 1, Section 7 states All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. Article 1, Section 9 states No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. It seems clear that if the President is borrowing money without the authorization of Congress he is doing so as a citizen and not the Executive. Therefore, he is responsible for repayment of those loans, not the American public.

  • T-Jeff Uinta Basin, Utah
    July 12, 2011 7:26 a.m.

    (cont)
    Who would loan money to the President under such questionable circumstances? Probably the Federal Reserve, since they only print fiat money anyway, and they would likely get little static from the near worthless institution of Congress. Would anyone else have standing to take him to court?. If he lost such a suit would we have to bail out the banks that unlawfully loaned him the money? Seems like a no-win situation for the now and future taxpayer.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2011 7:26 a.m.

    Your excellent insights will fall on deaf Republican ears. They would rather see the country collapse than abandon their intransigent cut-spending/no-taxes pledge.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 12, 2011 7:45 a.m.

    Everyone is ignoring the "why" question. Why are revenues down? Why are people not investing in new factories, new businesses, new jobs? Why are sales down in virtually every business?

    Until those questions are answered, spending more money will just aggravate the problem.

    The fact is that America is no longer worth the risk. Taxes on businesses in America are excessive when compared to other countries, otherwise no company would have "out sourced" its production. Now that Americans are no longer buying high ticket items, there is no reason for any business to pay those excessive taxes to design, build and sell items that will no be purchased by Americans.

    Excessive taxation caused the problem. Excessive taxation was caused by excessive spending. Excessive spending is the reason that Congress wants to raise the debt ceiling.

    Congress is too immature to fix the problem that they have created. The President is too immature to tell Congress to stop spending. Businessmen are mature enough to know that spending their hard earned money to build factories and create businesses in America is a losing proposition. They can do the math. Congress needs to do the math.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2011 8:22 a.m.

    We need to prepare ourselves for the worst possible outcome, because we may have become ungovernable. The situation can be made easier if we see all of our dealings and interactions as social ones between human beings. A lot of you, if not all, need to read Marx's "Capital." To Marx all relationships are social relationships. This is obscured by the practice of buying and selling everything including human labor power. Once that happens we can no longer see one another as human beings. Maybe we can voluntarily cooperate and increase pariticpation of labor in its own management. We should probably not adopt Marx's negative view of cooperatives under capaitalism, because such may be what saves us. We must be prepared to deal with each other as human beings, not objects, if the worst happens.

    I undetsand the taboo which exists around Marx. There is a lot of fear about Marx. Mainstream economists, the gang that can't shoot straight, won't touch him. But Marx is to economics what Freud is to psychology. If the worst happens there is opportunity. But economists for the most part will be useless in getting us through.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 12, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    Taxes are the reason production has been outsourced..let's see I pay a US worker $25 and hour to build a widget (still barely a living wage) or I can pay a worker in Mylasia 25 cents an hour..oh yea and I can hide my profits in the Caman Islands. Show me a company that moved it's production off shore and paid the same wage or higher as they did in America and maybe I'll start to buy your logic. Average coporate taxes were around 15% last year, regardless of the rate they were suppose to pay. That compares favorably with the rest of the world.

    Let me answer your first question (not my answer by the way but the answer provided by most credible economists). Why are revenues down? Low, low, low, demand. People lost their wealth when their house price went belly up. If you lose $100,000 worth of wealth instantly and two years later it's still gone, I don't think you're going to rush out and buy that new boat, house or car. Spending does keep demand up when private wealth has disapeared.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    July 12, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    There should have been a Balanced Budget Amendment years ago, but the vote-buyers in both parties would rather bankrupt the country and hoodwink the populace than display any degree of maturity and responsibility. We should be totally disgusted with the debt-and-spend Republicans and the tax-and-spend Democrats. Both have failed to do the right thing, and both have had their own pet spending sprees at the expense of the taxpayers and future generations of people who have to try to build a life in this country.

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    July 12, 2011 9:16 a.m.

    An interesting argument but very wrong.

    I own a credit card. It has a credit limit. If I maxed out that card and did not increase that limit the bank will not allow me make additional charges to that card.

    To "irresponsibly shred the credit card statements" as the author puts it would be part of a deciding which bills to pay. If I do not have the means to pay all I must choose which are most important. In my case, paying a morgage, utility bills and buying food for the family would naturally come first.

    Failing to raise the debt limit simply forces the US to live within its income and puts the president in the uncomfortable position making the difficult decision of what programs and bills take priority.

    Additonally, the president is not required by law to spend every cent in the budget. The argument that he will be breaking the law either way is speculative at best.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 12, 2011 9:37 a.m.

    To "JayTee | 8:32 a.m." a balanced budget ammendment wouldn't be good unless you can disconnect the Federal Government from being able to print money. Think of it this way. If a dishonest congress decided that the $3 Trillion in taxes wasn't enough, and they needed an additional $500 Billion, they could print their way to a balanced budget.

    To those of you who are worried about what will happen if the debt limit isn't increased, we have a historical example of what will happen.

    Read "Default from 1979 offers clues on debt crisis" at CBS News. The Government defaulted in May 1979, and apparently very little happened when that occured.

    That episode in history was soon forgotten, and we now have nearly the exact same thing going on.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 12, 2011 9:41 a.m.

    To T-Jeff: When did the 14th Amendment expire? The specific situation that warranted its drafting is irrelevant, i its still part of the constitution.

    It seems to me that the two parts of the constitution that you cite are in conflict with one another. It is illegal for congress not to pay for funds that it has already appropriated, which is what would happen absent a debt ceiling increase. So if congress breaks the law, what does the president do? Use the part of the constitution that directs him to see that the law is upheld.

    If this happens, impeachment would be congress' only remedy. Let's hope congress regains its collective senses, doesn't break the law, and doesn't force the President into making that choice.

  • reader1234 South Jordan, UT
    July 12, 2011 9:47 a.m.

    The only thing that will happen on August 2nd is that this nation will get to see where Obamas priorities are. We still have tax revenue coming in. Obama will just get the chance to pay US debt holders or pay for social programs. Also we will finally reach a balanced budget. I say don't do anything.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 12, 2011 10:08 a.m.

    There was a WSJ interview with Stanley Druckenmiller (former fund manager and billionaire philanthropist and big time t-bill owner) Anyone interested in this subject should read that interview.
    The fact is that Congress doesn't set the debt limit and the President doesn't either. The debt limit is ultimately set by the people (or Countries, Pension funds etc) that buy that debt. Who knows what might happen? Treasury rates could go down if we pass Aug 2nd with no increase. No one can predict that.
    We can predict that if the US continues on it's current spending pace with no reforms put in place to control spending then more than likely something really bad is going to happen.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 12, 2011 10:29 a.m.

    Revenues to the Federal Government in fiscal year 2011 are $2,173.7 TRILLION dollars.

    Mr. Obama did not collect over $400 billion when he added the payroll reduction deduction. That means that he would have collected $2.573.7 TRILLION had he not given back money.

    In 2007, revenues were $2,568.0 trillion, which was an all time high. In other words, except for Mr. Obama messing with revenues, the federal government would have had all time high revenues for fiscal year 2011.

    As pragmatistferlife pointed out, BUSINESS revenues are down because people have no personal credit and no cash. Most of us are upside-down in our mortgages, We owe more than the house is worth. No equity means no ability to borrow on that equity. Most of us have used all the credit cards that we're willing to use, knowing that we have to pay for those purchases. We simply don't have any way to buy anything that we absolutely don't need. That means that we won't be helping BUSINESS to increase sales. We can't. We don't have the money.

    Taxing us more will not solve the problem.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    July 12, 2011 10:29 a.m.

    "Taxes on businesses in America are excessive when compared to other countries"

    And many of those countries with lower corporate tax rates have higher individual tax rates. The money gets collected from somewhere.

    How many of those countries with lower taxes than the US spend TWENTY FIVE PERCENT of their budget on military?

    Lastly, our country thrived with much higher taxes than they are today. If lower taxes are the answer to everything, why are we not thriving today, as taxes are at some 50 year lows?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 12, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    Re: "None of the possible answers are pretty, especially in light of a still-weak economic recovery."

    Not true.

    The debt ceiling is the one last, shining hope we have of forcing venal, liberal politicians into fiscal responsibility.

    ANY other possibility is better than continuing down the path to national suicide the liberals have placed us on.

    If President Obama wills it, he certainly can make good on his demagogic threats and begin the final dismantling of the American economy. We can't stop him until the 2012 elections.

    But, if that's what he decides to do, the onus must and will fall on him -- his is not required to default on the unsustainable debt. At least, not yet.

    Our economy still produces sufficient revenues to meet our obligations as they come due, so long as needless, bureaucratic bloat is cut elsewhere.

    It's his mindless dedication to needless government bloat that is neither justifiable nor understandable.

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    July 12, 2011 11:44 a.m.

    Re: Roland

    Lets say congress has appropriated (set apart or authorized) a total of $3.8 trillion to be used in 2011. $.76 trillion for SS, $.76 for defense, $.76 for medicaid and medicare, etc.

    However because of the debt limit only $2.0 trillon is legally available. Does this not simply put the president in the uncomfortable position of choosing which of the authorized funds to distribute money to?

    In otherwords the president can only spend $2.0 trillion of the authorized 3.8 trillion because that is all that is legally available to him.

    So in essence, Obama could spend $0.76 trillion on SS, $.76 on medicare/medicaid, $.3 on defence, and the remainder as he chooses as long as it less than or equal to the amounts approved.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    "Why are revenues down? Why are people not investing in new factories, new businesses, new jobs? Why are sales down in virtually every business?"

    Lack of demand. That's why cutting spending would be a terrible thing since if you wipe out a million gov't jobs, that's a million more people who are going to not be getting an income to spend into the economy.

  • T-Jeff Uinta Basin, Utah
    July 12, 2011 12:38 p.m.

    To Roland K: The 14th hasn't expired but it could certainly use some clarification. It has been used and abused as a catch-all, much like the commerce clause. The situation that caused it to come into being certainly is relevant. All law is judged on the reason it was brought into existence. For a court to interpret the law any other way amounts to them legislating from the bench and legislation is the sole propriety of Congress.

    The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. SOUTH CAROLINA v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

    Sorry but I don't see the conflict you are alluding to. Section 7 clearly states where the bills for raising revenue will come from and that is not the White House. Section 9 states that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury absent a law being passed prior to that withdrawal. The President may sign that law but he may not create it on his own.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 12, 2011 1:01 p.m.

    Mike, I agree taxing us more won't help but taxing my golfing buddy at a normal income level who is worth 50 million, and makes multiple millions each year off of dividends will help. Getting oil off the dole will help. Ending three wars will help. None of this is the total answer costs do need to go down, and I don't mind modernizing SS, medicare and medicaid..however revenues have to part of the picture and when raised from the right places will help the economy not hurt.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 12, 2011 1:20 p.m.

    George W. and his Republican Congress ran up a war bill of $1.2 trillion. They told us it would cost $50 billion at most. So much for Republican promises. Now they don't want to PAY the bill. This is called immaturity and irresponsibility. My dad called such people deadbeats.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2011 3:16 p.m.

    Only left wing, government dependent people have something to fear if they default. Since they suck from the bottle of government, they are clueless on how to survive in the real world.

    Let us default. I would rather have that, than find out what defaulting looks like with $30 Trillion of debt to pay off. That is going to be far more painful than $15 Trillion.

    I doubt any politician will let it come to that. They'll extend it another month or 3 months. But until obama and the democrats accept cuts in their special interest programs. There is no hope.

    We don't need taxes increased. The problem is the failed programs. The lies. Broken promises. Broken oaths. That politicians on both sides have played. The problem is they expect us to bail them out. The problem is too many voters demand handouts for votes and sell their vote....

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    July 12, 2011 3:35 p.m.

    funny to me how the deficit problem is only created by the programs we like.

    SS and Medicare cause debt problems while the military spending is fine.

    debt is debt and deficit is deficit, regardless on where it came from.

    Where was all the DEBT CEILING argument when GWB raised it 5 times, 4 of which were with a republican congress?

    So, now I get to hear how this is different.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 12, 2011 4:15 p.m.

    Mike @7:45 AM

    Readers are familiar with your devotion to cutting taxes and spending.

    President Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his Presidency.

    He increased spending dramatically for defense.

    Without specific numbers, your well thought out proposals become empty vessels.

    You comment indicated you were looking for answers.

    "...Taxes on business are excessive...Excessive taxation caused the problem...Excessive taxation...".

    What is your exact number at which taxes on business will no longer be excessive?

    0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%?

    What are your SPECIFIC GOALS, OBJECTIVES and TIMELINES to get to that number?

    "Excessive spending..."

    What is your exact number at which spending will not be excessive?

    What are your SPECIFIC GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND TIMELINES to get to that number?

    "...The President is too immature to tell Congress to stop spending..."

    Gongress holds the purse strings. The issue of "Immaturity" is not addressed, in the Constitution.

    "...build(ing) factories and creat(ing) businesses in America is a losing proposition...".

    President Ronald Reagan never saw building America as a losing proposition.

  • tom jr. north ogden, uT
    July 12, 2011 4:18 p.m.

    We will raise the debt limit. Then we will raise it again. And again. We are borrowing 1.5 Trillion annually and that, as has been projected, will be the case for at least ten years. Democrats and Republicans are, apparently, now on board with increasing our Federal debt from the current $14 Trillion to $25-$29 Trillion in a decade. They talk about deficit reduction over ten years, but whatever comes of it, it will amount to virtually nothing. The geniuses among us claim a balanced budget amendment will be bad for this country. How about default? How about bankruptcy? We are a nation dependent on debt. We have a government that can't say no. We think we're entitled. We will see how this plays out, and you can bet the farm it won't be pretty.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2011 5:13 p.m.

    "We are borrowing 1.5 Trillion annually and that, as has been projected, will be the case for at least ten years."

    Actually that's not true, the CBO goes on what is currently law and one of the biggest changes is that the current projections have the bush tax cuts active only for two years because that's all the law currently says they're active for. That and other things make the projected deficits fall to about 700 billion a year in a couple years.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    July 12, 2011 5:34 p.m.

    In an interview with CBS Evening News, President Obama says he can't guarantee Social Security checks will go out Aug. 3rd if a debt-ceiling deal is not reached by the Aug. 2nd deadline. Scott Pelley: Can you tell the folks at home no matter what happens that Social Security checks are going to go out on August the 3rd? There are about 20 billion dollars of Social Security checks that have to go out the day after the government is supposed to go into default. Obama: Well this is not just a matter of Social Security checks, these are veterans checks, these are folks on disability, their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out. Scott Pelley: Can you guarantee as President those checks will go out on August the 3rd?. Obama: I can not guarantee those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.

    $32.5 TRILLION in TOTAL WEALTH was created in the markets since 2009. Guess what, NO ONE paid any taxes nor created any job's with this money.

    Tax the rich. Raise debt limit.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 12, 2011 6:03 p.m.

    The Washington Post reported on July 24, 2010:

    "But the long-term forecast stayed about the same, with the White House predicting additional borrowing of $8.5 trillion through 2020, a sum that would drive the national debt to more than 77 percent of annual economic output. That would be the highest percentage since 1950.

    Independent forecasters, such as the Congressional Budget Office, say that number will probably be significantly higher if current policies remain unchanged. Obama has created a bipartisan commission to develop a strategy for stabilizing the debt by 2015."

    -----

    What does "significantly higher" mean? Why would the CBO think that the number will probably be "significantly higher"? Where is the "bipartisan commission" whose duty is to develop a strategy to stabilize the debt by 2015? Who are the members of that "commission"? What have they done? Where is their report?

    Let's face it, Mr. Obama said what he thought we would believe and has done nothing to fix anything. There is no "bipartisan commission". There is no "report". It's all smoke and mirrors.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 12, 2011 6:41 p.m.

    I'm worried when they ask how stupid we can be, we may just find out. Starting to convert my money and get it out of the US.

  • tom jr. north ogden, uT
    July 12, 2011 7:28 p.m.

    atl134

    If you're right and Obama cuts spending by $4 Trillion in the next decade, we will "only" add $5 trillion to the Federal Debt, if my calculator is working, for a low-ball, ten years from now, total of $19 Trillion smackers. Otherwise we're looking at $25 Trillion. If Boehner wins, and spending is cut only $2 Trillion, then the low-ball figure is $21 Trillion, the high $27 Trillion. However these depressing totals turn out, we the people will be carrying on our sore backs a mountain of debt, and a mountain of yearly interest due, from here to forever. There is no talk of getting rid of the Federal Debt, only "stabilizing it," whatever that means.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2011 8:18 p.m.

    I love these "the sky is going to fall" editorials. The worst thing that will happen is the USA will have to live within the 2.3 trillions dollars it is bringing in annually. Really, really hard. Granted the immediate 44% cut is steep, but that is where all the tax more and spend more politicians, citizens and editorial staffs have taken the country. I love the new "back bone" these Republican congressmen elected in 2010 are showing. Pray they have the courage to continue this even with the neverending pressure from the political ruling class and its willing helper the 4th estate.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:19 a.m.

    The government sounds like a spoiled rich kid who is told by his/her trust fund manager that because of poor investment returns, they are going to have to live on just $1 million per year instead of the $2 million per year they are used to.

    How can they ever get by? Only $1 million will not pay for their lavish lifestyle. They might have to give up the private jet. They might not be able to throw wild parties for their closest 500 friends every week. They might have to sell one of their 20 expensive cars.

    Faced with this unhappy situation, the spoiled brat tries to explain to the trust fund manager that if the income is not raised, the first thing to go will be grandma's medicine, little brother's food, and little sister's modest college fund.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    July 13, 2011 5:06 p.m.

    The only way to fix the problem is to nationalize the Federal Reserve and take back the right to issue our money debt free.

    It makes no sense to base a monetary system on bonds, debt and IOU's. Interest always exceeds the money created by banks for loans resulting in a cycle that enslaves us to the banks.

    It is a system designed to enrich people who will provide no labor, materials, or innovation to economy. Is this the type of money system you want for your children?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    July 13, 2011 5:18 p.m.

    Jash:

    Using some general figures, the US government brings in $2.2T in revenue and has a $1.6T deficit, which means total federal spending is $3.8T (more or less).

    So, if the debt ceiling is not raised, that means federal outlays will need to be reduced by 42%, effective (basically) immediately. Hill AFB would need to make a 42% cut in their budget, Grandma would get 42% less on her social security check, physicians would receive 42% less for Medicare procedures, etc. Hundreds of thousands of defense contractor employees would need to be layed off, the Veterans Administration would need to be dramatically cut, we'd need to lay off or furlough 42% of air traffic controllers, etc.

    I'm having a hard time imagining how this would not have an immediate & devastating effect on the economy.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    July 13, 2011 6:00 p.m.

    I say call them on it. They want to bring the nation to default just to prove they can.

    Puleeeeeeze. They didn't care about debt or they would have cut spending instead of raising spending during the Bush years. The republicans care only about power. Whever they are are in office they spend more than democrats and it's easily proven.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 13, 2011 6:21 p.m.

    re:MikeRichards
    "The fact is that America is no longer worth the risk. Taxes on businesses in America are excessive when compared to other countries, otherwise no company would have "out sourced" its production."

    Wrong, Mike.
    American Corporations are outsourcing their production simply due to WAGE RATES, not because of taxes, not because of regulations.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    July 13, 2011 7:29 p.m.

    Let's see we're being beat by communists in China who's effective taxes on state owned businesses is 100%.

    They have billions of dollars in surpluses and we have massive debts. They are investing in education and thier kids are getting our college's Doctorate positions.

    Hard to argue with success.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    July 13, 2011 8:12 p.m.

    So we defaulted in 1979. Did it hasve something to do with Regan taking us from 1 trillion in debt to 3.4 trillion in debt in the following 8 years?

    And don't blame it on a democratic senate either, Regan could have vetoed anything he wanted.