Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Place An Ad | Warren Homecoming | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

We all had to make ends meet

March 6, 2013

Federal spending cuts labeled “the sequester” will be a terrible calamity, the White House warned during the weeks before they kicked in on Friday....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-07-13 2:52 PM

176 years without retiring the Federal debt.

176 years.

And yet, somehow, we've managed to survive as a country. Flourish, even.

How can that be? Could a household operate that way? Could a family carry debt for 176 years?

The short answer is "No!" Because a household is NOT a sovereign government.

When a private citizen dies, debts and assets need to be assumed and resolved.

On the other hand, there is no “day of reckoning,” no final piper-paying date for a sovereign government.

Further, no household has the power to levy taxes, to give a name to — and issue — the currency we use, and to demand that those taxes are paid in the currency it issues.

Households can't do that. Sovereign governments can.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 11:43 AM

FamilyGuy, it is exactly what you suggest. The problem is that those with in the beltway can't stand to see a pool of money they can't touch. They never have been able to. Yes, you never hear them say we won't be able to pay those within the beltway, or we won't be able fund their own travel allowances, or we won't be able to fund the benefit packages of those within the beltway. They always go after those with the least, and those they think don't pay attention.

Republitards, listen up. Those over 50, white, working class are your largest voting block. If you want to maintain your status in congress you need to quit attacking those that make up your voters.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 11:12 AM

It is amazing how we have allowed our Beltway politicians to re-classify Social Security as just another entitlement.

Social Security is paid for by 50% contribution from employees and 50% contribution from employers.

Don't see any contribution from Federal Taxpayer general fund monies.

So the question remains, why is Social Security always first on the chopping block when we get into budget negations?

The first checks threatened not to be sent out?

Social Security should continue to be a separate entity and financed and administered independent of the Federal budget.

We need to demand that the Federal politicians refrain from trying to fold Social Security Funds into the general fund to be able to co-mingle and redistribute the contributions of the worker and the employer to those who have not contributed.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 9:59 AM

Social Security has nothing to do with the annual federal budget. It is separate INSURANCE taken from your pay for a retirement supplement when you get freagin old and can't work anylonger. Read your pay stub sometime.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 7:34 AM


For your 176 year period we have had incompetent money managers creating so much more debt that even prudent administrations - including the vaulted Clinton - Gingrich team surplus - couldn't offset the excesses of their predecessors.

The metrics are the % of debt to GDP, and the % of deficit to income both of which are surpassing historic norms by breath taking amounts at breath taking speeds.

Even though Federal tax income is projected to be at absolute record levels, the Federal out of control spending is projected to be even higher.

There in lies the rub.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 6:44 AM

leadership needed now

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 6:31 PM

And yet 176 for years the fed. gov. has been "unable to pay the bills."

Splain dat!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 5:13 PM

Choke on your words, Obama. Beside being a con man, he's nothing but a LIAR!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 5:09 PM

A fact worth repeating over and over:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

~ Illinois' Inexperienced Half Term Junior Senator Barack Hussein Obama, March 2006

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 3:02 PM

This whole sequestration thing is predicated on the assumption that, at some unknown date in the hypothetical and distant future, the government (i.e., the taxpayer) will have to pay off all that debt. To bolster their argument, the United Church of Anti-Obama offers up, on a regular basis, the analogy that federal finances are just like household finances, and that, therefore, we should all tighten our belts and reduce government spending.

This position ignores our country's history, in that, except for one brief exception (1835), the federal government has been in debt every year since 1776.

Every year but 1835; of course, you all know that the economy collapsed into a deep depression in 1837, and the fed. government has been in debt ever since.

We've somehow managed to go 176 years without retiring the federal debt.

176 years.

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 2:10 PM

No it doesn't for me. That 2% is an investment that for most people is the only retirement savings they will have.

Max although you are correct about SS only being a supplement you must also remember that many of them people also had a pension provided by their employers. Not the case today. Less than 20% of Americans that will retire in the next 20 years have a pension. Many make less than $15/hr as well. Well try buying a home, now purchasing half of their health care, and helping their children go to college, where is the money to save to supplement their SS income? Working until 70? you must still be quit young. Go look at grandma and grandpa and tell them to go get out and work. There just isn't any money for them to freeload.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 11:50 AM

"SS was never designed for people to live on it 20-30 yrs" SS was not intended to live on period! It was intended as a supplemental income to ASSIST with retirement. It needs to return to that and pay-outs need to be directly proportional to the amount paid in per individual. "sequester can be easily solved" It will be "solved" as it is implemented. We need to continue to cut until revenue exceeds expenses. Start with the most recent new programs and whack them! If the economy picks up, implement the programs that will promote job growth and opportunity and the heck with the special interest B.S..

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 10:16 AM

they should have cut more from all programs & raised retirement age to 70 for Social Security. SS was never designed for people to live on it 20-30 years. Maybe a little less government dependence and a little more self dependence would be good for us.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-06-13 4:48 AM

The 2% in January was needed to keep Social Security solvent. Right now it's the only retirement plan for most workers and retirees except for the public employees. Comparing that 2 increase to the 2% Sequester spending decrease is incorrect and wrong Trib. If only the RepublicaNOs would agree to sensible spending cuts and tax increases proposed by president Obama the Sequester can be easily solved.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 14 of 14 comments


I am looking for: