Act on debt I
Act on debt
The federal government spent $1.1 trillion more than it took in last year and now owes over $16 trillion. But these numbers are so huge as to be meaningless, so I appreciate Ralph R. Reiland breaking it down to how much each individual and household owes in his column “Our increasing debt by the numbers” (Jan. 14 and TribLIVE.com). That makes it personal.
No one planned this crushing debt. It's the cumulative result of countless smaller decisions usually touted as compassionate. Bail out that corporation to save its employees' jobs. Attack that country because its rulers oppress its people. Subsidize that “green” industry because its products are good for us but nobody wants to buy them.
Send money to hurricane victims without knowing or caring how much they're getting from their state and local governments, charities or insurance. And never ask where the budget could be cut to offset this compassionate spending. That would be heartless!
Washington has operated this way for years, under both parties, and it's left us, our children and grandchildren with a huge and growing debt. The road to insolvency, like that to hell, has been paved with good intentions, but now we're seeing what this unaffordable compassion costs.
Will the U.S. change course before it's too late? Or is it already too late?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.