T. Shields: Obama, Democrats continue to spend

It has been said that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. President Obama doesn’t seem to grasp that bit of common sense.

Since elected, Obama and the Democrats have spent incessantly, borrowing well over $16 trillion, and they want more. There is a spending problem.

It has been shown that raising tax rates on the rich won't nearly provide the amount of dollars needed to pay the bills. It is more of a political tool to help Obama and the Democrats generate votes from lower income people by creating a class warfare resentment toward the wealthy (wealthy Democrats included?).

Taxes will increase from the Affordable(?) Health Care Act (Obamacare) and recently negotiated tax decisions. The president has not committed to cutting any major expenses.

The debt ceiling will soon be debated and, if raising it continues, the dollar could soon be worthless, and the younger generation is already saddled with excessive debt.

It would be nice if the Obama administration concentrated on the well-being of the United States rather than that of the Democratic party.

There is much that occurs in Washington that is not explained. The media are not helpful, omitting balanced reports and emphasizing one side with their stories. They have avoided any news focus on those in Congress who vote opposite their campaign promises.

Thomas F. Shields, Auburn

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



Amedeo Lauria's picture

Tom, once again...

excellent letter.

I'm a conservative who listens to all sides, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc. etc. Sometimes the concern is not about what they report, but what they don't report; otherwise known as the "gatekeeper" effect.

By any measure, this administration has far out spend any previous administration in a like time period.

It is laughable when the left states that the reason we are in this sorry situation is that taxes are too low!

The recent vacating of the witholding tax holiday sent the fear of God into the Democrat Underground who are now upset with the current administration; hope it lasts till 2014.

It is a tragic comedy worthy of Shakespeare; and America provides the cast.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

America does not have a

America does not have a taxing problem; it has a spending problem. And, current "leadership" is in absolute denial.

Jason Theriault's picture


"The media are not helpful, omitting balanced reports and emphasizing one side with their stories. "

Well, then stop watching Fox news, and you will see a much more balanced reporting. Of course, you may not like what you hear, but you may nto like what you see in the mirror either. Doesn't mean the mirror has a liberal bias.

 's picture

Do you watch FNC all day?

Or do you depend, like most lefties, on those other "news" organizations to tell you what to think?

When FNC holds a "debate" on some topic, they usually include at least one token leftie and present both sides of the issue. There's a bias to the right. So what? On those other "balanced" channels, a debate consists of a group of liberals all saying the same thing, nodding their heads, and congratulating each other on being members of the intelligentsia - and, of course, smooching Obama posterior.

The mirror that liberals gaze into is the one that shows them what they want to see. Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the most enlightened of all?

Jason Theriault's picture


I watch neither. People forget that the purpose of CNN/Fox/MSNBC is to get ratings. They will preach to the choir, and get you worried about the evil Dems/Republicans so that you will keep comming back for more.

See, being angry triggers the same areas of the brain as do drugs like heroin. It's part of our flight or fight reflex, so that if you need to fight, you can without fear. Same high as drugs. So, these fear mongers feed into that, demonize the other side, and get you hooked.

Wanna be enlightened? Read a book.

JOANNE MOORE's picture


I love books. Right now I am reading a series about the Blitz on London and what they went through. Interviews with people who lived through it and what happened after with the scarcity of goods and rationing. Those people had it rough. I love history books, biographies, science, and the old British murder mysteries. I've always got a book by my bedside.

And we don't watch the tv. It sucks. Just the ads will kill ya.

ps Is it ok to tell you I think you are brilliant? Or at least, very smart? No fooling.

RONALD RIML's picture

Mr. Shields; are you uninformed, mistaken, or lying???

Thomas Shields writes: "Since elected, Obama and the Democrats have spent incessantly, borrowing well over $16 trillion, and they want more. There is a spending problem.

According to the Weekly Standard a well-known Conservative source, on Sep 4, 2012 - "The United States Treasury reports that the total public outstanding debt is: $16,015,769,788,215.80. This is the first time in American history debt has eclipsed the $16 trillion mark.

The debt has increased approximately $5.4 trillion, since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

Now if we've borrowed $16 Trillion as you say - it's because we've had a lot of help from Republican Presidents - both Bushes and Reagan. Reagan won the Cold war by spending the Soviets pat their 'Line of Credit' - and Bush II put both Iraq and Afghanistan on Uncle Sam's Credit Card - we never budgeted either war.

National Debt Graph by President

Read the explaination by clicking on the above link

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Reagan and the two Bushes

Reagan and the two Bushes amassed their $11 trillion portion of the $16 trillion debt in a combined total of 20 years. oBAMA's portion of $5.4 trillion took him less than 5 years to amass. By the way, when does he get to own up to his 1/3 of the total debt?

RONALD RIML's picture

That's "Obama's" Tax Cut now and Grover Obama Tax Pledge

which doesn't allow the Republicans to pay for the Wars??

Who'da thunk it???

 's picture

Another fine letter Tom. I am

Another fine letter Tom. I am going to make some popcorn, sit back and wait for the rabid liberals to awaken and attack you. They just don't get it.

RONALD RIML's picture

We Dems get it.

You are in denial.

RONALD RIML's picture

A Fine Letter - But Obama didn't borrow $16 Trillion

Bush II left this country $10.7 Trillion in Debt, with two unpaid wars in progress, and a recent, 'unpaid' tax cut. All of which compound interest. Which Mr. Shields neglect to enter into the equation.

We simply attack the manner in which your side leaves out facts. "False Advertising."

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If Bush's tax cut is/was so

If Bush's tax cut is/was so bad, why did obama extend it? His own version of a tax cut was a 2 year, 2% reduction of the FICA tax through which working stiffs put money towards their retirement Social Security benefits. Essentially, the Campaigner in Chief allowed the American workers to pick their own pockets for 2 years and called it a "tax holiday". Way to go, Barry.

RONALD RIML's picture

Google "why did obama extend the bush tax cuts"

That results in 665,000 results.

Yet they are 'Bush Tax Cuts' nonetheless............

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You don't know or you just

You don't know or you just can't get yourself to say it? obama extends them, they become his; color it any way you wish.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

The republicans in the house

The republicans in the house need to stand firm and not raise the debt ceiling with out getting 10 to 1 in spending cuts.

Does anyone not understand that this level of spending is about to come to an end. Moreover, it will take middle class tax increases to marginally close the spending gap.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

"middle class"

Who do you consider "middle class"?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Income from about $45K-$200k,

Income from about $45K-$200k, lower to upper middle.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Thank you.

My hubby and I are both in our 70s. Although we both worked and earned our Social Security, it wouldn't be fun but we could scrape by if we lost it. Planning and saving and living within our means helps. No credit cards.

The thing that galls me is the people that got us into this mess won't be sharing any hardships.

ps. It wasn't me that gave you a disagree. If they disagreed with your numbers, wish they would say why.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I agree that those people who

I agree that those people who gave us the debt will not be paying to reconcile it. Moreover, I’ll do very thing I can to avoid those same people from forcing me to pay for their mess. Obama can take his tax increase and ..... well you know how it ends.

BTW, $10.00 says Ronald “I hate the rich” Riml gave me the negative kudos, which means nothing except someone read my post.

RONALD RIML's picture


Will you renege on your obligations as you are encouraging Congress to??

Mortgage? Utilities? Taxes? Tuition? Let us know which category......

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Simple, if you cannot pay for

Simple, if you cannot pay for it, it is not an obligation. If congress is incapable or unwilling to prioritize the budget such that revenue matches expenditures, then across to board cuts are necessary.

Moreover, there are no obligations that is untouchable.

RONALD RIML's picture

What convoluted reasoning......

Obligations were made before the ability to pay was negatively impacted by Republican tax cuts.

By your reasoning - if one cannot pay their 'Credit Cards' then one no longer has the obligation to pay that debt. See how long that flies in Court.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You have to read Clair's

You have to read Clair's comment to get the full context. Clair stated that we are oblicated to pay for the current level of spending; I said if you cannnot pay for it, you are not obligated to keep spending money. In the context of your analogy, of you cannot afford it, you don't keep borrowing on the credit card.

If revenue decreases for any reason, then so should the spending in an equal amount.


The debt ceiling

Raising the debt ceiling is required to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. It has nothing to do with future spending. Paying your bills is what honest upstanding citizens do. As for future spending, while Congressional Republicans have shown a fervent taste for reversing the New Deal , for over 50 years now, they have shown no interest whatsoever in cutting spending for wars, war toys, military bases in their home districts, homeland security, pork, congressional perks, and even argued in favor of funding a Smokey the Bear hot air balloon for a hot air balloon festival just last week and they propose that we fund armed guards in the public schools in spite of their reluctance to pay teachers. Cutting spending is just a hypocrital exercise in ideological fantasy for them. If you look at the last Republican administrations they never seem to get around to cutting spending in actuality. In fact they have been very adept at cutting taxes while rabidly increasing spending.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

1. A responsible congress

1. A responsible congress would never have racked up bills that it could not pay in the first place.
2. The New Deal is not sustainable. We are witnessing the start of its end.
3. Both major parties contrite to deficit spending – that has to stop.

 's picture

Honest upstanding citizens ...

... don't take on obligations they can't possibly pay for with their current income. At least they didn't, before the federal government began encouraging them to do exactly that. Honest upstanding citizens have to increase income and/or reduce spending to balance their budgets - they don't have the luxury of printing money.

The administration and Congress, composed of people who are neither honest nor upstanding, want (D) higher income (taxes) to pay for brand new spending, or (R) lower taxes to pay for old spending. Either way, I agree it's a hypocritical fantasy. But, as we have just seen again, Democrat administrations (except for Clinton's surfing the dot-com wave) persist in believing we can have everything by taxing just those evil rich folks. The fantasy there is, within a week of avoiding the "cliff" by that tactic, Obama is already talking about all the new taxes that will be needed so the government can do what they say it is supposed to do, everything for everybody.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Your common sense is

Your common sense is refreshing.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...