For the good of our country, The President had no choice.

Imagine if a neighbor refused to take you to hospital after a heart attack unless you gave him your boat. Should reasonable people use blackmail to take advantage of a crisis?

The debt ceiling and the reputation of this country should not have been held hostage against the whims of a small minority. However, he had no choice. The alternative would be horrific for the economy.

Belfast:

This crisis was manufactured by the radical right wing of the GOP. There was never a heart attack. It was an attempted murder.

This is like any hostage situation -- the republicans are threatening to destroy our nation's economy unless the democrats give them everything they want.

The only way out that I can see is for the American people to vote the republicans out of office in 2012 so they can't hold our country hostage again.

JoeNY

You're right that our country has serious problems with debt, but you're missing the reasons. It's not just a matter of spending. A budget deficit happens when spending outweighs income. George Bush started two HUGELY expensive wars without a thought to how we were going to pay for either one. Defense spending under Bush shot through the roof. Then he pushed through a huge set of tax cuts.

When you decrease income and increase spending, the deficit is going to skyrocket. That's not hard to figure out. It should be equally obvious that the solution to the deficit is to decrease spending ***AND*** increase income. That means tax increases. It makes absolutely no sense to address the budget deficit solely by asking the middle class to sacrifice while refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy.

The right way to address the budget deficit:

1. End all foreign wars.

2. Decrease defense spending back to where it was under Clinton.

3. Raise the taxes on the wealthiest Americans, preferably back to pre-Reagan levels.

Take a look at history. When was the last time the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were this low? The 1920s -- just before the Great Depression. There is a lesson there.

How about strategic retreat? I know one thing for sure, the Republicans and Tea-Party have really pissed me off. I have nothing good to say about them.

Maybe he should try to sell it as step in the right direction. An insufficient one, but a step at least. We have been spending beyond our means for decades. Just about any financial advisor would advise a person in similar straits to cut any and all unnecessary spending, we must do the same as a nation. To do otherwise is to commit ourselves to a path of burdening our children and our children's children with an increasingly crushing tax burden, and a perpetually fragile economy.

Yash:

Maybe he should try to sell it as step in the right direction.

Not buying it. A step in the right direction would have included REVENUES as well as spending cuts. At the moment that counts, Obama abandoned his promises and caved in to the extremists.

Unless you consider the "right direction" to be a Tea Party Nation, Obama has abandoned all his principles.

The debt ceiling and the reputation of this country should not have been held hostage against the whims of a small minority. However, he had no choice. The alternative would be horrific for the economy.

Are you joking? Wow you people are clueless.

Obama, Boehner, Reid, are all dishonest people. There are NO CUTS in these proposals. The debt will increase $1.5-$2 trillion per year EVERY YEAR under this plan... and that is with the ROSY interest rate and economic predictions that are almost 95% NOT going to occur.

You will know DEVASTATING ECONOMY when it takes a wheel barrel to buy a loaf of bread or when the store shelves are no longer stalked. This is a VERY LIKELY almost CERTAIN situation without REAL DEBT REDUCTION.

Unless you consider the "right direction" to be a Tea Party Nation, Obama has abandoned all his principles.

The Tea Party wanted cuts in the debt. There are no cuts in the debt. This plan has cuts in future projected spending and under it the debt will increase over $1 trillion per year every year for the foreseeable future in the BEST CASE scenario of low interest rates and strong economic growth, neither of which we will have in 1-2 years.

Going third party likely got Bill Clinton elected the first time with Perot as 3rd party candidate.

Nader definitely helped George W. Bush's election(particularly in Florida) the first time when Gore won the national popular vote.

In neither case, did the third party candidate influence anything beyond the election of someone who might not have won otherwise. Any semblance of influencing dialog or viewpoint was illusion.

Who bankrolls the third party and why? Is it a legitimate movement attempting to attract voters, or is it a cynical ploy to drain off voters?

Yes defense is a biggie and the budget must be lowered but we should keep a couple things in mind. To begin with the defense department employes a lot of people both directly and indirectly.

Second we must not allow ourselves to get into the situation that we were in the Carter administration. President Carter attempted to send a rescue mission in Iran but could not 8 working helicopters that was thought to be needed from two aircraft carriers. Of the the ones that could find some of them broke down. Because of that the rescue mission was cancelled.

Not buying it. A step in the right direction would have included REVENUES as well as spending cuts. At the moment that counts, Obama abandoned his promises and caved in to the extremists.

What's extreme is the $20 trillion debt the country will be at in 5 years. There are NO CUTS to the yearly increase in debt that will make ANY DIFFERENCE.

Even taxing the rich will not be enough to close the growing gap in unfunded liabilities.

It is time to:

1) End ALL foreign wars and foreign aid

2) close 90% of our 1000 bases in 120 countries. Do we really need to be paying for the national defense of Germany and Japan still?

3) Cut the military spending to Bill Clinton years (almost in half). $400 Billion/year is still more than ALL of the other nations combined spend on Earth.

4) Admit Social Security is a welfare program and MEANS TEST IT. There is no Social Security trust fund and never has been. The SS funds have been used in general revenue for decades and in fact, is how Bill Clinton had a "Balanced budget", if you call a balanced budget one that adds to liabilities.

5) Close all loopholes and end all corporate subsidies.

6) Bring back sound money and end the bankster cartel monopoly known as the Federal Reserve.

7) REMAKE ALL TRADE AGREEMENTS. Fair trade has proven UNFAIR for America. We need to force trade surpluses like Germany using Tariffs and trade agreements that benefit our nation.

Finally and this is a big one:

8) Elect Ron Paul to President to get these things done.

Junicon - The economy is already past destruction stage...what world are you living in?

Bilweeler - The crisis was manufactured? You don't think our debt is out of control? You think spending 40 cents on the dollar to service debt is not a crisis?

I don't really care who got us where we are today, the fact is that we do have a crisis on our hands. And we can't spend our way out of that crisis. We need to get the government right-sized just like any other corporation "right-sizes" itself when needed.

The only people being held "hostage" are the American people. Not the government.

The leaders of both houses and both sides of the aisle displayed extreme negligence and irresponsibility in dealing with this crisis. I began to wonder if we were not looking at some serious dementia cases bases on the childish, frivilous, almost uninformed behavior that I saw. Our law makers should be able to see the "bigger picture" and leave their narrow "what will get me elected" fantacies behind.

More of the Same

Such Showmanship

Just because there are people out there that are successful, have money, and save, it doesn't mean the government has the right to take more out of other people's pockets and spend the way they want to. Everytime the government dips into the private sector, inflation increases, private spending decreases, and ultimately the consumer gets the shaft.

How would raising the taxes on the rich do anything for the people that want a flat tax and how does it solve the government spending more than it brings in? If they have more money, they spend more money. A balanced budget amendment to the constitution is the only resolution for this issue. If the government can't borrow and spend like crazy, then we can start working on lowering the deficit and paying back our debts to china and other foreign countries that have so much stock in our nation.

It's like the slogan "War is not the answer".. Well "Taxing the rich is not the answer." You can't keep raising taxes everytime the government needs money, then everyone in the upper class will be soon in the middle class and ultimately everyone will be in the lower class. Then the government really has the power and then say goodbye to democracy, hello socialism. We will end up like the Chinese, Russians, and some European countries.

In conclusion it is not capitalism that is the problem. It is government overreaching that is the problem. Obviously there needs to be oversight in many areas, but government tends to step over the line the majority of the time. They can't do anything illegal because they have the power and they make the rules.

@ Mr. Rogers.. I agree with most of what you layed out. I do not agree with cutting the military budget to Clinton years although. We should increase the CIA fund, reduce many military installations (Maybe not 90%). End most foreign aid that isn't going towards epidemics like aids and hunger. Blank Checks shouldn't be sent to Pakistan or other countries. The CIA should have more authority off American Soil. Consolidate the NSA, FAA, and FBI into one. Get rid of the Air Force because the Navy pretty much does their work. It would be a tactical and strategic advantage if they were one because the could operate as one and there wouldn't be bickering between these two branches. Yet with the closures of some overseas bases, more domestic bases could be opened or reopened.

We should get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as well. We didn't do anything but spend money in Libya. It was a waste of time and poorly executed. I'm pretty sure we have done all we can, except for maybe training in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should get something back from these two countries where we lost thousands of good men and women. We shouldn't have to work for free. Otherwise we could have just destroyed the entire security infrastructure of these two countries and left them with the anarchy and mess.

There are some corporate subsidies and taxbreaks that are important. Such as energy efficient upgrades, additional employee discounts. A company pays quite a bit more for an employee than is seen in check witholding. Training, sick time, vacation, some health benefits, all the witholdings an employee pays, plus other insurances that are mandated.

Why do people feel that rich people don't pay their FAIR SHARE when they pay the lion's share of all taxes

Because they are the ones taking the lions share of the wealth.

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1

The whole tax system is for the benefit of the wealthiest, get a clue.

Rich and poor are growing. Rich grow in wealth and poor grow in number. Focus on the middle class the ones who actual do the work. Everybody makes a living off of the workers sweat.

That would be compromise.

Seriously? You collapsed my comment above- why?

Junicon- Did you realize that there's only so much money in the pockets of the "rich"? Sure, have a party and tax them all you want, but if you raised $50-60 billion/year more from them (as I've been hearing) that won't fill in a $1.5 trillion dollar hole. Did you know that if you took EVERYTHING, and I do me any and all things of value, from the Forbes top 400 people (you know, Bill Gates, Oprah, etc.) it would only pay for the federal government's overspending for....... get ready............. one year. Get it yet? Charging the rich more and more can only get you so far.

Your best bet is to cap spending and cut all federal programs. The federal governments budgets currently allow for about a 7% growth rate EVERY year. Can't do that with not enough cash. I do like the cap option with the 1% reduction to every program (from the military, to Social Security, etc.) each year for 10 years. I'll do the math for you, that's 10$ over 10 years. If we are spending about $3.5 trillion/year now, in 10 years that's a cut of $350 billion/year from where we are or a total of about $1.9 trillion in cuts.

I will go with one more item- Chang the taxation system so that everyone pays a flat or "fairtax". Make everyone give something and it might just stimulate some sanity in spending.

Tax reform and Entitlement reform go hand in hand, but if the stinkin' rich do not start paying more (even just closing loophole will help) then the debt will continue to grow.

The whole deal stinks. I like how they played politics to make sure nobody notices the cuts until after the next election. Granted that was our Presidents plan all along. He doesn't know how to make a hard choice. Just keeps kicking the can down the road to make it another persons problems. I can promise I will not vote for anyone that votes yes to this piece of garbage, be it republican or democrat.

Its a start, we need much, much deeper cuts, and to help our economy, stop the senseless regulations our pathetic government has put on us, from manufacturing to private individuals working at home! This will go a long way helping our economy and shedding some government dead wait collecting a pay check. All at the same time:)

I may sound silly but have we Ameicans really made the "DEBT"? Darn the luck I guess we have in a way! Every Politician ever in office is still supported by our sweat and tears every day of every week of every month of every year, after leaving office. Not to mention their family members! Why? what is wrong with perhaps up to five years and then they go back to there jobs before office. I mean really! look at how many political offices that are being held and how long we support them after they are voted out. WOOOOOOO, knock your socks off. I would say this is what alot of our DEBT is and when tolded you would be shocked.... Hope to raise questions and find answers ....

Orb - Just where and what are these loopholes you think the so-called rich are using? Name some! Come on. Name some! Put your knowledge where your complaint is!

The so-called "rich" you are belittling are paying more than you right now. The tax rates are set up that way. Those who make more money, pay more taxes. What rate do you pay?

We pay over $40,000 in taxes every year and we never get all, most or a quarter of it back. We never get most of it back. Never have, never will. We don't own a 2nd house, 3rd house, timeshare, resort condo, boat, camper, RV, ATV, sand rail, motorcycle, or snowmobile. We don't go on yearly ski trips; cruises; trips to the Caribbean, Europe, Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, Africa or other places. We don't go to the Olympics or professional sports games. We don't go on annual trips to Disneyland, Disney World, Legoland and so forth. We don't have kids in private or parochial schools. We don't have plastic surgery, eye surgery, contacts, belong to some private gym or spa. We don't go out to eat at trendy places or party. We don't have iPhones, iPads, GPS, any LCD TVs, satellite TV, or the latest, fastest computers. Do you have a cell phone? I didn't until this year. Our 2nd car is 11 years old. Yet, you somehow think we fit into the so-called rich who should pay more. Tell me why and how. Come on!

Name a loop hole you want closed! Any of you complainers, cough up a loop hole and justify why it is a loop hole. School tax credits? When I donate $400 annually, I pay $400 less to the state government but the school (local government) gets it all instead of the state government bureaucracy shaving off their share to pay someone to track it. Big loophole there! Come on Orb! Name some actual loopholes!

Don't even get me started on corporate taxes being too little. Consumers pay for any increase in those, too! You and me. Want to reduce our debt, lower our expenses! Pay your fair share, Orb!

IgnoredDad, I am not going to take the time to explain to you and provide references on how corporations and the upper 1% are not only not paying their fair share, but have a malignant control of the American government. You sir need to do your own research and be completely HONEST with yourself when doing so. It is absolutely not a fabrication that corporations and the upper 1% have compromised our republic. The principles of our nation are freedom and liberty for all. When you have a situation where a significant portion of American citizens just get by or don't get by at all, liberty and freedom do not exist for these people. At the same time the few are accumulating the majority of the resources. This cannot stand, and it is tyranny. Furthermore, it is not just tax issues that are the problem. The core of our nation’s problems stem from corporate control of the political process and the mortal wound inflicted by the Free Trade policies of both parties.

From your own description, you sound like you hoard your money. Frankly, it reminds me of Scrooge.

The tea party seems to believe if we just cut enough every thing will be alright. Specifically they want to cut government jobs as if those folks werent tax payers, making anther sector jobless and pulling their tax monies from the system. They often use the analogy of the family budget ,but when the bills get too high you don't just cut back, you have to go out and generate new revenue like a second job or the spouse returning to work to really get things to once again balance.(even if its only temporary) They refuse to acknowledge that you need new revenue too to bring the budget in line.

There was a really good deal all worked out until Obama torpedod it because it didn't push this problem down the road past the 2012 election. That is the only thing he held fast for. Why? Because all he cares about is his own interests. period!

You can sure tell where the class warriors hand out, they are on her ranting by 50% about the rich not paying their fair share. Too bad the old Soviet Union went bust, we could get the rich to buy them all one way tickets there and let them see what their philosophy results in.

We really do need fair taxation but we'll never get it because it would take away the "favors" the politicians use to get more campaign contributions and to con the uneducated into voting for them.

What would a fair tax be? There is more than one way:

1. Do away with income tax and put in a national sales tax. If you don't have money to buy things you won't pay any tax. Of course you also won't get a refund when not paying any tax. But those who buy expensive things would pay a lot more than those that buy only necessary items. Some states run their budget that way and quess which ones aren't hurting as bad as those that tax income to death. Of course that won't satisfy the greedy, envious, make the rich give me their money because I want it crowd.

2. Flat income tax. Do away with our joke of a tax code. No loopholes. Smaller IRS will save money. Corporations and citizens pay the same 10% on income and/or profits. We'd soon be rolling in jobs and money. Again the politicians won't ever go for it because it takes away their ability to hide more hand out programs like refunds without paying taxes and their ability to get more contributions and "favors" by giving tax cuts to their buddies in any form they wish. Can you say GE+Obama=no taxes for GE.

I get a real chuckle out of the knuckleheads who promote higher taxes to "increase revenue to our government". Why dont you just make a charitable contribution at tax time, and let the rest of keep what we earned? The government takes in more than enough money to do its job,but , squanders it on useless projects, money to special interest groups, free benefits to individuals and or groups who contribute little or nothing, and targets groups of people with freebies to get their votes. I, for one am tired of everyone else digging in my wallet and taking my hard earned money. The politicians in washington are so out of touch. When will they learn you cant be all things for all people and get back to the job theyre supposed to do?

Junicon hit the nail dead on the head, and many of us know it based on the votes gotten from that post. I just wonder why our elected officials can't see it as well. Or could it be that they do see it, and their agendas are bent to favor something other than the welfare of America and her people. Maybe we should recall most of them and start over.

Closing budget shortfalls in the TRILLIONS of dollars ain't easy. Picking on people is easier I guess.

I could see if the Tea Party wanted to shut down govt to get something ridiculous. Pushing to get the country out of miserable debt is hardly worthy of derision and hatred.

@oy-vay!

You missed the point entirely. A democratic system cannot work unless the two political parties are willing to compromise. The republicans have their ideas about how to deal with the debt and the democrats have different ideas. You can argue all you want to about which side is right but at the end of the day ***NOTHING*** will be done unless both sides agree to make concessions.

Can you imagine what would happen if President Obama starting acting like the Tea Party people? What if Obama just said "I'm going to veto absolutely EVERY budget that congress sends me unless it has **EXACTLY** what I want in it. No compromises"?

Then you'd have BOTH sides insisting that no bill will pass unless it's exactly the bill they want. Since neither side has enough votes to muscle a pure partisan bill through congress and get the president's signature, that means we would *NEVER* get a budget.

Fortunately for our country, President Obama is more mature than Boehner and the republicans.

No, you missed the point. A democratic system cannot work if it's got no money.

What good is having peace and harmony and you don't have two cent to rub together. Love is nice but it don't pay the rent.

In case you weren't watching Obama DID threaten to veto every bill the Republicans sent. Imagine that!

Da Noid

Quote of the Week on the subject goes to Stephen Colbert:

"They (The Tea Party) told us that government doesn't work, and as soon as they got into office, they proved it."

Just the contrary; it worked (The Tea Party). Otherwise, Congress would have still spending big time and turn a blind eye on the rising national debt.

da noid, NBC News was very somber last evening. That is a good sign that the deal could be good for America. Maybe you think all those TEA voters, those mean bomb-throwing, well dressed, average-looking americans, are on to something? Do any of you libs believe that there is NO need to cut spending?

oy-vay!...you can't say this is a compromise when one side says cutting spending is the way to a balanced budget and the other side says raising tax revenues (through elimination of tax loopholes and incentives for corporations and the wealthy) is the way to balance the budget. Ideally, a mix of the two should have been the way to go....that's what I call compromise. What I'm seeing so far, in this bill, is that we are cutting spending, but without increasing tax revenues. Where exactly did the right-wing compromise??

You mention not having two cents to rub together in the budget....that's because all the liquid assets are being horded by corporations and the top 2% of Americans....and they are breathing a HUGE sigh of relief this morning. The Dems caved, and the TP gets their way.

I believe the recall elections in WI are a week or two away. With this budget fiasco still fresh on their minds, the WI voters will fire the first shot in the upcoming siege to oust every last TP Republican up for election in 2012. The teapartiers will have only themselves and their "my way or the highway" mentality to blame!

The tea party/republicans did not choose the appropriate time to argue. To keep our country hostage on the debt limit was totally inappropriate. And protecting those JOB CREATORS (that got to keep their tax cuts and still have not come through on those jobs) is ridiculous, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, they have to start actually PAYING the taxes or we will be right back here again. The republicans held the unemployment benefits hostage last December in order to keep their Bush cuts. I ask is this pattern going to continue? NO negotiating just MY WAY OR NO WAY? They need to start giving as well, this is supposed to be a democracy not a dictatorship which is what has been their way, in a democracy everyone gives SOMETHING!!!

What COMPROMISE???? What are you people talking about?

There are NOT CUTS in this... You call $70 billion per year cuts? You call $2-$3 trillion in PROJECTED FUTURE SPENDING REDUCTIONS cuts?

I don't. A cut means that next year we will spend less than this year. Under these "compromise" plans we will spend MORE every year for the FORESEEABLE FUTURE. In fact, our debt in 5 years or less will increase to $20 TRILLION.

Unbelievable how many of you are FOOLED by the political theatre in DC. If anything the Tea Party has failed miserably in their mission to get the Federal Government to reign in spending and make real cuts.

Dasvet, yes, many of us "libs" believe there is a need to cut spending and reduce the deficit and I haven't heard anyone of any political stripe disagree with that. Where the disagreement comes is in deciding where to cut and most of us libs think there should be revenue increases achieved by closing loopholes, restructuring or eliminating deductions, and restoring tax levels to where they were in 2000.

Corporations are sitting on $2 Trillion in cash; banks are sitting on $1.5 Trillion. Interest rates are at all-time lows, but it's still hard to get loans and companies aren't hiring. Trickle down economics has not worked.

Consider this: Spending cuts may reduce the number of government workers, but it could also eliminate private sector jobs in companies that provide goods and services to the government. Reduced private sector and government jobs would result in lower spending, lower tax revenues, then more cuts, more lower spending, even less tax revenue, in a downward spiral that ends how?

KSMITTYCT,

leaving aside whether I agree or disagree with either party:

1. we live in a republic not a democracy

2. you mention "no negotiating". So do you also disapprove of Obama's constant threats he would veto everything that wasn't according to his liking?

3. when would the right time be to argue about our excessive spending?

4. wasn't Obama's $785B stimulus supposed to be the original "job creator"?

5. if everyone agreed with Obama's and the DNC's actions (inactions) exactly why did the GOP become the majority in Congress?

Both sides are acting like little children. But it still seems as an Independent that the DNC supporters still haven't comprehended that cuts simply have to be made to stem our out of control spending. To believe that reversing the Bush tax cuts would solve this is even more ill-informed. The largest beneficiaries of those cuts were those in the middle class income bracket. That's not to say that capital gains tax shouldn't be fixed or corporate "loopholes". Yet, the continuing stance of the DNC shows that if they were to get more $$$ they would simply continue to spend $$$+$1000.

Voter, you said it well.

Voter-in-LA - you really think the middle class was the big winner in the Bush tax cuts? What have you been smoking? The highest percentage of tax cuts went to the highest income brackets - nearly double the cut the middle class got. This was confirmed when they tried to roll back these cuts - remember the data that showed the impact for all the tax brackets, and how much the impact was on the top bracket? When the tax cuts were originally proposed, they were warned that this would have a significant effect on the long term debt. To grant these cuts, then do nothing to offset the cost of two wars is totally irresponsible. Of course, if all you care about is your big business buddies, I guess it seems totally logical.

Z8oman, my point you are missing is that while percentage wise the most dollars may go to those in the top bracket, in terms of number of people who benefitted, middle class was the winner. The impact of revoking those taxcuts isn't likely to be felt by those earning well over $250K, but it sure as heck will be felt by the lower middle class already being squeezed.

Voter: Are you kidding??? The Middle Class benefited? HOW did we benefit....most of the middle class are out of jobs, can't get loans, are underwater on their homes (some don't even HAVE homes any longer), and the list goes on! You apparently can't see that the middle class is slowly disappearing. There are now the HAVES and the HAVE-NOTS, and you can figure out there are more HAVE NOTS than there are HAVES!!! As for being squeezed, I'm making less than $250,000, and I don't feel squeezed in the least! In fact, I'd even pay a couple of extra percentage points each paycheck if I thought that it would help to cut the deficit! I think most middle class would agree with this, but you won't see the upper class agree!!! They aren't the ones suffering and aren't the ones that actually SEE what's going on and are willing to do something to help.

didi, personal experience told me that the Bush tax cut halved my income tax bill. That tax cut increased tax revenue to the treasury to the tune of 750 billion dollars, and certainly not from me. Just as investment credits (called tax cuts for corporations by libs) increased the unemployed also. When the libs (not real dems) took over both houses of Congress in 2007 the bottom fell out because businesses no longer had any confidence in Congress.

No, he won't be. Read the full bill before you diss him. There are many on the right who hate this deal as well, so it can't be as bad as it could have been.

Would you have preferred we go into default?

There are those in Congress (Cantor for one) who stood to make mega money out of a default...

Default is not the same as raising the debt ceiling. We had enough cash on hand to pay bond holders and high priority bills.

Default would only happen if we didn't pay bondholders. It had nothing to do with the debt ceiling.

We saw where a deal with Germany got the Brits in 1939. This is indeed a war. Its not a shooting war but a war for the future direction of our country. Do we want to cut jobs now? Do we really want to perpetuate corporate welfare on the backs of the weak and the poor and the sick and aged? Do we have a vision of the future that brings us back to 1966 instead of reaching for the future of 2066. All businesses and most governments work on the basis of a revolving line of credit. Our debt and deficit are not the issues we should be concerned about to such a great degree. But we should be asking "Where are the jobs?" Mr. Boehner. 2.5 trillion dollars in spending cuts will cost over 9 million jobs over the next ten years and we still have no idea and no discussion on how we take care of this pending nightmare.

I prefer default to this bill.

PM David, do we really want to perpetuate welfare on the backs of the middle class and the rich.

The bust of 2008 is a warning of the dangers of doing business based solely on revolving credit. Businesses with solid financials don't EXIST on revolving credit. It's a tool for purchasing and building capital.

Any entity that uses its credit for payroll, employee benefits is clearly unsustainable and headed for bankruptcy. Likewise, households that use credit to buy groceries, pay utilities and other necessities is a household in trouble.

Jobs come from the economy. The economy and the federal govt are two separate entities, despite the perception that's developed this past decade. Despite what you've been told, govt can't make companies make jobs. They can only foster conditions whereby companies are more willing to do so.

PMDAvid - Clintons free trade programs eliminated 10 million manufacturing jobs, Obama's free trade program with Viet Nam will eliminate another 3 million.

Unless we massively cut foreign trade (China and otherAsian nations) the US is dead !

OY-vay how can you say that when we all know that the top 2% control 90% of the wealth in this country and only pay an average of 16% in income tax. That leaves he bottom 10% of the wealth in this country to absorbe 84% of the tax obligation. Does this seem fair to you?

PMDavid are you really that stupid or are you just another lying progressive? in 2008 the top 10% of wage earners paid 70% of the income taxes taken in by the government. The only reason this only represents 16% of their income is because a few people who made billions skew the results down. I think the better question is why do 50% of those with taxable income pay ZERO in income tax? And of those 50% that pay ZERO income tax 1/2 of them actually get back MORE money than they had taken out of their checks. I like the way you try to manipulate numbers but saying, "That leaves he bottom 10% of the wealth in this country to absorbe 84% of the tax obligation." is a blatant lie. As I have already pointed out the top 10% pay 70% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay ZERO (or even get money paid to them) in income taxes. That leaves the middle 40% of tax payers to cover the 30% of income taxes not paid by the top 10%.

Tom:

Your glass is half full. Mine is shattered.

The TParty has officially overthrown the US Government. There will be no revenue increases after the election....or ever.

Forward into what- more borrowing? I'm speechless that when given a choice between making debt go away or arguing in Washington, so many would rather the bickering stop and the debt increase.

Help me understand that one...

We'll get rid of Obama and the Dems in the next election and start functioning as a country again.

Spud:

We'll get rid of Obama and the Dems in the next election and start functioning as a country again.

You may be correct about the first clause. I promise you though that as to "functioning as a country again," you can dream on.

If you think the radical right wing Tea Party knows how to govern, or even cares about governing, you're living a fantasy. They will bring on the next depression if given the opportunity.

But perhaps that's OK with you...

We'll get rid of Obama and the Dems in the next election and start functioning as a country again

So, Spudnik, you favor a dictatorship? Or an autocracy? I thought this country was founded as a democracy.

And the right accuses the left of communism and facism. Unbelieveable!

obama and the dems caved in just like i thought they would. he has lost me for 2012, i will vote for a 3rd party candidate, no more voting for weak ass democrats.

Everyone paying their fair share and a flat tax are contradictory opinions.

I agree with the idea of everyone paying a fair share but what I don't like is dumping our shares into more and more aircraft carriers, bridges to nowhere, and freedom of our "representatives" to throw that money at all of their state supporters freely and without those "spending cuts" we all hear about.

We can pay more and more in taxes while our "representatives" squander all of it and debt goes up and up.

What exactly is a fair share ? Does that mean someone who never calls the police or fired dept doesn't need to pay for them because he doesn't use them ? Does someone who walks to work not have to pay for roads ?

Why does someone have to pay more taxes because they make more money ? Fair share implies that everyone pays the same amount. Why do hard working people have to be taxed more for the sole purpose of funding the lives of people who don't work ? How is that fair ?

If I knew my money was going to those who risk their lives defending this nation and not some scumbag, crackhead, baby factory, welfare case I would gladly accept a tax hike. I should not have to pay more taxes to support someone whose main goal in life is to buy a gun and carjack me.

That's life. Everyone who pays taxes in this country pays for things that they don't like. If people could choose of where their tax dollars go, NOTHING would be funded adequately.

If this brave new world of austerity suits you, don't complain when you may need services that may not be there in a timely manner because their budgets have been shrunk to next to nothing.

A fair share would require a much needed restructuring if the tax code where the percentages across the board are equal regardless of income say 10% no loopholes for anyone, yachts as second homes or corporate jets etc. Corporate tax is based on American investment the more a corporation outsources the higher its tax base. We have all noticed the new corporate trend of layoffs as the " road back to profitability, wit obscene bonuses going to "CEO hatchet men" Tarrifs are dangerous as double edged swords most of the time, but some form of protectionism is required to restore even a modicom of a manufacturing base to the US? A 5-7% federal VAT tax should be added to ALL states sales tax, making it the governments major source of income. Social Security or Medicare are not an entitlement as long as they are removed from our paychecks, Social security should be restored to fully funded status after 50 years of govermental rape by both parties, Medicare needs to be reformed for sure but again, we pay into it we should reap the benefit of it, regardless if your are the working poor or wealthy. Many millionaires have no scruples in using it when needed which as long as they paid into it is ok, they did not become millionaires by not using every break available to them? Mind you that there are great many individuals collecting Social security disability that may have never have paid in but the barebones stipends they receive, though collectively expensive need to come from somewhere? All non third world states have a duty of some form to its poorest citizens, this is inescapable unless we want to return to the Middle ages or even the 1890's in our case. This will be the dilemna of the entitlement debate. Alexis de Touqville worte in the late 1700's that the "state will cease to be a democracy once its citizens realize the largess of the state" We actually ceased to be a Republic in the aftermath of the civil war when the Federal government under the Grand Old Party undertook the immense task of reconstruction and superceded the individual State's primacy mainly through the use of the supreme court. The Tea party movement is an Anarchist movement dedicated to the destruction of the federal government, pure and simple and as much as I admire their Jeffersonian ideals, Modern society is too greedy too rapacious to be trusted in a world without any govenmental checks and balances? I am a liberal Democrat but I am not afraid to make compromises where necessary. Our current fiscal woes are the result of Years of Republicans under George bush spending like drunken sailors and the foreign financing of two wars ( a military first). Eisenhower was correct when he warned us of the unimpeded growth of the "military Industrial Complex" which sadly is the largest portion of dwindling manufacturing sector. We do not need 11 carrier task groups, bases in Europe, Korea, Japan, though our pacific bases are too strategic to let go. Returning our troops to our shores where they belong is much cheaper in the long run and helps local american economies not foreign ones. Secretary Gates highlighted the major military expense (2/3 of the budget) as the cost of military healthcare for active military and retiree's. His fix of an increase of a minor annual amount by these partcipants was of course decried by all sides in Congress and the senate. It appears we have a national consensus to govern but the willingness of the party of "no" to cut off its nose to spite its face makes our two party govenment laughable in the eyes of the world. I do not blame Obama for threatening to veto the bulk of the GOP's ruinious agenda and applaud him for compromising though I think he should have shoved the 14th amendment up the GOP's tailpipe and forced them into the inevitable court fight that would have ensued to show they are not sreious about the welfare of the average american. The middle class entails all Americans earning 30K to 100K and we are a dwindling species. Anyone earning six figures is wealthy and if they are struggling it is because they cannot manage their income even with college tuition they should have planned for!

wishing ,and hoping is for children.This is the second time the President has given in to the republican GOP. Who knows,maybe the GOP is charging the President for their friendship......In the end,who suffers?

We'll all be crying soon. We can't continue to live beyond our means, borrowing just to pay bills, and expect to stay afloat forever.

If doing the right thing now rather than pay dearly later is viewed as having a tantrum then we are big trouble. We have lost our collective minds.

Listen to the insanity of the statement: The DEBT LIMIT will be raised. That's no reason to be happy or relieved. Any reasonable person should be concerned at the very least.

oy-vay, you or i dont make enough, or get taxed enough to make any difference in this mess. So quit complaining and start painting your trailer house.

Dear oy-vay,

The debt limit was raised to pay back money that has already been spent. (On two wars, a drug bill, tax cuts, stimulus spending). It is not the same has getting an increase in your personal credit card, which you then use to go buy a flat screen TV.

Raising the debt limit was the responsible thing to do, otherwise, it would be like cutting up your card AND shredding the bill that comes in every month because you don't feel like paying what you owe the bank.

I'm not complaining. Your attempt to deflect from the point that we're in debt up to our eyeballs is not going to make it go away.

I'm a person of color who lives in a city. So much for your ignorant stereotyping!

I dont care if your orange or yellow, so dont play the race card here. And who cares if you live in a city? What you or i do, make or say has NO influence to these people. We will go about our lives and the debt ceiling will keep being raised wether you like it or not. In a way it has to be raised. All of the money being spent in the whole world is fiat money anyway and it has no value. Sooner or later the U.S. Gov will file some sort of bankruptcy or the whole world money system as we know it will change. We have no say.

I didn't say you cared. I just said you lied. You told me to paint my trailer because you were making me out to be some white hillbilly.

You got blasted and now you're just mad because you're hiney is showing!

Quit complaining AGAIN. Get over yourself. You will be ok. Stop being so scared. The debt ceiling thing is no big deal for christ sake. And i didnt lie. You just dont know the difference about anything. Maybe your a black hillbilly.

The debt ceiling is a big ol' $14.5 trillion deal. That ain't lunch money.

Personal attacks are a clear sign you have nothing substantive to say and you know it. It's obvious you're a hatemonger so I'll leave you to your hate.

Why are Democrats so blatantly ignorant ? Don't they realize that debt has to be repaid ? Are these the people who benefited with unsecured mortgages obtained due to Clinons repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act ? Mortgages that didn't have to be repaid due to the Democrat congress enforced TARP program ?

oy-vay-like i said, you or CANT do ANYTHING about it. You post on here like you are some kind of big shot with all the answers. Your not. Get over yourself already. The 14 trill debt will NEVER be YOUR problem, so you stop the hate and all of the big shot talk.

Spud, it will NEVER be repaid. Talk all you want but you and i will be long in the grave and the people after us will STILL be raising the ceiling. My god you people are stupid.

Just wondering how many people were at all concerned about the debt/deficit during the rein of W. He spent money so fast it was scary, and much of it was used to kill people. In 2000 when he was campaigning that 'I will reduce your taxes' was when I was scared of him. Things were going pretty good. My argument was to leave the taxes alone, let us get this debt paid down and then we can all enjoy a nice tax cut. Instead he started 2 wars, the Medicare drug bill and all the rest and gave his rich friends (including himself and his extremely wealthy family) huge tax cuts. We all got at least a small tax cut, and the short sighted ones among us were happy with our small cut and nobody seemed to mind that he was spending us into oblivion. Well, if you can reason this out you will see that tax cuts were wrong, whether for the rich or the poor. We have a congress that cannot control itself, they come up with more and more laws that cost us billions but don't have the backbone to fund them because since Reagan we've been brainwashed into believing that taxes are bad an no one should have to pay taxes. Nobody enjoys writing that check to the IRS but as with other bills we owe, adults pay them, shut up and move on.

I kind of enjoy driving on the interstate highways without huge potholes, bridges that don't collapse when we drive over them, good schools to educate my grandchildren, and all the rest. To have these things without incurring massive debt we have to have reasonable taxes, and what we have now is not reasonable. Reasonable is the amount it takes to pay for the things we want. If we want to live in a country like Somalia then we probably wouldn't have to pay many taxes. But if we want to live in America with all its benefits then we have to pay for it.

I am different than most, I believe we need tax increases for all of us. Everyone needs some skin in the game. Of course since the wealthy and the corporations are the ones with money they should pay substantially more. If the old and sick will have to give up their retirements and Medicare, it's only right that the ones with the ability to pay, do so - and no one is suggesting the rich should have to be taxed till they are destitute like the Social Security recipients will be when their benefits are cut. Plus of course, we have to do some major cutting, but not until they go after the waste and fraud, After all, the benefits of living here in America is what has given them their wealth, whether it was earned by them or handed down to them from their ancestors. And this payroll tax rollback we have this year is not a good thing. One reason being it's funds that should be going into Social Security - soon they will be saying Social Security is in trouble - well 2% of the taxes that should be going there have been diverted into our paychecks. The other reason, when these cuts expire suddenly everyone's paycheck is going to be smaller. Wonder what effect that will have on the economy???????? Very shortsighted thinking on the part of our politicians.

Most of the increase in Obama's budget is the wars and medicare D that Bush enacted are now included in the budget and deficit which was not the case until 2009. The rest was to try and get the country back on track after the crash of the economy at the end of Bush's presidency.

Grandma Moses for President!! (2016)

oy-vay!....I'm reading your posts and I can understand your concern about cutting our national debt, but unless I missed it somewhere, I have not heard you say you would come at this from BOTH directions, spending cuts AND revenue increases. If you're so hot on balancing the budget, don't you think we could do it quicker by whittling it down from both ends?? Most every person here who may call themselves Progressives or Democrats would most likely agree that the budget should be attacked on both fronts. However....the same cannot be said for Conservative Republicans. They are pretty much single-minded, stubbornly so, in their belief that we should slash spending while still allowing the rich and corporations their tax breaks and loopholes. They say it would be a "job killer" to eliminate these tax breaks. Well, the Dems extended the Bush-era tax breaks, and for what??? Where are the jobs?? Where are they??

It's a lie that the TP fanatics fed us, and Mr. Obama believed it.

The DEBT CEILING could raised without any sort of agreement.The republican GOP merely used the debt ceiling to their advantage..Unfortunately,including the media jumped on the ban wagon that the government will default if the debt ceiling is not raised.The president could do that under the 14th amend. of the CONSTITUTION.......After all,there are democrats who are in agreement with the republicans...

I can only attest as to why I voted on that choice. I agree with you, I didn't see anything in the summary of the bill that seemed to imply a significant cut in any program (unless voted on etc.). I voted that choice though because, to my concern, there was absolutely nothing in the summary about tax reform to close corporate loopholes (GE getting a tax return on record profits is infuriating to me) or to increase taxes on those oh-so-high-and-mighty 'Americans/Job-Creators' (and I use the term with little belief in its validity and an overwhelming helping of sarcasm.)

That's not what that option means.

I believe the proposal was just a political means to a political end. It's not meant to address the national debt issue. It was meant to appease both parties, particularly the Tea Party.

Instead of dealing with the real problem, we relegated to politics.

How is it good for the Tea Party? Voting for a debt ceiling increase is voting for everything the Tea Partiers ran against.

This deal is NOT good for the Tea Party and many of them will vote against it. This deal (if it passes) does nothing for the $14 trillion deficit and it equalizes the debt ceiling raise and the cuts. Frankly, I have serious doubts that the cuts will ever take place.

LEONA, anybody who can do basic math knows this proposal is all about appearance. It was crafted to make everybody look like they got something out of it.

The problem with compromise in this situation is that it was a political solution. It was not a solution to the actual problem.

BTW- the nation's ridiculous debt levels are the problem. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

You are right Dave but , you see, Obama , Pelosi & Reid and the like want to take from the rich to give to the poor ( REDISTRIBUTION). The country needs to decide upon Socialism or Capitalism. The American people should be voting on THAT so we can tell the politicians EXACTLY what kind of system we want.

The irony is, many freshman Teapublicans have been spending like drunken sailors on pork projects for their home districts since they got in. And an examination of many of their personal financial histories shows huge credit card debt.Please God, Save me from "fiscal conservatives." They can't balance their own books, or resist deficit spending when it benefits their own districts. But they want to bully the President into cutting money for the elderly?

Ryan Alexander, president of the nonpartisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense, says, "It raises that question: How are you managing your personal debt? You're telling us how to manage our debt as a country, you're making ultimatums, and we don't know what you're doing with your personal debt. And they're holding credit card debt. Not every American does that. That's a choice that you made, to put that kind of debt on your own personal finances."

Read more: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/28699604/detail.html#ixzz1TmeTRx4H

Leona:

If those are the only two choices, capitalism isn't looking too great.

Leona- Got some facts to back-up those claims? Where are all these polices that are redistributing all the wealthy people's cash. Too much faux noise, I think! Socialism has been going on in America for years, SS,medicaid,medicare etc. Just sounds scary to you now? Buzz words make the uninformed shake in their collective boots. Capitalism is alive and well in America, the outsourcing is going on everyday. Where are all the jobs, from the job creators???? Keep fighting for the rich, and against working class Americans!!!

oy vay, Thank God for the TEA Party. At least there is some, not enough, reference to cutting spending. That is a monumental achievement after what the dem Congress did to this country for the four years prior to the 2010 election. The TEA Party campaigned on changing the spend-spend crowds hold on America's economy. They are doing exactly what they were sent to Washington to achieve. It isn't perfect, it is only a start on the road to sanity in government.

LEONA- You are right there has been REDISTRIBUTION of wealth in this country going on for the last 10-15 (maybe more) years, from the working middle class to the very rich. Their income goes up while we work longer hours at a more efficient rate but our income has stagnated for the past 10 years (FACT) while the cost of living continues to rise in all areas. I've continued to get 2-3% yearly increases (maximum for my company) while the cost of living goes up 5-6% a year. The owners of my co. continue to grow the business and expand as well as have 2-3 homes each (mind you there are aprox. 20 owners) but I'm finding it harder and harder to get along and I'm not out spending recklessly, just trying to make it! So keep on making your point we'll get it someday...It's not that I want to take anyones wealth I just want fair cost of living increases.

Royal Star - Just how do you think the system works? Do you think the majority of money that funds government spending comes from the middle class and poor?

And talk about selfish, you sound like it's just you and your generation we should be thinking bout. Aren't you special. What about those of us 45 and under? Don't you want to make sure that SS and Medicare are around for your children and grandchildren?

Wake up and smell the coffee

I think they KNOW, they just don't CARE...They make much more money from their corporate owners than the pittance we taxpayers pay them, and they are good whores if nothing else.

mark

Hey smartass Urban, I AM under 45 so dont preach to me. I WANT SS and Medicare around , thats why i dont like this deal. Get your head out of your ass and read the article. Mark, hit the nail on the head.

royal, I want a Mercedes 600 also, but I cannot afford one. Will you provide one for me, after all I do have the wants.

Yeah you want a Mercedes. Just like you Repubes to buy foreign. Losers.

What reason would I want a Ford, when I could want Mercedes 600, just as easy? Afterall, I wouldn't be paying for it, you would. I don't need any money or job, as long as someone else pays for my needs. That is the lib way.

Hey Joe, but everyone loves the plan! No one cares about the future. They keep talking about how this vote will set up the conditions to make changes in the future.

alan, you notice how they never talk about what changes.

IMHO, a budget was not issued by the Senate for 2 years to avoid making it obvious that we could not afford the new healthcare laws of 2014.

If we think we're in a tight spot now, imagine what we'll be faced when the healthcare law bills come due.

Nice to see someone on this website knows something. We can not tax the "wealthy" enough to get out of the problem we are still heading towards. This bill was a joke, the idea that a balance budget or that freezing spending at current levels and cutting 1% or anything below that % for the next ten years is radical shows how little people know about our debt crisis. I don't even want gov't to even choose what to cut, I just think they should cut it all at the same percentage over the next 10 years. Just think about your own finances, if you had a large debt (Borrowing 44 cents on every dollar you spend), would you be able to go out and get more credit so you could spend more and when you ask for this credit you tell the creditor, by the way I still plan on almost doubling my debt? Until we see surpluses and our debt not increasing, we will have a problem.

Dear Mr Oy-vay,

The healthcare reform bill, passed by Democrats and signed by President Obama, was scored by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office as being on track to lower our federal defict by $130 billion in the first ten years, and $1.2 trillion over the second decade.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf

Oops, sorry Amy I didn't mean to give you a "thumbs up". Nationalized health care is a lark which has already been proven to be "underestimated" cost wise. We've been seeing 40-50% raises in insurance costs in many states because they have to cover kids until their 26 and no longer have any recourse on existing conditions. The administrative costs of nationalized health care were underestimated and the benefits will be hard to control. You think that everyone lining up for those "free scooters" is annoying, just wait? You think all of the seniors lining up for "happy time drugs" because it wasn't in the prescription drug benefit that it was supposed to be lifesaving/preserving only was annoying? Just wait.

Great point, Joe, that Obamacare is waterslide for money trail. It would be cheaper for the government to give every american one million dollars each, and let them have at it.

I would love to only pay 20% tax on my income, I currently pay 42% tax, combined fed and state, plus another 8% sales tax on everything I buy. That doesn't include property tax which is horrific and school taxes which I don't benefit from as my kids go to private school.

What would a clean debt ceiling bill look like?

Nothing like a free, clear path to indebtedness... Freedom here we come- not!

Default had nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling. Bondholders can still get paid without raising the debt ceiling. Default is a red herring used to scare people, as usual with this administration.

If I hear "the sky is gonna fall if we don't do this" one more time!

Crisis and fear-mongering is particularly effective with people who function out of their emotions. Democrats have learned that their base is emotionally driven and baited. It's the cheese in the labyrinth to keep their base following along.

Yes, and we certainly didn't see any fear mongering during President Bush's tenure, what with (first) Bin Laden's hiding in Iraq! then (second) Hussein has WMD hidden in Iraq! Or how about (third) Obama consorts with domestic terrorists!

I won't deny that the Democrats do their fair share of fear-mongering, but I'd suggest checking your own color, Mr. Teapot, before you start harping on the kettle for being black.

I agree about default. Why is it a sad day?

It a lot worse than that. To compete for most of the few jobs available out there, you'll need to be in the same pool as the millions of immigrants vying for those same jobs who are very willing to work cheap.

Regardless of all else, it's still about jobs. If we want to have a middle class here, we will need to provide them the wherewithal to attain and hold that status.

There is a bit of irony here. US companies claim we don't have enough workers in trained positions to fill their needs. But if it were as simple as that then free market capitalism says that college entrants will gravitate to those degrees. And if it were that simple, then patriotic US businesses would fund their own training programs or encourage government to do so. Fact is that global businesses use the lack of trained labor to off shore jobs to hold down both costs and taxes. One way of looking at it is that US corporations want to claim lack of a sufficiently educated US work force, but at the same time lack the patriotism to pay taxes toward funding a better education.