world

Obama: Halt '3-ring-circus' of debt-limit debate

57 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

Of course the Republicans want a second vote in the 2012 election year to force the situation all over again. And yet some on this site claim it's only the Democrats who are politicizing this debt issue. The Republicans only have the country's best interests in mind, like" helping" all those Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security recipients by making drastic cuts in benefits. Where does their constituency feel any pain? Where are the sacrifices the wealthiest are being asked to take?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

In full campaign mode (even though the country faces default) and so playing identity politics again as he appealed to a Latino group today - ostensibly on the debt, but also on amnesty for 12 million illegals for all we know - Obama declares

"I'd Like to bypass Congress and change the rules on my own."

I can see the t-shirt already.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If the United States were a ship, the Republicans would just sit there and watch their leaders drill holes in the hull. Then when she sinks they would point fingers at the Democrats as they tread water and keeping pointing until they finally drown.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

chewitup

If the United States were a ship, the Republicans would just sit there and watch their leaders drill holes in the hull. Then when she sinks they would point fingers at the Democrats as they tread water and keeping pointing until they finally drown.

Totally devastating analogy. And then all 59 million of them Repub voters and their families would like, just wait for the few thousand 'corporate jet owners' the party is beholden to ( dude, corp-fascist private jet owners leverage our entire 14 trillion dollar economy...) to swoop by and pick em all up - and bill em later for it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Moderator, Obama was only talking about debt crisis tonight, nothing else. Thank you.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The debt, for this president, is just another problem that Professor Obama, who imagines we are living in the 1960s , thinks he can solve by deigning to speechify to the unruly kids obstructing progress on his campus.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I agree Global

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Maybe the tea party should drink the grass leaves they have boiled instead of smoking it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I like it how some seniors are calling their representatives and saying if they don't get their social security checks (a.k.a. freeload checks) its their fault. No, the fault lies with lavish social security, medicare and medicaid payments draining the national treasure. Here in Japan social security pays about 65% of what Americans receive and everyone pays 30% co-pay on medical expenses. Americans want everything NOW and don't want to save or sacrifice. Rich people are rich because they work hard and use their brains -- they don't sit in front of the TV and watch reality shows or stupid sports...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"3-ring circus"

The biggest clown in this 3-ring circus is Obama.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

No, the fault lies with lavish social security, medicare and medicaid payments draining the national treasure.

But not the military? Not any other government agency? Not bailing out Wall Street? Not the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Where did you buy those blinders? Or did you steal them from a racehorse?

Rich people are rich because they work hard and use their brains

So none of them inherited it? None of them jipped the taxpayers? None of them are guilty of insider trading? None of them made dirty deals with our politicians? None of them leveraged desperation of the have nots to pay them insufficient wages? No bid contracts are now just "using one's brains"?

Please, give the blinders back!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

“The president has often said we need a ‘balanced’ approach, which in Washington means we spend more, you pay more,”

Obama's debt plan calls for spending more?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

chewitup is the sort who just lurvs himself the class war pablum Obama spoon feeds his base:

"So none of them inherited it? None of them jipped the taxpayers? None of them are guilty of insider trading? None of them made dirty deals with our politicians? None of them leveraged desperation of the have nots to pay them insufficient wages? No bid contracts are now just "using one's brains"?"

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

chewitup is the sort who just lurvs himself the class war pablum Obama spoon feeds his base:

And you have yet to explain how the 14 trillion dollar debt is going to be paid by people who collectively only hold hundreds of billions in wealth. Sell off all their assets and make them live in caves and the debt still does not get paid. Perhaps you think we could sell off their organs to make up the difference?

You keep beating around the bush with political brown-nosing and grand-standing while trying to deny the simple arithmetic that says the only way to pay the debt is to tax the rich no matter how much you adore them. There is no market for adoration and brownie points that will generate enough cash either.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

In 2000, the U.S. expenditure for welfare was 1 trillion. If anyone has a more up to date figure, I would love to see it, but I doubt its changed much.

If we simply cut welfare we could pay the debt in maybe 16 years (don't forget interest that will accrue in that time). But the social upheaval it would cause would probably cost so much it would not work. That could mean a full rebellion in the states. Reasonable cuts might be possible, and I would support those. But its not going to solve the problem and its going to cause a lot of pain for the poor.

How some equate that pain with causing a man with 3 BMWs to not be able to buy fourth for a few years is simply mind-boggling. How some can harp on and on about granny get government money for her meds while money is just thrown at the military by the billions is just plain twisted and sick. I don't know what some of you are putting in your tea.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

chewitup

How some equate that pain with causing a man with 3 BMWs to not be able to buy fourth for a few years is simply mind-boggling.

Sorry, but a little research on just who 'the rich' are and (one example) the kind of cars they drive, might surprise you. Your jealousy has your imagination quite fired up, and you are prone to all kinds of excitable exaggeration and insults, but have you ever met someone who owns four BMWs? I haven't. Where do you get this bizarre picture of America?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

This whole "default" crap is political spin. The ony way to default is to not pay the interest on the debt. That money along with Social Security and Medicare are already in the budget. If you dont use the money for other pet projects, it's there but raising the debt limit lets the gov't keep on spending monies that have not been budgeted. Spin, spin, spin (are you dizzy yet?)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Never mind my illustrations BV, just tell us how the poor and middle class are going to pay the debt while the rich carry on like its business as usual. I challenge you to give us numbers and math. Make my day.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they did not vote for a dysfunctional government

The American people voted for a smaller government.

If SS is threatened to be cut, it must've all been a Ponzi scheme, no?

Stop squandering tax money on free services and giveaways to illegals, and get those checks out to the people who've paid into the system.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Pamelot, you might notice that only one house of Congress is held by the Republicans. That seems to be symbolic of Tea Partiers: we have one seat at the table, so we're going to ignore the other two seats and dictate demands.

Also, SS has zero to do with the deficit.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

BreitbartVictorious, will you tell me if US government was in surplus or deficit when W took office in Washington 10 years ago?. Will you also tell me if US government was in surplus or deficit when W left office? Unless you come up with these answers, there is no further discussion Hint, There are a few elements you can consider.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Sorry, but a little research on just who 'the rich' are and (one example) the kind of cars they drive, might surprise you. Your jealousy has your imagination quite fired up, and you are prone to all kinds of excitable exaggeration and insults, but have you ever met someone who owns four BMWs? I haven't. Where do you get this bizarre picture of America?

BreitbartVictorious, sounds like you are still in Kyushu, Japan.. I am living in one of the richest country of US. Yes, there are many billionaires living here with jets who pay little for tax.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The biggest clown in this 3-ring circus is Obama.

Serrano, please explain why so. Thanks.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The debt, for this president, is just another problem that Professor Obama, who imagines we are living in the 1960s , thinks he can solve by deigning to speechify to the unruly kids obstructing progress on his campus.

Victorious, I hope you know what you are talking about here. The debt... Until you answer all questions I have requested, I am very skeptical about your analysis.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

global - come back when you know diff between the national debt and the federal budget deficit.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The New York Times has summarized the development of the deficit over the last two administrations here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1 Of course, conservatives will immediately label the paper as "lamestream media" - that happens when truth collides with their fantasy land. Nonetheless, it not only points out how we arrived at this juncture, it also indicates how exaggerated its severity has become.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Victorious, you come back and define. I am willing to listen to your adult like discussion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't get why rich people have to pay more.It was supposed to be that people are equal, but it happens that some people are more equal than others.So here is a situation: you are poor and you want free medicare/cash/food, and it's ok for you that rich people will pay for that.And rich people have to pay for society trash...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Obama presided over the trillion dollar porkulus that did nothing to stimulate the exonomy or create jobs.

He still thinks government is the answer to our problems. He still doesn't realize that government has to get off the backs of private business to grow the economy.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I don't get why rich people have to pay more.It was supposed to be that people are equal,

If we made people equal, there would be no rich people!

The rich pay more because part of the reason so many of them are so rich is quite related to government borrowing.

Further, the richest 25 percent hold 85 percent of all the wealth. Only they have the money to pay the debt in any reasonable amount of time.

Back to fair: Some people will swear up and down that the ever widening gap between rich and poor is the result of fair dealings, intelligence and hard work. But, that simply cannot be true. If people were truly paid the value of their labor, it would be impossible to have such a gap. If goods were priced closer to their actual value it would be impossible to have such a gap. The super rich may not have broken any laws, but the people who amassed that sort of wealth surely were not fair nor honest and had a big hand in creating the problem of debt There is not need to feel sorry for them. Besides, what Obama proposes will stil live them in their mansions with their luxury cars. None of them will go hungry and surely they will still have enough for their weekly pedicures and oil massages.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama presided over the trillion dollar porkulus that did nothing to stimulate the exonomy or create jobs.

You mean "one of the". There was more than one and its obvious why you avoid talking about them all. Heaven forbid you be up front and straight eh? You might get confused for a liberal if you did that!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't get why rich people have to pay more

Gee, you really don't understand why a fair tax system would demand that?

OK, pretend for a minute that taxes would only be levied against wealth. Every family, rich or poor, has a portion of their earnings/income/savings that are directed to current living needs. There's also a percentage that is required for future needs. Beyond that, there is wealth -- assets stored up that are not being put to any current or planned future use.

It's obvious that the vast majority of people have incomes that make it difficult to accumulate very much wealth. If only wealth were taxed, the system would treat everyone equally.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"I don't get why rich people have to pay more."

They actually pay LESS percentage wise then ever. AND the Bush tax cuts gave the wealthy a LARGER tax cut than the middle and lower income earners. Pres. Bush admitted this. All that stuff about supply side economics and creating jobs. How's that working out? Have the middle and lower income earners seen those benefits over the last ten years? Why the results of these policies aren't so obvious to some is beyond me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yabits and chewitup seem happily oblivious to the consequences of the Obama / Soros class war.

If getting 'rich' or getting ahead means you are going to be demonized, if your health care is 'free', if college is subsidized, and if, as Mencken said of the New Deal 'Half of the country works for a living, the other half votes for a living',

why try and better yourself?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The great chicken game. Heading for a full frontal collision. Can't wait for resulting blame game.

Spending cuts and tax increases are the only solution. Swallow your pride kids.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If getting 'rich' or getting ahead means you are going to be demonized

The concept that it is "demonizing" to apply a tax to wealth must originate in a very puny or twisted mind.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Victorious, I am still waiting for your response. Apparently, you do not know. I understand.

You are living in Kyushu Japan and your income (if employed) tax to US has been excused. You have been avoiding US SSI contributions for years. I am sure you have been aware of the fact you will not cry for SSI from US upon retirement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Victorious, the same rule will apply to your qualification to MEDICARE.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, SS has zero to do with the deficit.

Exactly. Then why threaten to stop it.

Following the ideas of your constituents, is not "making demands", and even if it were, BRAVO.

I hope they will DO the job they were voted in to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

pamelot, no money means no money. We are broke.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

chewitup:"If we made people equal, there would be no rich people!"

See, the problem I have with people like you is that word made.

Ultimately, you are talking about force.

You say this redistribution of individual wealth will be done with a 'progressive' tax system, drawn up by the state. But if the 'rich' - a term which you will notice is quite vague or relative with neo-marxists - refuse to pay the state then resorts to force.

You are advocating use of force against people while you sit and prattle about 'democracy' and rights.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If getting 'rich' or getting ahead means you are going to be demonized

Pointing out that only the rich have the money to pay the debt is not demonizing them. Its mathematical.

All the rest I have said you may discount as fluff. But if you cannot even acknowledge the math then all your posts are fluff from start to finish.

And nothing I have said will bust the rich down to middle class, so give me a break. I don't have a problem with rich people. I have a problem with HOARDING to the point it bankrupts the country. Your complaints about my position are like me saying that people should not be free to murder and steal, and you responding that I am anti-freedom. No I am all for freedom and getting rich, but everything has limits, or it all goes to hell, and it IS going to hell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chewitup

Pointing out that only the rich have the money to pay the debt is not demonizing them. Its mathematical

It's not mathematical, it is an attempt to use a kind of math as a substitute for economic reasoning.

I have a problem with HOARDING to the point it bankrupts the country.

LOL. 'Da evil rich' are hoarding hoarding money? The Fed these last few years has printed record amounts of fiat currency. Yes, corporations are sitting on a lot of cash. Who can blame them? Obama won't provide a federal budget, an unconstitutional reform of health care was rammed down our throats and we have something like 27 different czars who answer not to Congress or the people but solely to Obama, and these czars and the EPA are killing jobs.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Obama won't provide a federal budget, an unconstitutional reform of health care was rammed down our throats and we have something like 27 different czars who answer not to Congress or the people but solely to Obama, and these czars and the EPA are killing jobs.

Does that rant come with the cuckoo clock?

Those who have wealth should never be demonized -- but their accumulated wealth should be taxed. Not income.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Those who have wealth should never be demonized -- but their accumulated wealth should be taxed. Not income.

Again, yabits seems oblivious to the primacy of incentive in human affairs. Accumulated wealth should be taxed? Why then should I save money or accumulate assets as something to pass on as inheritance to my kids or family if the state will confiscate most of it to redistribute - equitably and free of political motive, of course! - to complete strangers ? Why work harder than you need to? If you 'get ahead' the state just knocks you down.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

it is an attempt to use a kind of math as a substitute for economic reasoning.

We are all waiting for your math on the subject. You have had weeks now. Can you even do math?

'Da evil rich' are hoarding hoarding money?

Put the horse in front of the cart. Those hoarding money are the evil rich. Oh, hell. I am sure that just confused you more.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

See, the problem I have with people like you is that word made.

And the problem I have with people like you is that you don't realize it was not a suggestion for an action. It was a supposition. It was clear to all but you.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

chewytup:

Back to fair: Some people will swear up and down that the ever widening gap between rich and poor is the result of fair dealings, intelligence and hard work.

When was it ever otherwise? Before the advent of free market capitalism there were no campaigns to 'eradicate poverty' because that was the lot of damn near everyone.

But, that simply cannot be true. If people were truly paid the value of their labor, it would be impossible to have such a gap.

Lemme guess, we need a central committee! - a few really smart fellows!, that will decide this. It is just a question of finding the right people! And they will be able to determine wages for jobs well outside their own expertise far more accurately than the wage/price that emerges from the myriad transactions free markets offer a free people. And there will be unicorns!

If goods were priced closer to their actual value it would be impossible to have such a gap.

Need another committee - whaddya know!

The super rich may not have broken any laws, but the people who amassed that sort of wealth surely were not fair nor honest and had a big hand in creating the problem of debt

The old zero-sum fallacy. You live in Tokyo, I presume. It was bombed flat in WW2. So,uh, in your zero sum world from whom did they 'steal' to rebuild it, and whose jobs did they 'steal' in making the GDP of greater Tokyo equivalent to that of Canada?

There is not need to feel sorry for them. Besides, what Obama proposes will stil live them in their mansions with their luxury cars.

Again, I have to ask, have you ever looked into a composite portrait of the people you attack? Most wealthy people in the US own their own businesses and tend to live modestly. Modesty and frugality - believe it or not - are among the values they say got them to the position you envy them for.

None of them will go hungry and surely they will still have enough for their weekly pedicures and oil massages.

The 'rich' do in fact keep afloat of a vast number of businesses in an American economy that has, since the 90s, seen an explosion of growth in the service sector.

Be careful what you wish for.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Again, yabits seems oblivious to the primacy of incentive in human affairs. Accumulated wealth should be taxed? Why then should I save money or accumulate assets ...

You mean to say that knowing you wouldn't be taxed your basic income and retirement savings, but that you would on assets well beyond that would be a disincentive to attaining wealth? I don't think most people would buy that.

if the state will confiscate most of it to redistribute

Even taxed at 49%, you'd still keep most of it to do what you want. Actually, the way to escape much of the tax on wealth is to make sure it is being pumped back into the economy in the form of job-creating investment. Investments which eventually bring even greater wealth and the decision of how much to reinvest or leave subject to taxation.

to complete strangers?

To fellow countrymen and their families which represent the future of your nation.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Most wealthy people in the US own their own businesses and tend to live modestly. Modesty and frugality - believe it or not - are among the values they say got them to the position you envy them for.

I own my own business and live very modestly. I relish the thought of living in a system that taxes only the excess of my increases beyond what I can invest to create more of the kinds of jobs that allow others a chance at creating their own wealth. (It's actually customers with money to spend that create jobs -- not "employers".)

The big incentive for me is seeing my country truly prosper.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

pamelot, no money means no money. We are broke.

And you are directing this at me, why?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chewitup - If the United States were a ship, the Republicans would just sit there and watch their leaders drill holes in the hull. Then when she sinks they would point fingers at the Democrats as they tread water and keeping pointing until they finally drown.

Where is the Democrats version of a bill? Talk vs action. Majority Senate leader Reid (D) wouldn't even allow a discussion or vote on the only bill that actually exists (cut, cap, balance). If the Democrats don't like the Republican bill, fine but where is their bill?

The Democrats control the Whitehouse and the Senate. Where is their version of a bill to deal with the debt ceiling, revenue and spending?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - (It's actually customers with money to spend that create jobs -- not "employers".)

Employers don't employ people?????

Then where do people go to get hired if not to "employers"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - Obama's debt plan calls for spending more?

Obama has a plan? Where is it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Employers don't employ people?????

For the dense: employers hire people to fill jobs created by customer demand. The employers do not create the jobs, the customers do.

That's why all the tax breaks in the world given to "employers" wouldn't create a single job if there weren't customers demanding a product or service. Tax breaks do next to nothing to create demand*. Money put into the hands of ordinary consumers on the other hand....

*A tax incentive, on the other hand, can create demand. For example, one nation levied a 3-5% tax on companies that was earmarked for job training for the umemployed. Companies could avoid the tax by proving that they were spending 3-5% of their budget for employee training. Either way, the "forced" spending created a significant demand for training products and services.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Where is their version of a bill to deal with the debt ceiling, revenue and spending?

Again, this is extremely dense. There doesn't need to be a bill that deals with all three.

The debt ceiling simply appropriates money that prior Congresses have authorized to spend. When you get a bill from a credit card company, you don't sit there and say you're not going to pay the bill until everyone agrees to cut the family's vacation budget next year. Not unless you want to look insane.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabitsJul. 28, 2011 - 12:07PM JST

For the dense: employers hire people to fill jobs created by customer demand. The employers do not create the jobs, the customers do.

A personal insult is your best response?

yabitsJul. 28, 2011 - 12:13PM JST

Again, this is extremely dense....... Not unless you want to look insane.

More personal insults?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites