It's a deal: Obama, Congress will avert debt default

I could no longer ignore my intuition..this is exactly what i have been saying from the day media started hype over this problem.

So now the US has more debt! How does that solve the entrenched problem that Americans borrow too much and produce too little? The Fed will print more dollars and the prices of commodities will rise and the poorer Americans will be hit. The gap between the haves and the have nots will widen. America is in decline and will be in decline until the economy can be balanced.

kurisupisu, Japan is in the same boat as well as US. You guys need to do something more to create more jobs

If all the party leaders agree to the deal and it ends up being blown up in the House by the Tea Party, you can guess who the rabid right-wing will continue to blame. Pres. Obama of course !

Dems filibustered their own bill.

It's the Tea Party's fault!

I am not against raising the debt limit per se. I am just afraid it will lead to a "Danger passed, God forgotten" sort of malaise. These guys were not doing nearly enough to curb government spending even in the face of a crisis. I hardly doubt they will get on it with the ceiling raised and plenty of time to do something.

And obviously, the tax cuts have got to go, but we have foot dragging on that too. The debt won't pay itself!

I would like to see published both bills that were put forward by both parties and then this so called bipartisan bill , so that the american people can be the judge of what their elected public servants have achieved or sacrificed in the name of working for the american people. This circus isn't about compromise its about winning votes in the election in 2012. The world is getting tired of the collusion between politicians and big business just protecting the rich.When all of these countries have social and economic problems that are affecting the quality of life of their own people. Sadly we now live in world controlled by investors and speculators,greedy shareholders and CEO only put in place to make them a profit. There is no moral thinking in providing jobs for the people and just settling for a little profit anymore.Throughout history its always the weak who have to suffer.

Dems filibustered their own bill.

I don't know what you are referring to, but the logical flaw is evident just in your words alone. Democrats are not a monolithic group.

It's the Tea Party's fault!

Blaming the tea party for certain things does not they are being blamed for everything.

Are you aware how much you lower the level of discussion? I am surprised you have not received an offical reprimand for it.

Actually, none of this surprises me in the least. This was all a pre-election year stunt to get votes. The politicians don't care about numbers, just about looks (and that's true of all the sides, including TEA PARTY). Take my word for it, all the politicians in the States will start throwing up posters and TV Ads saying this and that. Example, the Tea Party will say they were the only ones to fight against the debt ceiling, while the Dems and GOP will say they were the ones to save the country from "Certain Doom." Each side will claim they sponsored key points to cut the debt and yet they will say that they saved their constituents from having important programs cut.

Why do I think this is true? Because they did exactly the same thing the last time, when the broke a billion in debt, and everyone feared an end to the world. It didn't happen then, I knew it wouldn't happen this time either.

Another masterful play by Obama.

This was a carny trick from the get-go. Both are in cahoots and cannot face reality about what to really cut (3 wars) to save the US. Bring on the speeches of victory and monotony. Tee time at 8am on Wednesday and a birthday party in the afternoon. Glad their summer holidays aren't affected.

chewitup, Dems filibustered their own bill.

I don't know what you are referring to, but the logical flaw is evident just in your words alone. Democrats are not a monolithic group.

Maybe this is what BreitbartVictorious was referring to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIDF9yDTi1Q&feature=player_embedded

Actually, none of this surprises me in the least. This was all a pre-election year stunt to get votes. The politicians don't care about numbers, just about looks (and that's true of all the sides, including TEA PARTY).

@American Devil: I feel the same way also. I think the GOP made some of their own (i.e. Tea Partyers) try to look bad, so that in 2012 there will not be more of them getting elected into Congress. Like it or not, some of them actually tried to hold the "established" Republicans to their words. Also, the Dems are probably glad that there is a fracture in the GOP, they then at least can show that the GOP is going back on their words.

Both parties need to get back to basics, and stop screwing over the American taxpayer.

The bill is not the best, but it's better than nothing, still doesn't tackle the amount of debt, that Obama is still racking up and we're still accumulating. Both sides came out a bit short, but at least Conservatives got a small, small marginal win.

Conservatives don't yet have enough political power to get just what they want. But even if President Obama emerges from the struggle in stronger political shape than the GOP, the fiscalization of American politics -- meaning the focus of debate on deficits and debt -- is here to stay.

Dealing with the debt crisis and budget deficits and Obamacare and other issues is a war that will have many battles.The debt ceiling debate has become a distraction and if it continues, it could damage the TP and conservative causes. Declare partial victory and prepare for the next significant fights. The most important task is to elect more conservatives and to defeat Obama in 2012.

One of the key items in this legislation is the requirement for an up/down vote on a balanced budget ammendment. A similar vote failed in the Senate by one vote in 1995. I doubt if a vote would get throught this Senate but it would put the voters on notice about who is serious about spending controls.

The debt ceiling debate has become a distraction and if it continues, it could damage the TP and conservative causes. Declare partial victory and prepare for the next significant fights. The most important task is to elect more conservatives and to defeat Obama in 2012.

100% agreed.

.The debt ceiling debate has become a distraction and if it continues, it could damage the TP and conservative causes. Declare partial victory and prepare for the next significant fights. The most important task is to elect more conservatives and to defeat Obama in 2012.

Lizz -- thanks for the laugh. Yup, what America needs is a President who thinks carbon monoxide is a beneficial by-product of nature and has a husband who counsels patients that being gay can be reversed by psychological care and prayer. Please, don't insult our intelligence with that Tea Party simplistic nonsense. The Tea Partiers were not even willing to let their own party leadership make a smart deal with Obama.

"...still doesn't tackle the amount of debt, that Obama is still racking up and we're still accumulating."

Just curious, how is Obama still "racking up " the debt? Other than the stimulus plan, which was a one shot deal , where is all this debt he ran up? On what programs? And don't say "Obamacare". It hasn't even been implemented yet !

...the fiscalization of American politics -- meaning the focus of debate on deficits and debt -- is here to stay.

That no doubt is true. The agreement apparently requires an equal amount of spending reduction for debt ceiling increase in the next round scheduled for next year, and similar agreements covering future debt ceiling raises are likely. This is not entirely bad, though, as the effect of the spending cuts on the erosion of the safety net will be felt - and change attitudes - before any long-term damage can be done.

California can be cited as a study case: Gov. Brown was elected as a Democrat charged with downsizing the state government. He recently chose to end subsidized daycare for the elderly. Some have pointed out that, if only 20% of these people who now have nowhere to spend their days except at home are sent to 24 hour-care facilities, all savings will vanish; if more do so, the move will end up costing the state.

Another example is an Illinois school district hit by falling revenue which decided education took priority over transportation and chose to eliminate its school buses. It leased them to a private provider who then charged $675 per child per year for transportation to and from school.

So bring it on. Apparently America cannot afford these things - but it can afford the lowest level of taxation on the upper classes since the 1950s, and it can afford to outspend the rest of the world combined on its military. We'll soon see how the American people respond to these priorities.

Just curious, how is Obama still "racking up " the debt? Other than the stimulus plan, which was a one shot deal , where is all this debt he ran up? On what programs? And don't say "Obamacare". It hasn't even been implemented yet!

And by the looks of it, hopefully won't be. Where did all the debt go to... How about increasing and creating a giant government apparatus agencies and czars, made a NEW war with Afghanistan without a clear objective, give huge sums of money to foreign banks, he DIDN'T distribute the money into the population to encourage spending and increase job growth, he tripled what Bush started, thereby putting the country into deeper debt. He used executive orders to circumvent anyone who got in the way, and to restrict Constitutional rights. Oh, by the way, did I mention Obamacare?

First-aid, bandage...not the cure for badly decayed (world's No.1) economy. Face the facts and go for a major surgery and pray to God for the success.

"How about increasing and creating a giant government apparatus agencies and czars,..."

THAT increased the national debt? Really?

"...made a NEW war with Afghanistan without a clear objective,..."

"New" war?

"...give huge sums of money to foreign banks,..."

The Federal Reserve did this.

"...he DIDN'T distribute the money into the population to encourage spending and increase job growth, ..."

What money? Tax receipts fell like a rock during the recession.

"...he tripled what Bush started, thereby putting the country into deeper debt."

???

"He used executive orders to circumvent anyone who got in the way, and to restrict Constitutional rights. Oh, by the way, did I mention Obamacare?"

bass4funk : Your statements read more like a rant than a debate.

Finally! I thought it would never make it!

Now we can get on with the finger-pointing... where did I put that pop-corn?

They kicked the can down the road. Big deal.

Your statements read more like a rant than a debate

No, I leave the ranting for liberals, they have a PhD in it and do a far better job!

I guess one good thing to come out of this mess is that the GOP/TP were DENIED the option they so desperately fought to win – to cut Medicaid and Medicare payments for their own parents and other elderly Americans.

After watching the GOP/TP in this debate, I’ve got to say I’ve never seen a party so intent, focused and driven to protect the rich and totally shaft the poor.

I’ve also never seen such incessant reasoning as to why rich Americans and private jet/boat owners need to be protected as I’ve seen coming from conservatives.

Amazing...

Thanks to this little stunt, America has made me a little bit richer.

There is a lot of anger and disappointment today on sites like daily kos. I think Obama is going to face a challenger in the primary,which would be a good thing.

Good point, Lieberman! What America needs is a Democrat as reckless as the Tea Partiers. That way, we really could have seen would would happen if America defaulted.

Until then, though, there is a cool head in the White House. Things can still be salvaged.

"This is not entirely bad, though, as the effect of the spending cuts on the erosion of the safety net will be felt - and change attitudes - before any long-term damage can be done."

There is room to save and to be sensible about the savings... don't pay for diabetes patients to have their nails trimmed by a doctor, or anyone to use brand name over generic drugs, etc....nobody needs to help granny off a cliff. Take steps like Increase the retirement age, expand means testing, raise co-pays and change the benefit structure of Medicare to get back to addressing the original goal that Pres Kennedy laid out of "preventing people from “suddenly [finding] all their savings gone because of a costly health problem.”

It's amazing how spending that didn't even exist 10 years ago is considered impossible to cut out of the federal budget now.

I don't see how Obama faces a primary challenge from the left unless liberals can change the terms of the debate. They like to talk in terms of specific losses to programs, needs and services -- not numbers or budgetary targets; but the magnitude of the debt is so crippling it is like a cancer that is metastasizing which threatens the very existence of this country. So conservatives now have the momentum now to crowd out safety net concerns or support for policies that "stimulate" economic growth. These negotiations have shown a great deal of Republican unity and there is no real indication it is done yet. It has also shown that by building upon this base in the next election we can take control. We have just won the first quarter not the game.

There is room to save and to be sensible about the savings... don't pay for diabetes patients to have their nails trimmed by a doctor, or anyone to use brand name over generic drugs, etc....nobody needs to help granny off a cliff. Take steps like Increase the retirement age, expand means testing, raise co-pays and change the benefit structure of Medicare to get back to addressing the original goal that Pres Kennedy laid out of "preventing people from “suddenly [finding] all their savings gone because of a costly health problem.”

Kind of a funny story about that, Lizz - see, that is what the Obama health care plan was supposed to be a first step towards, but then rightwing crazies started talking about "death panels" - remember that? Fine moment for your party! - and then things got sidetracked with just minimal progress.

They like to talk in terms of specific losses to programs, needs and services -- not numbers or budgetary targets....

Well, the latter are important as well, but as a means, not as an end - something Republicans as of late seem to have forgotten. And as the people for whom these needs exist find their corresponding services no longer exist, well, I suppose they'll get along somehow. They might not feel so charitable towards the party that took away the services that fulfilled their needs, however.

Lizz, I guess we both agree terms of the debate have been fundamentally changed. How Americans will respond to this, however, is far from clear.

The agreement would slice at least $2.2 trillion from federal spending over a decade

Each year? Good; that should give them a solid, responsible surplus every year and the debt will be gone before a decade has passed.

Oh, wait...

"The agreement would slice at least $2.2 trillion from federal spending over a decade, a steep price for many Democrats"

Apparently many Democrats still don't get that the government has to stop spending more than it takes in.

Laguna,

Labeling people as rightwing crazies or reckless or extremists does nothing but further destroy civility or rational discourse in what is going to be the most important debate this country has had to face in a very long time. The fundamental debate of what size and scope of Government do the American people really want in the and how much Government are we willing to be for said Government. Vast swaths of the American people strongly believe in smaller Government and do not wish to support a Government model on the likes of Europe and a quasi-socialist state. They are not crazies or extremists they are folks who have a different political view then a liberal does. They see a Government that is grown massively since the election of President Obama and a Government that has been reckless with our tax dollars with no appreciable results in return. We are now facing a jobless recovery increasing food and energy prices and a dollar that is in worse shape then it has ever been. You may or may not live in Japan, I do. The yen to dollar exchange rate is now 76 to one dollar. I get in dollars and I have lost almost 25 percent of the value of my income when I exchange my dollars to yen to live on the local economy. I do not see it getting any better anytime soon and am bracing for even worse times as this administration continues to pursue Keynesian failed economics and Quantified easing tactics, which is nothing more than a fancy way to say inflation and printing more dollars further weakening the its value. I do have better outlook for the future though after this deal and what the Tea party has really done for the country and surprisingly it was Yabits, who suggested that the major mutual funds were spooked by the Tea party, he mentioned Fidelity and I checked the web site. Their view.

In the medium-term, a renewed focus on deficit-reduction efforts—even if they are accompanied by noisy and sometimes acrimonious political debate—may ultimately be perceived by financial markets as an increasingly serious determination to deal with the U.S. fiscal budget problems. Without question, meaningful policy changes are needed to ensure a stable fiscal future for the United States. An effort by politicians to focus on and implement structural reforms that provide a long-term solution to reducing the U.S. deficit—rather than solely on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling—may have a positive impact on financial markets over time, and could ultimately alleviate growing concerns about the sustainability of the U.S. fiscal position.

You can thank "The Tea Party" crazies for finally bringing a deal that does bring real structural reforms and not allow a raising of the debt ceiling to just happen to continue to spend our way into oblivion.

Apparently many Democrats still don't get that the government has to stop spending more than it takes in.

Serrano -- LOL. Nice simplistic view, but wrong. Dems get it alright. They also get that they inherited a huge deficit, a crummy economy and two terribly costly wars -- one of which was totally unnecessary -- from the Republicans. Or did you guys conveniently forget all that.

herefornow - Did you conveniently forget that the Democrats controlled Congress ( and therefore federal spending ) from 2006 until the Republicans took back the House in the last election?

Did you conveniently forget that the Democrats controlled Congress ( and therefore federal spending ) from 2006 until the Republicans took back the House in the last election?

Wrong. The elections were in November of 2006. Democrats didn't regain control until January of 2007.

Secondly, President Bush had the power to veto any spending bill and Congress would not have been able to override it. Bush therefore also had complete check and balance power over Congress.

Thirdly, one of the biggest single spending items was the emergency bailout of Wall Street, aka the Paulson Plan. The Democratic-controlled House voted NO! on it. Then Majority Leader Boehner boo-hooed and bawled all over the House begging his Republicans to give the president his emergency spending bill to save the Wall Street bankers, the way former Goldman Sach's executive Paulsen wanted.

As always, Serrano speaks for the simpleton branch of the conservative wing -- whose ranks threaten to dwindle as more people get wise.

Sailwind - I appreciate your sincerity. I do disagree with most everything you have posted, however - and so would most economists. "Vast swaths" of Americans control the House; what about the Senate and presidency? - do they count for nothing? Most "conservative" states receive more in Federal assistance than they pay in Federal taxes; do you not believe that, if this is their belief, Federal expenditures should be reapportioned to even out this discrepancy? So many have blamed the recession on Obama and scorn those who still mention Bush's involvement; do you not believe that those eight reckless years still haunt us? - that the wars he started, the veterans and their costs that he created, the taxes he cut, the medical benefits he offered, all unpaid for - do they count for nothing just three years later? Judging the Keynesian economics and QE methods as failures is akin to blaming the doctor for blurred vision after he's removed a bullet from your eye: imagine how worse it could have been. That, at any rate, is what the majority of economists say. And that the Tea Party was responsible for this: you might remember the last time the US ran a budget surplus. Remember? Under which president was that?

I call the Tea Party and their ilk crazy not through jingoism; I do so as I would any person who disregards what experts declare to be firm evidence. For example, cutting two trillion dollars from the budget now: bad idea, unless you're a McConnellite, for whom of paramount importance is defeating Obama. Priorities, I suppose.

By the way, I do live in Japan; I have my own small business and pay much in Japanese taxes. There is much to complain about regarding Japanese governance, but I would rather live here than in the US.

Labeling people as rightwing crazies or reckless or extremists does nothing but further destroy civility or rational discourse in what is going to be the most important debate this country has had to face in a very long time.

The debate was largely instigated by a manufactured crisis by those opposed to the routine raising of the debt ceiling -- a move that would declare that the United States could no longer be trusted in the world to pay its bills. This move by radical Republicans was an attack on the full faith and credit of the United States.

Calling the people crazy who perpetrated this act is being much to harsh to the truly insane. All too many Tea Party types have no interest in rational discourse whatsoever. They are absolutists and have shown that they are willing to do serious damage to their country if they don't get their way. I can't define "extremism" any better than that.

Its about time. Scary how that was going... Best tweet ive read on the topic: ConanOBrien McCain called the Tea Party “Hobbits” & the Tea Party called McCain a “troll.” I’m finally starting to understand this debt ceiling thing. On a serious note hope the US can sort out its financial issues. I recommend the award winning documentary 'The Inside Job' quite an eyeopener regarding the US economy specifically the mortgage crisis.

Thirdly, one of the biggest single spending items was the emergency bailout of Wall Street, aka the Paulson Plan. The Democratic-controlled House voted NO! on it. Then Majority Leader Boehner boo-hooed and bawled all over the House begging his Republicans to give the president his emergency spending bill to save the Wall Street bankers, the way former Goldman Sach's executive Paulsen wanted.

Yabits, your facts are wrong.

According to wikipedia:

First House vote, September 29

Just after midnight Sunday, September 28, leaders of the Senate and House, along with Treasury Secretary Paulson, announced a tentative deal had been reached to permit the government purchase of up to $700 billion in mortgage backed securities to provide liquidity to the security holders, and to stabilize U.S. financial firms and markets. The bill was made final later that Monday morning.[4][136] A debate and vote was scheduled for the House for Monday, September 29, to be followed by a Senate debate on Wednesday.[137] In an early morning news conference, on Monday September 29, President George W. Bush expressed confidence that the bill would pass Congress, and that it would provide relief to the U.S. economy. A number of House Republicans remained opposed to the deal and intended to vote against it.[138][139][140]

That same day, the legislation for the bailout was put before the United States House of Representatives and failed 205–228, with one not voting. Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it.

Also I understand the President Obama can do no wrong in his policies or his economic stewardship as long as Bush was President for a rational progressive almost three years into his Presidency.

yabits: Democrats didn't regain control until January 2007"

(sigh ) OK, yabits, you got me there, I was off by 2 months, lol.

yabits: "President Bush had the power to veto any spending bill"

Ho ho ho, yabits! So it was President Bush's fault that the Democrats sent him debt-laden spending bills, lol...

That same day, the legislation for the bailout was put before the United States House of Representatives and failed 205–228, with one not voting. Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it.

Damn, I remember that day. Is this something you'd like to hold up as a shining moment of Republican rationalism? The crime was not in the mitigation of the meltdown; it was in not following up on stronger Wall Street regulation. For this, Obama shares blame.

Laguna,

Thank you for your sincere response. For your consideration in response to your Question.

you might remember the last time the US ran a budget surplus. Remember? Under which president was that?

That would be Bill Clinton who also overreached his first two years and ended up with a Republican majority in both houses as opposition. He was able to come to terms with the new governing reality and through compromise and some pretty wise legislation was able to produce a surplus. What most folks don't realize a big part of that ability rested on the collapse of the Soviet Union and the massive amount of savings the U.S was able to take in as a peace dividend at that time. It freed up a lot of revenue that could go toward balancing the budget and not be taken from entitlement programs. Clinton really got lucky in being able to avoid the hard choices as to which programs would have to be cut to achieve a balanced budget. Cutting back on defense at that time was a no brainer.

I would never support a candidate that signed one of those idiotic no-tax pledges or campaigned on no debt level raise under any circumstances. The pledge may prevent what signees otherwise would want; but the politicians that sign these pieces of paper are now bound to policies that may not be in the best interest of the country, and only used for their own personal financial support and political gain. A lot of Tea Party folks are even suspicious of a Balanced Budget Amendment. That is extreme.

The Tea Party caucus deserve tremendous credit for moving this debate to the forefront but taking the fringe of the fringe and calling it the only game in town is dishonest. There are plenty of other very successful fiscal conservatives that prove otherwise.

Sailwind - sure, sometime's you're the window, and sometimes, you're the bug. Obama was elected straight as the windshield smacked into the bug of the US economy. I simply object to your characterizing his presidency as one of untoward government expansion. Facts do not show that to be so. You've certainly seen the NYT article showing government growth over time; it grew faster over Bush's presidency than it has over Obama's. Some can't seem to get over their preconceptions of Obama and see him for the right-of-centrist he really is. I mean, really, poor guy: the liberals are frustrated at him because he's abandoned most of their core principles - whether due to strategy or sympathy remains to be seen - while the conservatives have long since hardened their hearts against him.

I just ask you to look at the data, at reality. When you say that the government has " grown massively since the election of President Obama," you're just plain wrong. A dose of reality would be good for us all.

Yabits, your facts are wrong.

No. You yourself verified they were right. Fact: The House on 9/29/2008 was Democratic-controlled. Fact: They voted "No" on a bill that the Bush administration wanted to bailout the financial industry. Fact: Majority Leader Boehner supported the bill and wept and wailed on the floor of Congress to get his fellow Republicans to support it. Fact: More Democrats voted against the bill than did Republicans. Fact: The bill finally passed with additional Republican support.

None of that has anything to do with President Obama.

OK, yabits, you got me there, I was off by 2 months, lol.

You said the Democrats were responsible for the budget of 2006. The fact that they weren't in a majority position in Congress until 2007 makes you off by an entire year. I understand that a complete idiot might try to claim that it's a difference of only 2 months. Care to recalculate?

So it was President Bush's fault that the Democrats sent him debt-laden spending bills,

So President Bush wasn't enough of a leader that he couldn't prevent himself from signing them into law rather than vetoing them? You do understand how the American system of government works, don't you?

So it was President Bush's fault that the Democrats sent him debt-laden spending bills,

Oh, by the way: The budgets for 2007 and 2008 originated with Bush's Office of Management and Budget. They were full of spending before they even reached Congress.

Since the Democrats have to work with the Republicans in Congress in committees to form the final budget to send back to the president, it can be said that it was a fully bipartisan effort.

The crime was not in the mitigation of the meltdown; it was in not following up on stronger Wall Street regulation. For this, Obama shares blame.

Totally agree with you there.

Fact: They voted "No" on a bill that the Bush administration wanted to bailout the financial industry.

Must be that new math that I missed being taught nowadays.

That same day, the legislation for the bailout was put before the United States House of Representatives and failed 205–228, with one not voting. Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation,

140-95 in favor equals a no vote, got it.

Laguna,

Passing Obama's health care reform is going to put 1/6th of the American economy under direct federal oversight and control. It is to be done in phases but that is the end result. having the federal government take over is a massive growth in Government. The law will require an additional 1054 IRS agents to enforce compliance.

The source is from U.S News and World Report not "Faux News"

Healthcare Reform Law Requires New IRS Army Of 1,054

By Paul Bedard

The Internal Revenue Service says it will need an battalion of 1,054 new auditors and staffers and new facilities at a cost to taxpayers of more than $359 million in fiscal 2012 just to watch over the initial implementation of President Obama's healthcare reforms. Among the new corps will be 81 workers assigned to make sure tanning salons pay a new 10 percent excise tax. Their cost: $11.5 million.

[See a slide show of 10 ways the GOP can take down Obamacare.]

"The ACA [Affordable Care Act] will require additional resources to build new IT systems; modify existing tax processing systems; provide taxpayer outreach and assistance services; make enhancements to notices, collections, and case management systems to address and resolve taxpayer issues timely and accurately; and conduct focused examinations to encourage compliance," said the newly released IRS budget.

[See a slide show of 10 things that are, and aren't, in the healthcare law.]

In its request, the IRS explained that the tax changes associated with health reform are huge. "Implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 presents a major challenge to the IRS. ACA represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years, with more than 40 provisions that amend the tax laws."

Unsaid: The requests are just the beginning, since the new healthcare program is evolving and won't be fully implemented until about 2014.

Laguna,

That is a massive amount of Government growth.

Media in general should focus more on the economy instead of other things dictated to the masses, the finance news is always the most important source of news..

sailwind: They see a Government that is grown massively since the election of President Obama

Let's be clear here: This whole "movement" started while Bush was in office. It was formed by a small group of Republicans who wanted to distance themselves from Bush's spending. They wanted to put "conservative" back into "conservative" when it came to finances. As a means to an end they wanted to present Republican ideals while separating themselves from a Republican president, so they decide that what Bush was doing was un-Republican, and that's how they came onto the scene.

sailwind: In the medium-term, a renewed focus on deficit-reduction efforts—even if they are accompanied by noisy and sometimes acrimonious political debate—may ultimately be perceived by financial markets as an increasingly serious determination to deal with the U.S. fiscal budget problems

False. Tea party members will cloak themselves in a debt blanket, but that simply isn't true. They are more anti-tax than anti-deficit. Boehner put a deal on the table that would have called for an addition $800 billion in tax revenues before the Tea Party yanked him from the discussions. By this point everyone and his brother knows the only solution to the debt is cutting spending and additional tax revenue. But since the Tea Party is more anti-tax than anything else (as a way to reduce anything the government can do) they refused to agree to a much larger deal that would have reduced the deficit by a much larger amount. In that sense they actually guaranteed that the debt remain larger than it could have been.

You can't honestly sit there and tell me that the Republican's smaller debt reduction plan was better received that Obama's much, much larger plan would have been. Tea Party members sell their good as anti-debt but they are simply anti-government and their willingness to go into default (how would the markets have responded to that?) shows their true colors. It's just absurd that you'd look at an unworkable position (lowering the deficit/debt through cutting spending only) and tell me that by refusing to raise taxes the world would think the US is finally serious about tacking the deficit. It's the utter and exact opposite.

Be honest. You're anti-government and a default looked like a pretty "cool" solution to shake things up. You're anti-tax and you'll continue to be anti-tax even if it means an increase in debt and deficits. You're anti-Obama and you'll take us all down with you it it means scoring points against him. That's the position of the Tea Party. The whole "spending spree" position is just a red herring while you go for your real goal: ending the US government.

That same day, the legislation for the bailout was put before the United States House of Representatives and failed 205–228, with one not voting. Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, 140-95 in favor equals a no vote, got it.

Yes, 95 Democrats voted against it -- in a House controlled by Democrats. Had just 12 Democrats of the 95 who opposed the legislation changed their vote, the bailout would have passed. It was the Democrats who controlled that vote and had the numbers to overcome any Republican opposition if they voted as a party.

The final bill, which passed the House on 10/3, garnered the support of 26 more Republicans, and 32 more Democrats -- about even.

You complained about the lack of rationed discourse. It is irrational to blame the Democrats for every bill that passes in a Democratically-controlled House, but then try to deny the fact that they are also primarily responsible for the bills that get voted No too.

It's just absurd that you'd look at an unworkable position (lowering the deficit/debt through cutting spending only) and tell me that by refusing to raise taxes the world would think the US is finally serious about tacking the deficit. It's the utter and exact opposite.

The Japanese Govt doesn't concur.

TOKYO — Japan’s top government spokesman on Monday said he welcomed the tentative deal over raising the U.S. debt ceiling to avoid a default, and said he expected it to help bring stability to roiled markets.

“Japan welcomes the announcement that an agreement was made to avoid default. We expect the deal will lead to the stabilization of markets,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a news conference.

The whole "spending spree" position is just a red herring while you go for your real goal: ending the US government.

That is just plain silly, no offense. That is on par with stating the real goal for Obama is transform the U.S Government into a communist state.

Japan was expressing relief that there was no default. A default that was almost caused by the Tea Party. You could reword the statement to say that the Japanese Government was happy the Tea Party didn't blow everything up.

Your comments were about sending a message that the US is serious about reducing the debt. The Tea Party does not send that message. Reducing the deficit and the debt requires additional tax revenues and spending cuts. Your party is saying that they refuse to include tax revenue so I really have no idea where you are getting the impression that they are the ones serious about reducing the deficit. I really have no clue. They are the ones standing in the way of reducing the deficit because their anti-tax position is stronger than their anti-deficit position.

I've read your comments over the years and I've heard you talk about letting people keep more of their money by reducing taxes. I've also read your comments where you've said we can't leave this kind of debt to our children. The debt is here and it's not going away through spending cuts only, so that means you have to make a choice as to what position you really want. You cannot have both. The Tea Party amounts to a group of people who simply do not want to make that choice so they invented an alternate reality where they don't have to. And pushing us to the edge of default shows their level of denial and that's pretty messed up.

Your party is saying that they refuse to include tax revenue so I really have no idea where you are getting the impression that they are the ones serious about reducing the deficit. I really have no clue.

They are serious about reducing the deficit because they have learned the lessons of history. In 1982 Ronald Reagan (yes that guy) raised taxes in 1982 with the promise from Congress that for every dollar raised by the increase it would be accompained by a spending cut of three dollars as always on some nebulous future date.

G.W Bush the Senior raised taxes in 1990 and was promised by Congress that for every dollar raised by the increase it would be accompianed by a spending cut of two dollars as always on some vague future date.

Bill Clinton's tax hike in 1993 was to make up for the deficit spending that had accrued through Reagan and Bush because, and I realize this is a shocker given how Washington really works.....The promised spending cuts never happened.

As has often been stated what we have is a spending problem not a tax problem, the record speaks for itself on the spending side of the equation and that is why the focus is there, on the spending first as it should be. This is the first step in really changing the way Washington works and the focus is on the right priorities this time to get our financial house in order for the long term health of our nation. And for the record I do believe we will need some tax hikes in the future but they are worthless to solve our problems if the spending side isn't fixed first. If Clinton could have spent the hikes he had gotten to go to worthwhile programs instead of just paying down the debt to make up for fictional spending cuts, think how much better we would be here in 2011.

in 1987, the richest 1 percent paid roughly one quarter of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid 6 percent.

But just 20 years later, the richest 1 percent were paying 40 percent of all income taxes and the bottom 50 percent were paying just under 3 percent.

We need tax reform, as well as spending reform if we want to try and tackle our money issues. The productive class is already picking up a disproportionate share of our government's tab, and still, things seem to be getting worse,