world

Obama calls for $4 trillion deficit reduction

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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

Former Massachusetts Gov Mitt Romney, one likely GOP candidate, issued a statement that said Obama had “dug deep into his liberal playbook for solutions highlighted by higher taxes.”

Well, duh, Mitt. You expect him govern as your typical reckless Republican?

The speech hit exactly the right notes in several areas.

Obama said $2 trillion should come from spending, $1 trillion from taxes, including ending Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthy, and the rest recouped from lower interest payments on the national debt.

And that was one of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All senators, representatives, president etc. should forfeit their salaries and free health care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This mess will never be fixed. The eventual solution will be a political crock full of carve-outs, exceptions and long sunsets for big players. If there is any "tax reform", the middle class will bear the brunt of it. Nothing much really will be done here about corruption, waste, fraudulent or wildly overpriced government contracts, pork-barrel stuff, $7500 bolts and washers, high government jobs for friends and relatives of campaign doners, influence-peddling and the usual no-touch protections for Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Agra and the numerous 2nd-level players across the board. Medical and pharma costs will continue to rise higher because that's what the market pays, there is no price pressure and they are hooked up directly to the insurance/Medicare/Medicaid feedbag.

The only thing that will change it somewhat is a collapse or bursting of this or that bubble, or the election of an absolutely out-there president like Palin or Ron Paul. This would probably cause some rioting and civil disturbances, maybe we see some of the expensive new crowd-control weapons in action--the microwave pain beam generator, "kettling" done US-style, and a state of martial law issued in which stupid, aggressive thugs raised on steroid-fed beef and American television are in charge of you and everything about you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a mess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, duh, Mitt. You expect him govern as your typical reckless Republican?

lol, reckless Republican. So funny. The most reckless Republican is a complete miser by Dem standards. Bush and the Republicans were castigated for their deficit spending. And rightly so I might add. Then along come the Dems who say, let us show ya how ya burn money! Obama makes Bush look like a Miser.

Personally I found the speech hilariously funny. Obama might have a bit more credibility if he hadn't already increased the deficit by such a huge margin. I really do wonder if anyone is buying his pathetic attempt to make himself look moderate. Really, is anyone that stupid?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The deficit reduction in,this is good. Reversing and stopping the debt increase,should be done

US dollars will get stronger and inflation,will get less,as debts of 14trillions gets cut down to 10 Trillion.

There will be woes,in the action to reduce deficits. Hope obama administration ,prepares well for the woes.

Once deficits starts going down slowly in coming years,its a new page for US economy.

More people from outside US,will invest in USA,as the economy gets stronger,with gradual deficit reduction of debts and stronger dollar.

Japan has deficit over 200 percent,but face less problems. This because of export power of N225 tech products. The USA need in brand quality ,to reach higher export power levels of products of China,Germany and Japan.

It can be done via many exports,from USA,which very much in demand worldwide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

correction- The USA needs brand quality,to reach high export levels...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The most reckless Republican is a complete miser by Dem standards.

No Democrat in the White House would ever launch two wars and not attempt to raise revenues to pay for them. The Republicans actually gave away more tax cuts and put the spending for the wars on a credit card.

Republican presidents constantly submitted budgets to Congress with more deficit spending in them than what Congress eventually approved. Some "misers." The last Republican president to submit a balanced budget to Congress was Eisenhower over a half-century ago

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans would not be even making these arguments if their candidate had won in 2008. They would be offering other lame excuses as to why our deficit skyrocketed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If only Obama had called for a $4 trillion deficit reduction when he was elected...

"Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy"

This makes it sound as though Bush cut taxes only for the wealthy, when, in fact, everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess President Obama hasn't quite got it that before you ask people to accept a tax increase you need to show that you can handle their money prudently and wisely in the first place. He hasn't been real good with the public purse so far (that's an understatement) and the last thing this Spendaholic President needs is more money from the American people through tax hikes to waste on yet more worthless programs and totally failed keynesian economic policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I bet if we pulled out of Iraq, Afghanistan etc..and cut the US Pentagon is half, we, the USA, still would have by far the largest military budget on the entire face of the earth AND THEN SOME. Time to rethink our policies of welfare for the Pentagon, for all the blood suckers in Washington DC etc..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like Vice President Biden I snoozed through the whole thing. Polls show a continuing drop for Obama. We need a challenger in the primary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...totally failed keynesian economic policies.

Tell that to the governors who now must try to balance their budgets without stimulus dollars from Washington. Try Googling Texas, for example: their two-year budget cycle beginning in 2009 was all rosy despite the deteriorating economy; it is now in the pits despite the nascent recovery. That scenario has been repeated across the US. I have no clue what evidence some take to claim that the even very limited Keynesianism practiced by Obama has done nothing but rescue the US from its worst recession since the 1930s.

Sheesh. You'd think some people have never studied the fundamentals of economics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tell that to the governors who now must try to balance their budgets without stimulus dollars from Washington.

Agreed, stimulus dollars from money borrowed from future generations that aren't even born yet. Stimulus dollars that have ballooned our debt, sent us on the road to fiscal bankruptcy, ensured our next generation will have it worse than ours instead of better. Stimulus dollars that ran out after two years and were flushed into saving public taxpayer funded jobs instead of into to the private sector. Forcing states now to either raise taxes or cut spending, decisions that have to made now and were only delayed by relying on borrowed debt money from China to fund a totally failed stimulus plan that did nothing, nothing at all to better our long term financial outlook or our children's future.

The only reason were are finally seeing a nanscent recovery, and a pretty pathetic one at that is because President Obama signed off on extending the Bush tax rates, giving business enough confidence to start hiring more since they can relax a bit now and not get clobbered with a tax hike. In short because he is following Republican policies regarding the economy not Keynesian ones now. But now with this campaign speech it lays it out that he wants tax hikes again, think that is good for job creation? That is going to "win the future". Debt, tax hikes, and spend spend spend.........our future children are going to have it rough, real rough after the Obama administration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We need a challenger in the primary."

Heh, good luck on that one Old Bud.

I'm expecting the most hysterical election ever in America's short existence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I'm expecting the most hysterical election ever in America's short existence"

What do you think of U.S. government debt reaching record highs during the Obama presidency?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What do you think of U.S. government debt reaching record highs during the Obama presidency?"

That it was largely to be expected picking up the pieces after your Bush train-wreck.

I've given up "debating" with you guys on that subscribe to the Democrats = Bad / Republicans = Good train of thought. And vice-versa.

But I'm looking forward to your "Sarah" weighing in. Heh, I'd even pay to watch that kind of stupidity, as long as it's far away from where I live anyway....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir at 05:48 PM JST completely forgot why Obama's deficit spending was necessary.

Something about GWB and his GOPPers burning through a surplus gifted to them by a Democrat president and jacking up the deficit by the biggest amount in history.

It's really not like Molenir to use selective amnesia to conveniently forget American history before 2008.

"I really do wonder if anyone is buying his pathetic attempt to make himself look moderate. Really, is anyone that stupid?"

Only conservatives who think Obama created the deficit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - "and the last thing this Spendaholic President needs is more money from the American people through tax hikes to waste on yet more worthless programs ....."

You mean like your USN pension?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, mate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna - "Sheesh. You'd think some people have never studied the fundamentals of economics."

Most conservatives on this board don't know the first thing about economics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i'm liking obama's plan. i would also:

draw down troops from afghanistan. the anti terror system is in place in the u.s. we dont need to spend billions of dollars to nation build there.

put troops on the border with mexico to eliminate drugs and its domino of costs: law enforcement, jails, anti-gang measures, guns, drug rehab etc etc.

fix the court immigration system to speed up deportations of illegals who use resources and bring crime that will further save us money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

one more thing: i would ask the world if they expect the US to be the police of the world, they should start ponying up the cash. we all saw what happened when ww2 happened, the us global presence has prevented that from happening. but with the US in financial straits now, it makes sense the world pay their share of a safer world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are the real reasons and there are the political reasons and mostly we hear about the political reasons from people who are more interested in attacking the other side than actually solving the problem. They're actually part of the problem and it would be nice if they'd remove themselves from the debate so people who speak honestly could actually have a chance to fix things. But that probably won't happen.

I just got finished reading the LA Times where students are protesting budget cuts on university campuses. It seems that everyone talks about making cuts as long as it's not out of their pocket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super,

"They're actually part of the problem and it would be nice if they'd remove themselves from the debate so people who speak honestly could actually have a chance to fix things."

What worries me is that some of these voices actually are the people in, or running for public office.

When the fore-front of your politics allow someone like Sarah Palin to remain like a bad smell, you know there's an ingrained and serious malaise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Madverts

That it was largely to be expected picking up the pieces after your Bush train-wreck.

The spending surge reminds me of the scene near the end of the move The Perfect Storm when the skipper gives the engines all they've got to try to get over that one giant wave. Standing still and running away were no longer options. In the case of the US economy, I don't believe we're out of the water.

I've given up "debating" with you guys on that subscribe to the Democrats = Bad / Republicans = Good train of thought. And vice-versa.

I don't believe the Democrats are all that good. Certainly not all of them. But it appears to me that Republicans don't have much in the way of effective ideas other than those that have driven the nation to the brink of collapse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" don't believe the Democrats are all that good. Certainly not all of them. But it appears to me that Republicans don't have much in the way of effective ideas other than those that have driven the nation to the brink of collapse."

A defunct two-party system passing itself off as a democracy.

But I have faith in the Americans to turn it around.

Eventually.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neither plan cuts anywhere near enough. Start playing hardball, consider outright cutting entire programs instead of just reducing them. Institute goals for the various departments and when they don't live up to them, cut the department in its entierty.

The spending surge reminds me of the scene near the end of the move The Perfect Storm when the skipper gives the engines all they've got to try to get over that one giant wave.

Uh...yeah...you seem to forget the part where they all died. So yes, the idea of spending more to get out of a spending crisis will result in even more problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The only reason were are finally seeing a nanscent recovery, and a pretty pathetic one at that is because President Obama signed off on extending the Bush tax rates, giving business enough confidence to start hiring more since they can relax a bit now and not get clobbered with a tax hike."

If you believe this...you'll believe anything. Keep sailing on the winds and dreaming. This is NOT the ONLY reason. You just can't see the truth because your vision is clouded by the smoke the GOP is blowing into the air clouding their real goals and desires. Obama knows prosperity and strength can only come once you shore up the weakest link.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uh...yeah...you seem to forget the part where they all died. So yes, the idea of spending more to get out of a spending crisis will result in even more problems.

No, I didn't forget. But it's impossible to gauge if the wave is the one that's going to do you in. And, in this case, the ship was headed into that storm long before the current captain came on the scene.

Regarding spending more to get out of a crisis brings up another analogy: that of priming a water pump. You can work very hard at a pump that needs priming and never get precious water. It takes some water poured into the pump at the right place to cause the pump to draw from the massive reservoir beneath it.

The reservoir in this case is the wealth-creating capacity of the American people. The problem is that those who've been in charge of that capacity have been destroying wealth in order to benefit only themselves financially. The finance folks who caused so much destruction have made a bundle themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is just making more "campaign" promises. Given his history with those, there is no reason to expect him follow thru on this $4 trillion budget cutting program.

If Obama actually wanted to cut the budget and reduce the deficit, he could add something to the current budget which was discussed last week and WHICH IS BEING VOTED ON TODAY. There is still time.

Instead, he refused to address the 2011 budget last year and delayed addressing the budget this year until he was forced to deal with it. Pick up the phone Mr. President and tell the Democrats what you actually want cut from this current budget. If you actually want something cut from this ever increasing federal budget, that is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thats good change, the US needs to reduce its debt to better compete with China's economy which is now at second place, taking Japan's spot

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't believe the Democrats are all that good. Certainly not all of them. But it appears to me that Republicans don't have much in the way of effective ideas other than those that have driven the nation to the brink of collapse.

Balancing the budget is a Republican idea, deficit spending is a Democrat idea. Though this article suggests that neither party always holds true to this. However the basic core Republican ideals of limited government, and living within your means aren't the ones that have driven the country to the brink of financial collapse. That honor belongs to the 'progressives'. And unfortunately they're found in both parties. Bush was one of them as well, a big government lib, social conservative. That he wore the Republican tag doesn't change things at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But it's not just about spending. It's about the drop in tax revenue from the recession. Cutting spending alone won't do the job. Eventually they'll have to raise taxes in the future to make up for the black hole that we're creating now. They just have to time it right so they don't derail the recovery. My guess is that whomever runs for President will run on a "no new taxes" promise then shatter that promise in his 2nd year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Balancing the budget is a Republican idea, deficit spending is a Democrat idea.

Balancing the budget is Republican lip service. The last Republican who submitted a balanced budget to Congress was Eisenhower, a waaay back in the 1950s.

As for deficit spending being a "Democrat idea," that statement was made false by the Republican Party in 2002. As soon as the first round of Bush's tax cuts were passed and the federal budget turned from the surpluses of Clinton's last two years to deficit spending once again, the Republican Party's chief economic spokesman, Glenn Hubbard, derided the the Democrats' current "fixation with budget deficits," and labeled as "nonsense" and "Rubinomics" the view that higher deficits lead to lower economic growth. (Wall Street Journal - December 19, 2002)

Because the Democratic economic leadership of Clinton and Rubin helped hand the nation it first federal budget surpluses in decades, the Republican propaganda machine had to denounce them. Bush-43 had plenty of help from his Republican colleagues in the House and Senate in supporting his spendthrift ways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because the Democratic economic leadership of Clinton and Rubin helped hand the nation it first federal budget surpluses in decades

I guess since the Soviet Union disintegrated and Clinton didn't have to deal with cold war defense budgets like his predecessors both Democrat and republican alike and could enjoy the billions now in a peace dividend, that didn't have anything to do with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess since the Soviet Union disintegrated and Clinton didn't have to deal with cold war defense budgets like his predecessors both Democrat and republican alike and could enjoy the billions now in a peace dividend, that didn't have anything to do with it.

The average annual defense budgets under Clinton were around $377 billion, a nearly 17% decrease from the average budgets of Reagan-Bush41 ($453 billion). Savings of over $600 billion in eight years isn't chump change.

What is interesting about the defense budgets of the Bush 43 years is that they averaged $496 billion/year and that figure does not include the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were funded from supplementals. It was as if the Soviet Union reconstituted itself -- which we all know never happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The average annual defense budgets under Clinton were around $377 billion, a nearly 17% decrease from the average budgets of Reagan-Bush41 ($453 billion). What is interesting about the defense budgets of the Bush 43 years is that they averaged $496 billion/year and that figure does not include the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan,

I'm sure you factored in the inflation rate from what a dollar was worth in the nineties to what a dollar was worth during 2000 thru 2008 years in your assessment. To show the 'increase' difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure you factored in the inflation rate from what a dollar was worth in the nineties to what a dollar was worth during 2000 thru 2008 years in your assessment.

LOL!!

Inflation was less than 2% through most of the two decades. Nothing weakened the US dollar more than Bush's taking the federal budgets back into deep red ink. In 2000, Greenspan was actually warning that paying off too much of the national debt too soon could trigger deflation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing weakened the US dollar more than Bush's taking the federal budgets back into deep red ink. In 2000, Greenspan was actually warning that paying off too much of the national debt too soon could trigger deflation.

Umm, just a minor point. You do actually understand the article is about Obama and his economic policies. I believe that during the time Bush or any other President prior was in office there was plenty of discussion already at that time about their policies and their impact to the economy. I understand the obsession with "Bush" but how long are you and other Liberals going to use it to give Obama a pass? Until he completely bankrupts the country?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind - Obama and the Democrats have already bankrupted the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe that during the time Bush or any other President prior was in office there was plenty of discussion already at that time about their policies and their impact to the economy.

Yes, most importantly were the predictions coming from both parties. Any honest person would have to say "No" to the question: "If President Obama had inherited an actual budget surplus (directly from Clinton), would he have blown it all on tax cuts for the rich, wars that weren't necessary, and a 40% increase in defense spending?"

I understand the obsession with "Bush" but how long are you and other Liberals going to use it to give Obama a pass?

When Obama's predecessor was in office, we heard all the time about how bad Clinton was. President Obama inherited the worst financial/economic mess since FDR. In eight short years, his predecessor -- who had majorities in Congress for 6 of his 8 years in office -- took the nation from a federal budget in surplus with a shot at paying down some serious debt, to a few short steps from an abyss.

Indeed, the real question is how long are conservatives going to fail to acknowledge that President Obama inherited a complete mess and, like FDR, would have to put the government in high gear to try to stimulate the economy back to life. (Spending levels as a percentage of GDP were higher under FDR than they are under Obama, and US recovered quite nicely.)

If the country is somehow bankrupted, President Obama will have had plenty of help taking it there from his opponents across the aisle -- who've done far more since 1980 selling the nation on the false premise that you can lower taxes and achieve higher revenue growth. The Bush 43 years show that to be completely false. (Reagan left office with the debt having tripled.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After reading yabit's posts, I've seen the light. If not for President Obama and the Democrats, we'd all be in deep doo-doo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You guys can't really have it both ways. People seem to be switching back and forth between the "all powerful" President who deserves 100% of the credit for a great economy to the "utterly helpless" President who takes none of the blame for a horrible economy. Either you think the President himself has that much power to control things or you don't.

And how will the most recent budget be characterized? Can I say that "under Obama" the budget was slashed by $38 billion? heh If anything the latest round of negotiations and near shutdown of the government should tell people both parties have a hand in it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And how will the most recent budget be characterized? A joke.

Can I say that "under Obama" the budget was slashed by $38 billion? Not really, it cut money that was given an credit already, slashing would mean cutting money you have in the bank not borrowed from China.

heh If anything the latest round of negotiations and near shutdown of the government should tell people both parties have a hand in it.

I believe Congressman Ryan does understand that and wishes to correct it. He offered reality to our budget and a plan to try and fix it.....President Obama kicked it to curb and pasted it as killing Granny and offered nothing but platitudes in return.

Leadership from the President.....not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SAil - "I believe Congressman Ryan does understand that and wishes to correct it. He offered reality to our budget and a plan to try and fix it....."

But everyone will buy it unless it affects them personally. Which it will.

Ryan's proposal is tough, but it's completely unsellable.

Um, sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The debt-loving GOP has really crushed the U.S. economy.

Every GOP president in the last 50 years has increased the deficit.

Yabit's right when he says: "Indeed, the real question is how long are conservatives going to fail to acknowledge that President Obama inherited a complete mess."

The denial on the right is pathetic.

Here's just another example of what I'm talking about -

Sarge - "Obama and the Democrats have already bankrupted the country."

No mention of how GWB jacked up the deficit by $6 TRILLION.

No mention of how GWB & the GOP started not 1 but 2 wars and put them on the national credit card.

No mention of how GWB & the GOP gave MORE money to the rich by cutting their taxes.

Just - blame the other guy.

America is NEVER going to come out of this fiscal disaster if people keep on thinking like Sarge.

Not in a thousand years

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - "I understand the obsession with "Bush" but how long are you and other Liberals going to use it to give Obama a pass? Until he completely bankrupts the country?"

Sailwind is clearly still in denial about the death grip GWB had on the U.S. economy.

It's ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Obama's fault according to people like Sailwind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits at 07:47 PM JST - 15th April. If the country is somehow bankrupted, President Obama will have had plenty of help taking it there from his opponents across the aisle -- who've done far more since 1980 selling the nation on the false premise that you can lower taxes and achieve higher revenue growth.

Obama has been absolute incompetence as a president. Obama is not a leader, he’s never held a position of authority in his life. But he is the chosen one so what do I know. He declares the economic recovery on track, blah, blah, blah. Obama blames most of the problems in the U.S. on the Republicans, extolling the fine reforms in healthcare and the financial system that he has been able to push through despise the minority opposition, and recalcitrant leftish supporters, after he saved the country by the unfortunate but unavoidably necessary bank bailouts.

He sounds good. And if you do not look too closely at what is going on, and how things are being run, and the lack of actual reform, you might have had a feel good moment. And it was probably just as phony and self-serving. There will be a die hard group who will never lose faith in their party, or any of their chosen leaders, and will find desperate comfort in partisan blindness.

But the great majority of the American people are waking up, and that spells trouble in the elections for most incumbent politicians. So the pace and velocity of the spin will have to be adjusted In other words, it will be tough to believe anything D.C. has to say as it will be tightly spun to try to avoid the massive carnage awaiting for incumbents, hopefully on both sides, in next election. Leaders don’t blame others for their problems. They find solutions for the problems today. So every day they continue to blame Republicans and the prior administration for their problems. It’s pathetic. Obama is not a leader. He has no idea how to govern. He is a figurehead that can read a speech well and 2012 cannot come soon enough.

Obama acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive. Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us. America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue. Now we are all suffering for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agreeing that Sushi has a point would be like agreeing that the KKK has a point when they mention crime statistics among blacks. Right or wrong you're still dealing with a cancerous bigot who is more interested in getting off by attacking people than solving problems. The only difference is that some KKK members can be reformed. I suppose I could chime in and say that sometimes WilliB has a point if you strip away all of the obvious bigorty, but you're smart enough to know that neanderthal thinking needs to be resisted even if it sometimes sounds right. Why? Because you know he is motivated by principals that are rotten to the core.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib at 03:01 AM JST - 16th April. The only difference is that some KKK members can be reformed.

You actually believe this? Can be reformed? How about Robert Byrd’s past on race relations. The moral of the story is that you can always make up for being a racist. But the real subtext of the story is being a Democrat means that you can promote segregation, join the KKK, vote against both black Supreme Court nominees, and use the "N" word on national television and still be remembered as a promoter of black interests.

Robert Byrd’s KKK membership is dismissed by his worshipers as youthful indiscretion. It wasn’t. It was the beginning of a long and sordid history filled with hatred and bias. We’re told that he recanted his views. Great. So did Strom Thurmond. But those words, just words rightly got him nowhere. If Robert Byrd’s grandson runs for Congress and is defeated by a black candidate, as happened to Thurmond’s grandon in South Carolina, will the media breathlessly report it as the end of a racist era in the Democratic Party’s sordid history, as they did of Tim Scott’s overwhelming victory?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama has been a crushing disappointment from Day One. He is more of a Republican than the Republicans. As for the Democrats, they are more like Republicans today, too. In fact, there is no party standing up for the working class in America. The Repubs and their brainwashed minions are working as hard as they can to destroy the middle and working class, to make women chattel and deprive them of basic human rights, and use the bodies of the poor as stepping stones on their path to their greater greed and consumption.

The big bankers and the drug cartels run the government in the US and other countries now, thanks to to the insane war on drugs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The debt-loving GOP has really crushed the U.S. economy.

Hmm, GOP had control of congress for the first 6 years of a Bush Presidency, and the deficits were not good, but not really horrible either. Then in 2006 Dems were elected, and the Deficit exploded. 4 years under a Democratic congress that spent more then all the Presidents up through Clinton. So, if you consider the GOP to be 'debt-loving', what do you consider the Dems to be? Care to give an honest answer Sushi, or do you need to check with your local Dems to get the proper spin?

He is more of a Republican than the Republicans

lol. You're either delusional, or ahem, mentally challenged. Who is it that has to check in with the unions before he makes a call? Who is it that refuses to allow any new drilling here in the US? Who is it that is soft on crime, and strongly in favor of abortion and gay marriage? lol, Republican? I guess if you compare him to Bush, they are similar in that they were both Big Government guys, though one was a social conservative, and the other is not. Despite the so called party affiliation, we haven't had a conservative in office since Reagan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama, your knight in shining armor will leave the country in debt 4x higher than Bush at least. They've all done it before. Reagan: 1.6 trillion in 8 years, Bush Sr: 1.4 in 4 years, Bill: 1.6 in 8 years, Bush Jr: 4.4 in 8 years, and Obama: 4.2 in 2 years. The government's business is to keep spending people's money and the fed's business is to print money out of thin air. They have to keep the national debt alive and growing "for the great cause". Sure average tax payers like me is a slave to this system but that's my problem, not theirs. I wasn't born to be up there in the clouds taking money. I was meant to be slaving and giving away my money. It's funny to see people in the Obama fandom smitten over him and stuff but to me he's just another liar like others. No actually he's a better liar, very gifted and natural at his lying craft.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah yeah yeah kind of like Obama's pledge, way back in 2009, that he would, before his first term was up, cut the deficit in HALF.This guy is all talk, index finger raised and pointing here and there,head waggling back and forth, gums flapping.I foresee a challenger in the primaries.Where is our Paul Ryan?As bad as the Repub plan is at they have one.Where is ours????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simply too bizarre. After creating the largest budget deficit that his country (or the world) has ever seen since coming to office, this genius has now discovered (or claims to have) that maybe it is not possible to print and borrow indefinitely?

Un-friggin-believable.

In the event, I don´t believe for a second he actually means it. It is election talk, period. Lets see if his gullible flow buys it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm just itching to jump in the fray somewhere, but really?, a discussion about Obama on JapanToday? Desperate. I personally think that it is useless to comment on the American economical-political situation for the shear reason that they, themselves, can't sort it out. But it is also my personal belief that a fully representative political system will fully represent the profile of it's constituents. Therefore, if you don't like who is in office you simply have to look at yourselves to see what is wrong with the picture. Don't like big spending? Just look at yourself. Don't like being lied to? Just look at yourself. Don't like people that rewrite history to suit their needs? Well what should I say...

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