Day 2 of term 2
Photo CNN's Brian Yaklyvich
January 22nd, 2013
07:58 AM ET

Day 2 of term 2

President Obama starts his second term with more post-Inauguration festivities. In the morning, he and Mrs. Obama and the Bidens will attend the 10:45a interfaith, multi-denominational service that will represent Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism. The service will take place at the Washington National Cathedral, which recently announced they will allow same-sex marriages in their church. The sermon will come from Rev. Adam Hamilton, from United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas.

In the evening, the celebrations will continue and he’ll return to the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, site of Monday night’s Inaugural Balls, to attend the Staff Inaugural Ball.

9:00AM In-Town Pool Call Time

10:45AM THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE FIRST LADY and DR. BIDEN attend the National Prayer Service. National Cathedral

9:00PM THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE FIRST LADY and DR. BIDEN attend the Staff Inaugural Ball. Walter E. Washington Convention Center

Briefing Schedule
11:30AM Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney


Topics: Daily Schedule

soundoff (61 Responses)
  1. Free Man in the Republic of Texas

    Day 2 of term 2

    Same as day 1 of term 1

    TAX & SPEND
    ONLY GOVERNMENT.

    January 22, 2013 at 10:45 am |
  2. acdcguy

    Only 1460 days to go........ugh

    January 22, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • jean2009

      And we will elect another progressive Democrat to go forward with the same policies.

      January 22, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
      • Moose

        I really dont see any policies except divide the country, put more people on welfare, run up the debt, keep unemploy at an all time high & spend, spend ,spend

        January 22, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
      • steveo

        Will we? How about we see how these next four years pan out before we vote for the next president.

        January 23, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • Caramon

      Well Jean, if you recall saying "as I have said before it takes a few years, for the fruition of any new law or new policy to come to pass" that would indicate the economic success of the past four years are the result of Bush policies. Good or bad, we have yet to see the result of President Obama's policies. How do you go forward with more of the same when the effect of those policies has yet been determined?

      January 22, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
      • jean2009

        Here are the major pieces of legislation signed into law since Jan. 20, 2009. Remember the PPACA will not be fully implemented until next year.

        Major legislation

        2009
        January 29: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
        February 4: Children's Health Insurance Re-authorization Act
        February 11: DTV Delay Act
        February 17: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
        March 30: Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009
        April 21: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
        May 20: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
        May 20: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
        May 22: Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009
        June 22: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
        August 6: Cash For Clunkers Extension Act
        October 22: Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
        October 28: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
        October 30: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
        November 6: Worker, Home ownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009

        2010
        January 27: Emergency Aid to American Survivors of Haiti Earthquake Act
        March 4: Travel Promotion Act
        March 18: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act)
        March 23: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
        March 30: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
        May 5: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
        May 17: Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act
        July 1: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act
        July 21: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
        July 22: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010
        July 22: Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010
        August 10: SPEECH Act
        September 27: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010
        December 9: Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010
        December 13: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
        December 17: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Re-authorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010
        December 22: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010

        2011
        January 2: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (H.R. 847)
        January 4: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751
        August 2: Budget Control Act of 2011
        October 21: United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act
        October 21: United States-Panama Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act
        October 21: United States-South Korea Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act
        November 21: VOW to Hire Heroes Act[86]

        2012
        April 5: Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act

        [2013
        January 2: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

        January 22, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
      • jean2009

        Starting 2 unfunded wars was not on President Obama's list it was on the previous president's list. It is not as if you can wave a wand and make a costly treasury busting war go away instantly. Nice thought but doesn't happen.

        January 22, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
      • Caramon

        Jean, you still haven't answered the question. Remember it was you who said it takes a few years for policy to work. If the economy began to rebound in 2009 and up, this would indicate that the policies of Bush were responsible. Remember the original stimulus?

        January 22, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
      • jean2009

        If you understand there was a stimulus....then you need to understand why there was a need for the original stimulus....it was when Bush said: "OH MY! Look how I have tanked the economy...I better do something or my historical place will be in the tank."

        Then remember that with the stimulus he still only left the incoming President a 3 month supply of cash to pay bills until March, for a budget period of time that extended to September 30?

        January 23, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
      • Caramon

        "I better do something or my historical place will be in the tank" Then apparently what he did worked because, as you said, it takes a few years before any policy brings results. Didn't the President boast that the economy had been growing the past four years? You still haven't answered my question.

        Let me just repost...

        Well Jean, if you recall saying "as I have said before it takes a few years, for the fruition of any new law or new policy to come to pass" that would indicate the economic success of the past four years are the result of Bush policies. Good or bad, we have yet to see the result of President Obama's policies. How do you go forward with more of the same when the effect of those policies has yet been determined?

        January 23, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
      • steveo

        @ Jean,

        Your "Bush is the devil" rants are getting old. here are a few things you cannot bring your self to admit:
        1. The Dot Com bubble broke in 2000 and according to your "3-4" year theory, that was Clinton's fault, thus the beginings of a recession!
        2. Either a president has massive authority over the economy of not. Ther can only be ONE answer that equally applies to Dems and GOP alike.
        3. Bush had DEM help!
        4. Under Clinton, mortgage lending standards became ridiculously relaxed! Well, guess what happened when folks' eyes got bigger than the ability to repay? Guess that had NOTHING to do with the economy crashing though, right?

        January 23, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
      • Caramon

        According to Jean, the housing bubble had nothing to do with the economy. According to an international group of economists, it had a lot to do with the economy. And we shouldn't forget the 400 billion added to the 2009 budget a month after Bush left office. Yet the entire spending of that budget many attribute to Bush. Unless we can move beyond partisan politics, the many causes of the economic crash will never be honestly determined.

        January 23, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
      • steveo

        Caramon, We all have our favorite parties and administrations but to ignore truth to make our guy appear better or the other guy appear worse than they actually were is simply fantasy and is not helpful at all.

        January 23, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon...some bills like the PPAGA and the Drug benefit do take a number of years to roll out...and on a lot of legislation it takes a few years for things to be in place, or for problems to be seen, but with the act of draining the treasury with tax rebates, and tax cuts while fighting two wars...those only took the act of putting them in place, and up and running before the end of tax filing year.

        I would suggest researching

        The Fiscal Cliff, and the Enduring Legacy of EGTRRA/JGTRRA and a Certain Discretionary Spending Measure Starting in 2003.

        The tax cuts accounted for a large share of the deficits through the 2000’s, and even in 2010, accounted for 1.3 percentage points increase in the deficit. In 2011, the extension of the EGTRRA meant that the Bush tax cuts lived on (in red, under TAX2010). Had the President’s proposal been implemented, the red block would have been about half the size shown (see Table 1-3 of CBO, An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2011 (March 2010); the red block is $391 billion).

        For FY2013, Deutsche Bank estimates the total extension of the Bush tax cuts would amount to approximately $250 billion; extending the tax cuts only to those with household income below $250K would cost only $100 billion (Source: DB, The US Fiscal Challenge, June 24, 2012).

        Those bills in the inception were voted basically on party lines back in 2001, 2003, with the GOP vote for those pieces of legislation and with overwhelming YES.

        It is interesting to see the current capituation by the GOP on the debt ceiling....which only shows their hypocrisy about the whole thing in comparison to a time when they said deficits didn't matter.

        And Steveo you can scream all you want ....but you can't change historical facts....the tax cuts, the tax rebates, and 2 unnecessary wars...... are a very in large part the reason for the recession, and our current massive deficit.

        Just because you are tired of hearing about it doesn't mean it didn't happen....or that it didn't contribute greatly to the reason we have such debt.

        January 23, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
      • Caramon

        Thank you providing all that wonderful information. We seem to have everything now except for the answer to my question. Let me see if I can ask in a different way. According to YOU, law and policies take a few years before the effect is seen. If we saw the economy begin turn around in 2009 and continue until 2012, would it be because of Bush policies? Yes or no will do.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
      • jean2009

        If you mean the stimulus passed in October 2008, yes....but that would not negate the harmful policies we are just now getting around to undoing....Might I add undoing with a lot of hazzle and fight from the GOP to get it done....like those unnecessary and costly Bush era tax cuts for the 2%. If that had been done 4 years ago we would be in a better place today.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
      • steveo

        @ Jean, Jean, Jean. You are so dramatic
        1. Not screaming, I am using lower case letters!
        2. Either the housing bubble (due to Clinton's reduced mortgag requirement) played a role in the ecomonic crash or it didn't
        3. Either Dems voted to fund and fight TWO unfunded wars or they didn't
        4. I am not HIDING the fact that DEMs played a role in te economic crash, that madam, would be what you are doing!
        5. Once more, the dot com bubble burst in 2000 and according to YOUR theory, we can all thank Bill Clinton!
        6. You quoted Cheney's remarks on deficits but why did you fail to quote then Senator Obama's remarks on raising the debt ceiling. Your failure to mention it, does not reflect the FACT it happened!
        7. Interesting how you even think Afghanistan was unneccessary! Should we have just waved the white flag? Hillary voted for that war, Kerry voted for that war, Pelosi voted to fund that war! Your failure to acknowledge these facts DOES NOT make them any less FACT!
        8. BOTH parties had a hand in the crashing ecomony!

        January 23, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
      • Caramon

        Thank-you Jean. Now we are getting some place. Is it also possible that the 410 billion Omnibus spending bill passed in February 2009 and signed by President Obama, a bill he signed with reservations, also contribute to the current problem? The bill included over 9 thousand earmarks worth over 13 billion in spending.

        January 23, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
      • jean2009

        Steveo the Gramm, Leach Bliley Act of 1999 was a GOP piece of legislation which was responsible for the mortgage meltdown ... and only one Senate Democrat voted for that bill....in other words the majority in both the Senate and the House which were Republican controlled, all the GOP members voted for the bill plus 1 Democrat in the Senate, and all the Democrats voted against it.

        You can check that Senate vote count out on online…one Democrat and one Independent were the only two voting YES with the Republicans every other Democrat voted No..

        Caramon.......Signing the Omnibus bill might have not been anyone’s first choice, but definitely it was needed for the time.

        “White House officials said that the bill is not "perfect" because it increases spending and continues earmarking but added that Obama signed the measure to keep government operations moving. Officials also said that Obama's next budget will aim to make more progress toward reducing the deficit.”

        Which he is slowly but surely doing, I doubt if slamming the brakes on spending was going to happen then considering we were bogged down in two ongoing treasury busting wars, and still at the bottom of a massive recession in 2010.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
      • steveo

        @Jean,We have had this conversation before but here we go:

        Notice the date on the act, 1999. Who was president then? Acts are just that. They have no weight until they become law and the ONLY way for acts to become law is a president has to sign it. So again, who was president in 1999? Who signed the act that according to you, started the destruction of the economy? Be honest!

        January 23, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
      • Caramon

        Officials also said that Obama's next budget will aim to make more progress toward reducing the deficit.”
        Which he is slowly but surely doing...

        In what way do you see the deficit decreasing? It has been increasing more than 1 trillion each year. Decrease means the amount of deficit is going down not up less.

        January 23, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
      • steveo

        @ Jean, I will answer the question.

        BILL CLINTON! Clinton signed the Act that you said started the destruction of the ecomony. Bush did not take office until Jan 2000! But you STILL want to hang ALL of this on Bush. How is that possible? My point is whether you want to admit it or not, DEMS played a role in the economy tanking! That is ALL I am trying to say!

        January 23, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
      • jean2009

        Steveo... Correction bush did not take office until Jan 2001...not 2000 as you state.

        .I think President Clinton has admitted he was wrong to listen to faulty advice on the Gramm,Leach, Bliley Act of 1999. even though the House and Senate overwhelming passed it with Republican votes.

        This from an ABC interview in 2010.

        "“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.

        “And the flaw in that argument,” Clinton added, “was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”

        The former President also said he was also wrong about understanding the consequences if the derivatives market tanked. “The most important flaw was even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect a 100 percent of the investments, and indeed a 100 percent of the citizens in countries, not investors, and I was wrong about that.”

        Clinton also blamed the Bush administration for scaling back on policing the financial industry. “I think what happened was the SEC and the whole regulatory apparatus after I left office was just let go.”

        Much of the financial carnage of the past several years, Clinton said, could have been prevented if only his appointed regulator had been kept on after he left office.. “I think if Arthur Levitt had been on the job at the SEC, my last SEC commissioner, an enormous percentage of what we’ve been through in the last eight or nine years would not have happened.”

        Band wrote that President Clinton "still wishes, as he has said several times, that he had pursued legislation to provide additional regulatory authority in this area, even though the Republican majority in Congress would have blocked such an effort. "

        Which only goes to show that deregulating the Glass-Steagall Act was a bungle, and it could have been corrected at its inception, or at least in the mid-2000's when it became evident that a bubble was on the way to producing a housing market collapse.

        And no one said McConnell had more than one personal vote, but continually balking, and working from his position to delegitimize a sitting president is a political tactic that we have seen from the GOP before, and don't pretend that it isn't.

        Didn't we all watch the Richard Scaife Mellon funded attacks for the full two terms of the Clinton presidency?

        January 24, 2013 at 11:49 am |
      • steveo

        Jean,

        I stand corrected in the date Bush took office. Thank you!

        "And no one said McConnell had more than one personal vote, but continually balking, and working from his position to delegitimize a sitting president is a political tactic that we have seen from the GOP before, and don't pretend that it isn'"

        Sure, but the Dems were all puppy dogs and rainbows when Bush was in office, right? I have pretended nothing. I believe I said McConnell was wrong! The DEMs have used te very same tactic! and that is the very heart of the problem, our response. We cheer when "our" guy and "our" party does it but boo and hiss when the other guy does it. You realize same tactics, regardless of party = same results, regardless of party, right? This behavior is not new and NOT limited to the GOP. I appreciate your long response but all it proves is what I said, The DEMS had a hand in the economy crashing!

        January 24, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
      • jean2009

        You do realize the GOP held the majority in the House, Senate and the Presidency from Jan 2001 to Jan 2007? When they could see the economic problem coming to a head and could have taken steps to correct it, but didn't.

        Just because someone left the barn door open, and the horse has bolted the barn doesn't mean you don't go looking for a way to round it up, and put it back in the barn.

        Not like today where the GOP holds the majority of only the House. In other words, today the GOP is a majority of 1/3 of the Federal Government's administration of economic policies ...instead of the majority of all three which they were from Jan. 2001 to Jan 2007.

        January 24, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
      • steveo

        @ Jean,

        "Just because someone left the barn door open, and the horse has bolted the barn doesn't mean you don't go looking for a way to round it up, and put it back in the barn".

        A very poetic way of saying the DEMS contributed to the crashing economy. Look, there is more than enough blame to go around, both the GOP and the DEMS. BOTH got us in it and it will take BOTH to get us out!

        January 24, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon-There was an article in the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 12, 2012 – Putting the Brakes on Cutting the Deficit

        That covered that topic you may want to read the full piece. but the first couple of paragraphs state in actuality the deficit is decreasing in comparison to GDP which is the rule that it is always gauged to.

        "With all the haggling over tax increases and spending cuts to avert the fiscal cliff, is it possible the federal budget deficit is shrinking too fast?
        The question is jarring. The deficit, when measured against the size of the U.S. economy, has been bigger in each of the past three years than in any year since 1945. Total federal debt is above $16 trillion and brushing up against the congressionally set ceiling. Even under optimistic economic forecasts, the debt burden will grow without a change in tax and spending trends.

        .But...

        The deficit—the difference between government revenue and spending—is shrinking even before the year-end fiscal cliff or a last-minute compromise to avoid it. In the depths of the most recent recession, the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2009, the deficit was 10.1% of gross domestic product, the value of all the goods and services produced. Since then, the deficit has declined to 9% of GDP in 2010, 8.7% in 2011 and 7.0% in fiscal 2012. Private analysts predict the deficit will be between 5.5% and 6.0% of GDP in fiscal 2013, depending on the outcome of the budget talks.

        One reason the deficit is still large is that the economy is still lousy: More unemployment means fewer taxpayers as well as more government spending on jobless benefits, food stamps and the like. As the economy slowly improves, the deficit shrinks as these automatic stabilizers, as they're known, adjust. Tax revenue rises. Safety-net spending falls. The U.S. budget deficit has been coming down at roughly the same pace as the U.K.'s —with far less austerity than Britain's David Cameron has prescribed and with substantially better growth."

        If the brakes are put on too quickly there would be less growth....and job growth is what is needed now to put people back to work, to increase the revenue that keeps the need for borrowing down. We also need to put in place things that will keep the deficit from growing, but also remember that putting on the austerity brakes too hard could impair a currently fragile recovery.

        You may want to read the full piece...if you haven't already.

        January 24, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
      • Caramon

        Jean, a little you tube for you to see titled...
        Bill Clinton on the Democrats and the Financial Crisis. There are more videos where the Democratic representatives had been warned about a financial crisis as a result of Fred and Fran.

        January 24, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
      • Caramon

        "Since then, the deficit has declined to 9% of GDP in 2010, 8.7% in 2011 and 7.0% in fiscal 2012. Private analysts predict the deficit will be between 5.5% and 6.0% of GDP in fiscal 2013, depending on the outcome of the budget talks."

        Jean you are talking about annual deficits not total deficits. The total deficit is scheduled to equal GDP in the near future if it hasn't already.

        Since my last comment is being moderated. Look up President Clinton's comments about the Dem concerning Fred and Fran.

        January 24, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
      • jean2009

        Steveo ...in saying that, just remember this time the GOP is only a 1/3 majority with the other 2/3 bodies being of the opposing party... so maybe they should quit acting as if they should have the full say...maybe they should appreciate the meaning of the words "compromise", and not make the rest of the population suffer while they cling to the words "stubborn", "contrary", and "obstructionist". I really don't remember that last word being used with so much prevalence in the past.

        The President won the election, as did the majority in the Senate...so don't expect either of those two bodies to throw in the towel and let the GOP have its way. Which seems to be what you are continually harping for them to do... If that isn't your reason maybe you should state your real reason...because I see that you while blaming me can't yourself seem to blame the GOP for their shortcomings.

        Whereas.... I just posted a long article pointing out the fact that President Clinton did sign legislation passed by a majority of the opposing party in the other two houses....which was a lousy piece of destructive legislation, and the next administration which controlled completely all three bodies failed to rectify the situation when made aware of the problems it created.

        January 24, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
      • Caramon

        "Steveo ...in saying that, just remember this time the GOP is only a 1/3 majority with the other 2/3 bodies being of the opposing party... so maybe they should quit acting as if they should have the full say...maybe they should appreciate the meaning of the words "compromise", and not make the rest of the population suffer while they cling to the words "stubborn", "contrary", and "obstructionist". I really don't remember that last word being used with so much prevalence in the past."

        Let us see... They gave in on the tax increases. They gave in on extending the debt ceiling. So, how is this obstructionism? We are still waiting for the budget cuts or has that balanced approach been forgotten? The GOP members of the House were not elected by the populace. They were elected by their constituents. Are you suggesting they should not represent their constituents? Is that like no representation?

        January 24, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
      • Caramon

        They must be telling me to be more moderate today since I have been moderated multiple times. I promise I am not using foul language.

        Jean, GOP members have already given in to the tax increases and extending the debt limit. However, Democrats want more revenue. Where are the budget cuts that are supposed to be part of the compromise? It takes two to compromise.

        The GOP members were not elected to represent the majority or the populace. They were elected to represent the people who elected them.

        January 24, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
      • steveo

        @Jean,

        "Which seems to be what you are continually harping for them to do"
        "because I see that you while blaming me can't yourself seem to blame the GOP for their shortcomings"
        ----------------
        Sorry but you have not read ONE word of anything from me with understanding

        1. I am not harping on the GOP to have it's way. Research any post of mine and you will find no such words! Over and over I have stated BOTH parties got us in and it will take BOTH to get us out. These are my words. The president himself say NO ONE IS GOING TO GET 100 % OF WHAT THEY WANT. That means there will be the occassional towel throwing from BOTH sides! If not NOTHING will change!

        2. I am not nor have I ever blamed you for anything. It amused me how you could NEVER bring yourself to simply say "the DEMS played a role". That was all I was after was a simple admission from you the DEMS played a role in the crashing of the economy. You asked me for a reason, there is the reason, just a simple hope that you would be honest enough to say the DEMS played a role! You never could do it! Finally you gave a "horse and barn" anology!

        3. Now it is reverse psychology time? Sorry not gonna work! I know full well the GOP is liable just like I know the DEMs are as well (I have said BOTH parties)! Something you could not bring yourself to say! That and that alone was the reason for the back and forth with you concerning this subject.

        January 24, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon -"Officials also said that Obama's next budget will aim to make more progress toward reducing the deficit.”

        I would assume that you would know the meaning was of the annual budget deficit...not the Federal Debt. Although cutting the annual budget deficit cuts the amount which needs to be borrowed from other sources which in fact is the engine that creates the federal debt....plus you can't cut the Federal Debt without addressing the annual federal budget.....plus any fiscal cliff discussion is always about cutting the annual budget deficit, to help bring down the need to increase the borrowing limits set for the federal debt.

        Now....might I ask..... why when the treasury had a budget surplus was the decision made by the Bush administration to refund people's tax revenue which the federal treasury had received. Why not instead use the surplus to pay down that federal debt? I've never understood that bit of nonsense. "Here go buy a new toy, or pay down your loan....we don't want to use your taxes to pay down your children's future debt. "

        There is a good YouTube Video by John Green discussing the annual budget and the Federal Debt.

        January 24, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
      • Caramon

        "Officials also said that Obama's next budget will aim to make more progress toward reducing the deficit.” Considering the Democratic Congress added to George Bush's 2009 budget, twice, this may not be something the President can control. I won't fault him for that if it happens. His budget may attempt to reduce the deficit, it doesn't mean Democrats in Congree won't add to it.

        "why when the treasury had a budget surplus was the decision made by the Bush administration to refund people's tax revenue which the federal treasury had received"

        Likely because when Bush entered office we were already moving into a recession. Tax cuts stimulated the economy which continued to grow through 2006.

        January 24, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon....We've all had times when we have been moderated....never have figured that out... since I too won't use foul language....and I know you haven't either.

        January 24, 2013 at 3:13 pm |
      • Caramon

        Thanks Jean.

        January 24, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
  3. Michele Ruth

    CNN-You missed a wonderful opportunity when you did not televise the National Prayer Service. Instead of letting the people of America and beyond America witness a truly beautiful intrafaith service, you spent your time on air discussing a 'red dress' at length. You showed film of the same people coming down the same staircase we saw yesterday. You had a very long story about Prince Harry. But you did not show people of the world how beautiful and so simular the Faiths of the World are. You did not show how if everyone can accept that all people deserve the right to their own faith, that the world could be a more peaceful place to live. People of the world were denied beautiful music, viewing different faiths standing side by side praying togther, holding hands, singing and smiling together. People of the world were denied a wonderful and inspiring service given by Pastor Adam Hamilton. I am sure it was an inspiration to the leaders of our great country. But it also spoke to me in my little world about faith and pressing on when one wants to give up due to facing hardships.
    CNN-I have always looked to you to give the news of the world. However, today you missed one of the greatest chances to be a part of something so beautiful and inspiring for the people of the world, not just here in America. Today I am ashamed of you CNN.

    January 22, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
  4. Moose

    ncreasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
    Barack Obama, D-Ill., in a March 16, 2006 floor speech explaining his decision to oppose a request to increase the federal debt limit, then set at $8.2 trillion.

    January 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • DEcember 2012

      To his credit, he learned how incredibly stupid it is to mess with the debt limit. Why can't the Republicans do the same?

      With that very statement, he showed that he is concerned about our debt even though he was misguided on the battle with which to fight it. That should dispel any notion that he does not want to deal with this issue. The debt limit is not a tool to be played around with because it can be more disastrous than a fiscal cliff. The Republicans know this and the President has already called their bluff, the same one he already made years ago.

      January 22, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
      • Moose

        Cant see the forest thru the trees??? , jean needs to reasearch some of her copy and paste clash for clunks amongst others were total losers, sense wise and financial wise, also alot of that was solyndra, fisk and a ton of others that went bk, look at led better, i mean really research it . it has done nothing, mtg stimulus a waste. i know the truth sucks, but he just isnt good at business, i love ho w you people twist things. not a tool to fool around with ??? if that wasnt so pathedic it would be funny. its sad people are so blinded

        January 22, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
      • Caramon

        "That should dispel any notion that he does not want to deal with this issue." So December, what do you think the President plans to do in order to deal with the debt? He has already raised taxes. But, this will not be nearly enough.

        January 23, 2013 at 10:28 am |
      • DEcember 2012

        The next step is budget proposal from the President, which I understand will be a bit late. The Senate must then pass a budget, whether it will be based on Obama's budget proposal or their own set of compromises. The first thing they need to do within the Senate is filibuster reform to stop the gridlock. To be honest, I don't think the Democrats will give in more cuts without more revenue so there will also be some tax reform that will probably eliminate some loopholes. The key is to get to another 1.2 Trillion over 10 years worth of cuts and revenue but doing so without causing another recession. I doubt they will get to this number easily and it will take maybe a month of negotiations to accomplish.

        January 23, 2013 at 11:35 am |
      • steveo

        December, he learned ONLY because he went from the Senate to the White House! He went from what he THOUGHT was reality to actual reality! Maybe if he had some of that knowledge earlier he might have been a little less harsh on Bush! Who knows!

        January 23, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
      • Caramon

        "I doubt they will get to this number easily and it will take maybe a month of negotiations to accomplish." True Dat. What they need is a non-partisan group of accountants to go through the budget and eliminate all the waste. It will never happen though.

        January 23, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
      • Caramon

        Steveo, a little like the shoe being on the other foot.

        January 23, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
      • December 2012

        That's what usually happens. There are just a set of different realities when you become President. However, when it comes to the debt ceiling, we only just have to look at the last time we had this fight to see how disastrous it can be. This is why the House now wants to extend it for another 3 months so I guess they are learning from that experience.

        As for non-partisan people getting involved, I wish that could happen but that would seem like searching for unicorns at this point. There are groups from both sides who want to steer both parties back to center and I think that is the best they can really hope for at this point.

        January 23, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
      • steveo

        Caramon,

        Exactly! The shoe is on the other foot. Also your point about a non-partisan budget review sounds good but there is so much distrust up there, I don't think it is going to fly! Folks really have not yet emphasized the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles!

        January 23, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
      • jean2009

        We all know some ot the current programs will need to be adjusted, and the wasteful military budget needs a massve cut. Plus, we need tax reform to cut some off that hog trough of unnecessary corporate greed.

        But, I also see the GOP today capitulated about the debt ceiling....something you didn't hear a peep from them about not raising when they were in power.

        January 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
      • steveo

        @Jean,

        But, I also see the GOP today capitulated about the debt ceiling
        ----------------–
        Really?? Let me get this straight, The GOP did something and you complain. IF they did nothing, what then? No complaints, Jean? Does it pain you that much to give just a little credit?

        January 23, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
      • jean2009

        Steveo ...From my statement, the only thing you decided to quote like a parrot, was my comment on the apparent decision by the GOP to suspend a present debt limit crisis. Probably postponed in hopes they will find a better and less costly for their own political image time when they can sandbag any real solution that might cost the 2%, so they can push for a solution that would be at the cost of those who suffer inequality and can least afford to be hurt.

        I think my first paragraph, which you totally ignored, actually pointed to areas where there would and should be broad grounds for compromise.

        Amazing I have posted repeatedly about our future outlook if we don't address climate change...and how profitable and the number of jobs created pursuing those technologies will be; instead of our being left in the dustbin of history while other countries surpass us and reap the income from those innovations. Now, to see the three items considered our greatest future threats at Davos placing the cost for disregarding Climate Change as one of those three threats.

        'Climate change, debt, and inequality threaten world financial stability.'

        January 24, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
      • steveo

        @Jean,

        Why did I quote your one line "like a parrot" as you say? Because that was the ONE line I wanted to respond to! I guess EVERYONE on this site has done that with the lone exception of you. Does the rules state I have to quote every letter you type? The reason I quoted that line is because you have proven over and over and over again you cannot credit anybody but the DEMS for anything positive.

        January 24, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
  5. Marie

    Did anyone see Al Roker almost have a heart attack when Biden shook his hand. I almost died laughing inside.

    January 22, 2013 at 7:49 pm |
    • DEcember 2012

      Indeed, it was hilarious.

      January 23, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • Dan B

      I didn't see it live, but I saw it on The Five on FNC. It was funny.

      January 26, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
  6. acdcguy

    Where is "Wednesday at the White House" ?.......... must be playing golf today or really hung over from that star studded party last night............

    January 23, 2013 at 11:39 am |
  7. steveo

    December,

    You're right, that is how they learn. At the same time previous comments (prior to learning) gives the lingering appearance of hypocrisy!

    January 23, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
  8. jean2009

    And Steveo...who today passed a Debt Ceiling Bill delay, and have decided they may not want to fight that debt ceiling battle until May....could it be they finally decided that tactic didn't work that well since they couldn't make this president a one term president?

    January 23, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • steveo

      Jean, you should know better. McConnell does not elect presidents regardless of what he said. He gets ONE vote! The people (electorial college) elect presidents. I said a loooong time ago McConnel was wrong when he first stated that! Even with the knowledge of how elections work, folks still fell for his empty words! McConnell made a fool of himself with those words he could not carry out!

      January 23, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
  9. Moose

    As the economy, debt, unemployment keep getting worse the bammans side shows continue. For a guy who is suppose to be so smart, why are we at the same point (except debt) than when he started ??? must be bush. the housing bubble was due to greed and a huge change in underwriting laws. clinton forced this for quick growth not caring he passed a law that forced aig to ins, hence they got bailed out, 2nd he forced freddie, country and fannie to buy these loans, because he had aig ins, it was a complete (Madoof scheme) but willie bill isnt in prison, look it up its all public record

    January 23, 2013 at 4:54 pm |