Obama uses bully pulpit to push for debt deal
July 25th, 2011
10:06 PM ET

Obama uses bully pulpit to push for debt deal

President Obama's strongest words were directed at Washington's business as usual Monday night while urging both parties to come together on a debt deal:

[Americans are] fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be.

In his seventh prime time televised address, Obama sought to increase pressure for congressional leaders to reach a deal that would allow the government to continue borrowing money pay its debts after August 2.

And the president singled out House Republicans for intransigence and said the political showdown is "no way to run the greatest country on Earth."

It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.


Next entry »
soundoff (82 Responses)
  1. Sir Joe

    What is disappointing in this is that Americans are smart enough to let a small group of ideologues ruin the weak economy the more. A country that preaches freedom and liberty is filled with so much hatred and prejudice.

    July 25, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
    • John

      That "small group", as you call them, were voted in for a specific reason. They are sticking to their word, unlike most politicians. And, that "small group" will get larger and larger.
      I like the whole compromise thing – what I got from BO last night, other than the Bush bashing, was it is Reids plan or nothing.

      July 26, 2011 at 8:44 am |
      • cindy

        John, " Your as moron as they come????? Teaparty "Campaigned on Jobs, Idiot???? Their taking Jobs Away, the Smart people in America will Make sure you are the "Minority" Bring on 2012,Landslide for Obama??? Your Defeated already???

        July 26, 2011 at 10:02 am |
      • jd

        Please tell me that you understand what's REALLY going on here more than your comments imply? The simple fact is, that OB offered the GOP a very compelling deal full of compromises to entitlement programs that will really hurt the poor and the middle class and in return asked the GOP for closing tax loopholes and some moderate increases for those making a million or more. The GOP response - "We don't compromise!" Harry Reids deal offers twice the cuts that GOP is offering AND asks for no tax increase nor closing of any tax loopholes. GOP - still no compromise.

        July 26, 2011 at 10:02 am |
      • John

        Cindy, I won't stoop to your level, but do you understand this entire problem could have been avoided if Reid brought a budget plan to the floor when they had the majority in both houses? Do you understand the presidents policies are responsible for what we are seeing today? The Teaparty campaigned on reform to create jobs. The approval polls for BO are lower now than ever before. 2012 can't come soon enough... We need a leader not a community organizer.

        July 26, 2011 at 10:33 am |
      • jean2009

        Yes Cindy, John is a moron, he doesn't understand history, he is a failure at math, and at common sense. The Rethugliklan party has been cooped by greedy people who don't care a whit for the rest of America. Without a doubt this president is one of the best we have ever had...and deserves great credit for his patience.

        These three can't even quote him correctly, they split hairs...when I said a few days ago this president has been in office 2 1/2 years. They say 3 years or 2 years 7 months. Actually, as of today it has been 2 years 6 months, and 6 days. They will say the president said: "This may bring my presidency down." implying he was only thinking about his being president....when the correct quote is: "This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this." Which actually means he is thinking not about himself but about Americans. With the Rethugliklan crowd it is all me...me...me.

        Howard, Dean, and John don't seem to get the fact that deficit money is money which has already been spent, and a good 85% of it was spent due to the mismanagement of the last president. That man never saw a spending opportunity that he didn't want to put on our charge card.

        July 26, 2011 at 11:18 am |
      • John

        Jean – once again you can't make a point without lieing or calling people names. I just look at the source – another person supported totally by the governmnet. You want to tell us again how old you are? It is kind of comical that you think people take you at your word – typical progressive.
        Jean – he is the worst president this country has ever seen. Many people who voted for him realize this now. Money is not spent until it is spent – just like the several billion sitting out there left from the stimulas money – or the trillion not spent for Obamacare. But of course, this money is not on the table, even though BO says "everything is on the table" – just another lie.

        July 26, 2011 at 11:59 am |
      • Nick

        I will clarify this. Obama is saying compromise "not Reid or the Highway. " Clearly, someone is a little thick.

        I think everyone is to blame. Clearly, if everyone in the United States voted for the right candidates and not allow the minority to rule, then we wouldn't be in this problem. It is the so call "silent Majority" who is the one paying for the minority's destruction. Oh the Irony.

        July 26, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
      • MTATL67

        Yes they were elected to improve things but they have only made things worse. By following the "No to everything policy" has brought the legislative process to a halt. You know what it is called when one side will not listen or compromise and wants it their way all the time. It is a called a dictatorship and it is the reason that the Revolutionary war was fought. If the founding fathers thought the way Boehner and the extremist group the Tea Baggers thought. We would still be a British colony. I did not join the military and participate in two campaigns to have American come under the dictatorship of the Tea Baggers and the GOP. If you do not like our form of Government which works because of compromise there are plenty of Governments in other countries that think like you and won’t compromise and I am sure they would welcome your one-way single minded attitude.

        July 26, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
      • jean2009

        If sticking to your word, means sticking to a flawed position which will harm a majority of the American people, a position where only a few who have already greatly profited will profit again. Do you think that is worth it?

        I look at the polls, and read the posts, and see that "small group" is not a group that will grow. Every poll shows they are losing steam. I think the Ryan plan showed many American's just what they don't like about the Tea Party....soo long suckers!

        July 26, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
      • jean2009

        The worst president this country has every seen is without a doubt George W. Bush with Ronald Reagan a very close second.

        Fact is people on Social Security paid for it....entitlement my foot.

        ""The federal government now includes Social Security in its debt portfolio, not because the program is insolvent or ever was, and not because the Federal government has to fund it in any sense (SS is funded by your investments) but because the Federal government has stolen so much money from the fund, then sold special treasury securities on those stolen funds to countries like China to finance the massive debt accruing across the board. Since there is no chance the national debt can ever be repaid, the Fed is now in the position of finagling the discharge of internal debt from the books. Look at it as a form of back door bankruptcy."

        As a matter of fact, my investment in the SS Trust Fund is funding your greed.

        July 26, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
      • Howard

        Cindy ... you are stupid ... and, you can't fix stupid !!!

        July 26, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
      • John

        It is odd that we heard nothing about compromise from this administration before the last election. We put these Teaparty people in office to stop the insanity. The compromise now is cut spending and then vote to raise the debt ceiling – if we don't cut real spending the debt ceiling doesn't get raised.
        A dictatorship really? How can that be when the person being dictated to is supposed to be in charge. Why didn't he avoid this and demand a budget when the dems were holding both houses?
        Our governmnet hasn't worked for the past several years because of Bush, Pelosi and now BO. That is why we need a massave change. No president has disrespected the military as much as the current one has. Most military people I know respect the office of the commander, but understand this president is no friend to the military. He doesn't act like a leader – he leads from behind like a community organizer.
        How did you feel when the majority of Americans did not want Obamacare and he shoved it down our throats? Was that the type of compromise you support? Cut, Cap and Balance didn't even get a vote in the Senate – is that the type of compromise you support?
        Hope for Change in 2012!!!

        July 26, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
      • jean2009

        John...the teaparty is the insanity.

        July 26, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
      • sasnfire

        Cindy just showed up on the brain dead list!

        July 26, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
      • John

        Wrong again Jean. You will see more and more of these people in Washington in the coming years. They are not worried about getting re-elected and it scares the crap out of entrenched lobbiests and politicians. They are ordinary people like your parents and your neighbors – and they are here to stay. You say I don't know history? These Teapartiers are very similar to the evolution of the current Republican Party. These people are filling a major void in Washington and people like you hate it, but you better get use to it. They are here to stay.

        July 26, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
      • jean2009

        No, John, the teaparty rethugliklans are the equivalent of the Know Nothing party of the 1850's.

        July 26, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
      • Emmy Skaddittle

        you know someone is stupid, when they bring out the old " they should have done it when they controlled both the house and senate" line. I know your brain isn't so addled buy republican bs that you don't recall that the democrats in the senate didn't have a filibuster proof majority so nothing got passed through the part of no(you)

        July 26, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • G man

      Jay and John, you just wait until one day when you get your poverty cheques.

      Listen, we will all grow old and require a pension, unless you are the "top 1%", which none of us are (otherwise we would be too busy to spend our time on this website).

      Why do people think tax cuts for the top 1% are such a good thing? What did they do for you personally, so as to make you so willing to defend their rights above your own?

      Anyways, enough rant and down to business:

      1. If you raise taxes for the rich, they can afford it. Taxes are the lowest they have been in a long time, don't believe me, then "Google" it 😉

      2. Cutting social services hurts business and the economy. Who do you think pays for the Fortune 500 to remain the "Fortune 500"? Consumers. And since many (likely most) consumers of most products are within the lower and middle classes, then how would cutting services affect them?

      Isn't it obvious?

      If you cut social services, you make the middle and lower classes less comfortable to purchase goods that keep the economy stable. When consumers are uneasy, most consumers will not like purchase big screen T.V.s or new cars, instead they will likely begin to conserve money and worry about food and emergencies (this can be seen currently in the American economy).

      When consumers are not buying products, the economy suffers, because there are less jobs for people to fill (less products = less jobs). This can lead to recession and other nasty outcomes as jobs are eliminated and the economy suffers.

      3. It is hard for small businesses to compete, when they can't offer their employees medical care. If services like this are paid for by government to any degree, then small businesses benefit by having a better opportunity to attract employees to work for them. Let's face it, if given the choice between two jobs with roughly the same salary, would you not pick the job with better benefits?

      4. Even if the "top 1%" all disappeared, Western civilization would still survive. If all of the big companies evaporated, then the smaller companies would begin to rise. This can be seen through history, with the Black Plague as a prime example.

      During the Black Plague, many rich nobles would die. Unlike people, bacterial and viral infections don't care about how much money you have; they infect rich people as effectively as they infect poor people (however, the rates of spread my vary based on sanitation). When the Black Plague infected Europe, many of the poor rose to the top ranks of society. If it happened in the past why can't it happen again?

      There are many further examples of such rising to fill in the lack of a rich class within many societies throughout history.

      Perhaps another good example would be how many of the European criminal immigrants, who were shipped off to Australia in the past, were able to rise the ranks of society.

      6. Much of the money paid in welfare helps the economy, as it creates many business transactions that would otherwise not exist.

      While poor people don't pay taxes, they certainly pay for food and necessary goods and services, and these goods and services create jobs for many Americans. Also, it would cost more in jails, police and civil unrest, if we removed all forms of welfare, thereby starving our poor. The welfare system doesn't exist for no reason, and out of sympathy for the poor. The welfare system came about because of civil unrest, which creates wars and revolutions such as the French Revolution.

      Perhaps, if there was more money in education, many more people would understand just how all of the social services came about. Unions, welfare, and pensions came about from a lot of fighting, and many people died to obtain these.

      7. There are many countries such as Germany and Canada, who are not in the same mess. If they can provide full medical care, welfare to the poor, and they are not in the recession as the states is. So why be so hostile towards social welfare programs? They can certainly coexist with a powerful economy.

      I don't care about like or dislike, I only want people to think and realize what some consequences are, because the debt issue could, if not handled properly, cause America to collapse.

      July 28, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
  2. Howard

    Continually spending more than you have is simply bad judgment.
    Since Obama took office, only 2 1/2 years ago, our National debt. has risen
    from 9 trillion to 14 trillion. This unprecedented enormous debt. is due to
    irresponsible, out of control spending. Efforts to cut spending, and refuse
    an increase on the debt ceiling, is reasonable, and necessary to reverse
    our economic catastrophe. Obama has spent more money in the past 2 1/2
    years, than all of the presidents who came before him, combined.

    July 26, 2011 at 2:11 am |
    • mosse

      you may be unaware, but debt and spending will increase as a result of interest on debt already accrued, programs that already exist (along with tax cuts that already exist and a deficit that already exists), the size of the debt would naturally go up even if no additional spending was ever outlined

      Why is simple – government programs associated with welfare, social security etc. would apply to more people as there are more people who qualify

      Military spending will continue as long as those military campaigns continue (Iraq, Afghanistan)

      Tax revenues will stay low or fall more as more people become unemployed, or are paid less (people pay less tax because they are earning less, pretty straightforward)

      And interest on existing debt will continue to add to the total level of debt (should not need explaining)

      Add to the fact that the government was already spending more that it had coming in (a deficit) and the amount needing to be borrowed would increase (to meet the existing deficit) and so too would the interest payments for this (increasing the debt and the deficit)

      If no additional spending was ever put forward, the debt and deficit would still have become much larger under Obama.

      What is needed is to cut spending for sure, but also to raise revenues, and this means to raise some taxes (shock horror) believe it or not the American people are considered to be under-taxed by the IMF, so pay a little more tax, close tax loopholes, reverse the tax cuts under Bush (return tax to Clinton era when there was a budget surplus perhaps?) and you will see the deficit reduce. The answer to all problems is not to just arbitrarily cut spending

      July 26, 2011 at 10:03 am |
      • jean2009

        Just the interest at the current rate on the Bush unfunded projects is staggering.. if the interest rates increase 1% it will be considerably more.

        July 26, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • jean2009

        @mosse you have several people on here that just don't get it...sad.

        We need to use a broad approach and restructure debt, increase tax revenue, and cut spending....and we can't do it on the backs of the people it would hurt the most.

        July 26, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • cindy

      I,m sorry Howard< You make no Sense? Who Started the Invasion of Iraq,just to "Stretch Saddams Neck???? You know who,s going to pay for it,"You my "Delusional Freind" Check yourself for possible early "Dementia Symptoms? There is help , seek it?

      July 26, 2011 at 10:08 am |
      • John

        All of congress, including Sen Obama, voted to invade. You accuse people of being morans, having dementia, being delutional, and lacking book sense without making one valid point in any of your comments. I could call you a typical democrat, but it is beyond that – you are a "progressive".

        July 26, 2011 at 10:50 am |
      • Howard

        Cindy, you are one of those blindly devoted Obama cult members who accept the flawed premise that people can spend their way out of debt. I would disregard the foolish opinions of idiots like you, but for the fact that the rest of us, as well as our children, suffer from your stupidity.

        July 26, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
      • jean2009

        Howard and John are Grover Norquist's fools.

        July 26, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
      • Howard

        Cindy ... I'm sure you've had a lot of experience with dementia.
        You dumbocrats can keep blaming Bush, 3 years into Obama's
        failed presidency ... where Odumbo has spent more of our money
        in less than 3 years than ALL the presidents who came before him
        COMBINED ... and what do you Obama followers want to do ???
        you want to reelect this idiot, and spend even more of OUR money.
        You fools are experts at taking a difficult situation, and making it
        much, much worse. This time, however, your foolish lack of judgement
        can bring down this exceptional country, beyond repair ... so, we can
        no longer indulge your misguided efforts to redistribute other people's
        hard earned money. SAVE AMERICA ... DUMP OBAMA NOW !!!

        July 26, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
      • jean2009

        @Howard be accurate it is 2 years, 6 months, and 6 days....we know the Bush presidency was a monumental disaster, and if I were you I would like to pre-date all those bad events too...
        but NO..It is Bush's baby the 2.6 million jobs he lost America in 2008, and the TARP bailout that passed in 2008. He borrowed that money on the Obama deficit dime, and now it is time to end the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy to pay his bill. .

        July 26, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • MTATL67

      Give me a break. What the hell do you think would have happened if we let those banks and car companies go under. Chances are you would be homeless and out of a job complaining that the government did nothing to stop their collapse.

      July 26, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
      • jean2009

        Thank you...so true.

        July 26, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
      • John

        Some banks would have survived – and Ford would be the largest auto company in the world today. The money used to bail out the banks and auto companies could have been used to help people directly, similar to the 20's. We lost billions on the auto bailout and the auto makers we bailed out are trending down. Fannie and Freddie are still a major money pit – they own 750,000 homes now and the number is rising. We have slowed the rate of foreclosures by making the process more complicated and this will obviously extend the downturn to some unforeseeable future. The banks we bailed out are foreclosing homes at a record pace and they are doing nothing to help small business.
        BTW, compromise? Where is BO's plan – not the one that didn't get a vote – the new one that 1 democrat may support. Aren't you tired of tax and spend? Their idea of compromise now is tax less and spend less for now until we get throug the debt ceiling- really?

        July 26, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
      • jean2009

        John...for your information it is spend then tax...not tax then spend. The word "deficit" implies we did not take in enough to meet our cost. ARRGH!

        Although the following may be Greek to you. The Chrysler deal is a good thing too.... so again the president is right and you are wrong.

        The following on the Forbes website: "At Chrysler, Marchionne Again Spins Straw Into Gold -Jul. 26, 2011

        Now, having quickly built that stake to 53.5 percent, Fiat is firmly in control of the rebounding Chrysler, which on Tuesday reported a modified operating profit of $507 million, up 177 percent from a year ago, along with a 30 percent surge in revenues. Chrysler’s worldwide sales were up 19 percent in the second quarter and its U.S. market share rose to 10.6 percent, from 9.4 percent a year ago.

        In May, Chrysler paid back $7.6 billion it owed the U.S. and Canadian governments, and last week it purchased their remaining interests for a total of $700 million. By the end of the year, Fiat expects to increase its Chrysler holdings to 58.5% by satisfying an Obama administration requirement that it begin U.S. manufacturing of a fuel-efficient Chrysler using Fiat underpinnings. In all, it will have invested $2 billion to gain control of America’s third-largest car-maker.

        The world's ten largest car manufacturers are:

        Peugeot Citroen
        General Motors

        It is good that we keep as much of our manufacturing base jobs as possible. Heaven knows, small business does not pay wages that will support a family.

        July 26, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
      • John

        Ok Jean, so the 200 million that was just voted on last week for military bands couldn't have been avoided? This is just one example. These people are spending like drunkin sailors, as they say. New spending, old spending, future spending, earmark spending – it is time to stop these people in their tracks. How about the fact that Pelosi continues to fly in a private jet? Can the money spent on that be stopped when she is forced to fly coach? These people work for us and it is time we let them know.
        Hope for Change in 2012....

        July 26, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
      • jean2009

        @ John...numbers don't lie...so congress voted to pass the 2012 National Defense Authorization Bill and the final vote was: By a vote of 322 to 96, the U.S. House of Representatives on May 26 passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, which includes a $690 billion Pentagon budget.

        Gee...I thought the House was controlled by Republican teaparty people? They approved by 322 For and 96 Against...where is your "NO spending" majority?

        However all your whining about the $200,000 for military bands was for nothing...it was cut from the budget.

        Now, cut the 'pray the gay away.' subsidies, and tobacco subsidies....and several other things we shouldn't be supporting with our tax dollar.

        I am not against cuts...but I am also for increasing taxes of the upper earners.

        July 26, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
      • jean2009

        @John the band money was not last week, the house bill was passed in May. And it wasn't a Rethugliklan that proposed the cut, and the Democrat proposing the cut is still working on eliminating it from the appropriations bill.

        "Defense budget-cutting will be tested on the House floor with an attempt to cut $120 million from roughly $320 million set aside for military bands that is tucked inside the Pentagon’s base budget for fiscal 2012.

        Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) got the House Appropriations Committee last month to limit spending on military bands to $200 million. But because the cap would allow the money to be repurposed for other military programs, McCollum now wants to cut that $120 million from the overall $530 billion Defense Department budget."

        Where is your teaparty? Oh wait...that is military spending....it doesn't involve throwing grandma under the bus!

        July 26, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
      • jean2009

        @Yo Hoo John...this military band deal gets even richer.

        "Interest in military bands increased two years ago after then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, concerned by the State Department’s lack of funds, noted that more money was spent on military bands than on Foreign Service officers.

        Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.) on Wednesday offered an amendment to remove the $200 million limitation for the bands. Although it passed on a voice vote, the $200 million cap is already in the fiscal 2012 Defense Authorization Bill that passed the House. Thus the key moment will come when the House takes up McCollum’s amendment to cut $120 million from the overall Defense Appropriations measure."

        Remember a Democrat wanted to cut $120M from the military band budget leaving $200M...well a Rethugliklan was not too happy he wants to add the $120M back, and lift the cap.

        How would you like that crow served?

        July 26, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
      • jean2009

        @ John Yo Hoo...better check out that Nancy Pelosi story you are pushing with FACT CHECK it doesn't fly.

        July 26, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • MTATL67

      Howard, Climb out of the gutter and debate the issues and stop the name calling or go over to FOX or Rush's web-site. The more nasty you spew the less credible you make yourself.

      July 26, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
      • John

        Take a look and count the number of times people were called names then tell me if dems or repubs – I think you will find you are looking in the wrong direction.

        July 26, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
      • sasnfire

        You just joined the brain dead list!

        July 26, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
    • sasnfire

      FINALLY! Someone else with a brain and tells it like it IS. Thank you, Howard, for having the intestinal fortitude to speak your mind. Real Americans are still out there somewhere.

      July 26, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
      • jean2009

        We are all Real Americans you fool! However...I have my doubts about Howard, John, Dean, and you.

        July 26, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  3. Robert Weis

    Is it spending more money when you no longer lie and keep the costs of the war off the books like the previous administration: Most of the increase is directly related to the prior spending on the wars (with no new revenue and ractually reduced revenue) and bail out of the mortgage/finance/banking industry: The financial business deregulated by prior administrations and the last administration: Then the prior administration crafted a bailed out handed a pen to the current administraction to sign the paper before the ink disappeared and the keys for a mortgaged Whitehouse and Government to the current administration! Facts! Now someone whats to be honest so and the thieves continue to generate the same old smoke screen.

    July 26, 2011 at 5:14 am |
    • John

      Why don't you tell us when you think BO will be taking responsibility? Same old crap in his speech last night – blame bush, blame the repubs. I am right, everyone else is wrong, oh yeah, and lets not forget the corporate jets... His approval #'s are almost at 40% now and they are the lowest since he, well I'd like to say took office, but from your comments I guess Bush is still in office. The wars you talk about have gone on under this administration, plus billions more spent on the "non-war" in Libya. The auto bailout – the one this administration was praised for prior to reports of billions lost in the stock sale last week? We are almost 3 years into this administrations tenure and even Shultz says BO owns the economy. Maybe you should catch up... BTW, Franny and Freddie continue to buy bad properties. Over 750,000 homes owned by this governmnet now, many of which were "taken over" in the past two years.

      July 26, 2011 at 8:55 am |
      • jean2009

        Bush spend the money and now the bill is due. Both tax increases and spending cuts should be in play to pay the debt...since the people who profited are the ones who earned the most from the spending their taxes should increase.

        Actually the tax increase will be cheaper in the long run, than the financial disaster costs incurred by not paying the debt.

        July 26, 2011 at 11:59 am |
      • John

        Jean, you don't get it – if we decided to stop sending money to Afganistan today – that 10 million a day going to the people shooting at our soilders would be stopped. You are on the same page as Reid – he forcasts cutting a trillion dollars of increases to war spending. As I have told you before, only a progressive thinks this is savings. Are you going to tell me that trillion I just spoke of is "spent by Bush already" – I thought not.

        July 26, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
      • MTATL67

        Talk about taking responsibility. It is time for the GOP and this failed Congress under the Boehner, McConnell leadership to accept theirs. I can tell you this I am not going to sit by and let folks like you complain and complain saying President Obama did this he didn't do this. Why don't you contact your Congressman and ask them the same damn questions. Do you realize that your Congressman will spend and waste more of your tax dollars the you think the Executive branch will and you will let them and won’t complain once or hold them accountable. For me those days are over. Every single time my Sen. or Rep gets a corporate plane provided by a lobbyist. They are going to get a scathing email from me. If they vote for one of the GOP’s pork pet projects they are going to hear from me. You really want to stop waste? Then read your constitution. Any spending or raising of taxes must originate in the House of Representative. Then maybe you not the White House. Then maybe you will hold your representative in Congress accountable.

        July 26, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
      • jean2009

        Now, I'm totally convinced my earlier assessment of you was right.

        No one said Bush was still in office...just that like garlic his flawed policies, debt, and wars linger on...and will linger on much longer than necessary....because we have people like you who don't think it necessary to pay for the bills that were incurred by those failed policies.

        You do know that it is easier to get into a war than it is to get out of one...that is right.... you were maybe not around for the Vietnam war.
        This is the time line for the Vietnam War
        10 Aug 1950 – First shipload of U.S. arms aid to pro-French Vietnam sent by President Eisenhower
        13 May 1961 – President Kennedy orders 100 "special forces" troops to S. Vietnam
        July 1964 – Announcement states that US military contingent in Vietnam would increase 5,000 more to 21,000
        Paris Peace Accord to end the war signed January 1973
        U.S. Logistic troops leave Vietnam March 29,1973
        7 Nov 1973 – War Powers Act – Congress dealt President Nixon a stunning setback when it voted to override his veto of legislation limiting presidential powers to commit US forces abroad without congressional approval. Congress, with the Vietnam War and the showdown over continued bombing in Cambodia behind it, was anxious to reassert its role in the conduct of the country's foreign affairs
        April 29, 1975 In a speech at Tulane University President Gerald Ford announced that "The war is finished as far as America in concerned."
        April 29, 1975 last two Marines killed in Vietnam Charles McMahon & Darwin Judge.
        April 30, 1975 Fall of Saigon

        So ending any war doesn't mean people no longer are killed, or shot at.

        So, again I will say the president is right, and you again are wrong.

        A,) "Ford has the profits to prove it. After years of steep losses, the automaker turned a $2.7 billion profit in 2009—a horrible year for car sales—and earned $4.7 billion in the first half of 2010. And Ford's not the only comeback car maker. Barely a year after its humbling bankruptcy filing and $50 billion government bailout, General Motors has returned to profitability, with a public offering likely this fall. That will allow it to start buying out Washington's 61 percent stake in the company."

        Both GM and Ford showed first quarter profits this year. GM leaps Ford into top 10 on 2011 Fortune 500 list:
        That is a good thing...and again the president was right.

        "The federal government DOES NOT fund Social Security! Social Security funds the federal government."

        July 26, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
    • jean2009

      @John that is just the list of automakers not the order of their market share:
      The largest in the world is Toyota
      Second largest is General Motors
      Volkswagen is third
      Ford is fourth ....and so on up the list to Fiat. Having the second and fourth largest automotive manufacturers, in the world, on American soil is a very good thing.

      And having banks that are "too big to fail" is an asset. At times they can be a liability, but all said and done they are an asset.

      So, you have two degrees and you didn't listen to your professors. What can I say!

      As for your assessment of the Recovery Act...I know several people that put meals on the family table and a roof over their heads thanks to the Recovery Act.
      President Obama has likened the management of the economy by my Republican colleagues and President Bush to having driven a car into the ditch, and then asking for the keys back. Well, while the driver got off scot-free, some of the passengers suffered blunt force trauma, and for the last two years we've been trying to stabilize them with various remedies, some of them unprecedented.

      From 9/27/2010
      "Now that our economy is showing signs of life, the Republicans want to go back to those "exact same" failed policies that drove our economy into the ditch in the first place. They have unveiled a new Republican pledge to America - filled with the same old ideas. And I am convinced that if their plan is implemented it would be a plague on America.

      The Recovery Act that the Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law has stopped the hemorrhaging. It has saved or created at least 3.2 million jobs to date, is still making critical investments in our nation's infrastructure and is laying the groundwork to create 21st century jobs in green technology sectors. Just as jobs are coming back to industries that were once written off, Republicans are demanding that we defund the Recovery Act and give up on our investment in the future of America."

      We stopped the hemorrhaging is exactly right in 2008 – when 2.6 million jobs were lost, once that train goes over the cliff it takes more time to put it back on track than the policies that sent it over the edge.

      According to CNN Money for May 9, 2011:
      "Job growth has been strong since the beginning of the year, with 768,000 jobs added since January. And Friday's report also showed that 46,000 more jobs were added in February and March than previously thought. "

      Should have listened to the professors.

      July 26, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
      • John

        Jean – once again you missed the point. If GM went under Ford would have been number 1. All those words you write with nothing to say.

        July 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
      • jean2009

        John you can't count...Ford would have moved up to number 3 with Toyota #1 and Volkswagen #2. Still wonderful we have some of the top auto manufacturing companies in the world. Frankly, I don't understand you American manufacturing death wish for this country, and no I didn't miss the point...or have you forgot already you were ranting about war, banks, automotive bailouts, and I gave you statistics which you obviously can't deal with.

        What I want to know is why you were not whining when all the damage was being done?

        As of July 24th...... 66% percent of polling respondents disapproved of the way Republicans in congress were doing their job, another 10% couldn't make up their minds, and 25% approved. Those percentages are pretty steady over several different polls.

        July 26, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  4. Dean

    Every time this guy has opened his pie hole, nothing intelligent has come out.

    July 26, 2011 at 7:44 am |
    • cindy

      Dean,"Who are you referring to,John, or Bohener,Cantor? John is just Lacking book sense?? If your talking about either, "You are "Correct Sir

      July 26, 2011 at 10:14 am |
      • John

        It says alot about you that you can't even figure out that he is obviously talking about BO...

        July 26, 2011 at 10:52 am |
      • jean2009

        Sounds like Boehner or Cantor to me.

        July 26, 2011 at 11:20 am |
    • MTATL67

      That's it. Your not even trying. Hey, how many degrees do you have?

      July 26, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
      • John

        If you are speking to me, I have two. And, I never asked the governmnet to pay for either one. For much of the time I worked days and attended school nights – in Cambridge MA. Lets just say I never agreed with the politics of the professors who were teaching me. They were teaching their agenda and I needed to go along to get along.

        July 26, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
      • jean2009

        GED one of them?

        July 26, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  5. mark

    Anybody who can't figure out that democrats ALWAYS want higher taxes and more of your money should not vote.They created the debt,and quite frankly I'm tired of supporting the failures in life with my tax money..Either you want obama to spend your money or you would prefer to do it yourself.Democrats think you work for them and will DICTATE thru legislation just how much you keep..Republicans actually encourage wealth and the AMERICAN dream..if you cant figure that out you should choke yourself.

    July 26, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • jean2009

      Actually George W. Bush spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave he doubled the deficit in 8 years from the surplus left by Clinton...and his example of choice was Ronald Reagan who tripled the deficit during his 8 years.

      July 26, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • kefa34

      I wish one day to tell my story our jobs
      went to china I had 10 brain surgery
      my wife had cancer
      we have to sell our home
      life has been different
      pray every one pray
      today it is us
      tomorrow it may be you
      pray our leaders come togather for everyone sake
      the haves and the have not,

      July 26, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
  6. MTATL67

    I have been railing against this extremist group the Tea Baggers for months. Amazing how easy people forgot the near collapse of the financial markets the near collapse of the auto industry. What in the world do you think would have happened then. How would your lives be today. If we followed the GOP's way of thinking those would have collapsed and they would blame the President for following their advise. Make no mistake about it our country is better off today because of President Obama and his actions. If Boehner and the GOP are so great where are the Jobs that Boehner promised? What legislation has Congress under this GOP leadership passed that has improved a damn thing? If the GOP and Boehner are so great why does an American who makes $15,000 per year pay more in taxes than GE a fortune 500 company. If the GOP and Boehner are so great how does a jet plane credit of $40-$80K help the average American worker. Seriously do you take a jet plane to work every day? If the GOP is so concerned with saving our tax dollars then why the hell does the oil industry need my money they have made trillions in profits. If the GOP and friends the extremist group the Tea Baggers hate government waste so much why do they refuse to return the subsides that their companies receive. They take money while slamming and criticizing the government of waste but by God they will take the money but won't vote to turn off the valve. This really pisses me off that so many of let them get away with this.

    The president stopped the major bleeding of our economy but the GOP refuses to give us the stitches to heal the wound.

    July 26, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
    • John

      This president stopped the major bleeding? Really? Thats what his administration tells you, but can you point to one real indication that this is the case? Every bad number is up and every good number is down (unless they screwed with the calculation, like not including energy or food into the inflation number). It is all about the next election with this administration, thats why not short term fix is in place already. It is BO's choice to be where we are today.

      July 26, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
  7. sasnfire

    The President has pulled the same thing twice this year. He stays away till the last minute and then tries to run the show with rhetoric and no plan to offer. He can't find any negotiating talent because there is none in him. He wants everyone else to do what we are paying him to do. He has doubled the National Debt PLUS 3 trillion in only his first 30 months in office breaking the record for spendthrift Presidents. His nonsensical vacations he stuck us with has probably added towards a trillion by now to our debt. This is all intolerable and enough for impeachment. Why are we letting ourselves be destroyed by this detached, uninvolved and arrogant with no reason to be, non-leader who spends 19 consecutive weekends chasing a little ball around on the grass while the Senate and Congress are doing their jobs. When is our supposed Pres. going to work WITH them, not against them. And make no mistake, this "President" has his own agenda, not working for us as he lied about with a straight face. He, as one journalist said and he himself has proven, he has been running around" helping himself" by making 33 money-grabbing trips in only six mos. for his re-election. You better wake up people because this man doesn't care if the US burns and crashes. He's assuming he will be re-elected when he doesn't know what he's doing and has to appoint a council, at least eleven of them, for everything and then delegates all of his duties to others. He shows no confidence in his job and is in way above his head in any direction. I'm smelling the smoke as our country is burning and the damages will never be overcome. With one check mark or pull in the voting booth we have lost the America we've had and there is no redemption. We, as voters are to blame. But we don't have to be stuck with the kid who doesn't play well with others and keeps stealing from our piggy banks. Do exercise your right to your own country. "Just DO it".

    July 26, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
  8. Disabled

    Pls explain why SS money is at risk when this is suppose to be a separate pot from federal spending?

    July 26, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
    • John

      Bacause BO says it is.

      July 26, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
      • jean2009

        This is from Democratic Congresswoman Betty McCollum's website:

        July 6, 2011 - Congresswoman McCollum's Statement on Reducing Defense Spending by $124,800,000 (Amendment to H.R. 2219)

        This amendment is simple: it cuts $124.8 million from the overall bill.

        For all my colleagues who say they are committed to deficit reduction, this is your chance to prove it.

        This amendment reduces government spending while protecting the Pentagon's national security mission by reducing the funding for military bands to the authorized level.

        Currently, this bill and the Pentagon's budget includes a total of $324.8 million for 154 military bands and more than 5,000 full-time, professional military musicians.

        This amendment would reduce total funding for military bands to $200 million – the limit set for spending on military bands included by voice vote in the 2012 Defense Authorization bill – H.R. 1540.

        Let me be clear: This amendment brings the Defense Appropriations bill in line with the limit for spending on military bands established in the Defense Authorization.

        Again, this House is already on record voting to limit spending on military bands to $200 million.

        Earlier in debate on this bill, Representative Carter of Texas had an amendment that struck language I inserted in the Defense Appropriations bill to limit spending on military bands to $200 million.

        That amendment was agreed to on voice vote.

        I do not believe a majority of Republicans and Democrats in this House want to be on record adding ... adding over $124 million in spending for military bands.

        This amendment gives all my colleagues the opportunity to reduce the cost of government by cutting $124 million from this bill while allowing the Pentagon to continue to spend $200 million for choirs, Jazz bands, ensembles, and other musical missions.

        There is no doubt that military bands are important. We all enjoy listening to military bands and cherish the traditions of military music.

        But in a time of fiscal crisis, $200 million must be enough for ceremonial music, concerts, choir performance, and Country music jam sessions.

        My colleague Mr. Carter believes spending $325 million in FY2012 is vital to our national security – a national priority that can not be cut or even reduced.

        I could not disagree more.

        Are there really Members of this House who can in good conscience vote to cut nutrition programs for poor, hungry women and infants, but vote to protect a bloated military bands budget?

        Is this House really capable of gutting investments in women's health care, but allow a $5 million increase in funding for military bands?

        Republicans are forcing cuts to law enforcement, firefighters, and homeless veterans, but they take a stand opposing limiting funding for military bands to $200 million as a national security priority?!

        Is this Congress really going to raise the debt ceiling so it can pay $325 million for military bands next year with money borrowed from China?

        These truly are misplaced priorities!

        Mr. Chairman, as this Congress faces record deficits it is time for both smart investments and tough choices.

        In this $650 billion defense appropriations bill, this amendment proposes a extremely modest test of this House's willingness to cut spending for a non-essential military function.

        Last year, the Army Material Command had a $4.4 million state of the art building specially constructed for the Army Material Command Band.

        While schools, health centers, and food banks are getting cut this $4.4 million example seems to indicate that no one told the Pentagon there is a fiscal crisis.

        The Pentagon doesn't need any more band aid.

        Mr. Carter argued against reducing spending on military bands by saying the language didn't save one cent – he was correct. This amendment saves U.S. taxpayers $124.8 million.

        And that makes a lot of sense to the Minnesotans I represent.

        And it should make a lot of sense to my Tea Party Republican colleagues who march to their own drummers.

        This amendment gives all of my colleagues – Republicans and Democrats – a chance to show our constituents deficit reduction.

        I urge my colleagues to support this reduction to unnecessary defense spending."

        If the $124M is added back in for military bands....you can thank that drunkin Republican sailor from Texas.... Congressman John Carter

        July 26, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        Jean, the US gov. spends about $41,600,000 per minute. In three minutes the government had spent more than the congresswoman was complaining about. How much time did she spend on this issue? Come back to the table with a real cut in gov spending then we will listen.

        July 27, 2011 at 8:14 am |
      • jean2009

        @Jay ...what I am pointing out is the phony baloney of all you Rethugliklans crying about saving money...this is not their and your reason for not raising the debt ceiling, it is not the reason for crying cut spending.....and if you had a brain you would know it...it is simply an attempt at political coupe.

        I didn't see these same people telling G.W.Bush he shouldn't be spending the money that caused this deficit.
        I didn't hear Congressman Carter say..."thank you now let me see if I can find someplace to responsibly cut a $124 million which doesn't hurt poor people or hungry children."

        I don't know what world you live in while crying cut spending...$124 million will buy a lot of food for hungry children...it would provide rent money to keep a roof over their heads.

        I keep hearing these idiots that know not one stitch about history, who can only throw out manipulated inaccurate Faux sound bites (like John)...just remember I took John's flawed sound bites and proved them lacking in truth..

        Teabag idiots, keep misquoting the founding fathers...remember Ben Franklin said: " A penny saved is a penny earned." Congresswoman McCollum found not just one penny but $124 Million, enough pennies maybe not being wasted, but enough pennies that could be better spent for something disadvantaged people need...which is not a marching band...and now, you are saying she shouldn't have wasted her time.

        Your true colors final showed up?

        July 27, 2011 at 9:13 am |
    • jean2009

      The SS Fund has been used by the Government to pay for other bills... when there should have been taxes raised to pay for those other bills. In other words, the government has been living off grandma's pension and the TeaParty Rethugliklans want to throw her under the bus. ....DEATH PANELS!

      July 26, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
      • Dean

        Your rants have made me reconsider the merits of a 'Death Panel'.

        July 26, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
      • jean2009

        @Dean.....Believe me,The Health Insurance Act of 2010 is one of the best things that has every happened to this country...really long overdue, ..... and if you can't take my heat go back to Faux.

        Remember the elderly have recently seen what happens to their life saving when it is invested in the stock market...like George Bush and his Rethugliklan cronies wanted to do in 2004 to prop up his failed policies....do you think we will go for a Ryan voucher system...absolutely Not!

        ...so grow a brain.

        July 26, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Dean

      Obama plays to the concerns and fears of the elderly...just as he did with Obamacare.

      July 26, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  9. Jay in NC

    Jean2009 has an interest in a big government. You see she lives off the tax payer. If she truly is 76 then she has taken more than she paid in to the system. Our children will be paying off her bill for decades. Because of Jean's selfish act our country is in debt. Typical of her beat-nick generation, only thinking of them selfs.

    July 27, 2011 at 8:18 am |
    • jean2009

      Read response to Jay above...then read my lips...

      I paid for my retirement....have you never heard of FICA and MI taken from working people's pay? For all I know you may be living on welfare...Social Security is NOT an entitlement ....you moron. I also funded my IRA and savings. Which greedy people like you have no problem with robbing.

      You through the federal government are actually living month to month off what I paid.

      "Social Security is not contributing to the deficit, it actually loans the government money. Social Security is not the problem." The government does not fund social security, social security funds the government.

      Actually...the "beatnik generation" is mainly a reference to a group of post WWII writers and musicians who came of age during WWII. Most people were much too busy working and raising their families, and I would have been a little young I was 10 when WWII ended. So again, you have failed at history and failed at math.

      July 27, 2011 at 9:47 am |
      • Jay in NC

        You say "I paid for my retirement.." Well no you did not. Your money was paid into the system and paid out to other people. The same now, the young are paying for your lush living. The young are tax many times what you paid into the system. Remember It was President Bush that wanted to privatize a portion of the fund. That way you could manage a small part of the SS fund as a 401 or IRA. In other words an account with your name on it with value that can be transfered to your descendants. The Democrats killed that idea, thus keeping SS as a large government black box fund with no accountability and no survivorship.

        You say "I also funded my IRA and savings. Which greedy people like you have no problem with robbing", It is Barry that wants to impose a capital gains tax, not the Republicans.

        If SS funds the government then why is Barry threatening to not send out checks? The truth is we have to borrow .40 of each dollar paid to people like you.

        July 27, 2011 at 11:14 am |
      • jean2009

        @Jay and the reason they send out those checks to me and others is because I sent them the money with the agreement that they would return it and pay interest on it when I retired. They agreed to pay me the benefit & interest for my deposit.

        In plain and simple English: The government owes me a debt ,because over my lifetime I loaned it the money to pay bills, and for that loan they promised to repay me with interest when I retired.

        Read the 14th Amendment Section 4:
        Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

        July 28, 2011 at 11:16 am |
      • Jay in NC

        Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) is a tax not a savings account, not a 401.

        July 28, 2011 at 11:28 am |
      • Jay in NC

        Jean, Flemming vs Nestor (1960), the U.S. Supreme court held that you have no "accrued property rights" to a Social Security check.


        July 28, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
  10. jean2009

    @ John:
    Origin of name

    "Jack Kerouac introduced the phrase "Beat Generation" in 1948 to characterize a perceived underground, anti-conformist youth movement in New York. The name arose in a conversation with writer John Clellon Holmes. The adjective "beat" could colloquially mean "tired" or "beaten down",[4][5] but Kerouac expanded the meaning to include the connotations "upbeat," "beatific," and the musical association of being "on the beat".[6]
    Columbia University

    The origins of the Beat Generation can be traced to Columbia University and the meeting of Kerouac, Ginsberg, Lucien Carr, Hal Chase and others. Though the beats are usually regarded as anti-academic,[7][8] [9] many of their ideas were formed in response to professors like Lionel Trilling and Mark Van Doren. Classmates Carr and Ginsberg discussed the need for a "New Vision" (a term borrowed from Arthur Rimbaud), to counteract what they perceived as their teachers' conservative, formalistic literary ideals.

    Burroughs was introduced to the group by an old friend, David Kammerer, who was enamored with Lucien Carr. Carr had befriended freshman Allen Ginsberg and introduced him to Kammerer and Burroughs. Carr also knew Kerouac's girlfriend Edie Parker, through whom Burroughs met Kerouac in 1944."

    Suggested thoughts...crack a history book, learn some math, quit listening to Rush's flawed sound bites, grow up...as I have said before you should have listened to your professors.

    July 27, 2011 at 9:55 am |
    • jean2009

      John or Jay...who knows they sound the same.

      July 27, 2011 at 9:56 am |