Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

BLITZER’S BLOG: Too late to resurrect the deal?
July 25th, 2011
01:34 PM ET

BLITZER’S BLOG: Too late to resurrect the deal?

(CNN) - We did learn some intriguing details about the debt ceiling negotiations in recent days. Both President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner were ready to anger their respective bases in order to work out a deal.

To the dismay of many Democrats, President Obama was ready to support cuts in entitlement spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He was ready to support what’s called “means testing” – meaning that richer people would have to shell out more for health benefits under Medicare than poorer people. The president is also apparently ready to adopt a new cost-of-living increase formula that effectively would result in reduced Social Security and Medicare benefits. When I interviewed Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont the other day, he made it clear he hated those proposals.

To the dismay of many Republicans, especially Tea Party activists, Speaker Boehner made it clear he was ready to accept $800 billion in increased tax revenue as part of a deal with the president. Boehner called it “tax reform” – suggesting that some loopholes, exemptions and subsidies would be reduced or eliminated. But hard-core anti-tax purists insist those changes would amount to a net tax increase – something they would oppose.

Boehner said his last proposal to Obama, which included the $800 billion in tax increases, was still available for consideration. He ended the negotiations with the president on Friday when Obama insisted that another $400 billion in tax increases be added to the package.

Here’s my question: Is the deal really going to collapse over $400 billion over ten years – or $40 billion a year? That’s a lot of money but in the scheme of things – we’re talking trillions not billions –it’s relatively modest.

Is it too late to resurrect the deal? “It may be pretty hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again,” Boehner said.

Given the disaster that could unfold from a federal default, maybe not.

RELATED: Boehner, Reid to unveil new debt plans as deadline nears

Post by:
Filed under: Debt • President Obama • Speaker John Boehner • Wolf Blitzer
soundoff (262 Responses)
  1. Marie Ewan

    No new taxes, how about just get rid of tax breaks for the richer few of this country. We hear from the Ohio Congressional man, Mr. Jordan on your show, something about leaving alone the richer few who can generate jobs. Okay, well so just where are those jobs all these tax breaks are suppose to get us. So far, no jobs, yet they still have their tax breaks. Please does everyone feel the American people are just that stupid. Coming up on your show there is a clip about the space between rich and poor, wow that is a surprise.

    July 26, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • Ed

      The middle class with bare this burden again, because the GOP is looking out for the very wealthy and the LIBS are looking out for the poor. The middle class has no representation, we will get hammered again and again. We need a third party who will look out for the middle class american. Lets all look closely at this debate and see who is going to get taxed the most.

      July 26, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  2. Richard Batchelor

    Let's remember that the GOP Tea Partiers were swept to power in 2010 in great part as a reaction to having the unpopular, horribly crafted and very expensive Obamacare plan forced on them, the expensive failed stimulus and costly bailouts (It was recently revealed that the taxpayer will be taking a $1.3 Billion bath on Chrysler – NYT 7/23/11). The Democrats won big in the previous election due to the general ineptness of the Bush administration. In both cases these were votes against the status quo; they were "Throw the Bums Out" votes. They were negative votes cast because people were fed up. They were not votes in favor of one party or the other; they were votes against the party in power. The politicians on both sides of the isle in Washington need to remember this and realize how unpopular they are right now. Most people have the image of a federal government being run a bunch of incompetent jerks. How did the people from the President on down earn this reputation? They did it the old fashioned way – they earned it.

    July 26, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
  3. Walter Jenny

    Spot on, Wolf. And there's a darker side to it.

    July 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  4. Miriam from Philly

    They receive their full pay for LIFE!! Maybe all of the unemployed should run for office.

    July 26, 2011 at 12:47 pm |
  5. Miriam from Philly

    I'm on Social Security too. And I pay for Medicare very month! Why isn't anyone challenging this? Social Security was a separate fund with a large surplus, until Reagan mixed it with general federal funds. Social Security and Medicare do not contribute to the debt, and has allready been cut, since we haven't had an Cost of Living increase in 2 years!

    July 26, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
  6. Paul Andreoli

    Concerning the current crisis:
    1. When Congress passes the budget (or continuing resolution) it gives the executive branch the authority to contract for goods and services, to take delivery, and to pay for those services. At the time of passage, all parties know (somewhat through the Congressional Budget Office) if the spending will require borrowing or not. The authority for paying for the authorized services is implied.
    2. The 14th amendment states "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services....., shall not be questioned...." Since Congress authorized the expenditure the payment for those services is required by the Constitution and can not be questioned by anyone especially individuals that have taken an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution.If they do they have committed an unconstitutional act that has to be remedied.
    3.Concerning the USA's AAA debt rating, Let's remember that these debt rating agencies are the same organizations that rated the mortgage backed securities that contributed to the banking crisis and subsequent economic downturn that still affects the USA and the world today.
    4. Lets also look at the organizations that would benefit from a rating downgrade. As everyone is aware, a downgrade would lead to higher interest rates for all and who benefits, the financial sector that a few years ago came hat in hand wanted to be bailed out because of their actions, which we did. At that time we did not tell the financial sector how to restructure their business.
    In summary, if the financial sector was too big to fail then, I h think the USA is even bigger than they are. We are much too big to fail.
    Congress authorized the spending, the Constitution specifies that it be honored. Let's not let the people of our country be hurt again by some made up crisis.
    Raise the debt ceiling which really does not need congressional approval, then set down and decide what we need to spend and how we should pay for it through taxes.

    July 26, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
  7. Miriam from Philly


    July 26, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
  8. Albee Guttman

    Why has no one come up with the obvious way to balance the budget? Abolish the legislative branch. So far the only thing they have accomplished since the last election is to make a foolish spectacle of themselves and our country. Look how much we could save. Let's send them all home.

    July 26, 2011 at 10:34 am |
  9. Boomer in Mo

    We are already off the cliff. The generation being born today may see and end to the depression Congress and the President have driven us into.

    July 26, 2011 at 10:18 am |
  10. John


    July 25, 2011 at 10:11 pm |
  11. Vivian Tenney

    John Boehner did himself and his party a big disservice tonight. He looked mean, whiny, and insensitive to working people's needs. He needs to learn how to lead his own party to compromise. Pelosi could work with the Republicans in her House, but apparently Boehner cannot.

    July 25, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
    • Boomer in Mo

      He is mean. You are supposed to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even when you can't afford boots. The middle class is dead or dying, done in by decades of politicians on both sides of the aisle selling their souls to corporate America.

      July 26, 2011 at 10:22 am |
  12. ol'lady

    The Speaker of House speech made me sick. It was worse than watching a bad commercial. "I" this and "I" that.
    Those Job Creators sent jobs to other countries. Those who have must contribute. I am tired of the political party "bs".
    The government ask American Families to create budgets and live by them, make sacrifices. But those in the government feel they are exempt along with the millionaires and billionaires. Shameful.

    July 25, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
  13. Stephen

    I am tired of hearing that the United States credit rating is going to be down graded due to our inept elected officials in Washington D.C. First of all, the only ones who will benefit from a credit downgrade are the people lending the money, in other words, the rich will take advantage of this just as OPEC takes advantage and controls the flow of oil. The United States has been supporting, bailing out, financing and protecting everyone on the planet. What if we told the world we are bringing all our troops home, and not giving out any more money to foreign countries – everyone included. Our financial problems and social economic problems would be solved in short order. How is that for a plan?

    July 25, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
  14. Michael

    What is wrong with our government? I am so disappointed with the leadership of this country. It is a disgrace what is happening and the worst thing for all of the people of this country is that we have no control over the antics that are taking place. Why do both the President and the Republican party, John Boegner continue to refer to Social Security as an ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. I paid into Social Security from my hard earned money along with my employers for 50 years. How is this an ENTITLEMENT to expect that I receive what is due to me. I paid for everyone elses retirement who came before me and also paid for all of the wealthy seniors who did not need to collect Social Security but did.....Not receiving my check this month is putting me behind on all of my obligations and no-one-cares. We are all fed up and this government is driving our country into the ground – it is despicable and not acceptable. Please someone look out for all the people in this country who are/were loyal citizens who contributed to society and helped this country grow and prosper....It is a very sad day today and we are all going to feel the effects of such irresponsibility for a long time to come....

    July 25, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
  15. ms

    It amazes me in this day and time that so many people are still willing to put all the blame on one party or the other. I just do not understand how anyone can logically draw that conclusion. You can't make it in Washington to a position of power on either side of the fence without saling your soul. Perhaps we will wake up one day and realize that.

    I think it's a real shame that people tell their kids they could grow up and be President like ....Obama or Bush. I would hope they would want their children to be better people than that.

    July 25, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
  16. Duh!

    Remember when we were freaking out in the mid-90's when the debt was 3 Trillion? How have we become so numb to spending? The appropriations and tax code are the responsibility of the Hill; these guys have raped us for years.

    July 25, 2011 at 8:10 pm |
  17. David D.

    We balanced the budget a decade ago. The big changes are the Bush tax cuts, the doubling of defense spending, and unemployment. The first two are policy choices but the last one will require facing 30 years of free trade orthodoxy. Ultimately, we have to zero out our $650B/year goods trade deficit, which represents millions of jobs overseas making our goods.

    July 25, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
    • Roy

      You have to include the stimulus package in the mix as well if you want to be honest. But you're right, the tax cuts were step 1, followed by two wars, deregulation causing the real estate collapse, and finally the stimulus to try to clean up the mess.

      July 25, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
  18. Amanda Whiting

    Cut the presidential and congressional pay and benefits until the deficit is solved. Pass an amendment that says that congress can no longer vote themselves a pay raise that it will be decided by a vote every year by the people.

    July 25, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • Michael

      This is so true....and if they are found guilty of any negliance of the law they are ENTITLED to keep their job with full pay.
      What has this country come to....

      July 25, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • Rhonda

      This type of response does not demonstrate an understanding of the complexity of the problem. We have a huge problem with spending, income inequality, job creation and investment. Our leaders have become slaves to raising campaign funds, and therefore special interests. When you try to make everyone happy and placate rather than lead, you never make difficult decisions. That's why we have a deficit.

      July 25, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
  19. Sal Voce


    July 25, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
    • alars

      Look, if you get yourself in trouble and in debt, sometimes a second job is the only option unless you want to skip meals...lots of them. Don't be so un-bending when both sides need to meet in the middle!

      July 25, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • Roy

      Easy to trumpet cutting spending without saying which programs. Farm subsidies? Social Security? Military benefits? Medicare? Cut spending, but just make sure you don't cut anything that hurts me.

      July 25, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
      • Miriam from Philly

        Roy, we pay for Social Security out of our paychecks. It is NOT a part of the debt, or the creation of debt. There was a large surplus in OUR Social Security fund. Reagan decide to "borrow" from it, and mix it with the federal budget. I'm on Social Security disability, and even the SS Administration said to me beforehand "It's your money you paid into it." I pay monthly for Medicare, just like I paid for health insurance when I was working. It's amazing how politicians can spin it to look like the government is paying for these things, when we the people are.

        July 25, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
    • Tom

      Balancing the budget by ONLY reducing spending will cause the recession to worsen.

      July 25, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
  20. craig

    Good ole Republican times. The Rich get Richer and the rest of us are stuck in reverse! Politics before COUNTRY, everyone of them should be ashamed, especially the flee party.

    July 25, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
  21. Elliot

    The problems of our having pre-election primaries is now coming home to haunt us. House songressional candidates who have to run for reelection every two years are fearful that if they compromise and make a deal to avoid default which would taint the good faith and reputation of our country, they might be challenges in a primary election in their home districts.

    This is a legitimate fear but history is now calling upon good men and women to step up the plate and vote for what is best for our country. History will reward these people even if their local politial parties do not.

    July 25, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
    • Roy

      Just wait to see how vulnerable ALL seats are in 2012 if there is a default.

      July 25, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
  22. Katherine Dunlea

    I am a democrat who voted for Obama and 100% agree with him that we should have another 400 billion for this debt deal. That said, to have this deal fall apart over this amount is CRAZY. Ask for another 200 billion. Use this deal as a starting point and get anything else you can. You know what, on both sides, this deal is better than anything else either side has suggested. It hurts EVERYONE and nobody likes it- the sign of a good compromise.

    July 25, 2011 at 7:34 pm |
    • Roy

      The problem is, most economists agree that spending cuts AND significant revenue increases are needed to make a real dent in the deficit. Until there is a deal that includes both, this is all just continuing to kick the can down the road.

      July 25, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
  23. Jerald Lipsch

    I don't get what the objection by Boehner and company would be to Reid's plan to make $2.7 trillion in cuts and raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion on a single vote? Isn't that what the Republicans demanded - at least as much in spending cuts as the increase in the debt ceiling? I heard one objection was including savings from the wind-down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I also heard that the Paul Ryan plan passed so proudly by the House a few weeks ago included those same savings in its claims! So what's wrong with counting those savings now?

    July 25, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  24. usaf2

    Here we go again!! Wolf Blitzer the Wizzard " The Wolf In a Armani Suit"

    July 25, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  25. Angie

    If the House Speaker, John Boehner cannot work WITH the president or show him the appropriate respect, why doesn't he step down....

    July 25, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
    • TLew25

      I agree, the President should step down.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
      • Tom

        Why its Bonehead who can't count.

        July 25, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
  26. Woody Brown

    Both parties have placed their political self-interest above both the solvency of America and the well-being of the American people.

    Either plan will result in $17 trillion debt in just 18 months. Both plans simply cut spending from areas which actually require more spending to meet the people's needs. Neither plan produces any revenue–beyond a few billion in interest saved–sufficient to curtail the national debt.

    Both plans ensure that the Federal budget will be insufficient to properly administrate a 1st world nation for at least a decade–perhaps even a generation. Neither plan does any appreciable good beyond stave-off bankruptcy until the next required raise in the debt-ceiling. Either plan entrenches America into the crippled economic position wherein we've no answer to our debt and have resolved ourselves to increasing it until it's untenable weight finally plunges us into default...a default which will be all the more devastating with each new trillion added.

    Either party and no individual has proposed a plan which produces revenue. Without sufficient revenue, all the U.S. can do is limp-by each year as the quality of our infrastructure, health, education, defense and sanity steadily crumble. Regardless of how uncomfortable or how unpopular it may be for the corporate entities which produce appreciable income, if the government does not–sooner rather than later–tap that source, we will never pay-down the national debt and will be ripe for the plucking once the Chinese decided that we've sufficiently paralyzed ourselves.

    My vote in 2012 will go to the individual who has backbone enough to justly say that without modifying the tax code for major corporations, the American people can expect a future of little opportunity, loads of unemployment and constant economic instability. The tax loopholes which allow the financial industry, and those corporations 'too big to fail', to escape taxation must be closed. That no politician in the country has either nerve nor common sense enough to support this first, simply and critically necessary step, is perhaps the biggest shame of American character.

    July 25, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
    • Nick Poulos

      Obama added 124,000 federal employees and gave power to Epa that discourages start up businesses. He is doing things backwards to encourage economic growth. Only 6% of the stimulous monies went to help small businesses. His agenda is to destroy the capitalist system. Community organizers have no knowledge of governing a large economy. His advisers have no business knowledge. How can a reasonable person expect different results?

      July 25, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
      • Woody Brown's a real shame that the U.S. elected this charlatan. Once his ego completely took over control of his common sense, he believed that if he were president, he would implement his world view of simply being in charge. It seems his only real political ambitions were to put his wife in the White House and rub national health care in Bill Clinton's face.

        Being that shallow, the man never did develop any real political qualities, social understand, foreign interest or economic savvy. I imagine that Michelle balanced their checkbook. When the housing-bubble broke and the DOW fell from 14,000 to 6,500 during the last six month of his campaign, it threw Obama a major curve ball.

        He'd never planned to have to do any real thinking while in office...and repeatedly cried-out that he'd inherited this situation–as if that were 'no fair'. Then, being an absolute financial greenhorn, he actually believed that giving-out a few trillion in bail-outs wouldn't hurt his great plans–e.g., health-care on the public dime, cross-country high-speed rail, and a massive government working under him. He must have really believed that 'cash for clunkers' and his 'shovel-ready' stimulus were going to solve the economic crises.

        So ineffectual was the man, that he didn't even bother do perform the most basic of his job tasks, i.e., put-together and pass a Federal budget during the period of time that the Democrats held the clearly majority in both chambers of the Congress. This mistake led him to caving-in completely on the Bush tax extensions for the fabulously exchange for nothing more than the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' (another bit of Clinton legislation). He also allowed Ben Bernanke to control the economy–Bernanke, of course, is the man whose economic doctrine says–in part–that the answer to an economic downturn is to simply print more money–laughably sophomoric.

        Now, Mr. Obama's weak leadership, limited financial understanding, and fear of election loss have him bending-over backward to the Republicans. Whether the GOP is or isn't doing something good or bad, isn't the point. The point is that we have a chief executive who needs to build us a shelter against a storm, yet is only capable of making sand castles and mud pies.

        He really ought to do the honorable thing now...and thereby allow Joe Biden to take-over. At least Joe actually has political experience. At least Joe is capable of making plan, gathering support and pushing through legislation.

        July 25, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • alars

      Well said, I totally agree. What happened to "Ask not what your Country can do for you..." I for one would shoulder more tax burden to return our country to where it should be. And for those that believe more dollars should have gone to small business, you're wrong. I work in staffing and employment comes from mid to large companies. The small companies don't have the ability to grow at the pace we need...just saying.

      July 25, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
      • Woody Brown

        True. Looking to glean revenue out of either individual income tax or that of small business is laughable ineffectual. Whatever tax individuals pay comes from their employers...individual income tax just amounts to panning gold down-stream, rather than mining it in the mountains at its source.

        Further, small business is forever teetering on the edge. Small business is just glorified personal income. It's like being a moderately high earner with an enormous family to clothe, house and feed.

        Of course, the real source of national income come strictly from those multinational corporations which take-in foreign revenue. At the national level, all monies derived from domestic sources is simply a recirculation of funds already in-country. In fact, if a first-world nation isn't able to glean a sufficient percentage of the net income from corporations taking-in revenue from foreign sources, that nation will not be able to effectively stock its coffers to meet the basic needs of its in-country responsibilities.

        This is, of course, exactly what happened to the Soviet Union. In repairing that problem, Valdimir Putin, simply confiscated a number–and large percentage of–Russian multinationals. He used a considerable bit of their profits to rebuild that country.

        I'm not saying this is the thing to do, but a democratic version of it is necessary. After all, a government can only tap revenue where revenue exists. And that ain't in the pockets of us people livin' pay-check to pay-check.

        July 25, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
  27. Charms

    I pity the US masses and Obama...Republicans are holding both as hostage. Middle class needs to wake up and stop voting Repub. Honestly!

    July 25, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • TLew25

      The reason you should pity the US masses is we are not getting what we want "Cut, Cap and Balance". 66% of the US public wanted it and 74% want a balanced budget. Sorry Charms, but getting rid of OBama who doesn't listen to the people is what you should be thinking about. Btw, the US as a whole is right of center. If the media was conservative and reported the truth, we would be a lot better off as a country.

      July 25, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
      • duhTLew25

        It's people like you repubtards that can't explain what the going to happen to all the people you cut their programs for overnight? Don't you think it is going to cause a bigger problem? It is not as simple as your simple mind makes it out to be. Sort of like war during the Bush years; war is the answer for those with limited brain capacity.
        True leadership does involve the word "compromise." RP can't understand that, none of your teaparty rightwingers get that therefore you lack true skills of a leader.

        July 25, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
      • alars

        We need leader to lead, not follow what the American People want. Most that believe in cut-cap and blah blah, don't have idea one of what they are talking about. Our leaders have the information yet they still try to sell us that they are "putting soda in the water fountain." In other words, we need grown ups to help solve a grown up problem, not followers that do what the "American People" want.

        July 25, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
      • Tom

        Get your information from Fox news?

        July 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
      • Woody Brown

        Actually, nobody wants 'cut'. We only agree that 'cut' is necessary to stop the bleeding. What we really want is 'more'...prior to this crises, there wasn't enough money being given to the various well-needed entitlement programs.

        We want 'balance', as 'balance' would prevent us from falling into to this teetering upon bankruptcy trap we're in now.

        Most of us would like to 'cap' the filthy rich. Professional athletes live under a salary cap. When one's income places them in the top 1% of earners in the world...most of us feel that a cap at some fabulously luxurious point of annual income is not unreasonable and probably even due the great nations which provided them the freedom to become stinking freaking rich. Funds earned above that cap might well be better spent on assisting those people living a 3rd-World lifestyle in this 1st-World nation.

        Thus, what the majority of Americans really want is: a redefinition of 'cap', an increase instead of 'cuts', certainly 'balance'...and one more thing: capital. We want additional capital placed into the government coffers. We want to actually see the national debt paid-off–very much for the sake of our children.

        He want a hero to solve this problem. We don't want to be manipulated with alliterative bullpucky. We want revenue take-out from where revenue is taken-in...from where on Earth else could we possibly take it?

        July 25, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
  28. James

    The GOP will pay a heavy price in the next election. Obama and the dems have tried to reach out to the Republicans on every occasion and they won't budge. Reid's plan is virtually giving them what they want: spending cuts and no tax increase. I guess the GOP really are SPINELESS. They are so afraid of the madhatter's teabaggers that they aren't willing to compromise.

    July 25, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
  29. PhilG.

    Yea,it's too late.

    The Re-Puppy-Licans can't see past the tax breaks their rich masters trained them to fetch.

    President Obama has to be the adult in the ENTIRE THING and raise the debt ceiling on his own.

    July 25, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
    • TLew25

      I guess none of you libs listened to your fellow Dem Steve Wynn. I'm going to let you in on a little secret, he's right. Obama needs to go. Give him 4 more years and you will see how bad it will get. Anyone but Obama '12.

      July 25, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
  30. Sam Tellar

    Since the price of oil is pegged to the price of the dollar, seems to me we'd be paying at least $8 a gallon for gas if the debt ceiling is not raised. at $8 a galllon the US economy would come to a screeching halt..

    July 25, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
  31. LaVon Hummel

    no........ But it is for Wolf Blitzer:)

    July 25, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  32. Bob

    Compromise may have been off the table from the beginning. When the Republicans took the position that they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling if the package included any forms of tax increase, that meant two things. First, the Republicans would be losers unless there was a package that include no forms of tax increase - a position they knew would be unacceptable to the Democrats. Second, the Democrats would be losers if there was a package without any form of tax increase - because it would have meant that they let the Republicans dictate the terms.

    Thus, because a line in the sand was drawn, it is possible that the possibility of compromise has not really been there from the beginning. It may be that there will be some sort of default, followed by a series of stopgap measures to keep us muddling through until January 2013, when those elected in November 2012 are sworn in.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • FYI

      Bob, Just so you know. if there isn't a long term deal. Forces outside of U.S. control have already promised to downgrade our rating within 90 days. Any stopgap would not prevent the unpredictable havoc that could ensue if something substantial isn't passed by 8/2. Basically because the rest of the world would loose confidence in us. No one knows what the real impact would be but there don't seem to be any rosy pictures out there.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  33. FstEti

    Good God Barbara, get over the "racism" nonsense. I suppose I'm a racist for pointing out that you meant "rocket scientist" instead of "rock scientist" in your opening sentence? No, I reference it because you made a mistake, just as millions of Americans did when they elected a man without the credentials to be President and many voted for him BECAUSE he is part black. Had any other junior Senator attempted to run, he or she would have been laughed out of the room. I won't even bring up the unbalanced support from the black community that continues today simple because he's black. You want to see racism in action? Google the current support of this inexperienced President within the black community, then compare the numbers within the the rest of the Democrat Party. See a huge statistical difference? Why is that? It's racially motivated by black folks.I rest my case. Get over the whole "poor me, I'm black" thing. The man is simply not capable of doing the job for which he was elected. Oh, by the way, he wouldn't have even BEEN elected if millions of white folks had voted for "whitey" McCain or not voted at all. How does that work into your nonsensical racial claim? You, madam, are an example as to why race is even entered into the discussion at all. You sound like a racist to me............

    July 25, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • Why the Insults?

      I think everybody is expressing his or her views so why do you take offence? Look it is true that because the president is black that is why he is being frustrated, that is the same thing that happens to colored people in this country in positions of honor or authority, at work places etc. I can see he is the most frustrated president now in the history of America and what is interesting now is that this time round you keep frustrating him and we all sink together as a country when we default. For those of us who trust in God we shall survive the tumoil.
      Relax and stop the insults.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
      • Michael

        Well said...there is blame for everyone here not just our President.

        July 25, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • Miriam from Philly

      I just take offense to the claim, which I've (we've) heard over and over, that Black people are supporting President Obama because he's Black. Compared to who? The other Black president? Oh, yes. He's the first one. Why did Black people vote for Carter, JFK , Johnson, or George W., for that matter? Black people make up only 11% of our nation. They can't elect anyone by themselves. Black people fought and died for the right to vote, in our lifetime. This is a democracy. People can vote for who they like and for any reason.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:52 pm |


    July 25, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
  35. Fred

    The other day, some jerk talking head here non CNN reeled a commentary about "What The Silent Majority Want".
    He then went on to explain, in detail, what they want, and how powerful the voicless are!
    Needless to say, another one talking for GOD who, like others, divines what people think.
    Silence is GOLD'en to talking heads, GOD/GOLD, almost the same word!

    Reduce the deficit?, People must think that by RAISING the retirement age, OR ELIMINATING Social Security, OR,
    Paying 20% less to GRANDMA, is going to MAGICALLY lower the old SSN from thier paychecks.
    OR, by chopping MEDICARE, is going to do the same, going to magically lower thier contribution.

    I haven't seen legislation that will Raise SSN/Med deductions from your paycheck.
    I wonder WHY IS THAT? Wouldn't that be the SOLUTION if ENTITLEMENTS are such a big problem?
    Take a little more, problem solved!

    But, thats not the issue. The issue is STARVE THE BEAST, eliminate entitlements, eliminate Abortion,
    eliminate the Federal Goverment, eliminate the United States of America, while reversing the tax code,
    make those at the bottom pay %40 and those at the top pay %0. Even though there is no more Social Security,
    Med, keep taking SSN/Med out of thier paychecks, then borrow against it then never pay it back!
    It could be called 'TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION', a new phrase I just invented.

    So, WHO says HOW MUCH to starve the Goverment? How about 0 taxes? Then YOUR SSN/Med deductions
    alone will pay for WARS, Political Salaries and Privatization of its Skeletal function.

    As for me? I was life long Democrat, but the life expectancy just expired. I was drafted into the Vietnam War
    in 1971. Did I want to go? NO!! Did I do the duty? You bet your ___ I did, and have the scars to prove it.
    Have I always been a Democrat up until now ? Ditto! Did I use the GI Bill to get a BS degree? Yes,
    I extracted my due from the tax payers of the US for FORCING me into a war as a dumb teenager.

    Its time Ladies/Gents for a NEW third party. I'm enterring into the first LIBERAL 3rd party, and I don't mean
    the John Berchers!

    I will never vote for a Republican, and suredly will NEVER, EVER vote for a Democrat as long as I live.
    Those who think like me are encouraged to enter political races with the assurance of my vote.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
    • Marge

      There are so many people who feel the same way. But goodness knows we can't get a real third party started. The tea bags did but the had the funding of Dick Armeny and the Koch Bros. The Democrats who are Democrats have no Uncle Buddy to fund us to get us off the ground. I am sure that if we had a third party it would take off like a house afire and money would pour in. We should never ever elect a politician again. Once these creeps get in office they have a selective memory lost. They forget who voted them in to office and kneel at the altar of the super rich and corporations. Until and if we stop these weak kneed Democrats and radical republicans from taking our life away we will continue to gradually slip down the drain.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • buddha12

      fred, spoken like a true liberal. You say you would NEVER vote for a republican, or democrat. Why wouold ANYONE EVER vote a straight ticket? Can you say "Yellow Dog democrat"? Don't vote ticket, vote person. Do your homework, select the candidate that most closely matches your own belief and vote for them. That's the only way to gat Congress, or any voted on group to follow your ideas. No one is ever going to be 100% on your side, but never say never.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • Winston Wolf

      If we don't make change that can be believed in, change will be put upon us – take note of Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. and what their debt burdens are doing to their social/political model and independece. No country has taxed it way to prosperity. The Gang of 6 and the commission were forging the right path but our political leadership – the D President, D Senate and R House – don't have the courage to do the right thing.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • Adam

      I'm only 25 years old, but very well read. I agree with you on a lot of points, I feel like now is the only time in history where a legitimate 3rd party could win, and I do not consider the Tea-party a real 3rd party, they are basically just an extreme GOP.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
    • Bruce in VA

      Nice hyperbole, Fred, and from the heart. But it is a figment of your imagination. Who want to eliminate the programs you listed? Show me the proposal. Provide a link. You can't. Most people realize that entitlements need to be addressed. We can do so sooner or we can do so later. Currently the top 1% pays 40% of the income taxes received by the IRS. The top 5%/ they pay 60%, and the top 10%? 70%. Half of the filers pay no FIT at all. How would you like to adjust those numbers? Please be specific. In the mean time, I have to sleep at night knowing that my family of 3 (including my 7 year old daughter) is on the hook for about $150,000 to Uncle Sam.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
    • brianscottthomas


      i have the same sentiments about a 3rd party in america but it should be a moderate centrist party. the far left base of the democrats and far right base of the republicans are whats destroying this country and lead to partisanship and gridlock. Most polices and best ones are the ones in the center

      July 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
  36. Rory Matthews

    I never thought I'd say this but this sitting Congress seems determined to succeed where the 9/11 terrorist failed, that being the destruction of the American economy.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  37. Jo from Eustace, TX

    They will come up with a bare minimum deal to stave off default temporarily, as usual. Then they will be having the same argument in a couple of months and over and over again til the cows come home. I see no indication that things will ever change in this polarized political climate. Each side is much too willing to gather up their toys in a huff and stomp off. Real people out here are exceedingly tired of watching this circus, and I truly believe if it were not so hot outside there would be angry masses marching on Washington.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  38. SueAnne

    If there is a default "train wreck" it ain't going to be pretty. Far from it. Then those who let it happen, i.e. Congress, should be tried for treason.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
  39. An INDEPENDENT from NOW on !!

    The other day, some jerk talking head here non CNN reeled a commentary about "What The Silent Majority Want".
    He then went on to explain, in detail, what they want, and how powerful the voicless are!
    Needless to say, another one talking for GOD who, like others, divines what people think.
    Silence is GOLD'en to talking heads, GOD/GOLD, almost the same word!

    Reduce the deficit?, People must think that by RAISING the retirement age, OR ELIMINATING Social Security, OR,
    Paying 20% less to GRANDMA, is going to MAGICALLY lower the old SSN from thier paychecks.
    OR, by chopping MEDICARE, is going to do the same, going to magically lower thier contribution.

    I haven't seen legislation that will Raise SSN/Med deductions from your paycheck.
    I wonder WHY IS THAT? Wouldn't that be the SOLUTION if ENTITLEMENTS are such a big problem?
    Take a little more, problem solved!

    But, thats not the issue. The issue is STARVE THE BEAST, eliminate entitlements, eliminate Abortion,
    eliminate the Federal Goverment, eliminate the United States of America, while reversing the tax code,
    make those at the bottom pay %40 and those at the top pay %0. Even though there is no more Social Security,
    Med, keep taking SSN/Med out of thier paychecks, then borrow against it then never pay it back!
    It could be called 'TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION', a new phrase I just invented.

    So, WHO says HOW MUCH to starve the Goverment? How about 0 taxes? Then YOUR SSN/Med deductions
    alone will pay for WARS, Political Salaries and Privatization of its Skeletal function.

    As for me? I was life long Democrat, but the life expectancy just expired. I was drafted into the Vietnam War
    in 1971. Did I want to go? HELL NO!! Did I do the duty? You bet your ass I did, and have the scars to prove it.
    Have I always been a Democrat up until now ? Ditto! Did I use the GI Bill to get a BS degree? Hell yes,
    I extracted my due from the tax payers of the US for FORCING me into a war as a dumb teenager.

    Its time Ladies/Gents for a NEW third party. I'm enterring into the first LIBERAL 3rd party, and I don't mean
    the John Berchers!

    I will never vote for a Republican, and suredly will NEVER, EVER vote for a Democrat as long as I live.
    Those who think like me are encouraged to enter political races with the assurance of my vote.

    Silent No More

    July 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  40. Bob in LA

    Politically speaking, HOW IS IT that John Boehner- Speaker of the House – gets air time from the networks 2 minutes after President Obama speaks tonight. Surely the Fairness Doctrine isn't in force? If the Speaker just goes and asks for/demands airtime, the networks give it to him?

    And if Republicans and Teaparty-ers (i.e. Michelle Bachman) DONT BELIEVE anything will happen if the U.S. defaults, CALL THEIR BLUFF and shut down the government on Wednesday August 3rd.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
    • FstEti

      If I read your post correctly, then in your world only the Democrat President should be given air time to make political statements and the Republicans shouldn't, and that is your definition or "The Fairness Doctrine"? Seems a tad hypocritical to me.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
      • Bob in LA

        Barack Obama is PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. John Boehner is not. Deference is due the President, not anybody else.

        And if the "Fairness Doctrine" were in force and active – which it is not – mandating equal airtime for speakers from both sides of the aisle to be aired, FOX-11 LA would have had to air President Obama's Sunday night announcement that Osama Bin Laden had been killed - which it didn't.

        July 25, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
      • Bob in LA

        And the deference is due the PRESIDENT, regardless of party (DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN) affiliation.

        July 25, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
    • Adam

      That is a dumb idea. You know from history that they will have all their talking heads blame obama, and the USA overall will be SO MUCH worse off. There is no winner if the USA defaults

      July 25, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
  41. len

    There is a saying; "Let the train wreck happen". And maybe the All Americans will finally realize what the Tea Party and GOP are all about.......The upper 2% and big oil.......Did you realize President Reagan cut taxes and we had a recession and created a 3 trillion dollar debt for the US.....He raised taxes 11 times during his administration. (Stated by Former Senator Alan Simpson Republican from Wyoming. (Feb. 4, 2011 interview with NPR).

    The train wreck will happen because 25% of Tea Party folks voted in 2010 and some independents believed what they said and the rest of us did not vote. This is a democracy...if you do not vote and do not do your homework and only listen to sound bites.......The train wreck will happen and then maybe we will wake up.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • Dawns Daddy

      Let the train wreck happen.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
    • Miriam from Philly

      Sadly, Len, I must agree. Social Security recipients pay Social Security taxes throughout their working lives. It's not an entitlement and is not adding to the debt. The Federal Government decided to borrow money from OUR taxpayers fund. Medicare recipients PAY monthly for Medicare.

      The top 2% will still be wealthy if the Bush tax cuts go away, or they pay their fair share. The extension of the Bush tax cuts has not resulted in job creation. There's no reason to believe they will now.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
    • Marge

      Did you also know he is the reason that social security is constantly being brought up, and scaring us seniors with it going broke. Social security first, does not contribute one penny to the debt it should not ever even be mentioned. Reagan gave the Rich so huge tax cuts he was not able to pay our bills, so what did he do, he took social security, which was a stand alone fund, and mixed it into the regular US funds. Thus the beginning of stealing from social security. There is so much money in social security's fund it is a big temptation to the crooks on wall street and the big banks. And the republicans want to make sure that these crooks get their hands on it. It should be left alone like it should have been from the start. It is not an "entitlement" like the right wing is making it. It is a fund that was paid for over 60 to 70 years by most seniors. Why is it that seniors paid the tax as it is called til they retired, now they want to make them pay a tax like penality again. It must be illegal. But who out there is working for us. Not those we elected to do so. They have dollar signs in their eyes and see only the corporations and the rich.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
      • Miriam from Philly

        Marge, Thank you. I just emailed AARP to find out just when the government started "stealing" money from Social Security. We all pay Social Security taxes all of our working lives. I'm on Social Security Disability and have PAY for Medicare. Neither of these are entitlements, and have nothing to do with the debt. We also have not had a cost of living increase for 2 years. that amounts to a cut!

        July 25, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
  42. Chris from NJ

    If our politicians cannot compromise where America could default on its "Full faith and credit," make them swallow a bitter pill: Pass a 6-month extension to the debt ceiling to provide for meaningful, thoughtful, and careful spending and tax reform with a caveat – If the Congress can't get a bill passed and signed by the president by then, spending cuts totaling 10 trillion dollars and tax hikes to 50% go into immediate effect. All sides would lose provoking something this country was built upon – COMPROMISE! Perhaps a better solution – eliminate the debt ceiling, pass a budget, then spend and borrow as that budget requires.
    2. If the Congress can't get a bill passed and signed doing th

    July 25, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  43. Rick101

    This CRISIS was artificially created by House Republicans to leverage against Democrats and the White House for major cuts in spending they would have had no chance in achieving if congress was operating normally. Instead of pushing their message and getting a mandate by the American people by winning control of both the Senate and House in November, the Presidency in 2012. They instead pulled out a GUN by refusing to raise the ceiling, put it to the heads of Congress, The President, and The American People, to force us to capitulate. Now they will take the Full blame for their failure and endangering the Government that they swore to protect, ruining the economy AGAIN! They have lost, we have lost, it will be reflected in November.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  44. Roberto

    Don't higher interest rates play into the hands of those who have money to lend at higher interest rates?

    July 25, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  45. steve

    The democrats are just like the people that leveraged their homes to buy cars and other homes, with no sense of saving. Its actually discusting that I teach my children the values of saving and sacrifce, and then have these elitist democrats spend our hard earned money with reckless abandon. I know we need to pay for services but there excessive spending is toxic for the US

    July 25, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
    • David Wallace

      Unfortunately, your argument lost ALL steam when you trotted out that tiresome "Democrats are elitists" chestnut – not only is that backwards in the extreme (in terms of which party TRULY represents the "elites"), it's a classic example of how "debate" has devolved in this country. Even when someone starts to make a somewhat cogent point, they go off the rails by saying something completely inane.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Marge

      Hmmmmm 2/3's of this debt is from the previous administration. You know Bush the baby cowboy spent zillions on his two wars and never included one cent of that money in the budget or the deficit. As soon as President Obama took office it was all transferred to the deficit which ran this total up so high. check on it. But not at Fox or from Rush they will make up another lie for you. Or hack some ones phone to get an excuse.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • Adam

      You might want to teach yourself, and your children, correct grammar and spelling.

      Second, I'm an independent (ex Democrat), and I have no idea about taking any of your damn money. Republicans took your money ($3 trillion to be exact) for the two wars under Bush W. Why are you not complaining about BOTH PARTIES> WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!! They want use to bicker, when we the US people should unite and BOOT ALL OF THEM OUT OF OFFICE

      July 25, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
    • Dan W

      Better check the history books Steve on the accumulation of debt and under which party. That is exactly what is wrong here. People blindly piking sides. Without objectivity for the silent majority nothing will change.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
  46. James Edwin Whedbee

    El-Arian of PIMCO said it best today, yes interest will go up, but the US Treasury bonds are still safest bet worldwide. What we're ignoring is that the US Dollar could very really lose its world reserve currency standing, and this is the very genuine catastrophe for our economy that Geithner keeps warning us about! I hope the suckers in the House of Representatives wake up from their own insanity before they tilt our economy into the next Great Depression.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
  47. John Gilligan

    I know monies have been moved from Social Security and never paid back. I know Reagan promised trickle down monies to the middle class that never happened. I know Clinton paid down the debt, so are the democrats more fiscal responsible?
    I know Bush 2 never included the wars in his budgets! The only mistake Obama did was tell the American public the truth in his budgets! The middle class continue to pay for the fat cats on Wall St and the 2 Trillion sitting on the side lines while they ask for more tax breaks! This greed must stop!

    July 25, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
  48. the_dude

    i'm gonna get my free stuff one way or the other

    July 25, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  49. grizzly

    The rich pay an average of ~8% in taxes. We pay ~30%. No do you understand republican motives?

    July 25, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
    • Nick

      Where do you get this? I work 65 hours a week, I make a good living and paid 41% of my income last year in taxes between federal, state, and property taxes. FORTY ONE PERCENT. Do you REALLY need more of my money?

      July 25, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
      • John Nemesh

        If you are earning more than $250,000 a year, then YES, we do! If you are making $50,000 no, you are paying too much. That is the problem, the people making FAR more than they need to survive are not paying enough to keep this country running! GE paid NOTHING this year in is that fair again?

        July 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
      • Adam

        bad accountant if you are in the top 2%. And he said average, dumbass

        July 25, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
      • James

        If you are making more than $500,000 a year then yes.

        July 25, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
  50. ashu

    should we be taxed more just because we did everything right in our life and became successful. I have spent 12 years in college and am being told by my accountant to work less for I might get taxed more. does it make any sense?

    July 25, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • Brian

      Fire your accountant. Even if you get taxed more, it is a progressive tax so you still would be making more money. Unless he is using some sort of strange tax loophole.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • Steve

      Are YOU the only one who "did everything right and became successful"? Millions others have worked just as hard as you...and likely because of no fault of their own aren't as wealthy-or chose to be in a profession that doesn't pay much. Arrogant statement, isn't it? Will bet that hundreds of people helped you along the way, too. GOOD for you and congratulations for your success, but your efforts don't just make up 1% of the population.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • Phil

      Ashu–I'm sorry you spent so long in colleee. You apparently didn't learn much!

      July 25, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
  51. RedNation

    Wolf, please report accurately. The President's proposal was for closing tax loopholes, not increasing tax rates. Please make it clear that the tax reforms proposed would only effect a very small percentage of US taxpayers who could well afford it..

    July 25, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
  52. Austin in Philadelphia

    How ironic: former comedian Al Franken, in his July 7th speech, sounds far more serious and statesman-like than many lifelong politicians. Many Republicans are behaving like infants. This is not a proud moment for the USA.

    July 25, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
    • Joe in Minnesota

      Not ironic, just predictable, that the joke Franken picks now to take the spotlight and play grown-up politician. It's not actually the highroad if you only take it as a shortcut for ten minutes, Al.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  53. Tom

    Dems and Repubs may never be able to reign in spending and borrowing. It may be disruptive near term but I wonder if failure to raise ceiling might be only way to stop the madness. Like cutting up the credit card of a spending addict. Just like an untrustowrthy spending addict desn't warrant a high credit score, I don't think our government warrants a AAA bond rating. It's not an accurate reflection of reality.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • Adam

      225 Years of paying debts.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
  54. cowboy66

    Anyone who has some kind of decent education and a little bit of knowledge about politics knows what the Republicans are trying to pull here. They are not interested in any kind of deal, unless it's all about there solution being recognized has the one and only way to "save" the day. Then they will have some kind of bone to chew during the up coming election season. Right now they have nothing to show off or brag about and they know it. They are playing a very dangerous game and i hope it blows up in their face. Only thing is, for that to happen a lot of people are going to struggle and suffer because of this kind of irresponsible behavior.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  55. Tom Simon

    Obama should exercise Executive prerogative and raise the debt ceiling unilaterally to take that issue off the table. He will not receive any more flack from that than caving into a ridiculous "deal" cobbled together at the last minute. We are not united as a people, and are in free fall as a government.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  56. Jiggs

    The Republicans are so good at saying no, they may actually believe what they are doing. I would suggest this is so transparent at this point it simply cant do anything other than cost them.......

    July 25, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  57. Jeff

    A real journalist would have questioned the veracity of that '$400bn' statement from B0ner, yet Wolf wolfed it down as though it were true. CNN: Reliably re-tweeting the lies of the elite for everybody to hear at the airport gate.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  58. Mountaineer

    Yes, President Obama was willing to SELL OUT his own Party so he could appear to be a moderate. Well, Americans are moderates and they didn't want to sell out Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Go after the fraud paid Doctors and hospitals. Ohio just found $100 million in fraud I think it read in today's papers! How much more is being stole on a daily basis!

    July 25, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
  59. Jeff

    The Democrats need a two-word sound byte the Republicans and "Independents" can understand. Here's one: Tax Fairness. Here's another one: National Priorities. We spend more every year air conditioning tents in Afghanistan than we do on the Space Program. We could have sent every graduating high school senior to college for free over the past 7 years if not for the wars and Bush tax cuts. National Priorities should be taking care of our people (which includes legitimate defense and not declaring wars based on lies), then taking care of other people.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  60. nytw

    it is time to throw the trash and garbage out. Hopefully, people will remember this on November 6, 2012 every incumbent running will be defeated.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  61. Dennis_CA

    The Republican Caucus of the US House of Representatives is guilty of High Treason. They all took an oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. " If the Republicans in Congress allow our Country to default on our debt obligations they should all be arrested and tried for High Treason!

    July 25, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • thoughtsjustsome

      To be clear it is the president who added the $400B at the last minute after weeks of negotiations. He and the DEMS are to blame for this mess. Bush warned the congress on 17 different occasions across 8 years that the mortgage ponzi being run by Freddie and Fannie was going to lead to problems. The DEMS blocked every effort to reform the system! $8Trillion later and the DEM controlled congress still hasn't fixed the mortgage disaster it created...and so the recession continues.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
    • mikey

      the treason is the mortgage democrats are placing on the backs of children and grand chlildren. That's treason. Live within you means. A balanced budget amendment should be part of the deal, or is that treason also.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
      • JLO

        Limbaugh et al have taught you well.

        July 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
      • y2kprep

        Mikey, You mean Bush and Bohner didn't raise the debt by 10 trillion? You need to recheck your facts if you think it's a democrat only issue. They all raised the debt. Bush, Obama, Bohner, Cantor, etc etc. Creating debt is only an issue when the House and White House are in different parties. Every other time, the debt get's voted and passed like an express train to the poorhouse.

        July 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
      • Westlake Mike

        Democrats?? More debt and debt producing policy (including the mess we currently find ourselves in) has occurred under Republican Presidents. NOW, so called 'conservatives' have issues with debt???? Where were these fiscally 'responsible' conservatives every time a Republican President borrowed money to pay for things we don't need, or turned a blind-eye to loose regulation??

        We can't afford the basics of a civilized society, but we can somehow afford tax breaks for those who lobby most effectively. Tax breaks are spending on those looking for a handout on the backs of the rest of us who pay our fair-share. Make no mistake about it!

        July 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  62. RM

    I have had enough. The prez and Congress should tender their resignations immediately. Adm Mike \Mullen to take over power not to exceed six months via a constitutional amendment. Under supervision of Supreme Court, his team will resolve all issues facing USA within this period of time. He will revert back to his original position after this period. New Elections will be held under a new democratic system established during this period which will include deadlines and performance standards for all actors. failure to meet these standards will result in automatic impeachment or resignations. PERIOD. Americans will not stand for this circus anymore. It is a disgrace to our nation. USA is burning while the Prez keeps talking, Congress keeps spending and Hillary keeps fingering nations and propagating war. NO MORE.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  63. gabbi

    we must leave social security out of the mix. its backed by 9% of the treasury bonds, thats like cutting out China 8%, banks 2%, your private retirement funds 3%, and much more. it will all go world wide if we default, do you really want to go there?

    July 25, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  64. MainerTom

    It's time to break this impasse (or at least prevent future suicidal paralysis in Congress) - by taking this pledge: WE PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST ANY CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE - REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT - WHO DOES NOT SHOW URGENCY AND COMPROMISE IN THIS DEBT-CEILING AND DEBT-REDUCTION CRISIS. Let's clean house and start improving our financial standing!

    July 25, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  65. rob klein


    Why should the Republicans agree to an 11th hour demand from Obama for $400 billion more in taxes. Why can't Obama just drop his last minute demand? You should have been neutral, not pro-Obama

    July 25, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • Dave

      The truth is pro-Obama when you desperately wish Obama were wrong.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • MainerTom

      Most global economists confirm that reducing the U.S. debt will require revenue increases as well as spending cuts. Both have to be made judiciously - ideally in ways which will not push us into a Depression. But we need BOTH. So let's stop dancing around the issue of what color fire extinguisher to use to put out this fire! That's why the polls show most of us very much approving what this President is trying to do: REACH COMPROMISE. (How about trying compromise, yourself?)

      July 25, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • Jeff

      They way I understand it is that extra $400 billion thing didn't happen. Remember both sides saying they weren't close to a deal on Thursday? Yeah, well there was no deal, it's not like Obama tried to end run it in.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • mooseman

      What bias??? Just because he brought up Obama first? What he was pointing out is that both "leaders in representation" were willing to take it down a notch at the loss of support from people like yourself in order to try to bring an end to this. The recession is NOT over, people who will be retiring within 10 years have so much entitlement that it's ripping everyone a new a-hole, jobs are out there but people are working in areas that they never wanted to be in (but have to because there is no other way to make it), and all the while people are saying "well what about ME!?" Needless to say, I'm tired of both sides and neither one of them being right... but at the same time neither side is willing to compromise and be a real politician nor a real American.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  66. BlackDynamite

    The sad part is this is Congress' mess, not the President's.
    He shouldn't have to do this FOR THEM!
    I wouldn't take responsibility for THEIR MESS

    July 25, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • jon

      We all know what this whole thing is REALLY about. It is basically the Republicans trying their darndest to make the President look bad. ANY idea he puts forth will be rejected so that he cannot claim credit for anything. I don't care who gets the credit – those clowns need to DO SOMETHING, ideally something to help the American people. What a novel idea heh?

      July 25, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  67. len

    I have no sympathy for those who decided to throw President Obama under the bus in 2010 and thought the GOP and Tea Party folks would do better. If you switched your vote (for whatever reason...independents) or did not vote in protest, you get what you vote for (or failed to vote). The middle class and poor are/will continue to get screwed!!! Just look what has happened in the States that elected GOP governors(NJ, Wis., Ohiio, Indiana, FL etc) Next time do your homework and vote for those who care about all Americans instead of the top 2% and big oil!!!

    And CNN report the news correctly, investigate, ask tough questions of all politicians (EX. Candy Crowley this Sunday, you gave Pawlenty a big pass, he did not tell the truth many times and you did not challenge him) and just stop reporting sound bites...Air the statement!!

    July 25, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  68. gabbi

    the debt we owe is to those who hold our treasury bonds, here is the list:

    •Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
    •Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
    •Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
    •Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
    •Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
    •Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
    •Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
    •State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
    •Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)
    •United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
    •Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
    •State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
    •Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
    •U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
    •China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)
    •The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
    •Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)

    July 25, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • Jeff

      As you can see, most of the money is owed to ourselves. If we default, it will cause immediate hyperinflation and a severe depression for the US and the rest of the world using the dollar as a reserve currency. Don't bother with gold, the only assets worth money will be useful, edible, or combustible.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
      • Ben in LA

        And I planned a trip to Europe in September. Sucks to be me.

        July 25, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
  69. JW

    Congress! Put your pay "on the table".

    July 25, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • MainerTom

      You speak my mind! Let's cut Congressional salaries, pensions, and health-care benefits! Better yet, let's be a lot more serious and sober when we vote next time and stop electing politicos who have no financial knowledge or financial management experience.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  70. Jiggs

    We just watched the millionaires fight the billionaires and we get to pay hundreds to bring our kids to a football game! Lucky us..... Perhaps the politicians in Washington should have paid some attention to that disgrace and learned something.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  71. Ben in LA

    Yes, Wolf, the deal will fall apart because of that $400 billion. It's mostly a shame for the "small government" advocates. The offer that Obama made was the best offer they've received in decades. And they walked away...

    Negotiation is a tricky thing. But to be an effective negotiator, you need to know how to say "YES!!!" once you've gotten a great deal.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  72. Yossi in Levittown

    I'm as compassionate and kind-spirited as most people (!), but there's something I've never understood and don't understand now: If we are so broke and have to be subjected to these hooligan discussions in Washington, where do we get the $160 million dollars to send to Somalia and other countries? I'm NOT being isolationist. But where is this money and when do we use it for ourselves instead of adding burden to the elderly and poor?

    July 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • jUSTICE

      That's simply, we borrow the money from China...silly

      July 25, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  73. Barbara

    Lets put aside all of these other issues and lets be real, you don't have to be a rock scientist to figure out what is going on. We have the first African American president and then we have a group of people who vowed to get him out before he started the job. Are we afraid to say the word and admit what is at play here, "Racism" and in addition I have found the republican party to be the party who believes in "kicking the elderly, and middle class to the curb and do everything they can to protect big business and the rich" Same thing applies to business leaders we know must of them are republicans and are not hiring because they want this president to be a failure., and if he were out of office tomorrow they would suddenly start to hirer. Its a game and while I am not a game player, it easy to see what is going on. While many will never admit it racism is very strong in this country. And ever with barriers President Obama has accomplished many things but it seems the focus is on him as if he is the bad guy. If he had been stronger then they would say he could not handle the stress The behaviour of the republicans has guaranteed they will not receive my vote,and I know I am not the only one who feels this way. I am a straight talker, no politics here.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • len


      Finally someone who really sees the truth. You are so right. The Tea Party and some GOPers poisoned the American people with their hate toward President Obama. We would not be having this discussion if we had an old white man in the oval office. Unfortunately, 2010 election brought out all the racists and many others did not vote. 25% of the population won that election. We must vote in 2012!

      July 25, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • earlerich

      The very wealthy feel that their earnings are a reflection of how productive they are and so they don't owe anyone anything. They forget that whether they became wealthy through inheritance or hard work they did so in a secure environment and economy paid for by the lives and sacrificies of our military personel which consist for the most part of poor and middle class Americans. The wealthy are selfish, selfish, selfish. I can not understand why anyone who is not very wealthy would be a Republican, which is a party that caters only to the interests of the very wealthy.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
    • thoughtsjustsome

      Right... just like all those attacks on Clarence Thomas were driven by racial hatred on the left. Stupid. It's not racism...the man has no experience as a leader or in governance... He's doing a C- job as the President of our United States, but not because he's black. He had no business being elected President . He was a rookie senator with the thinnest resume of any President in our History. Obama wasn't ready for primetime and that has zip to do with his race. You are delusional if you believe that this is about race. There are racist in America, but not enough to impact the politics of our nation. If you keep telling yourself that race is the issue, you'll never be a part of the real solution.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • Jesse from KC

      I'm SICK and TIRED of everyone who opposes the President's policies being labeled a racist. I voted for Obama in '08, I'll probably vote for him in 2012, and I DO support most of his policies.

      However, much as the people who actually ARE racists against Obama weaken the case for those who oppose him on policy, you weaken the stance of those of us who support him based off of policy.

      If the only defense you can come up with to those who don't support Obama is "they're racist", then you're an idiot. You undermind EVERY argument I have to support Obama when you say that, because now everyone can say the reason people vote for Obama is BECAUSE he is black, the reason people support Obama is BECAUSE he is black.

      Let's keep the argument on the level of policy, and not about civil rights and racism please, thanks.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • John

      If a black man called George Bush incompetent, no one would call the black man a racist, but when a white person calls Obama incompetent, he is immediately branded a racist.Obama couldn't have been elected to office on the votes of black people alone. It took white people to get Obama elected President. The fact is that Obama is half white and still incompetent. So can a white man be called a racist for calling a half-white man incompetent? Barbara, why don't you just admit that Obama is 1) the most unqualified man to ever sit in the Oval Office (2) a Marxist who is intentionally trying to destroy our country from within (3) a combination of (1) and (2).

      July 25, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • happyfeet

      You and your ignorance are a part of what is wrong with the country and playing the race card will not fix the problem.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  74. Marie Ewan

    Again, someone show me the money, the written bottom line of who is loosing what and who is gaining what. Are there new taxes? Are we taking from Grandma down the street? Are we just getting rid of tax breaks? Who truly cares how we got here, who is to blame, the reality of it is we are here, the debt is huge, spending is huge, and it keeps getting worse. Someone show us which side truly wants what. Lets see it. I am tired of being told this is for your good, well time to ask why is that, show us, prove it.

    July 25, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • The_Mick

      None of the Dems tax increases affect grandma. All of them are eliminating Bush tax cuts to high income people.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
      • josephine

        Obama already threw grandma under the bus I didn't get my cost of living the last 2 years that we get on our social security check.Remember the 500 billion the health care reform was to take from medicare that also is showing up on my co-pays.Obama has run up debt more than G.W Bush did in 8 years

        July 25, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  75. gw

    What was it that crazy rich Republican lady form Nevada said last election about second amendment rights? The Republicans know that those rights apply to poor people too? Anyone remember Marie-Antoinette and the storming of the Bastille?

    July 25, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Bryan - Illinois

      Her name was Sharon Angle (sp?) but she actually was not that rich at all. She is like many lower to middle class Americans who either side with the Republicans over social issues or that they believe that the Republicans are actually trying to give them the tax breaks. When Republicans leaders talk about keeping taxes low on individuals and small businesses they mean the rich and hedge funds (which count as small businesses) and not your common hard working American. I actually think the Democratic party would be a lot stronger if it were not the social issues such as Abortion, gay rights and gun control that get in the way.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
      • Roger

        And Sharron Angle got most of her income from a government pension her husband gets every month. The irony of this is so delicious as to be painful.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
    • Jeff

      Yes, Sharon Angle and Second Amendment Remedies. You're probably confusing her with Meg Whitman, former e-Bay executive, who was running (and soundly defeated) in California.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  76. Marie Ewan

    Okay so maybe I am a simple person, with simple views, we hear, ones side says this, one side says that. Well show us, the American people, just what those tax revenues were/are, just what those entitlement spending cuts were/are, and tell us which side you stand on, Mr. President and Mr. Speaker. If it is not politics, why aren't you telling us all the details? Anyone else want to know the whole truth, the whole deal, and the who truly is protecting who, the middle class, the poor, the wealthy, and the who knows who.

    July 25, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Dan in Albuquerque

      It is clear thqt the Republicans want to get Obama out of office and they're doing it by trying to force this stupid haggling to take up all his campaign time during the months prior to the election. That's why the short term deal offer. If necessary, the president should just raise trhe debt ceiling unilaterally and keep that decision in the courts until after we have a "FAIR" election without a 2nd do-nothing Congress forcing us to hear this ridiculous bull again. Then, debt ceilings should be voted out of our system to prevent it happening over and over.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
      • Moo

        They want to play political games with our economy hoping to win elections in 2012 and it's backfiring on them already, it's such a stupid strategy.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
      • happyfeet

        They are taking a stand now because they know it will not get done at all if they do not force it now. When was the last time this President cut ANY spending?

        July 25, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
      • Chris

        While I hate the turn these negotiations have taken, it would be a terrible decision for the president to say the 14th amendment gives him the power to raise the debt ceiling. There is a reason there are checks and balances. Republicans will scream fascism and independents will turn on. It wouldn't be the worst decision, but a politically suicidal one.

        The Reid plan is reasonable (given the options) and complies with the republicans sticking points – no tax increases and cuts greater than the ceiling raise. But given that is was proposed by a democrat, you can bet they'll decline.

        Unfortunately, the tea party is dead set on cut, cap and balance. And due to issues such as gerrymandering, every representative, boehner included, is scared of being primaried. The result is a government on the brink of default

        July 25, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Chris

      They have (somewhat)

      1. A change in the way the US calculates inflation in SS, this will amount to a benefit cut.

      2. Medicaire age will be increased from 67 to 70 slowly.

      3. No specifics that I've heard, but likely purging of discretionary spending (meaning many people will be laid off). Why do this in the middle of a struggling economy? I don't know. The effect of losing jobs will be far worse than the positive effect of lowering government spending imo.

      4. And all democrats are getting is some closed tax loopholes. They want to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but Republicans refuse to allow any tax increases. From what I've heard, that is one of the big sticking points.

      On that note, theres no evidence to suggest the House will vote yes on Boehner's deal. Around 60 Republicans have outright stated they will not agree to raise the debt ceiling without a balanced budget amendment (and along with that, requiring a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, making it virtually impossible). I'd bet another 50-100 of them won't comply with the tax loophole closing. Liberal Democrats may vote no based on the Medicaire and SS cuts.

      There really appears to be no solution given how far right this republican party has turned. Obama is giving Republicans more than any deal in the last 30 years and they say no. And a short term fix will likely be just as bad – we will be starting this all over again in a couple months.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
  77. Ranzabar

    "Moody's puts U.S. bond rating on review for possible downgrade"

    What more needs to be said? The cat is out of the bag. We're screwed. Thanks Boehner and Friends.

    July 25, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Kyle

      Did you hear that? It's the sound of your interest rates tripling. I'm not joking, this guy is right, the cat is out of the bag and we are in a world of trouble.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  78. Slim

    There is too much campaign chatter cluttering up the discussion. No one is working toward a budget, a deficit deal, or a debt ceiling deal. Everyone is positioning himself for a campaign. Damage control, blame shifting, sound-bites. Case in point–by metaphor:

    The metaphor I created for experts in economics involves this:

    One economist works for a company that sells red paint. He says, "If you want to improve your business, paint the walls red."

    Another economist works for a company that sells blue paint. He says, "If you want to improve your business, paint the walls blue."

    That much may be obvious. The difficulty arises when they cite the statistics.

    The Red Paint economist says, "Our study shows that red paint motivates employees. They produce more widgets. Your productivity will go up."

    The Blue Paint economist says, "Our study shows that blue paint creates a greater sense of well-being. Your employees will make fewer mistakes and the quality of your widgets will go up."

    What each side does not tell you, is that with red paint, the employees work faster, make more errors, and reduce the quality of the output; and that with blue paint, the employees make fewer mistakes and produce higher quality widgets, but make fewer widgets and reduce the quantity of the output.



    July 25, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
    • Rich

      Not a bad enology but the story continues.
      The paint came from China and contained lead so now we need government oversight and a complete congressional investigation. Both companies are temporarily shut down all workers are laid off and collect an indefinite period of unemployment until the investigation is concluded. Meanwhile because both companies are shut down we still need paint so that is being brought in from India and if you have any customer related questions you will be directed to a customer service representative in the Philippines.

      July 25, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
      • Dan, TX

        So, you don't believe the government should be allowed to make rules and regulate the amount of lead in paint?

        July 25, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
      • Gary

        The problem is with our cars, we keep parking them in the Wal Mart parking lot.
        "We have met the enemy and they is us."

        July 25, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
      • Mr. Ferguson

        Both great anaolgies, and both true.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • patrickfrommilwaukee

      the real problem is this...
      The almighty stock price is the driving force of the economy. In pursuit of that stock return CEOs across the land are forced to look for the most cost effective way to produce a product or service. One large way to acheive this is to seek the least expensive cost of employment. US corporations generated 2.9 million jobs overseas, and cut 2.8 million jobs in the US. We want our Walmarts and Targets and their prices, then complain about the lack of jobs. We are what we have created, and our portfolios dominate our decisions. We need to focus on US, spend our money here, hire our people here. We are lost if companies like Caterpillar and Intel and everyone else focus elsewhere. Grow the revenue by growing jobs, not bickering about..."As long as He is in office..."Help, as Jon Stewart said.."Restore the Sanity"

      July 25, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  79. kurtinco

    The rallying cry in 2012 will be "remember the default", paraphrasing the famous line from the Alamo. Only this time the enemy is not Mexico, it is without doubt the Republican Tea Party. To my friends in the South and Midwest: for the love of God, please vote these bums out.

    July 25, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  80. REG in AZ

    "Bipartisanship" and "compromise" just isn't acceptable to either political party and they instead concentrate only on their political ambitions, which effectively leaves their constituents "out in the cold".

    July 25, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • kurtinco

      replace the word "either" with republican and then you've got it right.

      July 25, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
      • Brady

        I am no supporter of the Republican party, but the story, as reported, is that the two sides agreed to the deal Blitzer is referencing and then Obama sought to change the parameters of the deal. If true, then it is clear that neither party is willing to compromise and openingly negotiate in good faith.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
      • Cumulonimbus

        So do you not see the democratic party core view in congress that entitlement spending cannot be touched (where our real and long standing future budget problems really lie) as up for compromise? Sure, the president is willing (apparently), but the democratic caucus in congress seems just as hard set on that issue as the republicans in the house are on taxes.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
    • Westlake Mike

      I would generally agree with you...Except that when 'cuts' amount to $3 Trillion and 'revenue' is $800 Billion (made up of eliminated loopholes on the most fortunate), then I gotta ask: 'Whose really to blame for lack of bipartisan compromise"?

      July 25, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
  81. Beck

    Don't worry Wolf they will make a deal and kick the can down the road and your grandchildren and mine we be left with the tab. This is the kind of stuff that angers independents and there aren't going to be any winners.

    "We will fall from within" is a true in that most great civilzations crumbled from within due to laziness & ineptitude. You can paint that picture on both sides of the isle very broadly.

    July 25, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • Dan, TX

      I don't care about my grandchildren, they'll figure it out. Let's see about getting through the next 10 years.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  82. Rich

    Wolf our government has had no balanced budget since 1969. They have always spent more then they have taken in. In 1961 our government spent less then 100 billion dollars a year. By 1971 the budget had more then doubled. By 1975 the budget more then tripled. Today the government budget is 2 trillion dollars or 20 times the size it was forty years ago. Our government spending is out of control.

    Our government has taxed us to death and regulated our business out of the country. They are not coming back so that means not enough jobs are going to be created to increases revenue. No Jobs no taxes. No taxes means a collapsed government. It can no longer sustain itself with all the spending it does.

    We can not take back what other politicians have done up to now. That dog won't hunt. All we can do is change the way we go forward. That time is now before it is irreversible.

    July 25, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • John

      I think that you missed 1999 & 2000, when the budgets were fact GW Bush was handed a 100 billion $ SURPLUS, when he came into office which was promptly refunded to US citizens in the Spring of 2001

      July 25, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
      • Rich

        No John that is a fairy tale.

        Year Year
        Ending National Debt Deficit
        FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
        FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
        FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
        FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
        FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
        FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
        FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
        FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
        FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

        July 25, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • Dan, TX

        Rich, he's not talking about the debt, he's talking about the budget surplus.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
      • Dan, TX

        Ok, 17.91 billion. That number can be cooked several ways I'm sure to be +100 billion or -200 billion depending on who's number you want. But the point is it was WAY LESS in the last few years of Clinton and that makes Bush's tax cut even more irresponsible.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
      • happyfeet

        hahahahahahahahaha really you really drank the kool-ade buddy.

        July 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • gw

      Why is it that you've conviently forgotten that the 2 biggest spending administrations were Reagan and Bush II ?

      July 25, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • Rich

        I have not forgotten anything i never mentioned what either spent because it is a moot point. We can not undo what has been done. All we can do is change the way we go forward. Both parties spend like drunken sailors, ( no offense to drunken sailors intended) and that wasteful spending needs to stop. Bush spent trillions Obama has spent trillions and it is trillions of dollars we do not have. Bush is gone and one day Obama will be gone but the debt they incurred will go on because we are doing nothing to curb it.

        July 25, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
      • happyfeet

        Why is the liberals have conveniently forgotten September 11th and the war the war that it got us into that a democratic house and senate approved. What would you have had us do run cry in the corner?

        July 25, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
    • Brian Dodge

      BS. The budget Bush inherited from Clinton was not only balanced, but running a surplus of $127 billion. Under Clinton the debt had gone from 5.2 to 5.6 trillion dollars. If Bush had continued the Clinton economic policies, he could have knocked ~1 trillion off the debt. instead, under Bush the debt rose to 8.2 trillion (inflation adjusted) dollars, 10.4 trillion current dollars. BTW, under the "fiscally conservative" darlin' of the Republican party, Ronald Reagan, the national debt doubled from 2 to 4 trillion dollars. If Clinton had been as "fiscally conservative" as Reagan, Bush would have had a 10.4 trillion dollar debt to deal with.

      July 25, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
      • rob

        You forget the recession of 99-2000 and 9/11 which affected the economy in very big ways. Even with that and 2 wars, Bush's deficits were coming down to as low as 171 billion due to the record tax receipts received as a result of his tax cuts.

        July 25, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
      • Rich

        It would have been a surplus had Clinton not taken money out of social security therefore leaving a deficit to the budget.

        July 25, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
      • Brian Dodge

        Ron, you're forgetting that the 170 billion minimum Bush deficit didn't include the 500 billion off budget cost for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the following year the deficit soared to 455 billion

        July 25, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
      • Brian Dodge

        Sorry – I meant Rob. As for the 99-2000 recession, it reduced tax collections in the last 2 years of the Clinton administration; if it hadn't happened, the surplus that Clinton handed to Bush would have been even larger – thanks for pointing that out.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • SSG


      I accept your apology on behalf of drunken sailors everywhere ....especially those of us who have been to this dance before, and can remember not getting paid on time.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
      • Rich

        I think we will all be fine SSG. No one would like to think that we won't get paid or our benefits won't go out. It kind of sounds scary when the president who never spent one second in the military goes on national television and tells the American people that if the debt ceiling is not raised they might not get their benefit checks or our military might not get their government checks.

        Not one time did i hear him say that the congress might not get paid or he might not get his check.
        There are so many other things that won't get paid before our military loses a pay check. Nothing worse then 100,000 armed troops in harms way with plenty of bullets when the check does not come.

        July 25, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
  83. David

    Its funny, when a program is deemed not very costly it always seems too small to worry about cutting, and when its a tax increase its always so small we might as well accept them. Ending a single worthless million dollar program means I won't have to pay taxes for the rest of my life, investing &/or buying things that will put people back to work. Now if we ended 100 million dolar, no 1,000, no why not .....

    July 25, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
  84. sue

    "We will fall from within" far I have seen what the President has said he is willing to cut in entitlements and cutting on spending but the stuborn Republicans are not willing to give one inch on raising the taxes on the rich and big corporations or cutting their loopholes (Boehner) had a deal going and he blames Obama for wanting more tax revenue but the truth is the Republicans in the House that support the Tea Party won't give an's his Party that is refusing to make a deal that is best for this country.....this will be remembered in 2012 when we vote again and they are going to lose all that they gained in 2010

    July 25, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • rob

      Please name one specific "Cut" president Obama was willing to make. He has no plan, he is not serious about tackling the real debt problem we have...entitlements. Like them or not, the republicans have put out specific plans that deal with the real long term problems we face and the ratings agencies want to see addressed.

      July 25, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
      • Dan, TX

        1) Increase in the age at which people are eligible for social security benefits. 2) reduction in cost of living adjustments for SS recipients going forward 3) Reduction in SS benefits to people with higher net wealth. That's three things Obama has offered to reduce spending just with respect to social security!

        July 25, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  85. rob

    Some facts left out of this blog:

    -The 800 Billion was after reforming the tax code to include lower rates across the board and a wider base. Exactly what Cantor and Ryan wanted and would have passed the house.

    -Obama added the 400 Billion at the last minute after presure from his liberal base.

    – Bernie Sanders is a self proclaimed Socialist who, along with most Dems in congress is not serious about reforming entitlements which is the key to our longterm financial stability.

    -If the president and the dems decide to go back to the original deal, Humpty Dumpty will come together instantly. But they won't

    July 25, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
    • Dan, TX

      a negotiation is not a deal rob. Obama said from the very beginning that the the Bush Tax cuts would need to expire for those making over $250,000/yr as individuals. That's what Boehner is objecting to – something Obama has said all along. That's no last minute surprise to me. Is it really a last minute surprise to you?

      July 25, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
      • rob

        I was pointing out that the 400 Billion was put back on the table at the last minute in these negotiations. It seems the Bush tax rates were off the table and Boehner thought they had a deal until the 400 was added by the president. The rest of my post here was adding the facts that Blitzer left out.

        July 25, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
  86. Mike, Albany

    The polls are not in favor of the GOP and their manufactured crisis. They brought this country to the brink of financial ruin one already under GW and his cronies, and now they want to do it again. Still think their motto is "Country First"?

    July 25, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
  87. June

    Isn't it interesting how people are so free with others money. My husband and work in our own company for 20+ years with few vacations and built something. We pay a lot of taxes and more than our fiar share but 50% of the country pays no Federal taxes. I would be willing to pay more if there was an everyone paid 5% more otherwise tax planning will become even more important than it aleady is..

    July 25, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • Dan, TX

      Hi June, 50% of the country that pays no taxes is exactly what the republican party wanted – in fact, they ultimately seem to want 100% of the country to pay no taxes. Is that the country you want? Why would you blame the 50% who pay no taxes. If the government had their taxes, they would waste the money on social programs and give it to illegal immigrants, wouldn't they. Oh no June, don't talk about those who pay no income taxes, they are saving America and creating jobs with the money they don't have to waste in taxes.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • SSG

      Hi, June.

      My husband and I are military retirees, and now defense contractors...contrary to what many believe, we make less than $100K per year, and when we were doing our taxes for last year and talking it over, one thing we talked about was that our taxes could double and it wouldn't kill us.

      What is driving us nuts is the possibility of our active duty son in Afghanistan not getting paid (yes, it can happen; happened to us twice,) and my mother being terrified to so much as buy groceries because she is now convinced that Social Security will fail her, and the less than $10K that is her life savings is all she & dad will ever have. It's hard for me to be reassuring; since our income is DoD dependent, and we have another disabled veteran son to support, we are pretty tapped out after the last couple of years.

      July 25, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  88. Joan

    If the Republicans play to their base and the Tea Party members in Congress, they may win the battle but lose the war. They can't have it both ways. A lot of people will remember these negotiations and you can be sure that the Democrats have tons of footage with people like Cantor, Paul etc. ranting on about no tax cuts and wanting to cut extitlements that they will use in the election campaign. Also, does something not seem really wrong when a large part of a political party is hamstrung now because they signed a pledge made up by someone who is not elected, is not in the government and should have no power in this whatever? It makes your democracy system look pretty weak. Also, the Republicans ran on jobs and cutting the deficit. They have done nothing to help with jobs but a fair debt plan with both cuts and revenue would help cut the deficit. They should put their money where their mouths are. They want lots of tax cuts which will hurt the most vulnerable and yet only want menial revenue increases that will not really amount to a lot overall. No matter how the media or Republicans spin it, they are playing "dog in the manger" and the world is watching.

    July 25, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
  89. Weezie

    i can't believe that Boehner hasn't shed any tears yet!

    July 25, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • kurtinco

      He will most certainly be crying when the republicans move to replace him with Cantor as Speaker.

      July 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
  90. Mark L.

    How much is the Grand Ol' Plunderers (GOP) paying Obama to make him turn his cheek the other way? Cuts in Social Security and MediCare on the middle-class? When my Parents literally killed themselves for over 50-years paying into the Social Security trust fund?? NONSENSE !! This is absolute ABSURDITY !! If Obama has it his way with entitlement cuts across the board, HE WILL NOT WIN RE-ELECTION !! And Heaven HELP US ALL if a Republican controlled White House and Congress takes charge in 2012 !! You think 1929 or 2008 were bad ?? Just wait and see what happens with a Republican controlled House, Senate & White House !! You see the demonstrations and revolution going on in Greece?? That'll spill over to the U.S.A. soon – GUARANTEED !!

    July 25, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Dan, TX

      Mark, since the majority of the voters want to cut social security and medicare, you can hardly blame Obama for carrying out the will of the people, can you? If the majority of people want to protect social security and medicare, they should have voted.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:36 pm |

    All I can say about Obama is he is one more sick individual.

    July 25, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
    • gw

      Why? Because he's willing to compromise or because he's black?

      July 25, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • Westlake Mike

      ....that salvaged YOUR economy!

      July 25, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
  92. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    If Geoge W. Bush and the Republicans had been honest about the economy 2 mths before he left office knowing full well Wall Street wasn't the only economic disaster when he called McCain & Obama off the campaign trail for a national photo op knowing neither didn't need to be present because they weren't on the finance committee, this economic disaster could have been stopped, period. He pulled a fast one, he knew it, the Republicans knew it and sold it to us but not me.

    July 25, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • sonny chapman

      That's beed Lil W."s M.O. his whole life. Make a mess & leave it fro someone else to clean up. Gutless, spoiled brat.

      July 25, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  93. Ruth M., (Samson, AL)

    They should all put on their adult depends and do the right thing! And they KNOW what is right.
    Adjust tax loopholes. AND cut spending. Stop being stubborn!
    Almost any American housewife could have balanced the budget better than Congress! Women know what is necessary and what is fluff. We have to do it all the time. Just raise the debt ceiling, then give me a call. I can be objective and cut out a lot of junk out of the budget!

    July 25, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • SSG

      Go, Ruth!!

      I got into an informal discussion at the grocery store about a week ago; several women, different political persuasions, and we figured out that we could probably sort this idiot's mess in about 18 hours.

      Hey, maybe they should all be duct-taped into chairs in the closest produce section for 48 hours and forced to listen to those of us who really do know how to budget?!

      July 25, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  94. MICK

    The talks will fail until the Democrats understand we must stop the run a way spending.
    This country simply can't afford to provide cradle to the grave care for the citizens of this
    country. We need to end all social spending starting with Social Security and Medicare.
    Both of these programs are costing this country way to much money.


    July 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
    • Bill from GA

      Taxes are at an all time low, at least for the last 60 years. Tax revenue relative to GDP is also low (around 14%) Most of the spending is from measures put in place over many decades: Social Security (which is in good shape for 20-30 years) Medicare, Military spending (which the House just voted to increase by $17 billion).

      Why doesn't Congress (or some of you tea party geniuses) tell us how much of a payroll tax increase it would take to solve the Medicare issue?

      July 25, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • Northborough Dan

      I don't agree, but I understand your position. If/when you control both houses of congress and the presidency, you can do as you will.
      Meanwhile, why not take the saving on the table...close the loopholes that are going to be closed anyway when the tax rate are rewritten when Tea Party rules.....and then work on the 2012 election? Why be so bullheaded?

      July 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
    • mike in LA

      No president since FDR has increased spending as a percentage of GDP by more than George W. Bush, taking it from 18.4 percent of GDP to 22.8 percent.
      I have been a Republican for 50 years and I believe "W" was the biggest disaster since Hoover. It will take another ten years,NO MATTER WHO IS IN THE WHITEHOUSE, to get past it.

      July 25, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
    • obandon

      Fine, then give me back all my money I paid into Social Security & Medicare with interest and stop withholding it from my paycheck. You are also free to donate your Social Security benefits to whom ever you choose if you like. Social Security was suppose to be self funding and would have been if politicians had kept their mitts out of it! If I had put that money in my bank and would be extremely wealthy now.

      July 25, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Dana

      The task must fail as long as constituents don't educate themselves about the facts of the deal at hand. ALL of the proposals by the Democrats have included MASSIVE spending cuts, and not a single proposal had a ratio less than $4 spending cuts to $1 revenue increase. The Dems have come forth to meet the Reps more than halfway - where are the Reps? Clinging to the tax breaks for their corporate sponsors. Spewing lies about trickle down benefiting the common man, when the economy has been trickling UP since Reagan.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • craig

      Mick would you explain to me and the American people how Bush would have been able to invade Iraq under the Cap, Cut & Balance budget your party proposes, if the legislation could have stopped that we wouldn't be in the crisis we are in now. I'm for cutting spending too, but I'd start with a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afganistan, closing of many overdue miliitary bases abroad, and a major cut in the defense budget. These programs also need to be on the Republican chopping block.

      July 25, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • SSG

      Excuse me...didn't I hear your National Tea Party Leader say that only property owners should have the right to vote? So does that include the elderly, who _were_ property owners for decades, but are now unable to maintain their property and have become renters or nursing home residents?

      Does cash in the bank count as property? And when it runs out, do we just let them die? Many of their children have been financially devastated in the last few years, and their grandchildren never had a chance to get started. So who starves first? Or last?

      July 25, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Westlake Mike

      Fine Mick.... but where were you during the Bush years when we were borrowing endlessly under a supposed 'good' economy? Your type was silent!

      NOW you rest on Principle. You hold the full faith-and-credit of the U.S. hostage unless you get draconian cuts mostly aimed at the most vulnerable. But you're okay with tax loopholes and tax breaks designed and manufactured by-and-for the most fortunate among us. You've been duped into believing that the 'ole mighty capitalist spirit of the U.S of A. is in jeopardy if we eliminate 'benies' lobbied for by the very, very powerful few.

      The ideology is selfish.

      July 25, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • John

      Hey mick form montanna , WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT SOLUTION " cradle to the grave ? GEE lets ask are you young??
      Yes get rid of fraud in these programs , people cheating the system etc..

      July 25, 2011 at 10:57 pm |
  95. Millie

    According to Boehner's Humpty Dumpty quote, yes it is too late. Boehner, the Tea Party, and the GOP are living in a fairyland if they refuse to accept the crisis-at-hand facing all of us. How can they not include the top wage earners and corporations in solving our nation's budget crisis? With reduced services and benefits in all areas of the federal governmentt, aren't they increasing the burden of debt on those who pay the majority of taxes and on those that have paid the most into the system so far? Is today's Middle Class stupid enough to fall for the GOP's ploy of INCREASED taxes by following big businesses' lead of charging more for less, and then rewarding their CEO's with higher salaries? To quote Cincinnati's WLW Gary Burbank (Boehner's hometown), "Wake Up, America!"

    July 25, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
  96. Thomas

    More and more wealthy families are ditching the long car rides to rural summer camps and hitching rides on private planes to save time, the New York Times reports.
    A round-trip flight on a seven-person turboprop plane can cost about $3,800, on top of the nearly $10,000 price tags of these luxurious summer camps.

    Eric Cantor/Louie Gohmert 2012

    July 25, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
    • Guest

      We'll see how it works for you when every dollar you have is worth about 40% of what it is today!

      July 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  97. Former Republican, now an Independent

    Anyone who has been paying attention should realize by now, that the republicans are putting politics over the good of the people and the country and do not want to make a deal!

    July 25, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
    • sonny chapman

      "I want Obama to fail".–Rush Limbaugh.

      July 25, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
  98. June

    It will collapse because a lot of us that support Boehner do not believe it is a revenue problem but a spending problem. The Federal government already wastes ridiculous amounts of our money and he should not even have agreed to $800 billion so yes and extra $400 Billon is a deal breaker. Most of us prefer only spending cuts with teeth & no extra taxes. He has negotiated enough with Obama and we have a bill that passed in the house.

    July 25, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
    • Bill from GA

      If the credit of the USA is downgraded, it will raise borrowing costs. If interest on the debt goes up by just one percent, we are adding over $140 billion yearly (one percent of 14 trillion debt) that must be paid. Money that does no one any good. Obama's BIG DEAL raised revenue only $120 billion a year (1.2 trillion added revenue over ten years). No sane person would walk away from that deal.

      July 25, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • republicansRIdiots

      This is why when we have raised taxes, we have a budget surplus and when we lower taxes we have record deficits. When the taxes were higher we had the best economy we have ever had.
      You republicans don't realize when you redistribute the wealth it boosts the economy and the rich still end up with the money it just works its way up to them. More people have money to spend which creates more demand for products, therefore creating more jobs more revenue and the cycle is complete.

      July 25, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
      • sonny chapman

        Cutting Govt. spending hurts a fragile economy more than increasing revenue. Increased revenue mostly comes out of people who are just sitting on their money.

        July 25, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
      • MiddleRoad

        You are correct when you say that money being sat on isn't producing as much as wealth on the move, which will end up benefitting the wealthy. You are also right to say that the wealthiest must contribute, along with everyone else.

        The other problem is that entitlements as a share of spending are growing at a rate that is outstripping the US's ability to grow its GDP and etc. So closing loopholes and levies on certain overseas businesses, and yes even increased taxes, have to be joined with moderation of entitlements, or it is truly throwing money into a widening hole.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
      • Dr. Nick

        You my friend are true deluded Socialist. Redistribute the wealth??? That worked well in Cuba didn't it. Obama and the Democrats are damning those who work hard and earn a living. Maybe if the morons on this board worked and paid taxes they would see why people do not want to pay more. The government will waste your hard earned money. Every program that the government runs goes into the toilet. Medicare will be bankrupt in 10-15 years. Social Security will be a pipe dream for most people in twenty plus years. By raising taxes now, the government unfettered will spend more and eventually we will have another crisis. Then, guess what, they will want those who have to "contribute their fair share." Liberals do not respect hard work and want handouts and government welfare checks. The day will rapidly approach when the unabated spending of liberals for entitlement programs will run this country into the toilet. But hey, vote BHO back into office and carry out his and nutjob Pelosi's handiwork. Lol...the country will be in tatters.

        July 25, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
      • Westlake Mike

        When taxes go up you cry socialism!

        When taxes go down and debt is incurred, you scream at the democrats.

        You hate socialism but you're okay with an expanded military.

        You despise wealth redistribution except you are blind to the Bush redistribution that made the rich fewer and wealthier while the middle class bore greater hardship and more fell below the poverty line.

        Nice tagline.... if you're Joe the plumber I suppose.

        July 25, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
    • Weezie

      June, you must be one of those people that no matter what happens to the poor and middle class, and no matter how much the Republicans bring everyone down, you'll still be there supporting them. For your sake I sure hope that since you want the republicans to win this sad battle, that you're not one of the first to feel their lies, via SS, employment, or health. Remember, they won't care whether or not you supported them, it's all about their rich buddies!

      July 25, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
    • gw

      If you can't be filthy rich. everyone else should be even poorer!

      July 25, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • obandon

      Did you ever stop to think June that when you throw all those government employees out of work there will be even less revenue than there is now? The Boehner group, etc, were elected to Create Jobs, not create more unemployment! The lower tax rates for the "Job Creators" didn't create jobs, they did the exact opposite and created the slide super high unemployment under Bush. He gave them the tax cuts to be Job Creators, so where did the Job Creators put all that money? Sure the government needs to get their fiscal house in order, but extreme actions now will only result in a worse situation. Boehner needs to bring on the Jobs, just like he promised!

      July 25, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
      • Mr. Ferguson

        The actual wealth creators – those who own restaurants, retail outlets, data security firms, the places where the middle class is created – benefit from wealth moving throughout the system. Look at the growth of the merchant class in the Middle Ages. There is a flexible point where too much concentrated wealth actually hurts those that create it, and the economy as a whole. It's economics, not religion, and a damn-the-torpedoes attitude by anyone of any philosophy is simplistic.

        July 25, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  99. mamabear

    I wish those who want "loopholes, exemptions and subsidies" to remain would remember that the existence of those items are all tax increases on the MIDDLE class of America. When big companies and rich people get out of paying taxes, those taxes are simply shifted to the rest of us. The middle-class doesn't have the Congressional support to change things because we can't make big political $$ contributions. You notice that no one in Congress - neither party - is truly listening to anyone but the rich and richer. It's just way too discouraging and depressing.....

    July 25, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  100. Dennis

    Why is it that the priviledged of this country are not willing to pay their fair share for the services they receive. The cost of FREEDOM is not FREE, but they are more than willing to send our young men and women into harms way to protect their way of life, but deny them the healthcare and benefits they need when they come back. Sure, let's cut some waste, like corporate welfare, military contracts, etc, but also look at ways to get the wealthy to pay the same percentage in taxes just like the working middle class. These people who want to only get and not have to give is sickening to me together with the politicans who support them.

    July 25, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • sonny chapman

      The rich don't share their toys very well. Especially those who inherited their stash. Guys like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton & George Soros, who made their money themselves, they're not as greedy.

      July 25, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
      • Weezie

        That's true Sonny!

        July 25, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
1 2

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.