No stopgap: Obama demands big deal for debt limit

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • WhatsInItForMe Orem, Utah
    July 12, 2011 8:58 p.m.

    Here's why politicians shouldn't be messing with the economy:

    One trillion dollars divided by 70 million working Americans (unemployment recipients included) equals $14,286 each.

    Multiply that times the number of trillions the Democrats have increased the budget by and you have a pretty hefty amount of money in the hands of spend-ready Americans.

    Talk about an economy booster!

    You can't SPEND your way into prosperity.

    You CAN spend your way into a depression.

    Politicians, especially Democrats, don't get this.

    It's the very reason why socialism doesn't work. It's too expensive. There are better ways to take care of people. And none of them have to do with the federal government.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    July 12, 2011 8:09 p.m.

    It's strange how people forget. When Obama was elected he came up with all sorts of rosy promises and promised change. Then he proceeded to start spending money as if there were no limit to it. Remember the bailouts and housing crashes, not to mention the introduction of a near Socialistic government, no cost of living increase for seniors and civil service retirees but rather a very sneaky and last minute reversing of a tax cut and sky high increases in health insurance rates? Remember the empty promises and the democratic congress and president running amuck and ruining our country? How did the 4 trillion dollar debt under the Bush administration turn into 14 trillion dollar debt under the Obama administration? Remember the jobless situation? 9.2 percent of people are without jobs right now and the economy simply is terrible. Anyone who believes that the recession has ended has to open their eyes and look at the jobless people, the high cost of everything including gas prices. Now we want more of the same for four more years? Why would we want to? This inexperienced president has had his chance. Can America stand any more punishment like this?

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    July 12, 2011 10:08 a.m.

    Re: cjb

    The 14th does not do what your liberal media is telling you it does.


    What part of debt above the debt limit is "authorized by law?"

    The president has no authority to borrow money. That power lies solely with congress per article I section 8 of the constitution. Before 1917 when the debt ceiling was first instigated every individual debt issued had to be approved by congress. Changing to a debt ceiling did not transfer borrowing powers to the president.

    If president Obama gambles on the liberal media's interpretation of the 14th, he will lose.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 12, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    'Where did Obama's compassion go? The Republicans push ..... Obama's folds.' - Rifleman | 7:22 p.m. July 11, 2011

    You mean Obama offers COMPROMISE.

    The Republican party, does not.


    *'Memories of 1995 haunt GOP as shutdown talk grows' - By Charles Babington - AP - Published by DSNews - 02/20/11

    WASHINGTON Few memories haunt Republicans more deeply than the 1995-96 partial shutdown of the federal government, which helped President Bill Clinton reverse his falling fortunes and recast House Republicans as stubborn partisans, not savvy insurgents.

    And when talking about Medicare cuts and 'compassion'....?

    Look towards the Republican party:

    *'Gov. Jan Brewer: No funds for transplants' - by Mary Jo Pitzl - Az Central - 12/11/10

    *'Two Dead Since Arizona Medicaid Program Slashed Transplant Coverage' - By JANE E. ALLEN - ABC News - 01/06/11

    *'Budget cuts stop Phoenix man from getting new liver' - By Michelle Ye Hee Lee - Published by USA Today - 11/17/10

    Medicare, cut in Az. due to Republican Jan Brewer:


    Two Americans, died.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    July 12, 2011 7:09 a.m.

    Enter the phoniest actor ever. It has been said before here it is again. Proof of an incompentent acting as the leader of the Country!

    He said as a Senator whose tradmark was voing present: The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americas debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government cant pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Governments reckless fiscal policies. Increasing Americas debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

  • Red Smith American Fork, UT
    July 12, 2011 6:23 a.m.

    We are GREECE. You cannot build security with borrowed money - Abe Lincoln.

    Where is our Abe Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or John Adams?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 12, 2011 6:22 a.m.

    re Rifleman | 2:21 p.m. July 11, 2011
    Salt Lake City, Utah

    "Obama is negotiating from a position of weakness and just doesn't have what it takes".


    Take a look at the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    July 11, 2011 11:34 p.m.

    Obama, you should have thought about this BEFORE you increased the debt by about 5 trillion! And those trillions of dollars sure did a lot for the country, didn't it? It didn't even make a dent in the economy! Next time, why don't you try listening to the economic experts. Better yet, let there not be a "next time" for you and let's get someone in office who knows the economy!

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    July 11, 2011 9:39 p.m.

    Patriot, do you have data that shows Obamacare is guzzling tax dollars, as you say? I don't even think Obamacare has taken effect yet, certainly not any parts that are "guzzling" our tax dollars.

  • WhatsInItForMe Orem, Utah
    July 11, 2011 9:25 p.m.

    Someone care to intelligently explain to me why it wouldn't have been a better idea to bail out every-day Americans instead of those institutions that caused the problem?

    Had all that bailout money been divied up EVENLY, regardless of payscale, to every working American (and maybe even to all those on unemployment!), there wouldn't have been a financial crisis like we're going through now. And many poor people would be helped (isn't that a lefty's dream?).

    And, the very companies that needed bailing out would have gotten so from those Americans who went out and spent their money on the things they can't now get, such as cars, home loan payments (to keep from defaulting), etc.

    It's obvious from what's transpired in Washington over the past several decades (or longer) that politicians know ZILCH about the economy, except maybe that it exists. They're not qualified to mess with it.

    And, adding to the national debt for social programs is prime evidence of that. It hasn't worked in Europe and won't work here. Europe's financially falling apart at the seems because of their socialism.

    Prosperity is earned, not enforced.

  • Int'l Businessman SLO, CA
    July 11, 2011 9:22 p.m.

    One big issue here is a little guy named Grover Norquist (who runs a group called Americans for Tax Reform) who has persuaded all Republican Congressmen to check their brains at the door and sign a pledge to oppose and vote against all tax increases. So basically, the world's financial system could be collapsing around us... aliens could be attacking and asking for a small tax in exchange for letting us live...(make up your own scenario here folks, it doesn't matter what, or how dire, it is)... and they will not budge.
    Next time, let's just send a bunch of pre-programmed machines executing predetermined commands without any human thought process to Congress instead of bothering to send Republicans. We will get the same value from them and nobody will notice the difference.

  • govt rocks Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2011 9:18 p.m.

    Anyone who doesn't think that a combination of budget cuts and tax increases are needed is afraid to face reality. The federal govt. can run efficiently by eliminating some unnecessary oversights, but the cost to get there requires some up front investments in improved systems.

    I would support a balanced budget amendment provided it means we do not get involved in other countries conflicts, the military budget is aimed at solely protecting US soil, tax breaks called "loopholes" are eliminated, and we start paying the true cost of all of the benefits that we receive, either directly or indirectly. And that it includes an inflationary clause that allows the tax rate to fluctuate up to a certain percentage each year based on revenue (taxes) collected by the govt.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 11, 2011 9:11 p.m.


    I have a better idea - CUT every ones individual income taxes then CUT small business taxes then get rid of Obamacare - the ugly monster that is guzzling all of our tax dollars like a 1972 Chev Impala guzzles gas. The result - you have more $$ in your pocket to do as you please (instead of having the fed's decide for you) and small business may just start hiring and expanding again.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2011 8:52 p.m.

    "Brian" EVERYONE will be on Obamacare in two years so Pres. Obama actually gave up nothing anyway.

    Just more "sleight of hand" on the part of BOTH parties except that if Medicare age is raised and Obamacare is repealed seniors WILL have to work an additional two years like you say.

  • Brian Wasilla, AK
    July 11, 2011 8:06 p.m.

    Amazing that they talk about Republicans going after seniors while making no mention of the fact that Obama offered to raise the age for Medicare from 65 to 67. That will leave millions of seniors forced to remain in the workforce for an extra two years to keep their health coverage. What impact will that have on the unemployment numbers?

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 11, 2011 7:22 p.m.

    Re: Pagan/Pagen | 2:33 p.m. July 11, 2011

    "President Obama has offered to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as part of a larger deficit-reduction package, a move sure to anger congressional Democrats who want to exclude entitlement programs from the ongoing talks."

    Where did Obama's compassion go? The Republicans push ..... Obama's folds.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    July 11, 2011 7:09 p.m.

    We need a Balanced Budget Amendment NOW! Anything short of this is more delusion and foolishness that will continue the bankruptcy agenda as perpetuated over the years by both big-spending political parties.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 11, 2011 6:34 p.m.

    Leadership. Got some.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    July 11, 2011 5:55 p.m.


    You're a one trick pony. I could use your own "trick" against you but I am smart enough to know that the president doesn't spend money, congress does.

    As for the rest of you, raising taxes on the rich won't put a dent in the budget or debt. It is a leftist attempt at redistribution of wealth. Let's get serious here. To save our country we need to make cuts in every department including defense, entitlements and education. We need to stop spending money we don't have. It is that simple!!!!!

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    July 11, 2011 5:06 p.m.

    xscribe, you are right that a tax cut would not stimulate jobs at this point. But unless tax increases are very specifically targeted to people who are just holding on to their wealth, and used specifically to create new jobs in the public sector, tax increases will not stimulate jobs either.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    July 11, 2011 4:51 p.m.

    Why should it be necessary to raise the debt ceiling if cuts are going to be made? How can you say you cut anything if you increase your debt to a higher ceiling? That's the very opposite of of a cut. What's the point of raising a debt ceiling if you don't plan on taking on more debt?

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    July 11, 2011 4:45 p.m.

    @Counter Intelligence: If cutting taxes is the way to stimulate jobs, then we should be seeing some jobs by now, correct? Because there has been a tax decrease in your Social Security, and the president left all the Bush-era tax cuts in place. There has been absolutely zero increase in taxes under this administration, the big corporation that Boehnner says need the tax loopholes they injoy are still in place, yet no jobs are being created? Huh! Guess that doesn't work after all. So, the fact that republicans won't budge on simply getting rid of tax loopholes that only the big corporation enjoy and not the rest of us smacks of greed to me!

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    July 11, 2011 4:45 p.m.

    I want to believe that it's only a coincidence that paying for the government's financial obligations at this point would require the confiscation of pretty much the entire nation's wealth. I want to believe that nobody planned it that way, and I want to believe that our politicians have every intention of reversing this condition. I want to believe that it won't require a violent revolution to stop the government for putting any further financial burdens on its citizens. It doesn't matter that they haven't raised your taxes yet. They'll either tax you for it later, or they'll devalue your currency so badly that it might as well have been taxes.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    July 11, 2011 4:32 p.m.

    I will also point out, that even if an agreement isn't reached by August 2 that does not mean a default.

    The Treasury controls payments on US debt, not Congress. They have a number of powers at their disposal and several cards they can play... and Geithner has already said that a default will not happen on his watch. Congress can fight it out all they want, they can shut the whole government down, but that debt will still be paid on time.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    July 11, 2011 4:24 p.m.

    I have no confidence in our government's ability to compromise and solve the spending/debt crisis.

    The ideal solution calls for massive cuts in government spending along with hefty tax hikes... and neither party will agree to it.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    July 11, 2011 4:14 p.m.

    Normally, I'd support increasing taxes. But at the rate we are spending money, as if we're not in a recession, I simply can't. Anyone who thinks we should raise taxes, now, should not receive an increase in monies, unless folks want to donate it to Obama's cause.

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    July 11, 2011 4:13 p.m.

    Re: williary, atl

    TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party constituents are screaming for deficit reduction through cuts in spending not in new taxes. And as far as the crazy Tea partiers are concerned the debt ceiling should not be raised at all so they are already compromising.

    Naturally Tea party republicans are going to dig in their heels because they were sent to washington for 3 main reasons: 1) Jobs 2) Stop and cut spending 3) Repeal Obamacare.

    The reality is the republican party is now split between GOP constituents who protect business, corperate interest etc and tea party constituents who primarily care about out of control government taxes, spending and debt.

    Expecting the tea party backed representatives to put new taxes and additional debt on the table is like asking democrats to put entitlements cuts and making a portion of Bush tax cuts permanent on the table. It just isn't goint to happen.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2011 4:07 p.m.

    "couples who make more than 250k aka small business owners"

    The vast majority of small business owners don't make that much.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2011 4:04 p.m.

    Hello this is Obama Cash for Clunkers Bank, thank you for calling, my name is Barry, how may I assist you?

    Well I have a $14 trillion limit on my credit card and I need more credit so I can continue to spend and keep you in business.....

    Cool...I can help about we increase your debt ceiling to $15 trillion and you can start paying us back in 3-10 years when I am not longer the bank President.....

    Sound familiar?

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2011 3:51 p.m.

    Anyone who thinks that Obama is being fiscally responsible when he offers this so-called 10 years $4 billion dollar cut in spending is fooling themselves.....its all a big smoke screen.....

    What Obama wants is more taxes to pay for his agenda that has not worked...its just more of the same from this big govt, big spending Lib Communist...hope and change has lost its appeal...America wants new leadership and the GOP is going to give it to them and fast....

    Can't wait for 2012......

    See above "Fitness Freak"~

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 11, 2011 3:46 p.m.

    "Speaking shortly before heading to the White House, House Speaker John Boehner stood firm in his opposition to including tax increases.
    Do you need to raise taxes in order to get control of spending? I think the answer is no, he said."

    This about says it all. Liberals believe the rich are evil (exempting themselves of course) and therefore provide a bottomless well of tax money for liberal programs. Liberals also think capitalism is evil (exempting their own private business enterprises of course) and believe (like any good socialist) that the government is entitled to ALL - and I mean ALL - your money. Get control of spending?? Say what?? Has Obama done ANYTHING EXCEPT SPEND AND SPEND AND SPEND some more since taking office?? Spending is all this man knows so telling him to cut spending is like telling an alcoholic to cut back on the booze at the next party. Ain't gonna happen. Let's remember that the 2012 election season is upon us and Obama has plenty of liberal programs to fund to keep his re-election chances alive so cutting spending is basically admitting to defeat for Obama.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    July 11, 2011 3:43 p.m.

    Make the cuts and raise everyones taxes if taxes must be increased. (over poverty level) Everyone needs to suffer together for the country to stay together. If you make 50k, you pay $500 more. If you make 1,000k, you pay $10,000 more. Tax increases need to effect everyone. The rich already pay for everything as it is. We all need to do our part.

  • Viva la Migra American Fork, UT
    July 11, 2011 3:18 p.m.

    There is already a big tax increase for the "rich" (couples who make more than 250k aka small business owners) which already passed as part of the ObamaCare bill, which will begin in 2013.

    I hope the Republicans learned a lesson back in the 80s when a similar compromise was reached. Back then the Democrats promised a 3:1 ratio for cuts to new taxes (they would cut 3 and raise 1). When it came time to actually implement it, the ratio was action 1:3 cuts/new taxes and Reagan realized he had made a huge mistake in trusting the Democrats to keep their word.

    If any business or family had a budget which had more spending than income, they would have to make some choices and eliminate all non-essential spending as a start. It seems that they government could make some pretty substantial cuts to their expenditures (cut off all foreign aid, cut off all social benefits to non-citizens (especially illegal aliens), reduce or end the life-time pensions and health benefits paid to retired Federal workers and politicians).

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 11, 2011 3:03 p.m.

    fitness freak seems to be from the school of when things are going poorly dig your heels and dont compromise even if the policies of the past have failed to deliver. while I agree the stimulus packages where not effect and services need to be cut the tax cuts for the rich and corporations have also been a dismal flop. It is time to put everything on the table, now is not the time to dig in heels by either democrats or republicans.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    July 11, 2011 2:56 p.m.

    Sorry Rifleman, not this time. Obama turned the tables when he through out the $4 Trillion huge deal. How can Republicans turn back when he is offering exactly what they and their Tea Party constituents have been screaming for?

    It's time Republicans took a seat at the big boys table. As Pagan said, they all voted without instance to raise the debt ceiling 7 times during the W. era. Now they've vowed to not raise it again unless significant cuts to the deficit are pledged.

    We'll those cuts are on the table. Time to be an adult after spending the last 3 years pouting and putting up road blocks to everything Obama has tried to do. If this doesn't go down, polls are squarely showing the blame will sit with Republicans.

    The Republicans games are draining on Americans. Obama has put cuts to Entitlement programs on the table, in exchange for closing ridiculous tax loopholes that only the wealthy can take advantage of. He's given some, while offered huge deficit reductions. Grow up and take the deal.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2011 2:42 p.m.

    We've "compromised" our way to 14 trillion in debt.

    Obama should quit baiting the Republicans and just get to CUTTING his budget.

    HE'S THE ONE who spent 800 billion on a "stimulus" .......that didn't.

    He's the one with the goofy "cash for clunkers" program.

    He's the one who forced the budget busting "Obamacare" on the nation. He could always cut THAT program.

    Republicans HAVE a budget and they shouldn't "compromise". Obama is the one who couldn't pass a budget even when he controlled both houses of Congress

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2011 2:24 p.m.

    That's how compromising works, you give some, we give some, and then progress is made. Unfortunately Obama is working with children.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 11, 2011 2:21 p.m.

    After sitting on the sidelines for 2-years Obama says he'll 'reject any stopgap extension'? When push comes to shove he'll fold just like he did when he pushed Israel on negotiations with the Palestinians. Obama is negotiating from a position of weakness and just doesn't have what it takes.