Obama warns GOP leaders: 'Don't call my bluff'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    July 18, 2011 9:32 p.m.


    Your statistics are manipulative & not correct. Obama signed 3 debt ceiling increases: 111-H.R.1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009, 111-H.R.4314 To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009) and 111-H.J.Res.45 Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt/Pay as You Go 2010. Obama will soon sign #4

    The pesky, inconvient, non-partisan congressional record(orignal source) makes it absolutely clear that the Dems controlled both houses from 2006 past the end of Bush's term. During which time 4 debt ceiling increases where passed by Dem controlled Congress, and once again you refuse to hold the Dem leadership-Ried & Pelosi accountable for passing these three debt celing increases. Bush could only sign what is put before him by a Dem controlled congress.

    So from 2007 Dem leadership (Reid, Pelosi, Obama) have passed a cumulative 6 debt limit increases.

    More inconvient truths you refuse to acknowlege: Obama couragously[sic] voted abstain on two increases and yes on a third in 2008.

    First term debt increases Obama 4 Bush 3

    Senate vote Obama 1 vs Bush 0. As abstain = yes in getting these passed Obama total votes/sign debt increase 7

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    July 15, 2011 10:13 a.m.

    The bottom line is, whose money paid into Social Security is the president threatening to withhold? YOURS.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    July 15, 2011 1:31 a.m.

    Seemss as if the president is threatening and walking out and pouting and saying don't call my bluff or I won't pay the seniors on Social Security or the soldiers fighting for our country? How can we handle four more years of the same?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    July 14, 2011 11:37 p.m.

    Oh, what this country would give just to have the debt suddenly drop back down to 10 trillion! That would relieve so much pressure and move the alert status from red to orange or yellow (which after being at red suddenly seems so peaceful).

    Here's the catch: if it weren't for Obama, the debt would likely have stayed around 10 trillion rather than boost up to 14 trillion. And you'd think that after spending going an extra 4 or 5 trillion into debt that something productive would have come as a result. Guess again!

    "Oh yeah, well Bush would have kept spending more anyway!" Maybe so, but his history has shown that if he were still president then the debt would have only risen to about 11.3 trillion or so by this point. That slow of a climb is much preferred to Obama's alarming rate.

    For republicans, it's a lose-lose situation. Either the country economy goes down in flames, and in addition to having a weak economy, Obama will blame his failure as a president on republicans for "not compromising". Or else the economy will recover and Obama will take all credit (even though he caused it).

  • Wildcat O-town, UT
    July 14, 2011 8:57 p.m.

    Debt to GDP ratio (percentage) has been much higher than it is today. We can do what we did in WWII and invest in this Nation. We have benefited from Eisenhower's Interstate highways, Roosevelt's CWA, Kennedy's Space Program, the computer boom in the 90s, etc. We can invest in high speed rail, rebuild dilapidated schools, build green technology, update our power grids, loans to more small businesses, etc. This could spark our manufacturing industries again and drastically reduce unemployment. Debt would go up initially, but the investment is worth it in the long run. This investment in our Nation would help us now but help future generations even more for the long run. I would be going down to Las Vegas more frequently if there was a high speed rail connection.

    Once we get people working again, we can revert back to Clinton tax rates and create budget surpluses again to pay down the debt. Only this time when some slack-jawed yokel runs a campaign saying that we need to give the people their money back, we as a Nation have to remain strong and continue to keep the surplus budgets until our debt is paid off.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 14, 2011 8:22 p.m.

    Is BO leading us into foreclosure?

  • MarieDevine Divine-Way Kansas City, MO
    July 14, 2011 7:26 p.m.

    We can eliminate most programs in our government and the cost of them if we turn to a garden paradise lifestyle and let the people help one another voluntarily as God intended, not robbing some to pay to strangers they may never know. God's way builds loving relationships. Our government tax and spend policies lead to hate, disrespect, fear and anger. That must change. DO NOT RAISE the debt ceiling. God warned against debt, interest, and insurance. It solves NO problem. IF we do what God says, He will take care of the rest.

    Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid programs cause more problems than they fix. They add the cost of multitudes of government workers and structures that must be maintained and paid in ADDITION to the helps for the people. The costs of medical treatments has gone up so high ONLY because the "government" pays the excess. We cause our own problems. Our Declaration of Independence says if our government fails to do right, we should end it and establish a new one with principles that can give us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have enslavement, too much death, and too much unhappiness and enslavement.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 14, 2011 6:51 p.m.

    Re: Pagen | 3:19 p.m. July 14, 2011
    "Obama has not cut the debt in half, it's true."

    You're correct. He's added to the debt and wants to add a few trillion more to it.
    Other than that little detail you're still totally wrong.

  • Woodyff Mapleton, UT
    July 14, 2011 6:30 p.m.

    If you listen to Petra everyone is entitled to a house, car, and paycheck. And the government should provide all these things. The rich and corporations are at fault. But if we look at the facts, if the government would get out of our lives, do what the government is supposed to do, more people would probably have jobs. The government can't create jobs and no one has ever gotten a job for a poor man. The fact are that $200B comes in each month from withholding, etc. SS and Medicare is about $100B, that leaves another $100B. But these scare tactics that old people will die is just a lot of political posturing. Obamacare should be on the table.

  • BJackson Farmington, UT
    July 14, 2011 6:23 p.m.

    I'm not a Sarah Palin fan, but I have to wonder what the media would say if *she* were in his shoes at this time and uttered the words "Don't call my bluff". Hmmmm... A few possibilities:

    (1) "She is the stupidest person on the planet! You never, EVER tell your opponents you are bluffing! NEVER!"

    (2) " ...'call my bluff' was originally a term used by gamblers who were lying about the cards they held. Many gamblers called her remarks ill-chosen and offensive to true bluffers across the globe."

    (3) "Why is she gambling with OUR money, on our economy? Shouldn't they work together to resolve the problem rather than bluff?"

    But alas, the media gives Obama/Biden a pass, and harasses any conservative that says something silly.

    July 14, 2011 5:49 p.m.

    And the Executive Branch stateside doesn't get paid.....Hahaha, yeah that'll happen. Wait, it could, they'll just bounce more checks at their bank.

  • Wildcat O-town, UT
    July 14, 2011 5:44 p.m.

    Watching the GOP try and appease both their Wall Street Overlords who don't want the default on the debt ceiling as their way of life would be ruined and the Tea Party crowd who like the Joker on the Dark Knight just want to watch the world burn for no good reason is very interesting to say the least.

    If you don't have enough income to make a house payment, you can't cut your spending enough to make the payment--you have to get extra income. The government is in the same situation--they can't cut enough (unless you don't want a military, roadways, or any sense of law and order). Raising the taxes on the rich, excuse me job creators, who didn't create the jobs is the best way to do it. We were promised tax cuts would launch prosperity or that rising tides lift all boats or some junk like that. Time to pay the piper!

    Bush cut taxes while starting two wars--poor economics. Obama is proposing raising taxes on 2% who can afford it while making cuts. Sounds reasonable. Most economists will tell you to not cut government spending in time of recession (ref WWII).

  • CJ Murray, UT
    July 14, 2011 5:33 p.m.


    Taxing on the basis of ability to pay is total nonsense. Do we set prices for food on the ability to pay? What a bunch of liberal baloney. And yes the President does have a lot to do with the budge.If it were Bush you would all be blaming him, since it's the Dali Bama you give him a pass and blame Congress.
    If you confiscated all the wealth of richest people in the country it wouldn't even put a dent in the national, that is how STUPID the tax the rich argument is. They are also the ones who create jobs so you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Wake Up!!!

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    July 14, 2011 5:09 p.m.

    Lone Star, Bush had a republican congress for 6 of his 8 years. And even IF a president has a democratic congress the president can veto any bill.

    Take a little responsibility. In 2000 the nation had a balanced budget. Bush took office and then we didn't have a balanced budget and here we are.

    Regan took the debt from 1 trillion to 3.5 trillion. Bush senior added a trillion. Clinton brought the budget into balance and JR added 5 trillion to the debt.

    You can argue about the debt but republicans presided over 10 trillion of it.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 14, 2011 4:43 p.m.

    Pagan--Republicans said 'no' to everything, and now your trying to 'blame Obama' for their votes.


    1. 139 filibusters has prevented even higher spending.
    2. it was with democrat control with obama care, stimulus package, etc.
    3. obama wishes he could get rid of every drop of white blood in his veins and would stand with muslims against the America if needed.-- wrote this in his book.

  • Lone Star Cougar Plano, TX
    July 14, 2011 4:30 p.m.

    Call his bluff! Social Security payments are under the president's responsibility as the funds come from the Treasury Department in which he is in charge. If Social Security is stopped it is because the president stopped it.

    The latest neutral poll shows that any Republican running against Mr. Obama would win by 10% if the election was today. He and his party refused to do a budget when they had power because they couldn't face it. The conservatives can and will. Conservatives will straighten out his mess.

    Don't blame Bush, he was dealing with a Democratic congress who puts together the budgets. This crises belongs to the liberals who have a spending problem.

  • Gregg Weber SEATTLE, WA
    July 14, 2011 4:27 p.m.

    Priority first. Debt, military, Social Security, Vets. and what the Constitution enumerates the federal government should do. If you have any left then pay off the debt.
    States don't need federal money with federal strings for their enumerated priorities. (Why send %1,000 to the fed just to get it back minus the overhead paperwork and with strings? Answer: Some want more federal control over others and others shirk personal decision making.)
    Same with counties and cities.
    Get back to the basics. "Gentlemen, this is a Constitution."
    I was surprised and still don't understand why LDS people would vote for Obama. The bounce back after he can only do so much evil is understandable. But in my mind to actually like liberalism, socialism and such is getting very close to the forced goodness of "and I will dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost".

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    July 14, 2011 4:15 p.m.


    You are just a shill for the Obama administration. I wonder how much they are paying you to spew your daily dose of falsehoods?
    And why in the world would you bring homosexuality into our little conversation of the financial future of our childrens country!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 14, 2011 4:01 p.m.

    Is it 2012 yet? Geez I am soooooo sick of this guy. This country needs to drain the swamp in the White House in the worst way!!! Send Obama and his ideology back to corrupt streets of Chicago and his fellow community organizers.

  • common sense in Idaho Pocatello, id
    July 14, 2011 3:56 p.m.

    You people here need to get a grip. A combination of spending cuts and revenue enhancement. That's what will get it done. Obama's using a middle of the road approach. Whatever happened to a moderate approach??

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 14, 2011 3:36 p.m.

    To "Pagen | 3:19 p.m." how about his one from Obama.

    In August 2009 Obama said " Normally, you dont raise taxes in a recession, which is why we havent and why weve instead cut taxes. So I guess what Id say to Scott is his economics are right. You dont raise taxes in a recession." Now he tell us that we need to raise taxes.

    As for Obama doubled the FY2000 debt in less than 3 years, why are you not complaining about that?

    How about this one "White House meets lobbyists off campus" from the Politico where we learned that Obama's promise of being open and honest with the US was shown to be an outright lie. Obama is keeping "these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public."

  • byu rugby Crystal Lake, IL
    July 14, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    Please call his bluff! He is the most transparent president in history. We can see right through his boyish bluster. His economic team has largely quit, even those in his party are questioning his statements, and he has yet to provide a specific detailed plan to restart the economy. He has nothing and, we can all see it.

    Oh, but his real priorities are taking lot's of tax payer financed vacations, playing golf several times a week, eating high fat foods, and traveling the country pimping for reelection funds. O' to have his vision...

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    July 14, 2011 2:59 p.m.


    Dear George: We've all heard the Left bring up Gates and Buffet and their "wanting" to pay more taxes. What we haven't heard is Gates and Buffet firing their accountants and/or telling them not to use the "loopholes"?

    I haven't heard of them sending a check off to the IRS on their own accord either.

    What I have heard is how they are putting their money in trust funds and other places where the government can't touch it.

    Please spare us the hyperbole. The Left puts all Americans in classes and then promises them the world -- which is impossible.

    And to whomever is calling David Frum a Conservative -- thanks for the chuckles! David Brooks isn't a Conservative either.

    Your Dear Leader is in over his head. Too bad the press didn't vet him when they should have and no one would have voted for him. Hillary would be a 100% improvement from this clown.

    Hey Obama -- consider your bluff called!

    btw, 69% of the nation says DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 14, 2011 2:02 p.m.

    Remember when obama said he would cut the deficeit in half? Now (in two and a half years) we face defaults.

    Time for another change with real hope.

  • carabaoU Moab, UT
    July 14, 2011 1:33 p.m.

    Everyone, especially Pagen, should look at history and see what happened to the economy of West Germany after WWII until today. Find out what happened on 6/20/1948 and what Ludwig Erhard did for the Germans. The Democrats and Obama seem to prefer the economy of early West Germany after WWII. It took a complete opposite direction to alter the course of West Germany's future that has large benefits to Germany today.

  • sergio Phoenix, AZ
    July 14, 2011 1:23 p.m.

    dbfox-Grand Junction: I take it you don't like your cake, or is it that you don't like me not liking my cake. Which is it; or is it that we neither have cake, or we have too much cake. Well, let's leave those other folks to worry about themselves, I'm sure it is all we can do to take care of ourselves.

  • defibman Syracuse, UT
    July 14, 2011 1:02 p.m.

    One of the biggest problems we have in this country is "Entitlements". Did you know that Social Security was NEVER intended to be what we use it for today? We have all heard about it for so long that we "EXPECT" it. Sure we have paid into it, but I sure wish I could have taken all my money I have put into it and invested it myself. I would have nothing to worry about because with all the people investing money themselves instead of Congress, we would control our own money and would have invested in our country instead of throwing it away by giving it to those who hate us.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 12:55 p.m.


    "If you stare reason in the face you will realise that we cannot"

    ...default on the debt like the tea party wants us to. I'm tired of you all saying this is about reducing the deficit. It's not. If it was Obama's 4 trillion dollar deal would've been agreed to, but Republicans rejected it in favor of a 1.5-2 trillion dollar deal. Let's be honest with ourselves here. This isn't about maximizing deficit reduction when it comes to the conservatives in Congress. If they did they'd put revenue on the table much like Obama put entitlement spending on the table.

  • dbfox Grand Junction, CO
    July 14, 2011 12:52 p.m.

    Phoenix, AZ,

    I hope you're still in school, you have a long, long ways to go!

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 14, 2011 12:44 p.m.

    @cool hand luck
    let me start out by saying TYPING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS" only makes you look childish.

    To your second repositing of someone elses post. The rich have enjoyed ten years of tax cuts that where supposedly going to "create jobs instead what we have gotten is no jobs, a failed economy and a massive gulf between the rich and the rest of the country. Trickle down has never worked never will.

  • RantBully Bend, OR
    July 14, 2011 12:19 p.m.

    I keep pondering if a deal is going to be reached. I am concerned that the economy and markets will just collapse, but that is likely going to happen if the outrageous spending practices are not stopped. There will be revenue that comes in if a deal is not reached. I keep wondering if it might be best for no deal be reached and let the chips fall. Then the President can make decisions to pay for what he wants. If he cuts off Social Security checks and pay to the Armed Forces, then let the public decide who has been fair. I think the news reports would slowly start to get the message out that is being ignored presently that the President can decide to pay those checks if he so desires. As for the rest of the government, let it stop and shut down. I would rather live with less government than a government hurting all of us by overspending. In other words, I say the Republicans should stand their ground even if it means no agreement and let the chips fall.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    July 14, 2011 12:12 p.m.


    There you go with your "facts" again.

    The point is this: Obama has spent just as much as Bush did. That's the problem. It just happened to be double. 4 trillion is a lot for Bush, but it isn't for Obama just because it hasn't doubled the debt? How does that work.

    Obama has raised--almost--the ceiling 2 times in 2 and a half years. That's on pace for 6 in 8 years if he gets a second term. Your claiming that Bush is so much worse than B.O. is absolutely absurd when the numbers show that their spending and debt raising is almost exactly the same. But don't forget, it took Bush 8 years to spend 4 tril. It has taken Obama 2 and a half. Again, if he gets a second term, he will have spent 12 trillion, which is more than doubling the national debt.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 14, 2011 12:01 p.m.

    To "Petra | 9:14 p.m." what would the "fair share" of taxes be for the wealthy? 20%, 50%, 90%?

    You said that " the rich do not pay anywhere near what you or I pay", when the average middleclass taxpayer pays less than 20% of their inocme in taxes, and the average wealthy person pays about 25% of their income in taxes. The rich do in fact pay more in income taxes on their salary than you or I do.

    There is a YouTube video out there where they go over how much money would have to be confiscated to pay for 1 year of Obama's deficit spending. It basically came down to confiscating all profits from the largest companies, everything from the wealthy (not just income, all property and money), and essentially destroying the economy, just for 1 year's worth of spending.

  • sergio Phoenix, AZ
    July 14, 2011 11:40 a.m.

    This is corporate america vs democracy america. In democracy america one qualifed citizen one vote. In corporate america you have one capital vote for one dollar. Guess where the most votes are. Money rules. Things will contiue to get better for the crowned entitled super captilist and wealthy, and democacy will have to continue serving them; as good citizens should.

  • Woodyff Mapleton, UT
    July 14, 2011 11:22 a.m.

    To Petra - the 'rich' and corporations pay all the taxes. The 40% of Americans that don't pay any taxes need to step up and pay their 'fair' share. As Obama would say - everyone needs to have skin in the game. Frum writes an article, does that make him the ultimate source. There are other financial 'experts' that are saying that the government can make the payments. Believe who you will. You need to get off the 'rich are not paying enough' rant.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 11:03 a.m.

    'Obama is the worst President in the history of this country.' - JNA | 9:25 a.m.


    Let's do a side-by-side comparison. Just on the debt ceiling alone!

    Obama's record to date: One (1) raise to the debt ceiling. This, would make 'two' (2).

    Previously, under Republican control?

    'Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt' - by Mark Knoller - CBS News - 09/29/08

    'It'll be the 7th time the debt limit (ceiling) has been raised during this administration. In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion.'

    Seven. (7)


    or 7...

    which is greater?

    Also, Bush DOUBLED the national debt.

    For Obama to do that? To be ON PAR with W. debt spending? Not even 'greater than'.

    He would have to add ANOTHER $10 trillion to the national debt. He is at...4.

    Which is greater?

    'Obama's bad' is a GREAT tag-line, but not backed with much substance.

    And 'let's'? Implies that are are MORE than one person.

    You are an 'I', just like everyone else.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 11:01 a.m.

    I don't get why middle class republicans are so against taxing the wealthy at a higher rate. Would a 50 year old middle class republican whose planning for retirement really rather loose their social security benefits than see a tax increase to the wealthy?

    Trickle down economics is the biggest lie since communism. Both economic models fail for the same reason, they both operate under the premise that if we give the richest and most powerful people in the country the majority of the money that they will ensure that it gets distributed evenly. What actually happens is that the wealthy keeps it all and for themselves.

    If world history has taught us anything it is that once people become wealthy they will do whatever it takes to maintain or increase their wealth. Do we really want to go back to a feudal system where the poor and middle class are dependent on the rich to distribute the wealth? Because that is what trickle down economics is.

    What makes America great is its middle class, not its wealthy.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    July 14, 2011 10:50 a.m.

    Yee Haw hold on, the show only gets better.

    Our party is struggling with math skills. Obama wants $800 billion worth of tax loopholes to go away and for that he will offer $3.2 billion worth of reductions on entitlements. If this were an elementary math class they would have the problem solved and be out to recess on time.

    The $800 billion is 50% of what the Bush Tax cuts cost the country, so it seems reasonable to give some of that back at this time in order to save the country from going into default.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    July 14, 2011 10:28 a.m.

    @Cool Hand Luke and the rest of the right-wing ilk: Nothing has changed since the Bush administration as far as taxes go, except that you pay a bit less in taxes, yet there are still no jobs. Explain how that works.

    @Liberal Ted: You use the term "raise taxes," but, again, it's just closing loopholes that only the rich get. Obama has said he is will to cut the exact things you talk about, so what's the problem? Do you agree that the rich should have tax loopholes that the rest of us have to pay? Do you deny that that is quite a small compromise, closing loopholes for the top 1 percent, in exchange for the very things you think ought to be done?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 14, 2011 10:24 a.m.

    I find the Republican machinery amazing:

    A few extremely rich people who have nothing in common with main street. Their main concern is to protect and expand their wealth. How are they able to get the support and votes of the common citizen? They use populist ideas, religion and misguided patriotism to appeal to the masses. They promise to defend "moral values" and the freedom of our nation. While they own and collude with foreign interest such as oil, weapon factories, promoting wars and threats around the globe in the name of democracy.

    Our nation allows them to be so rich that one lifetime is not enough to spend all their wealth. However, they refuse to increase taxes. They have received so much, yet , they don't want to give back. They complain against the government for not creating jobs, while they are hoarding the money, refusing to take risk in investing.

    I wonder how many citizens feel is in their best interest and the interest of the country to support the "say NO party", for a reason OTHER than their dislike for liberals and President Obama.

    If we want to make democracy work, we need to start thinking objectively.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 10:19 a.m.

    The tea party is hanging out alone attempting to trash the world economy. Score will be economy 1 : Tea-party -1000.

  • Abeille West Haven, Utah
    July 14, 2011 10:08 a.m.

    This kind of 'bipartisanship' really stinks. I have always been a supporter of the two-party system, primarily because of the theory that a two-party system will assure that the laws passed will represent what the majority of the people want. I no longer believe that. I believe that the majority of people don't want an exreme right-wing or an extreme left-wing solution to the problem. Bipartisanship means that there must be some 'give and take' to positions, for the betterment of the citizens of the United States. For example, a bipartisan approach to this problem might be that the Republican party accepts slight tax increases to the most wealthy, while the Democratic party accepts spending cuts to some of their programs. This might not be the best solution for the extremes of both parties, but it might address the problem for the majority of us.

    When I discuss issues with my liberal friends (I'm more conservative), we always come up with solutions that can benefit the majority. Why can't our two parties do the same? Perhaps it's time to form a third party that represents the rest of us.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 10:04 a.m.

    xscribe | 8:55 a.m. July 14, 2011
    Colorado Springs, CO

    Seriously xscribe. obama keeps printing money $5 Trillion more than when he took office. Instead of $10 Trillion of debt we are at $15 Trillion. The fact is, numbers don't lie. We are taxed plenty. The budget they have is ridiculous large. The problem is politicians stealing from social security and medicare to fund studies about drunk monkies, or buy guns and give them to mexican drug lords to see who they're killing, or peanut farms in counties wheree dems need votes etc.

    That's the real problem. Politicians can't keep their hands off of money where it should have been going in the first place. Clean up that, before considering taxes. They keep raising them over the past 200 years to "fix" the problem and yet the "problem" is never "fixed".

    Cut politicians pay, cut their lifetime health insurance, cut their perks as a starter. Cut back social security and medicare. Cut back military spending. Cut all other non-essential programs. Use the money to pay off the debt. If there is a need for more taxes at that point then fine. But they have plenty.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    July 14, 2011 10:02 a.m.

    I'm amazed that so many on the left in here actually think the only contribution the wealthy make is through their federal taxes.

    The wealthy do not have wads of cash sitting around their homes. They INVEST their money, with the majority of their investments helping to drive business and the economy right here in the United States. So yes, the investments from the wealthy HAVE maintained and created jobs. Since the middle class is the group that has cut back on investments, I could only imagine how bad our economy would be had we removed more money from the wealthy in the name of taxes.

    Government can not be the end-all, be-all solution to any and all ailments in our lives. A healthy economy is the only way we all can progress forward, financially! And over the past 9 years, especially the last 2 years, government spending is simply out of control, and we have nothing to show for it. Only GM and big banks can say they are better off now than 2.5 years ago.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    July 14, 2011 10:00 a.m.


    The game is up. If you stare reason in the face you will realise that we cannot continue to fool ourselves into thinking we can afford the unconstitutional social programs as they are currently. When our country becomes inslovent (bankrupt). Who will suffer the most, the poor or the rich? Now is the time to take steps to stop the purposeful financial destruction of our country (cloward and piven).
    ps. Yes we should get out of these immoral wars including Iraq, Afganistan, Egypt and others.. They are helping to break the bank. Remember, part of the plan.

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    July 14, 2011 9:43 a.m.


    You say "I am sick of paying for the 50% who don't pay taxes or pay only several thousand a year in taxes."

    Let me tell ya, my friend, that's not me or my 69,999,999 friends who have paid all our SS and Medicare taxes all our years!

    It's the giant companies with their tax loopholes and all the rest of the super rich who skirt taxes and pay a much smaller percentage of their horrendously large incomes than I ever paid on my pittance.

    The teapartiers and Republicans seem to want to take it out of my hide, rather than require their Donald Trump type friends to pay their FAIR portion.

  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    July 14, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    Our tax code is so garbled and nonsensical that it could never be fair. A flat tax is a fair tax. It is idiotic to say it is anything but. Everybody pays the same percentage of their income and we don't have to have the expense of a huge bureaucracy to enforce it. An even fairer tax would be a national sales tax and do away with the income tax all together. Through a national sales tax you put all the money in the hands of the earner and let them decide what tax they want to pay through the purchases they make.

  • JNA Layton, UT
    July 14, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    Obama is the worst President in the history of this country. Lets end this madness in the election of 2012 and lets throw anyone out that supports this man.

  • COOL HAND LUKE Old Ephraims Grave, UT
    July 14, 2011 9:24 a.m.

    @ Petra, George and the rest of your Liberal ilk.

    Get serious! When you post your ignorance shows volumes. WE DONT HAVE ANY MORE MONEY! What good is a debt ceiling when you keep raising that ceiling? There will be not default, that is economics 101, they will have to cut the pork projects that have crippled this great nation. For instance 770 million to the restoration of middle east mosques Unbelievable! Pull your head out of the sand. See below.

    From: Hunt

    Obama's desire to take from the Rich to give to the poor is class warfare and un-American. Nearly half of all Americans do not even pay taxes while the "most able to pay" are already paying the vast majority of all taxes. These "most able to pay" are the job creators and by raising their taxes you limit their ability to create jobs.

    And by the way, we did blame Congress. Did you not pay attention to the last election cycle?

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    July 14, 2011 9:21 a.m.

    to teleste

    Where it's always been since SS came into existence.

    Let me ask you a question, where was it last month, and all the months of this year, and last year, and last decade?

    It's not that SS is bankrupt, it's that the Federal Government keeps robbing the SS funds to pay other bills, like an insane war against Iraq.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    July 14, 2011 9:20 a.m.

    Something has to give or we will have no choice. The spending has to stop. Reform is needed. I would rather suffer for a year or two now with a shutdown than see this reckless spending continue for the rest of my life and the life of my children.

    If millionaires want to pay more in taxes, let them. As a small buisness owner, I am sick of paying for the 50% who don't pay taxes or pay only several thousand a year in taxes. The definition of rich should not include small businesses.

  • teleste Provo, UT
    July 14, 2011 9:12 a.m.


    That $70B you speak of...where is it?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 9:09 a.m.

    "Know when to fold them..." - E. Matscheko | 5:54 a.m.

    "know when to walk away...know when to run."

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    July 14, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    Just considering the SS retirement recipients, do you have any idea of the financial impact on the country as a whole if 70,000,000 do not get their checks?

    If we assume that each one receives $1,000 per month (which is no to doubt greatly underestimate the total), that will mean the power companies, the gas companies, the telephone companies, the assisted living centers, the retirement apartments, the grocery stores, the pharmacies, the cable TV companies, ad infinitum, will lose out on their portion of $70,000,000,000 ... per month!!! And that will be every single month until Congress rectifies the horrific problem they will have created. And that doesn't even mention the military personnel and their families. It would be absolute chaos, to say the very least.

    Republicans and teapartiers know this. They're not that dumb. They're playing a poker hand with three jacks in hand and the other side is holding a royal flush!

  • ronnie sandy, utah
    July 14, 2011 9:01 a.m.

    Income tax rates on the wealthy is the lowest in 75 years and the republicans are not willing to give inch from their side. They are essentially denying the rich history in our country of debate and compromise that has sustained our political process in the best of times and the worst of times.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    July 14, 2011 8:55 a.m.

    Seriously, Liberal Ted, the president has been on national TV saying that he will compromise, against the wishes of his own party, if only the reps would allow loopholes to be closed on the richest of the rich, loopholes that we mere mortals do not enjoy. Let's see who folds first, and let's hope someone does. If Rifleman is correct, then it will be the dems. But one thing is clear: If you think life is bad now, wait until we default. It really won't matter who wins the 2012 election, because most of us will be dead broke. And that's exactly what both sides are posturing about, which is disgusting.

    Do the richest of the rich really need those tax loopholes? How about the little guy getting some tax breaks and closing the loopholes on the rich. That way it's a stalemate, and the reps can say that it all evens out and taxes weren't raised.

    Strap yourselves into your seatbelts, because it could be a long ride!

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    July 14, 2011 8:42 a.m.


    I am not a republican, but thats beside the point. I feel your pain regarding the SS ponzi scheme. It was set up to enslave Americans to the Government, it was set up to fail. SS has done its job and is now being used to put votes in the Democrats corner. As with other government programs they only serve to get votes. Don't be fooled by King Obama and his cohorts. They could care less about you and your family. Like most of the dirty politicians in Washington, they care about Power and money. Buyer beware.
    ps. usually, in poker, you can't call a bluff unless you have enough money to cover your bluff. Silly Obama.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    July 14, 2011 8:31 a.m.

    the community organizer is at it again. so tough so over his head. Total incompetence at the highest level. glad all the o fans got the change they wanted. hopeless and change....now that's change i can believe in. send him back chicago as soon as possible. jimmy carter looks better everyday.

  • Mike in Texas Allen, TX
    July 14, 2011 8:20 a.m.

    So, all you righteous rightys think that the deficit should be eliminated on the back of seniors, the disabled, the poor and other disadvantaged citizens, while the corporations pay little or nothing in taxes and CEO's get tax advantages when the buy their corporate jets. You can't be serious!

  • Aggielove Junction city, Oregon
    July 14, 2011 7:50 a.m.

    Reminds me of the old west poker game. The difference being, lots of talk, and less face play in this game.

  • Honor Code Denver, Colorado
    July 14, 2011 7:34 a.m.

    The real "BLUFF" is in the White House. Lack of leadership, swagger, stamina, character, judgement is hard to live up to when you're as two faced as Barack is.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 14, 2011 7:29 a.m.

    We should send McConnell a copy of this thread. If you think he's scared now wait until he reads this stuff. My guess is after he's done, he'll personally volunteer to be head of the Obama inaguration committee just to have a job.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 7:18 a.m.

    Why is it only the Republicans that need to compromise? Shouldn't the democrats be doing some compromises also? Usually negotiations are a two way street....why are we not allowed to see what our elected representatives are doing in these meetings? So much for the most transparant government in history.....

    Listen barack. We're broke as a nation. When you don't have money you start cutting back. Stop flying our Air Force One around the world for your vacations and campaign trips and your wife personal ego booster. Stop spending! That's what we want.

    Dave Ramsey went through the numbers last night. There is enough tax revenue to pay social security, the military, medicare, and a little for other federal programs and pay what we owe each month on our debt. Which means there is not a end of the world scenario. We just need to end other programs that we can't afford, and focus on teaching the next generation to plan for retirement and not rely on the government as a baby relies on a bottle.

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    July 14, 2011 7:03 a.m.

    @ KM | 9:28 p.m. July 13, 2011
    Cedar Hills, UT

    You're dead wrong! I was not President Obama's spending that brought on this horrendous debt; it was G.W. Bush's preemptive war, unnecessary war. It was his convincing the American people and Congress that there were invisible WMDs. It was waging a war against a country that had nothing to do with the Twin Towers. That was all Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who was a mortal enemy to Iraq. (And that's not to mention the Bush administrated bailouts!)

    The Republicans are heading for political suicide because if 70,000,000 SS recipients fail to get their checks, along with military personnel, calling yourself a Republican politician will be a sure way to be out of office the next time you're up for election, as I and 69,999,999 of my fellow SS retirement friends will cast our votes elsewhere.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 14, 2011 6:16 a.m.

    "Don't call my bluff" sounds like waving a red flag at a bull. Is Obama sure that divisive challenge is the best way to win the hearts and minds of the loyal right?

    When it comes to bridge building it's Obama's way or the highway. When standing in quicksand a different and more gentle approach might be more advantageous.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 14, 2011 5:59 a.m.

    Re: atl134 | 12:20 a.m. July 14, 2011

    They've always talked about socking it to the rich but it's never happened. Why; Because the rich hire tax attorneys to use all the loopholes only they know about.

    Rich companies don't pay taxes either. They pass them on to the end user. Probably why a box of corn flakes is now smaller and costs more money.

  • E. Matscheko St. George, UT
    July 14, 2011 5:54 a.m.

    Mr. President, this is hardly the time to "bluff"! "Know when to fold them..."

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    July 14, 2011 5:46 a.m.

    This is reminding me of the dynamics in this country that lead to the Civil War. No one wanted the war, and yet the war came.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 3:04 a.m.

    Fred33 | 11:07 p.m. July 13, 2011
    @ Petra

    What do you think about Utah's flat tax?


    Utah's flatter tax lowered the taxes for the rich and raised them for those in the middle. The rich got a tax break because of them.

    Let me ask you, do you think that any of those rich creates more jobs in Utah because of their tax cuts? Do you think they passed the tax cuts on to their employees in the form of higher wages?

    No, I'm just kidding, you don't need to answer that. We all know that of course they didn't.

  • awsomeron1 Oahu, HI
    July 14, 2011 2:19 a.m.

    Obama has a lot of gray hair, good for him.

    We are going to spend far more then we take in in taxes, weather you like it or not.

    Don't think so, hope not.

    We could start the cuts by Stopping The Funding For Abortion, both in the U.S. and other places.

    Stop at least 2 Wars. Just quit like we did in Nam. We left Saigon Fell (it will always be Saigon to me)end of story.

    Turn Welfare into Workfare. Still waiting for Obama to get the Youth Working who do not want to work.

    Tell his wife that most of that good food in the School Lunches is going to go in the Garbage Get back to Salty Cheap Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Chips. Cookies and Soda with the C Word. If you want kids to lose weight then walk them around the track.Move more eat less Diet.

    Trouble is when a Cut is suggested people say leave that alone because its such a small part of the Budget.

    If I can stop Abortion Funding i wil cut my SSI Payment till the Budget without funding for Abortion Passes. Solent Green is uponus.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 12:20 a.m.


    "It is time Obama needs to compromise and capitulate to the will of the American people or the majority in the house! "

    About the will of the people... polls show over 70% support raising taxes on the rich. Over 70% support keeping medicare and social security. Only 20% support a deficit deal with spending cuts alone (30% were "mostly spending cuts" or the obama position, and then of the other 50% that includes half and half, mostly tax increases, all tax increases, and don't know). Obama is with the majority of americans.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 12:18 a.m.

    Mr. President why are you not willing to compromise, it is still spend today and pay tomorrow. There are no current cuts in the budget on the table just future promises. Oh, and Mr. McConnell, I hope your fiscally conservative constituents are listening. But, obviously you are not up for re-election in 2012.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2011 12:18 a.m.

    "Obama's spending must be stopped, period!"

    Oh please if that were the Republicans goal they wouldn't reject the 4 trillion dollar deal in favor of a 2 trillion dollar one.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    July 13, 2011 11:54 p.m.

    Obama is a great man; the rest of the Democratic party needs serious help. Hollywood and the media and universities and lawyers and the east and west coasts are scary places full of godless people with an attitude of "live for today----who cares about tomorrow." Maybe the Dems don't deserve Obama.

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    July 13, 2011 11:40 p.m.

    It is time Obama needs to compromise and capitulate to the will of the American people or the majority in the house!

  • Fred33 KAYSVILLE, UT
    July 13, 2011 11:07 p.m.

    @ Petra

    What do you think about Utah's flat tax?

  • LivinLarge Bountiful, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:58 p.m.

    Dear Bluffer-in-Chief,
    We need leadership not a bluffer!

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    July 13, 2011 10:52 p.m.

    Why is it that the game of cutting "important programs" to get people to cave is still being used? CALL HIS BLUFF.

  • Petra Sanpete County, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:41 p.m.

    Economics 101 : if you are paid low wages by a big, rich corporation (think WalMart, whose owners live in HUGE mansions), you qualify for Medicaid (which WalMart actually admitted was its "health care plan" for its employees) and possibly you even qualify for some financial help (ie, "welfare"), and, because your income is so very low, too low to pay rent, utilities, AND food, you also do not pay taxes.

    Now imagine if this big, rich corporation actually paid its employees a living wage. The mansions of the owners might be somewhat more modest and fewer in number. But the employees could purchase health insurance, pay for their utilities food, and rent (or maybe even save for a house!) AND pay taxes.

    So who shall we blame that so many who are impoverished do not pay taxes? The employee whose wages are set by a corporation (who also pays very little tax)? Or the corporation who rigs the system and cheats its employees, so it gets all the money and proportionately (compared with what's left of the middle class) doesn't pay hardly any tax?

  • toducate HERRIMAN, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:37 p.m.

    @Anyone else who is just lonely enough to make it this far in the comments AND loves to feel picked on about the current tax system, consider this universal concept....in the history of power and governments, have the rich EVER been under-represented in the corridors of power? I submit that they rarely or never are under-represented. It is not in the very nature of power and influence. The principle extents to our current tax system. For the top 4% (and especially the top 2%) the tax system favors them very much. Not only are they given a tax system that favors them with low capital gains, write offs up the wazoo and financial help that aids them in taking advantage of every possible loophole that the common guy doesn't get- but they get the added (and extra insulting) luxury of being righteously indignant over a tax system that from the surface looks to pick on them. The top 2-4% is not getting taxed more than the the middle class. Oh no...they have made sure of that.

  • toducate HERRIMAN, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:33 p.m.

    @Hunt- the stat about half the country not paying taxes is a pretty cherry picked stat- loaded with nuance that totally changes its entire intended usage in debates such as this. a) it refers to fed income tax only (which account for only about 1/3 of all fed gov revenue) and ignores payroll and state taxes b) many of the deductions that drop people to zero income tax are those very popular child and charity that the middle and upper class get, c) the actual poor and needy that the stat is trying to show make up just a fraction of that actual number. At the end of the day- the number is so diluted with facts that counter your point, it renders the stat impotent.

  • toducate HERRIMAN, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:32 p.m.

    @The Rock- a little hyperbole? He's not a commie, more like a bit of keynesian economics. You may disagree with some of its tenants, but it's far from socialism or communism.

    @CJ- a societies economics are exactly like a household's budget, with about a million additional factors that impact every decision and outcome. More importantly, I think the issue with this debate is more about eliminating debt in the long term and reducing debt uncertainty and less about stimulating he economy in the short term, that's why all these cuts and taxes will be pushed off for 2 years.

  • Fred33 KAYSVILLE, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:31 p.m.

    @ Pagen

    When you say that Obama has put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block you make it sound like he willing to totally get rid of these services. How would these cuts be implemented? The devil is in the details and we haven't been given the details.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:22 p.m.

    If an arsonist sets a house on fire, you do not "compromise" with them about how much more gas to pour on the flames, you STOP them!

    Our problems are driven almost exclusively by the excessive spending of Congress and all recent Presidents, but Obama's share of the excessive spending is orders of magnitude worse than Bush 43, Clinton, or Bush 41.

    Obama's spending must be stopped, period!

    And, so far Obama and the Democrats have not laid out their plan (if they even have one) for anyone to see outside of secret meetings, while the Republican House passed a budget in January. The Democrat controlled House and Senate, and Obama failed to meet their duty to pass a budget prior to the start of this fiscal year back on October 1st. Reid refuses to bring the House budget up for a vote.

    No compromise! No debt ceiling increase, only spending cuts to live within our income!

    You cannot "call Obama's bluff" as he has no plan at all, only demagoguery and political schemes.

    Stop the spending now!

  • Fred33 KAYSVILLE, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:13 p.m.

    I am okay with taxes being raised, but I think it should be across the board. It was surprising to find that 51% of citizens do not pay any tax. If you want the services provided by the government, then you should be willing to contribute to pay for them.

    I also support a balanced budget amendment. This only makes sense that we as a country can only spend as much as we bring collect in taxes. It would be interesting to get Obama on record how he feels about a balanced budget amendment.

    I also would like to see the breakdown of what the 4 trillion in proposed cuts over 10 years really is. Do the cuts kick in immediately? Are these estimated savings or actual savings? These numbers might just be smoke and mirrors. That is why I like the idea of the balanced budget amendment.

  • riddlemethis Clearfield, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:12 p.m.

    It's true that Obama cannot guarantee that the soc sec checks would go out. But he COULD guarantee it. The Dems have painted themselves into a corner: if the avg American wasn't aware of the fact that their money for soc sec is borrowed, and their money is gone; they are now. Obama needs Boehner to cave to save his reelection prospects.

  • Kathy. Provo, Ut
    July 13, 2011 10:05 p.m.

    Out of respect for the office of President of the United States I will refrain from printing what I think of the leadership skills and politics of the current office holder.

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 13, 2011 9:53 p.m.

    you really have not heard of the list of Millionaires and Billionaires that have all publicly stated their taxes should be raised, the list includes people such as Bill Gates and even conservative Ben Stein.

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 13, 2011 9:41 p.m.

    class warfare you say? you mean like the class warfare that conservatives have been waging for more then a decade the result of which is the largest gap in income and life expectancy we have seen, that class warfare? You can be upset about class warfare but it did not start with Obama. Obama has agreed that social services need to be cut but rightly states tax reform is also necessary for real change to happen. republicans want social services cut but stubbornly refuse to consider tax reform. So who do you think is really being unreasonable and engaging in class warfare?

    Here is where republican stand at this point. they can either not be willing to be reasonable and let the country go into default and assure Obama's reelection or they can compromise and place tax reform on the table and likely alienate their base either way I would not want to be a republican senator or congressman right now they have really backed themselves into a corner.

  • USA Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2011 9:39 p.m.

    Seems as if the president is the only adult engaged in this process.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    July 13, 2011 9:28 p.m.

    So the arrogant one is challenging the repubs with tax payer money. oooooh real tuff, that guy is.
    Lets stop with the strutting and get down to the crux of the matter; Obama you have spent us into oblivion, so don't act like you have come to save the day. We know you all to well by now. We know your desire to fundamentally transform our country is almost complete. Behind the curtain you are laughing at the the chaos you have created. Hopefully the pubs call his bluff and get on with the adult decisions that will have to be made to right the good ship America.

  • Petra Sanpete County, UT
    July 13, 2011 9:18 p.m.

    Woodyff - read the article I referred you to. It explains why Social Security and soldiers come LAST to be paid, by law. David Frum is a conservative writer and his explanation is sound. This is no bluff.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2011 9:15 p.m.

    "I never hear about a Rich Liberal willingly paying more in taxes than what is required."

    Haven't heard of Rush Limbaugh's plans to not take social security or medicare either.

    Anyway the American people know obama made a 4 trillion offer that was mostly spending cuts and the Republicans rejected it. McConnell is right, if there ends up not being a deal, the people will blame the Republicans because it's their fault after all.

  • Petra Sanpete County, UT
    July 13, 2011 9:14 p.m.

    The rich and rich corporations do NOT pay their fare share of taxes - there's plenty of evidence for this, from Warren Buffet to GE. Of course, rich individuals pay most of the taxes in this nation - they have most of the money. But, by percentage, the rich do not pay anywhere near what you or I pay.

    There is a reason it's called "corporate welfare." And there is a reason why Obama wants to close loopholes in the tax law that allows the rich (with their accountants) to pay only 17%. And why should someone who inherits his money and doesn't work a day in his life not pay just as much taxes as you and I? And how about that CEO several million dollar bonus that is taxed at only 15%?

    (And, by the way, I would like you to tell me what jobs there are that these people have created in the past few years? Hmmmmm? Right - none. The rich and the big corporations are hoarding their money.)

    It escapes me how Republicans are so naive about who these people are that need to be taxed just like the rest of us.

  • Woodyff Mapleton, UT
    July 13, 2011 9:07 p.m.

    To Petra - the bluff from Obama is just that, there is plenty of money that comes in with federal withholding tax to pay SS and Medicare. Just ask Obama if he is willing not to pay SS, give a list of what he is going to pay. And to George in the Bronx, the Senate has not passed a budget in 800 days, do you see a problem with that? Maybe Congress needs to tell Obama, "don't call our bluff". This is the most arrogant, least qualified person to every be in the White House.

  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    July 13, 2011 8:59 p.m.


    Obama's desire to take from the Rich to give to the poor is class warfare and un-American. Nearly half of all Americans do not even pay taxes while the "most able to pay" are already paying the vast majority of all taxes. These "most able to pay" are the job creators and by raising their taxes you limit their ability to create jobs.

    Why are Liberals always so quick to spend other peoples hard earned money, yet I never hear about a Rich Liberal willingly paying more in taxes than what is required. I'm pretty sure that, like the rest of us, they take every deduction available.

    And by the way, we did blame Congress. Did you not pay attention to the last election cycle?

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    July 13, 2011 8:52 p.m.

    GOP to Obama - Make my day. . .

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 13, 2011 8:32 p.m.

    @ CJ: He wants to raise taxes on the portion of the population most able to pay them.

    And, just in case you are not aware of how our system of government works, the President does not write or pass the budget. That is done by Congress.

    So if you don't like the way the finances of this country are being handled, blame them.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 13, 2011 8:11 p.m.

    Israel called Obama's bluff .... and he folded. First he sent US envoy George Mitchell to try and twist their arm and when that failed he gave it his personal best ..... and fell flat on his face.

    Too bad Obama didn't try some bridge building with the Republicans instead of trying his in-your-face tactics .... which just aren't working the way he'd hoped.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 13, 2011 8:09 p.m.

    The people of our country puts money into social security. What has that got to do with our deficit spending? Two different accounts. Has someone been stealing money from social security?

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    July 13, 2011 8:03 p.m.

    The only fathomable reason that anyone would demand that we continue to spend ourselves into bankruptcy is because bankruptcy is the goal.

    Professors Cloward and Piven (married to each other) teach at Columbia University, one of the schools Obama attended. The Cloward and Piven strategy postulates that our economic system could be replaced with a socialist or communist system if they were to overburden our present system to the point that it were to collapse.

    It would take only six months to turn the economy around and put us on course to balance the budget if sensible people were in the White House.

    It is time for the Republicans to bluntly ask Obama, in public, if he is following the Cloward and Piven strategy. This is the only explanation.

  • B Logan, UT
    July 13, 2011 8:01 p.m.

    "Don't call my bluff."

    Barack! You sounded like Dirty Harry just then!

  • CJ Murray, UT
    July 13, 2011 7:59 p.m.

    This guy is so far out of his league as President it is beyond scary. Can you imagine running your household the way he is running our finances as a nation? We are totally broke and he wants to raise taxes on an already over taxed country that will only cause more unemployment and less tax revenue.

  • katesays ASTORIA, SD
    July 13, 2011 7:58 p.m.

    The Republican leadership reminds me of Yassir Arafat. They can't see the best deal is already on the table. Walking away is just gonna make it worse.

  • Petra Sanpete County, UT
    July 13, 2011 7:57 p.m.

    To those who do not understand how Social Security can legally not be paid, conservative David Frum has written an excellent explanation. Just Google Frum Social Security checks not guaranteed.

    This is no joke. And, while I would agree that we first not pay members of Congress, the sum of their salaries would not touch that which is needed for Social Security and our soldiers in the field, etc. It would be a nice symbolic act, however.

    As as for the "bluff" term - it's a figure of speech. We all understand what is meant by it, so get over it. Obama is very serious in his position - he has offered compromise after compromise, but the Republicans have not budged. Even if this is not true (and I believe, from all I have read, that it is), this will be the perception the American public has, and the Republicans will be in deep trouble come election time. The average tea party member, after all, is an older, white man on or about to be on Social Security.

  • Disbelief Aurora, CO
    July 13, 2011 7:28 p.m.

    Great...now our president is publicly admitting that he "bluffs"!?!?