Obama warns he will not play games over debt ceiling

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 4

    paulinusa

    He should hang tough. Polls show that by two to one people think that if the talks collapse the Republicans are to blame. They won't be able to spin their way out of this one.

  • -1

    AKBfan

    Surely he (and the other side) are playing games already?

  • -5

    bass4funk

    He should hang tough. Polls show that by two to one people think that if the talks collapse the Republicans are to blame. They won't be able to spin their way out of this one.

    In the short run, Yes, but in the long run, it will most definitely hurt Obama and his future legacy. He already had a negative recovery rate and a terrible economy and had the same problem last time 4 years ago, which caused the last recession. Obama doesn't want to start his second term with helping to put the country into a second recession, while you are probably right that the Repubs will get blamed, ultimately, Obama will bear the brunt if the country goes into another recession. Republicans really have nothing to lose, they WILL go over the fiscal cliff, even if it will cost them, but Obama won't get what he wants. The Repubs will dig their hills in, not to mention, the really rich will move their assets, so In the short, if Obama thinks he has the Repubs marganilized, he's seriously mistaken, if they go off the cliff, everyone's taxes will go up.

  • -1

    YuriOtani

    Have enough money if paying more will help them then so be it! While taxes are low in Oklahoma there is almost no services. Okie land the land of shoddy. Good government cost money unless in America they do not want to support their communities.

  • 1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    No deal is better than a bad deal.

  • 3

    tkoind2

    This bipartisan BS needs to stop! I am sick to death of the flat earth right who refuse to acknowledge that the people have clearly spoken to have the rich pay more of their share of things. And that they want more cooperation and less of this entrenched BS from the GOP.

    If they fail to help resolve this, the GOP will be hurt seriously. But sadly so will everyone else in the country.

  • -1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " the people have clearly spoken to have the rich pay more of their share of things"

    That would be true if a LARGE majority had voted for Obama, or significantly changed the make-up of Congress, but the numbers say more like status quo.

    The rich already pay more than their so-called"fair share"(channeling Marx?). What percentage would you deem "fair"?

  • -2

    sailwind

    Obama, speaking to the Business Roundtable group of chief executives, said any suggestion that Republicans would have more leverage next year to extract concessions from the White House by threatening to let the United States default was a “bad strategy” for them and for the country.

    Wasn't such a bad strategy when he was actively using it as a Senator in 2006. Heck, he actually made a pretty damn good case back then in his reason for voting against raising the debt limit. If you wouldn't know any better he actually sounds like a typical Tea Party member.

    Congress is forced to increase the debt limit every several years and it's often a political fight with members of the minority party withholding their votes to extract concessions or direct criticism at the party that controls the White House.

    That was the case in 2006 when Republican George W. Bush was president and Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, declared on the Senate floor: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's 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."

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MHKLN01.htm

  • 3

    Madverts

    There's nothing Marxist about making gazzillionaires pay at least the same percentage of people who earn a pittance in comparison.

    Making that assertion is simply as crazy as the rightwing nuts that continue to claim Obama is a Marxists. I'm talking metal straight-jacket, rubber room and mouth foaming kinda crazy.

    Why anyone wants to defend a minuscule percentage of the population acting as if they were some kind of royalty with divine right is beyond me.

    Clinton made these fat cats pay nearly 40%, yet the economy boomed, and there was a budget surplus. Republicans today represent the fat-rich-white-guy and no one else.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Clinton made these fat cats pay nearly 40%, yet the economy boomed, and there was a budget surplus.

    Ummm, no he didn't. Quite the oppsite. He cut their taxes and was quite generous about it actually.

    Clinton, Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy

    Just 15 years ago, the 400 richest Americans earned an average of just over $50 million and had an effective tax rate of about 30%. So while the incomes of the 400 richest have increased by seven-fold over that period, their effective tax rate has been cut by over one-third.

    Johnston said decreasing share of taxes paid by the ultra-rich has been driven by government polices that are concentrating wealth at the very top of the income scale. Dating back to the administration of Bill Clinton, Congress has lowered tax rates on the extremely wealthy several times.

    "Bill Clinton cut these people's tax rates 8% and Bush added another 5.5% decrease," Johnston said.

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/17/super-rich-made-344-million-each-in-2007-as-their-tax-rates-plu/

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa: That would be true if a LARGE majority had voted for Obama, or significantly changed the make-up of Congress, but the numbers say more like status quo.

    Polling for the specific issue of raising taxes on the risk show a clear majority support it.

    sailwind: That was the case in 2006 when Republican George W. Bush was president and Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, declared on the Senate floor:

    C'mon, sail. You aren't really trying to equate a speech Obama made with the entire Tear Party movement.

    bass4funk: Republicans really have nothing to lose, they WILL go over the fiscal cliff, even if it will cost them, but Obama won't get what he wants.

    Well as long as the Obama doesn't get what he want, right? That's what this is all about for Republicans. Screw the fiscal cliff and possible recession.

    The Repubs will dig their hills in, not to mention, the really rich will move their assets,

    If the rich can handle going over the fiscal cliff by moving around some assets they surely can handle a tax increase. If another recession comes the rich will get richer which makes me wonder if the Republican party really is just a slave to them. They must know that holding out for the 2% makes them look bad in the eyes of the public and for some ungodly reason they've made it their centerpiece.

  • 0

    ubikwit

    These idiot pseudo-Republicans are practically begging the president to wax presidential like and force march them off the fiscal cliff with flair and a good marching band to boot.

    Then he can parade their carcasses before the bedraggled citizenry--and the mass media--for posterity--as the conspiratorial ideological lackeys of the criminal wealthy class that they are.

    He might as well even use the bully pulpit, alla Teddy Roosevelt, and give the people a renewed sense of fortitude that they can stand up for what is right against the powerful.

  • 1

    TheQuestion

    Lets be frank here, the president is fine with playing the games, he just wants to win. This isn't about helping the nation it's petty politics and posturing on both sides of the aisle.

    Polling for the specific issue of raising taxes on the risk show a clear majority support it.

    The war in Iraq also had clear majority support, glad cooler heads prevailed on that one. We elect representatives to make careful decisions and weigh the benefits, costs, and the impact their choices will have on the continuance of the Republic .

    If the rich can handle going over the fiscal cliff by moving around some assets they surely can handle a tax increase. If another recession comes the rich will get richer which makes me wonder if the Republican party really is just a slave to them.

    They're all slaves. As you said, the rich will weather the mandatory increases associated with the fiscal cliff just fine, they can insulate themselves against such market variations. With that in mind what benefit is there in the democrats refusing to negotiate without preconditions? Why not explore more options and why is this tax increase (that wouldn't even dent the deficit mind you) so pivotal to their platform that they're willing to risk a resurgent recession to get it. It's all political tripe and both sides are equally guilty.

    Then he can parade their carcasses before the bedraggled citizenry--and the mass media--for posterity--as the conspiratorial ideological lackeys of the criminal wealthy class that they are.

    So your solution to conspiratorial ideological foolishness is to generate an even larger conspiracy that will result in economic ruin just to prove how ideological and destructive your opponents are? And we wonder why nothing gets done.

  • 0

    gelendestrasse

    won't play games? That's all Obama does. That's all anybody inside the beltway does, for that matter. What's amusing is how much they all deny it.

  • 0

    sailwind

    C'mon, sail. You aren't really trying to equate a speech Obama made with the entire Tear Party movement.

    Not equating, I'm pointing out the fact that if you didn't know who Mr. Obama was and either heard his speech on the Senate floor or read it you would get the definite impression that this was given from a less Government, Less Spending type of guy, which is a main pillar of the Tea Party movement Governing outlook.

    Back in 2006 this position wasn't consider radical or extremist at all, as quite evident that even Senator now President Obama was quite comfortable in going on the record and actually voting against the debt ceiling increase, voicing exactly the same concerns that were voiced by the Republicans the last go round.

    Now that position, the very one he took then has been successfully been morphed into something entirely different and anyone that supports the view that he had then is now just mindlessly labled as an extremist right wing nutbag. Not equating so much as showing a prime example the truly sad state of our politics today.

  • -2

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Madverts, before getting to friendly with your "I love me" jacket, here's an exerpt related to Obama's variation of Marxism:

    " As earlier statements in his career indicate, Obama's vision of paternalistic governance is the view he brought with him to the presidency. In 1998, as a first-term Illinois state senator, he argued that in order to ensure that "nobody is left behind," government systems must be more efficiently structured to "pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution." While on that occasion he underscored his proposal with the declaration that "I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level,"[5] as president he uses such euphemisms as "investment," "giving back," "giving everyone a fair shot" or "fair share" and "economic patriotism" — all of which imply redistribution by another name. At first glance the ideal of "fair shares for all" suggests the requirement of a political and economic framework based on Karl Marx's distribution policy of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."[6] But Obama's conception of fairness is not of classic Marxist origin. As noted, it is more a reflection of philosopher John Rawls's theory of justice and pragmatism's varied perspectives of the self-society relationship.[7] His vision is a version of the altruist-collectivist social contract that Jean Jacques Rousseau proposed as the solution to the problem of constructing a society of freedom divorced from property ownership, which he saw as the source of a war of all against all. His thought also includes the Progressive belief, as argued by William Allen White, that the solution to democracy's problem of unleashed self-interest lies in overcoming the spirit of commercialism with the spirit of sacrifice.…"

    http://mises.org/daily/6288/Obamas-World-of-Social-Justice

  • 1

    yabits

    [6] But Obama's conception of fairness is not of classic Marxist origin. As noted, it is more a reflection of philosopher John Rawls's theory of justice and pragmatism's varied perspectives of the self-society relationship

    And he couldn't have picked a better guide than Rawls. I knew I liked Obama from the start.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • 営業/建設機械  

    営業/建設機械  
    MB Japan 株式会社、埼玉県
    給与:給与要相談 歩合制 給与参考例・・・2013年度営業職月給平均 45万円  
  • TOEICインストラクター

    TOEICインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,000円 相談可
  • TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター

    TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,500円 相談可
  • 海外留学担当者

    海外留学担当者
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:月給 25万円 ~ 35万円 相談可
  • PR and Communication Specialist

    PR and Communication Specialist
    Italian Chamber of Commerce in Japan、東京都
    給与:給与についての記載なし

More in World

View all

View all