**************************
White House Transcript: Obama's speech on the debt limit
Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve
been having in Washington over the national debt – a debate that directly
affects the lives of all Americans.
For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in.
In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it
to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax
cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply
added to our nation’s credit card.
As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the
year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was
less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more – on tax cuts for
middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could
prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off.
These emergency steps also added to the deficit.
Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is
manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us
jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go
toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to
open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books.
Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money – the homeowner with
a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand.
And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like
education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and
Medicaid.
Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to
this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last
several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the
details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered
around two different approaches.
The first approach says, let’s live within our means by
making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic
spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President.
Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and
at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there
for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest
corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.
This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without
requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around
$4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t
happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from
helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right
now.
This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party
aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept
them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper
cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said “Yes,
I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care
about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the
Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the
last several
The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to
becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in
Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask
the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all.
And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an
approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all
care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families.
.
.
So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make
tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit
reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans,
regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen
to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil
companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask
a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop
paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding
for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax
breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?
That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that
lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a
country – things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food
inspection; services to veterans and medical research.
Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of
Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In
fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re
talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have
gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to
share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic
Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve
pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The
first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced
approach by saying this:
“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising
revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather
accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment?
And I think I know your answer.”
Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many
Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach – an
approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first
President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans
in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.
Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has
been tied to something known as the debt ceiling – a term that most people
outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.
Understand – raising the debt ceiling does not allow
Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay
the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt
ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every
President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did
it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t
be able to pay all of our bills.
Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House
members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent
America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending
cuts-only approach.
If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money
to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks,
veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of
businesses.
For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit
rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder
whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket
on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on
the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis – one caused
almost entirely by Washington.
Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and
irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they
agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled
today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending
cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months
from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.
First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might
not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that
all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to
reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking
the can further down the road.
But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on
what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from
now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us
accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest
Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand
harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held
captive unless they get their way.
That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a
dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now.
Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t
allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political
warfare.
Congress now has one week left to act, and there are
still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which
makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go
through this again in six months.
I think that’s a much better path, although serious deficit
reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement
and tax reform. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must
come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses
of Congress – a compromise I can sign. And I am confident we can reach this
compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found
common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will
ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.
I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t
see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same
Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living
within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems
stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do
you know what people are fed up with most of all?
They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty
word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the
table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the
news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington.
They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make
life just a little better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that.
And they should be.
The American people may have voted for divided government, but
they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make
your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let
your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through
compromise, send that message.
America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in
compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every
belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again
the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We
have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but
from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we
have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot
have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed
individuals, but not a society.”
History is scattered with the stories
of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who
disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans
who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater
good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most
difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.
That’s who we remember. That’s who we
need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment
to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth
– not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but
because we can still come together as one nation. Thank you, God bless you, and
may God bless the United States of America.
History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to
rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are
not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above
self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the
Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who
put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.
That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The
entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the That’s who we remember.
That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s
seize this moment to show why the The entire world
is watching.
So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of
America is still the greatest nation on Earth – not just because we can still
keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together
as one nation. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United
States of America.
Does this mean the Kenyan won't be having all those catered affairs at the whitehouse, or won't be renting the Tal Mahal out for his posse, or he will forgo any more golf outings on our dole? If the kid acted like we were short on funds, we wouldn't be laughing at his political games and class warfare. Screw you and your La Raza.
ReplyDeleteSamo Samo.... I see barry has not forgotten how to just blame everyone else. That doesn't fly after 30 months in the position.
ReplyDeletePity his "Balanced Approach" does NOT include the Balanced Budget Amendment.That would tie his and the libs plans at re-distribution.
ReplyDeleteBasically, he said We are Broke.
ReplyDeleteHe has finally faced reality. He is now trying to get re elected.
Look what Peter Schiff says..
http://www.youtube.com/user/SchiffReport