I've been avoiding the debt issue because it's a little complicated. However, the length of the debate over whether or not we raise our debt ceiling I think reflects the major concerns and political conflicts in our time. Essentially, this is an issue that in the past has not been an issue. The 7.s. sets a limit on how much debt we let ourselves have, we get close to that number, and Congress typically votes to raise the limit. Not raising the ceiling and going over it would hurt our international economic reputation, as it would mean we were defaulting on some loans, and could cause market troubles in the U.S. However, some politicians have raised the issue that maybe the U.S. should cut our spending before we allow our debt to increase...which makes good sense from a personal financial perspective, right? You wouldn't want to take out new loans just to continue buying shoes you don't need. The problem is, the government isn't buying shoes, they are spending money on programs that benefit U.S. citizens.
That's a simple overview. Read what President Obama says on the issue, summarize his thoughts, and share your own reaction. Are there some services a government must provide, or some we can cut?. Why is this decision taking such a long time to make--is it a tough issue or bad politics?
Also...I've locked the comments on Current Event #1 and #2. Time to focus on some more recent issues. Don't forget about your primary sources either!
Update: I'm locking the comments on this since the debt bill has been passed. A good overview of how that ended is here.
In Obama's statement he addresses the fact that our nation's debt has grown to an unacceptable point and must be dealt with. He outlines a general plan for dealing with it: cut spending, raise taxes, and generate revenue. He recognizes that spending cuts cannot just be made to wasteful programs; if cuts are to truly make a dent in the debt, necessary programs must also be partially sacrificed. Obama proposes to raise taxes on wealthy people and corporations. He points out raising revenues as a bipartisan option for tackling our country's debt. I found it interesting that Obama didn't directly address the issue of the debt ceiling, because this is the main reason that our debt is such a central issue right now. I think Obama's solutions, if carried out exactly as he outlined them, would definitely help to reduce our debt, but I wonder if he can generate enough bipartisan support to execute all of his wishes. Making large cuts and raising taxes, while good in theory, require a lot of political courage because they are not popular decisions with the general public. This is important now because Obama will want to be reelected and therefore doesn't want to jeopardize his popularity too much. I hope that in the debate over the debt ceiling, political differences can be put aside enough to make a clear and smart decision for our country's future.
ReplyDeleteKathryn T.
In his article, Obama stresses the difference between the spending we, as a country, want to cut, and the spending that we will have to cut, as well as the taxes that we will have to increase for some, to actually reduce our debt. He recognizes that both parties are to blame, and that bipartisan support is necessary to begin correcting the debt. I think this is a very important point, as lately in Washington, the emphasis has been very much on partisan ideas, and partisan blame for any issue that comes our way. It seems that no one wants to work together for the good of the country; rather, everyone is more interested in their own political standing within their party. I feel that the unwillingness of many politicians to work together is a main reason that this debt issue is taking such a long time to be resolved. As Kathryn said, these decisions will not be popular, and if they are made, will likely cause many current politicians to lose their offices. However, I feel that these decisions are necessary for the good of the country, and I hope that our politicians can recognize this and find the courage to do the right thing for our country, despite the possible consequences.
ReplyDeleteIn his statement, Obama is incredibly bipartisan. He sets forth a basic plan to stabilize the country's increasing debt, which consists of cutting federal spending, and raising taxes (actually it is just getting rid of the tax breaks we currently have, this is a common misconception). He wants to cut spending on defense, and to address the seriousness of the problem, programs that he would not even consider breathing on otherwise. He is very upset with Congress because they are acting rationally and putting their differences aside. Obama mentions that families across the country are working hard to extend the reach of what they do have, and making sure they balance their personal budgets accordingly. It is bewildering that Congress does not do the same. There is no question to whether it is bad politics or not. It is obvious to people on both sides of the spectrum that a bipartisan approach is in order to save this country from going down the dumps (even Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher agree). The answer is simple, and is best done without emotion. Politicians need to put reelection as number 2 on the to-do list, and get this economy sorted out.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama describes the national debt as a serious problem that both parties need to come together in order to solve. This means compromising by having both tax increases and spending cuts, to get bipartisan support for a solution. Unfortunately, the way things are looking in congress right now that is not going to happen. Neither side wants to budge on important issues, leading to deadlock and a serious threat of default. Some things like Medicare and social security are political suicide to touch, but at the same time, they are some of the largest problems. The decision is taking so long because of bad politics. Refusal to compromise is not the way to get anything done; yet people are trying it anyway. The president has outlined a good compromise, yet no one is agreeing to it.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama's statement emphasizes the seriousness of our rising debt and the necessity to reach a bipartisan solution. He addresses how the short-term goal of putting our economy on stronger footing clashes with the goal to drastically decrease spending and deficits. I agree that before we focus on the increasing debt, we must fix our weak economy and get millions of American families back on stable ground. Obama continues by saying that he is willing to cut domestic and defensive spending by historic amounts. Merely reducing waste and fraud won’t fix this; long-term solutions require spending sacrifices in important and beneficial programs. Obama stresses the need to eliminate tax breaks the extremely wealthy enjoy. I believe it’s not fair that they hoard their money while the less affluent contribute more than their fair share to end this crisis. I’m surprised that a Democratic president agrees to cut so much from programs that his party advocated for decades, but I’m even more shocked that some Republicans aren’t accepting his compromise. Perhaps they are protecting the minute fraction of their voters who will lose tax breaks. As others commented, there is no questioning this is bad politics. Republicans insist on only cutting dangerously high amounts from spending without comprehending that some cuts are better than doing nothing, which they’re forcing Congress to do at the moment.
ReplyDelete-Ben C.
In President Obama's article he informs the readers of what needs to be done in order to help fix the economy (i.e. cut spending, sacrifice spending on certain programs, tax increases, etc). He says that in order to get our economy back on track, he needs both parties to cooperate and compromise on the issue, because not one party can have their way and make everyone else happy. However, I agree with Madison that because many politicians are unwilling to compromise, solving the debt crisis is going to take a while. I know nothing about politics, but what I do know is that if both parties compromise on this issue, there will be things that they have to sacrifice and, as Kathryn said, will not make the general public happy. However, they are entirely neccessary in order to help fix the economy and improve the debt crisis. As for whether this is a tough issue or bad politics, I think that it is both. Trying to decide what has to be sacrificed and compromised in order to help improve the debt crisis is tough and takes a lot of effort and careful consideration. But the unwillingness of both parties to get together and work things out is incredibly bad politics.
ReplyDeleteObama is announcing to the American people that the national debt has gotten way out of hand, and that he will take strong, borderline extreme measures to reduce it. He mentions cutting defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, something rarely done except in times of crisis. He also mentions that he would not take these steps toward cutting the debt unless the country is in severe trouble. He mentions that these measures are against the ideals of his party, but that is not concerning him at the moment. I'm glad that Obama is taking these measures and being open to bipartisan compromise. Our debt is at an extreme level, and we must take action immediately. I just wish Congress was more open to compromise instead of being extremely partisan and one-sided.
ReplyDeleteBen S.
President Obama recognizes the extent of our country’s debt and addresses the American people of every party in a bipartisan fashion about how to deal with it. While he does mention the need for an increase in revenue from the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations, he also admits that spending cuts – even in programs that he and the Democratic Party support – are necessary. This willingness to compromise is refreshing to see in a political scene that is always split along party lines. Whether the Republican Party will accept it as a compromise, or whether the GOP will refuse any raise in taxes, remains to be seen. Some government spending is wasteful and should be cut, but many of these programs are important and not all of the money that the government collects to pay its debt can come from cutting programs. The poor and middle class will have to pay by having programs they need lose funding, and so the rich should too with a tax increase. This is a tough issue, but the fact that the decision has taken so long is due to bad, partisan politics with politicians looking out for their party rather than their nation’s people.
ReplyDelete-Phoebe W.