Obama on Debt Ceiling 2007

[kenny]

The President's been in office for five years. The Democrats were in control of the House from 2007 to 2011. It's his failed policies and his economy. Only 42% of Americans are paying income taxes, and we can't afford all your parroted spending priorities.

Reducing the deficit by 1/2 is good, and the sequester helped that, but unless we quit raising the debt ceiling, the spending will never be under control. Prioritization and tough spending decisions need to be made. The government is not Santa Claus!

[mgstei1]

The debt ceiling is monies needed to pay what we ALL have already spent. Its been raised over 100 times since the 50's. Our government has reduced the deficit spending by 1/2 in the last few years. But WE still spend more than we take in. Meanwhile, we need higher paying UNION jobs, training, minimum wage hikes, fix our bridges, roads, and parks, and better health care for ALL. The loan sharks will get ALL of us if we default on what WE ALL owe to OUR creditors. Americans need the debt ceiling raised without default, the ACA(Obamacare) for ALL, and pray that we rethink taking SNAP benefits from Americans that need them so badly. I never dreamed or imagined that our Christian nation would become so greedy and evil. I support Barry 100% and pray our Congress wakes up to how badly they are hurting Americans when we need their help in so many ways.

[Oleander Kayaker]

Fairy tales!! The congressional record is a bunch of who ha!

He just said (several times in the same speech) that raising the debt ceiling, doesn't boost debt!

Chew on that and twist your profligated brain into submission.

[um, satire off]

[kenny]

Ok all you team blue folks. Your demagogue was in his element today as the Community Organizer-in-Chief at a Ford plant (lots of irony there) railing against the House Republicans for having the nerve to try and block HIM from raising the federal debt ceiling. Oh he's good at dividing the country, and the willing MS media will parrot what ever the narrative de jour may be on any subject, but why not read what he said on the same subject in 2007? Because you don't care, you already know he's a liar, right?