On Wednesday, President Obama addressed the nation to talk about the deficit problem. The annual deficit is the amount of money our government spends in a year that is not covered by the taxes we pay. That is opposed to the national debt, which is the accumulation of these deficits.
Currently, our deficit is $1.65 trillion. To put that in perspective, if one dollar equaled one second, it would take over 52,000 years to equal this year’s deficit. I don’t think my poor little calculator could do the math on our over $14 trillion of accumulated debt.
Obviously something needs to be done. We either need more money coming in, or less money going out. As pointed out on IowaHawk’s blog, not enough money realistically exists to cover our expenditures. Therefore, we must reduce our spending to balance the budget and begin to pay down our tremendous debt.
According to Reuters, 59% of Americans would cut programs to reduce deficit spending, while 30% would raise taxes to cover the cost. President Obama agreed in Wednesday’s speech that cutting some spending might be necessary ... right before he slammed Republicans for trying to lead us to a fundamentally different America than the one he’s known.
"The way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known certainly in my lifetime," Obama said, calling their plan "deeply pessimistic." He suggested Republicans were giving up on basic functions of government.
"It's a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can't afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can't afford to send them," Obama said of the Republican plan. "It's a vision that says America can't afford to keep the promise we've made to care for our seniors."
Right. We Republicans gleefully envision a future with crumbling roads and starving seniors. Or maybe some of us actually understand that raising taxes, as President Obama suggests, is just about the worst thing you can do in a down economy.
Something’s got to give, and it’s not our roads and bridges. It’s Pigford settlements, school lunch kickbacks, and that pesky little pension problem. It’s the fact that 1/3 of ‘income’ in the U.S. is a government payout.
Yes, it would be nice if no one ever had to pay for anything like health care or education or housing or food or insert-entitlement-of-choice, but that’s simply not possible. If everything is free, there’s no point in working. If no one’s working ... well, that’s when we get crumbled bridges and starving seniors.
Image via _J_D_R_/Flickr
Do People Who Have Kids Deserve Special Treatment?
Controversy: Gwen Stefani Bleaches Her Son's Hair
A '50 Shades of Grey' Shortcut for Busy Moms
Latest on Baby in Washing Machine Case (VIDEO)
Are People Who Eat Organic Judgy & Mean?
A Dad's Perspective on Playdates
Bagged Salad Recall Sparks New Fears
Help Dying 4-Year-Old Fulfill His Bucket List (VIDEO)
Melissa McCarthy & Sandra Bullock's Buddy Cop Movie
Do Working Moms Have It Easy?
Your Morning Coffee Could Save Your Life
Join the Fight Against Toxic Kids' Products
8 Summery Sweet Popsicles You Can Make at Home
Guy Gets Chest Waxed on National TV (VIDEO)
14 Ways to Be a Happier Mom
Emma Lives with Severe Food Allergies
How to Pack a No-Waste Lunch
Memorial Day Survival Guide
Backstage at Mamma Mia! with Irene Bunis

Comments (22)
I suggest we Do tax those who can certainly afford it! If you make enough to live in a million dollar mansion, you can afford a tax increase! Even if it's only a 3% increase. I also propose treating marijuana like cigarettes and legalizing and regulating it as well as collecting the same tax for it as with cigarettes. I don't feel entitled to receive anything, but if I've worked my entire life and put money into a health plan and for social security, it damn well better be there when I retire!
So Mr. Obama doesn't want a "fundamentally different America", huh? Isn't that the platform that he ran on?? "We are going to fundamentally change America!!" Change Change Change!!!
Well, apparently, it's ok to "change" America, as long as it's HIS way - drive her so far into debt that she crumbles under the weight of his administration's incompetence.
I would def like to see them force pork out of the budget period. It should have never been let in to begin with. We as americans do not need to know the sex life of the freaking tetse fly! Who gives a rats butt really. Yeah you can cut medicaid......make some of the generational welfare workers get a job. I dont mind helping anyone who is working to better themselves but quit giving them handouts to keep breeding. Shut them off after 2 ....if you cant feed them then dont breed them.
And how about someone address illegal immigration.....that would save tons. How about someone legally define the whole anchor baby thing.....are they legal if neither parent is a citizen or not? If they arent then their parents need to work to feed them.
We cannot take care of our own ppl if we keep handing out food and money like we have an open bank to do so.
Oh, his speech would have made me laugh if it didn't make me want to cry. The comment that these cuts will lead to a "fundamentally different America"????? Um, yeah, that would be a socialist American (assuming we can avoid being a bankrupt America), which before Obama, I didn't think I'd ever know, either. He spewed his rhetoric, and paraded the tried and true bleeds - 'the elderly will starve, kids will be stupid!!!!!' To his credit, he added a brand-spankin'-new victim pool - autistic kids and their middle class families! He might as well have darted around the podium screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!"
I am, and always will be, against the form of government this man envisions for America. A nation of people who have no need to prosper is a nation of people who won't prosper. The notion that we can rely on the wealthiest citizens to pull the weight of the bottom teir is a house of cards - because eventually we'll all be rolling around in the "hey, I can get by with what they give me" that we'll have a nation of mediocrity and there won't be any top earners. You can't rely on a handful of rich people (relatively speaking), to forever pay the check for a roomful of underachievers, especially when you make it undesirable to be a rich person by demanding 70% of their earnings.