Obama wants bigger debt deal - up to $4 trillion

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Two Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations over a deal to raise the debt limit said Wednesday that President Obama wants the final deal to be bigger than the $2 trillion deal that has been the focus of negotiations so far.

In fact, they said, Mr. Obama wants the deal to save the government as close to $4 trillion as possible.

Mr. Obama said Tuesday that lawmakers have "a unique opportunity to do something big," and a deal to save the federal government $4 trillion would certainly qualify. The officials said the president believes "these moments come around at most once a decade" and that "you can't run away from an opportunity like this."

According to the officials, Mr. Obama believes that a larger deal would actually be easier to get through Congress. His thinking, they indicated, is this: Any major deal, whether it's for $2 trillion in cuts or $4 trillion in cuts, will cause significant pain for both parties. But a larger deal allows backers to argue that despite their misgivings, they've taken a major step toward dealing with the deficit and debt problem.

Mr. Obama made the case for doing something "significant," - that is, the larger deal - in conversations on Tuesday with the four top leaders in Congress: House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The president called for a $4 trillion deficit cut over 12 years in a speech in April, achieved in part by raising taxes on the highest-earning Americans. 

While Democrats initially called for a "clean" vote to raise the debt ceiling, they eventually began negotiating with Republicans, who insisted on spending cuts larger than the increase in the debt limit in exchange for their votes. (A $2 trillion increase would likely get lawmakers through the 2012 election.) Democrats insist that any deal must include revenue increases in addition to spending cuts, while Republicans have said any tax hikes are off the table. The Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations predicted a deal that includes tax increases can win enough votes from Republicans to pass the GOP-led House, arguing that "there is an openness there [with Republicans] to some revenues."

The officials cited comments Wednesday by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who said that "if the president wants to talk loopholes [in the tax code], we'll be glad to talk loopholes," to bolster their case. But it's important to note that Cantor went on to say that "any discussion of loopholes must be accompanied by offsetting tax cuts," adding, "we are not for increasing revenues."

The officials nonetheless argued that the anti-revenue rhetoric from Republicans "isn't on the level" because "everyone knows a deal can't work without revenues."

The administration has set August 2 as the date at which the United States will exceed its $14.3 trillion debt limit, potentially leading to "a second recession or worse," according to Mr. Obama. Officials say the framework for a deal must be in place by roughly July 22 to get the deal done in time.

The president has invited congressional leaders to the White House for continued negotiations Thursday.

[WeHappyFew]

Seeing as CBS has taken a dislike to uploading my replies I will write in response to cbsnaclibuper who is still hawking some neatly selected clips of a handful of Democrats debating regulation of F&F in 2004.
Bush had a Republican Congressional majority. He was POTUS. He could have pushed through regulation.

I do not recall the debate argument of a handful of Democrats putting him off supporting the Bush tax cuts.
I do not recall the debate argument of a handful of Democrats putting him off going to a spurious and costly war in Iraq which was illegal under the very law his own father brought to the UN.

I don't remember him acquiescing over these things. Blaming a handful of Democrats for the failings of the last Republican regime is shameful political cowardice in the extreme.

[Zann-Zel]

"The president called for a $4 trillion deficit CUT over 12 years"
---------
The article does NOT say he's adding $4 trillion to the deficit!
He's trying to cut it - bring it down - Reducing the deficit!

Is that NOT what everyone kept saying they wanted?

[Lindag10]

Yes, but the Repubicans don't really WANT that, they'd rather cut off their noses than do anything but line their OWN pockets.

[Zann-Zel]

True...it'll be fine with me if Obama cuts off their noses AND reduces the deficit! LOL!

[RobAla]

From the beginning of the nation until the end of President Bush's last term, the United State accumulated a terrible $9 trillion national debt. In 29 months, President Obama has added another $5 trillion to it, and he now wants to add another $4 trillion to that. The man is severely damaging the economic health of the nation. He is consumed with massive federal government, and this outweighs any rational thought and any desire to create jobs in a healthy private sector. It is the private sector that generates taxes for the federal government. This is nuts!

[cbsnacilbuper]

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

[WeHappyFew]

The Bush Administration for its first half decade had a MAJORITY CONGRESS in which time the Republicans overspent, failed to balance budgets, raised the debt ceiling on a clean bill, sunk not one but two bills, from BOTH sides of the aisle, to tighten regulation of the financial sector including Fannie and Freddie.

Now time will tell whether the current administration's gamble, for that is what it is, paid off but frankly those who voted Bush Twice and the McCain really have zero moral or intellectual right to comment.

This is why we have the Tea Party. Its a wonderful invention for those Republicans who wish to shield the glasshouse Dubya left them sitting in in whilst they lob stones at the current government.

[askagain]

It is all political posturing. On the radio, an economics professor from the University of Maryland stated that the government is already collecting record high taxes, that there is enough tax revenue to meet our obligations, and that there is no need to raise the debt ceiling.

[Lindag10]

Rightwing propoganda. ALL the leading economists state that the tax RATE is lower than it's been in 60 years, and there's NOT enough revenue to cover the obligations the US has facing it.

[ghostofandy]

How much of this money will go to Iraq and Afghanistan?? Why are you spending so much on these damn countries when we need money here?

[cbsnacilbuper]

Libya and Somalia too.

[RobAla]

It is irresponsibly outrageous that President Obama wants to add another $4 trillion to the national debt. His consuming desire for massive government outweighs any desire to create jobs and to create a conditions for a healthy economy. His judgment is irrational, unless he is purposefully trying to bring the nation to economic collapse. This shows he has no intention to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. I am totally disgusted.

[cbsnacilbuper]

One of Obama's first acts as president was to freeze the salaries of all White House officials earning more than $100,000 because "during this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington." Two years later, he extended that policy to all federal workers, using the same logic: "Small businesses and families are tightening their belts. Their government should too."

But the across-the-board freeze didn't take effect until January 1, 2011, so the most recent report (which goes back to July 2010) features some eye-opening raises, like special assistant to the president for economic policy Matthew Vogel's $59,000, 82% raise to an annual salary of $130,500, or director of African American media Kevin Lewis' $36,000, 86% pay hike.

Both of those were accompanied by title changes indicating that the bigger paychecks came along with new duties.

But almost half of the raises doled out by the White House in the last year-59, or 40% of all raises-weren't accompanied by new job descriptions.

One of them-special assistant and associate counsel to the president Michael Gottlieb's 14% pay bump from $114,000 to $130,500-was a clear violation of Obama's freeze on salaries over $100,000.

UPDATE: A White House spokesman says that, because Gottlieb left his job in 2010 only to return in 2011 at precisely the same title but with a higher salary, his raise didn't violate the freeze.

Games.

[cbsnacilbuper]

special assistant for ECONOMIC POLICY gets an 82% raise?

Here is the chart.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2011/07/0706_whchart.jpg

[cbsnacilbuper]

before, the DNC has had two and 1/2 years to make it work. How many jobs created with 783 Billion dollars. Billion!

[konr22]

They raised the debt ceiling for George W. Bush seven times. No questions asked.

[RobAla]

I was concerned with the $9 trillion national debt that President Bush gave us, but I am alarmed at the $14.4 trillion debt that President Obama is leaving the nation. Now he wants to add another $4 trillion to that staggering figure. This is totally irresponsible, and I am totally disgusted.

[GunsInTheSky]

by Inbetweenideas July 7, 2011 1:22 AM EDT
Wow good night your shear stupidity has worn me out. It is like talking to a 5 year old. Good night all.

===========

I can't help it if you don't understand what the no fly zone was...or that you don't want to discuss what hans blitz was telling bush before he invaded.

running and hiding won't change these facts, you claim to be interested in...nor will calling me names. Grow up.

[GunsInTheSky]

by Inbetweenideas July 7, 2011 1:20 AM EDT
Are you crazy? The greatest housing BOOM happened in that time frame the BURST of the Bubble as you called it started in 2007 and blew up in 2008 just as all the references i gave you stated. GEES learn to at least READ for god's sake.
======================

So you admit you NOW understand the problem was created long before 2007????? I guess that is good, since you've been blaming the dems taking control of power in 2007 for causing the problem up until now. Do you see how silly your magic date theories are now???

BTW, your own article points out that the housing market peaked in 2006. Of course it took a couple of years to see the full impact.

It is like you only see the tip of the iceburg...and not the root cause. Again, you sound like the other mindless GOPers that parot the same things you posted in this thread tonight. Nothing you said was original or correct. Sorry to burst your bubble (pun intended).