本当にお金持ち階級は、減税を続けて欲しいと願っているのでしょうか? しかし、金持ち減税を主張するばかりで妥協をすることをしなければ、結局経済を混乱に陥れ、被害を被るのは自分たちなのに‥



 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’ve 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.



 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 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 breaks in the tax code 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 businesses 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 weeks.


 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 different approach -- 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 scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we allcare about --- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.



 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 seven 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 AAA 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, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis --- this one caused almost entirelyby Washington.


 So 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.





  1. 一覧を見る


  1. 1



    12月09日 09:06

  2. 2

    毎日新聞記者の脅迫的取材 毎日新聞はジャーナリズムとは認められない


    12月08日 12:52

  3. 3



    12月09日 09:34

  4. 4



    12月09日 10:35

  5. 5

    転勤を断ったら懲戒解雇される日本 しかし2010年代以降に空気が変わってきた


    12月09日 15:37

  6. 6

    国交省が撤回したコロナ水際対策の国際線新規予約停止 岸田首相「関係閣僚が集まった場で話が出なかった」

    BLOGOS しらべる部

    12月09日 09:32

  7. 7


    PRESIDENT Online

    12月08日 15:36

  8. 8

    日大・田中英寿前理事長の逮捕で “ドンの宿敵” が権力闘争宣言!「彼は最低の人間」


    12月08日 09:09

  9. 9



    12月09日 10:44

  10. 10

    日本人が大好きな「両論併記」によって致命的な戦争が決定された――日米開戦80年目の真実 - フォーサイト編集部


    12月08日 09:47



コメントを書き込むには FacebookID、TwitterID のいずれかで認証を行う必要があります。