Question for Mr. Caldwell - If, as you say, "The only reason this is an issue is because Obama is a Democrat and he is black," why did then Senator Obama vote against the Debt Limit increase when he had the opportunity to in 2006, saying, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

He also had two more chances to vote for an increase when they were needed in 2007 & 2008, but skipped the votes both times. Not what one would really call "leadership."

Democrats have such selective memories--must be something in that Kool-Aid they all drink.

our spending is historically approximately 19% of GDP, currently it is approximately 25%, this is the main problem under President Obama, and the Democratic controlled congress, our spending has skyrocketed. The debt under this president in less than three years is much more than eight years under Bush, so I ask my Democrat friends to please stop trying to avoid responsibility. Yes, Bush spent far too much as well, and we conservatives were never happy about it, but Obama has spent much, much (trillions) more. Another important point is that tax revenues have always remained somewhat consistent regardless of how much you try to punish the rich with confiscatory tax rates. In fact, for the rich, revenues actually increase when rates are lowered. It isn't about collecting tax revenues via higher rates, it is about expanding the economy, this is when overall revenues increase. I favor lower rates for all, and would in return accept the elimination of some deduction in return, but the bigger key to this debt ceiling issue is reducing spending.

"Our spending has skyrocketed" - but not in a vacuum! We can't pretend that such spending was not precipitated by an enormous financial crash brought about by those who favor deregulation of the same entities who were so irresponsible. The innocent victims of that crash have availed themselves of unemployment insurance, food stamps and other parts of the safety net put in place for just such eventualities. It is disingenuous to pretend that somehow this administration is just spending money because that's what Democrats do. And it is not true that revenues increase when rates are lower - the very deficit we are discussing began with the Bush tax cuts. Rates were lowered, and revenues dropped. Hence, deficit. Unfunded wars were the other big driver. The problem didn't begin with govt social programs, and won't be fixed there, either.

48% do not pay taxes in this country - yet they are recipients of many of the social programs. Spreading the wealth is not the solution.

There will be no default if the debt ceiling is not raised. Each month, the federal treasury receives about $200 billion in revenue.

30 billion is the monthly payment of interest due on the national debt.

The remaining 170 billion is more than enough to pay for all federal entitlement and all non-discretionary spending. By statute and by the Constitution, Obama is required to pay the interest on the debt before anything else. He'll have the money for it.
By statute, he has to pay for all entitlements and non-discretionary programs.
As a moral obligation, he has to pay for all entitlements that the American people paid into and were promised.
He'll have the money for that, too.
He'll just have to cut about half of the non-discretionary spending.
Can Obama do that? Of course he can.
Will the American people miss it? No, certainly not over the time it will take to solve this problem once and for all.
Most discretionary spending is political and not the business of the federal government.

And why is Moody's threatening to cut the bond rating of the United States?
This is the same Moody's that had a top, triple-A rating on the bundled sub-prime mortgages on the day they failed.
It's because Moody's is one of the Wall St. stooges for Obama, and they want to join in on pressurizing Republicans.

Dan - I agree the loop holes need to be addressed. What we do not need are more personal income taxes - whether the middle class or high wage earners. The 48% that do not pay taxes are US Households, not corporations. Furthermore, The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment. When I hear people complain about the "Bush Tax Cuts" benefiting the wealthy, they don't realize these tax cuts were at all income levels. I also love how the dems are in support of a "millionaires tax". Guess what - the millionaries tax starts at $250,000. Last I checked that is about $750,000 short of a million. What we need is a simplifed tax code - where everyone, yes everyone pays in. We are in a precarious spot - people become accustomed to receiving something for nothing. This has to end.

So Jerry you feel that in order to prevent more taxes on people in higher incomes that you want to take more money from people who live at or below the poverty level. There is no standard under which I would agree that those people are "Making a Profit" off the government and no moral standard under which I believe that people in survival mode should pay more so that some hedgefund manager can buy a bigger boat. Warren Buffet often talks about the top of the food chain paying too little in taxes and the fact that while he pays 16 % his secretary pays 30%. It is a fact of American history that the best of times in America for the middle class we had higher rates for top income earners. Buffet also points out that over the past 20 years the top 400 tax returns show a gain in income of 10 fold while their tax burden has dropped from 25% to 16 %. What I will never understand is why middle income people support putting a greater burden on themselves while insisting that the rich get richer.

Once you dismiss the urge to don the Robin Hood cape, you'll see that the answer is extremely easy. It is not about perceived "fairness", for which I personally don't give a flying patootie. The rich have the skills, the resources, and the liquidity that the middle class will never possess. When their taxes are increased, they either hire better lawyers to find new loopholes or, failing that, leave for greener pastures. As a result, everyone loses except the Caribbean or East European tax shelter where they settle.

Dan - so what you are saying is lets penalize those who are successful? The reason Buffet pays less is because of loop holes. Lets reduce them. What the current administration doesn't stand is we have a serious spending problem. Tax increases are not the solution. The unemployment rate has doubled on average since Obama has been in office. We have far fewer people paying into the system. And back to Warren Buffet, while he did "only" pay 17% in taxes and his assistant paid 30%, he paid over $8,000,000 (yes, 8 million) in taxes last year and his assistant paid $30,000. The government can't be all things to all people, which we are trying to do. The problem was compunded with Bill Clinton, when he wanted everyone to be a homeowner. How did that turn out Bill?

To keep it straight unemployment didn't double. Bush left with about a 7.4 percent unemployment rate and the current rate is 9.2 (By the way NJ has gone up to 9.1 since Christie took over.) Bush lost almost 3 million private sector jobs in his last year in office. Obama bled private sector jobs for the first 6 months but has been in positive territory since 03/2010. Not where we need to be for sure but certainly better than where we were headed. We are not talking about punishing success simply returning to the tax rates that were in place in in the 90's and lower than they were under Reagan, who by the way raised taxes 11 times. I also remember Bush campaign Lit talking about his having increased home ownership. It is viewed as a measure of middleclass success to own a home but if you buy a $ 1 million home that is now worth $750,000 you can't blame minority home ownership. They didn't cause the housing bubble.

I never mentioned minority home ownership in my comment and am offended that you would bring that into the discussion.

Also - as a point of clarification these are the unemployment rates from 2001-current:
George Bush: 2001 4.7%, 2002 5.8%, 2003 6.0%, 2004 5.5%, 2005 5.1%, 2006 4.6%, 2007 4.6%, 2008 5.8%
Barack Obama: 2009 9.3%, 2010 9.6%, 2011 9.2%

Well your number is getting higher so maybe you will get it right but in any event I don't think you can attribute Jan of 09 when the rate hit 8.5 percent as Obama was only president for 9 days. That was still Bush's watch.

"The only reason this is an issue is because Obama is a Democrat and he is black," Caldwell said. Come on Willie, that is a poor argument and an empty excuse. Obama is only half black, right? He is a chameleon, black, white or any shade in between, his color varies to suit his needs.

Folks -- We've removed several comments from several people on this post. We encourage people to share their views, but ask them to keep things on-topic and civil.

We don't allow comments that promote racism, include personal insults, include open hostility to other users of the site, or go wildly off-topic for the purpose of going down any of those roads. The Internet's a big open space, and if that's what you'd like to do, there are plenty of forums that will allow it; we're not among them. We also don't consider inappropriate posts from another user to be a justification for leaving more. If you see a post you believe is inappropriate, please e-mail louis@patch.com, and we'll look at it as quickly as possible.

In the event the thread continues to be significantly off-topic, we'll close it to comments. We'll also consider suspending the accounts of any users who repeatedly engage in the type of behavior described above.

The point I was trying to make is that we are all some form of mutts. I am a third generation Italian my grandparents came here via ellis Island. Diversity is what makes this country what it is. I aplogize if my comment was taken the wrong way

Mr. Hochman is fully involved in political correctness Max. What else would you expect when everyone wants to protect non-whites and other minority groups from the cold and honest truth. Mr. Hochman and others can't handle it when it's thrown in their face and let people honestly debate it but rather suppress it.

What I had said directly relates to the debt ceiling situation in regards to how this country was founded, what Abraham Lincoln wanted to do before he got assasinated (really wish he had the chance to do it) and how with the combined Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 we've had our country bankrupted through the years with high crime (with associated higher costs of police, incarceration and deportation) social entitlements for these 'people' (free public school education, grants and free healthcare to name a few) with illegals and supposed legals alike. Minority groups forcing banks and lenders to borrow to these non-whites brought on the eventual collapse of 2008 and subsequent second Great Depression. The politicians and rich/world banking elite want to drive this country into full bankruptncy raising the debt ceiling and we can no longer afford to have these non-whites and the rich get what they want.

There's no open hostility or personal insults here Mr. Hochman, just the simple truth. I dare you to leave my post so others can have a civil debate.

Mr. Hochman is fully involved in political correctness Max. What else would you expect when everyone wants to protect non-whites and other minority groups from the cold and honest truth. Mr. Hochman and others can't handle it when it's thrown in their face and let people honestly debate it but rather suppress it.

What I had said directly relates to the debt ceiling situation in regards to how this country was founded, what Abraham Lincoln wanted to do before he got assasinated (really wish he had the chance to do it) and how with the combined Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 we've had our country bankrupted through the years with high crime (with associated higher costs of police, incarceration and deportation) social entitlements for these 'people' (free public school education, grants and free healthcare to name a few) with illegals and supposed legals alike. Minority groups forcing banks and lenders to borrow to these non-whites brought on the eventual collapse of 2008 and subsequent second Great Depression. The politicians and rich/world banking elite want to drive this country into full bankruptncy raising the debt ceiling and we can no longer afford to have these non-whites and the rich get what they want.

There's no open hostility or personal insults here Mr. Hochman, just the simple truth. I dare you to leave my post so others can have a civil debate.