In his eight years as President, George W. Bush raised the debt limit seven times, for an amount of $4 trillion. President Barack Obama however, has in three years raised it five times for $7 trillion. No wonder he's had to change his rhetoric. I'm going to once again quote Obama, "raising the debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." It totally is! As Representative Paul Ryan, said Sunday, "We are not getting the kind of leadership we need. At the time when America needs it the most, we have a debt crisis on our horizon. The Senate hasn't budgeted for 1,005 days now. The president is not even proposing to tackle this fiscal crisis. So, what we need is a new president and a new Senate, and we need to give the country a very specific plan, a set of ideas of how we're going to solve these problems and let the country choose in November what they want America to become."
Raising the debt limit, should never have been an option. There's a limit for a purpose! Why bother even having one, if it is so easy to raise it. If America is ever going to recover from her financial and economic woes and tribulations there can be no more increases. None. As in zero. Nada. No mas. It should not even be something allowed for discussion by the government. To once again agree with candidate Obama's sadly empty words, raising the national debt is "irresponsible, that's unpatriotic".
Reducing the debt has to be the foremost objective of the United States government. Why? Because it is the government's debt. We The People are being held hostage by it. And anytime a government is using anything to hold it's own people hostage, that government becomes an enemy of the people, an enemy of the very country it supposedly is working for. Congress and The President need to receive this message. Are you working for us or against us? If you continue working against us, you are in violation of your oath's of office, and an enemy of the state.
This country separated itself from England due to taxation without representation. Now all of these members were elected, whether their voters were alive or dead. But I seriously doubt any member of congress was elected by their constituents with the expressed purpose of 'bankrupt us further'. In fact, many of the newer members were elected because they promised to not vote for further debt. Congress, let me be clear, you are either for us or against us. Compromise is the nature of politics, but on this issue there is no room for any. No more debt!