ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on July 26, 2011

Was there a winner?

Americans had the opportunity to hear the two depositions by their political leaders on the controversial debate over the federal debt ceiling and its ramifications.

One was to pay off the current debts out right and be able to retain the International trade/credit rating, so as to calm the jitters that were being felt in world financial circles, and the other was to do so on installment basis, which would put it (rating) in jeopardy.

Many would agree that President Barack Obama won the argument hands down, with a stern approach that would remove any doubts in the minds of world financial institutions that America was more serious in meeting its financial obligations without any qualms; whereas the plan by Mr. John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, to alleviate the same problem, and to give the world markets the assurance that the nation would remain staunch in keeping its credit status was, at best, lukewarm.

The two approaches were both directed toward the same objective, and that was to avoid default, which was the real issue or focal point to which the two men must strenuously address before a national television audience; and although Speaker Boehner presented his views in accordance with his political ideology, while the president managed to corral public opinion in making his case.

Both men made it clear that default was not an option, and that the debts must be paid on time; therefore the argument that the president was asking for "a blank check" was not exactly true.

The debts have already been racked up by the Congress of the United States, and every member of the appropriations committees in the House, as well as those in the Senate knew about the due amount; therefore to insinuate that the president was requesting anything other than what he should ask for was wrong.

He stressed that both parties should put politics aside and convince their members that the country's financial future was at stake; and that something which went beyond political aspirations was required of all concerned to straighten the situation out.

In other words, he tried to unite the country behind a plan that would be fair to every citizen; equally sharing the common responsibility to handle a huge deficit, which was hanging over everybody's head, in a very practical and simple way.

Speaker Boehner also made the effort to sound convincing, but there was the obvious strings of a group of just elected Tea Party members being attached to every statement he made. They had influenced his decisions from day one; and if so, it would be hard for him to disassociate from their advise, whether good or bad.

However, in the best interest of the nation, he should come around and agree to merge his plan with the one being proposed by Senator Reid, Majority leader in the Senate, to reach a compromise. It happened to be a one shot plan to resolve the matter once and for all, instead of handling it in two or three stages.

To do so, he has to ask the Republican Party Congressional entourage to put the country first in their deliberations.

As for last night, a great majority of Americans agreed that the president won the debate.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • mdcgardner profile image

      mdcgardner 6 years ago

      One of the easiest ways to get funds to pay our country's debt is to quit spending so much. Stop funding things in other countries when we can't fund our own, cut congress's salary, and stop giving tax breaks to those that don't deserve it. These things would result in more money to pay debts.