“And I know this is near and dear to your hearts — we’re not going to reduce our deficit by cutting education and eliminating college scholarships. In a world where our students face stiff competition from students from other countries, why would we make it harder for you to compete?”

Where's the evidence that the taxpayers are actually getting any real value from the "investments" in education? A college near me just built a fancy new recreation center because they believed that they would lose students to other universities. It seems the universities are getting recreation centers rather than providing better education to their students.

It's about time. He has put big money, banks, and Wall Street first for too long. It's time for him to stand up for the people of this country.

Did we hit the iceberg yet? We must have because we are drowning in debt.

Does anyone really believe Obama's sincerity about reducing spending, when he spent $4.3 Trillion MORE than the budgeted amount over the last 3 years?

A $2.16 Trillion annual federal budget isn't big enough?

What real democratic president would have considered extending the Bush Big Tax Giveaway to the Rich the first time? What democrat would now have us underfunding our own social security and call it a workers' "tax holiday", when we need to beef up SSI? What democrat would have picked Bernanke and Geither to lift up Wall Street while the rest of the nation sinks?

I have very grave doubts about the president at this point. He is talking about having the out-of-control rich and corporations pay somewhat higher taxes--talking about it. I remember too well the things he said he'd do before his last election.

Instead, he helped corpos set on public schools, was worse than Bush in some ways in that. He "admits" that SSI and Medicare need "reform". (And those old enough to remember when pensions, which we all had, were "reformed" into 401-Ks know what that means. Voucher, huh? And insurance companies raking it in while denying claims, the American way.

I'm thinking Feingold. At some point, we have to fight. At some point, the lesser of evils can kill you, too.

With some 84% of Americans saying they want to see the debt ceiling used as a club to impose spending cuts on Congress even when advised that it will lead to default, it looks like we may well experience life after the dollar is no longer the global trade currency as interests rates paid by the government on its debt rise to junk levels.

America still has no idea how stupid it has gotten over the past three or four decades.

Obama is always able to give these two-part answers--"here's the good part BUT let's make sure we see the negatives, too." That to me is a mark of a subtle, honest mind, optimistic but pragmatic. Exactly what we need, a world ahead of the Republicans with their simple-minded ideologies.

Senator Feingold. Is that the new name for Senator McGovern? Or is that the new name for Democratic party obliteration? Please get real, if you don't vote for Obama, you might as well vote for Palin or Trump.

#5: Did you decry Sen. Obama, Reid, and all of the other leftist Dems in 2007 when they voted against raising the debt ceiling? Were we on the brink of defaulting then due to their stupid vote? Were they stupid then or smart now?

Please do not put down Russ Feingold. There are those of us who admire him second only to President Obama whom I support without apologies, to anyone of his critics. I have not forgiven Wisconsin for what it did.

I wish the liberals who truly want the President out of office would find a primary challenger - because if they don't, I really don't know what they would do.

And I agree, Jack, # 7. They'd share the blame should President Obama lose.

jack--You wish. Those are the only two Republicans Obama could beat, and neither will be the nominee. As for me, I'm hoping for Daniels, who would run away with the Midwest.

Obama is clearly the best Republican candidate. Romney is almost identical on the issues, but has a shady past with cutting American jobs.

Who will the Democrats nominate? Someone who cares about jobs, about working people? Russ Feingold? Howard Dean?

Obama - only a hair's difference from Palin or Trump or any of Obama's fellow clowns competing for the Republican nomination [excluding the reputable Romney, of course]. Maybe it's time to go Green and vote for the Green Party.

The Democrats should look for whose support is decisive in Mr. Obama winning a second term.

This guy is really a democrat. Really? Could you ever imagine SS and Medicare beig under assault under a Democratic President?

DIdn't he promise all of this stuff when he campaigned the first time? And you all believed it then? And you believe it now???? So sad. He still in the pockets of big business but you've been drinking that kool aid for so long that you can't see it.A candidate will say anything, why even roll up his sleeves to appeal to the masses...and still you believe. How foolish. He has been campaigning for two years already, actually more like 3 or 4. When those that we elect start paying into the very system that WE ALL HAVE to, then and only then will there be change. Until then candidate/president Obama is just another empty suit full of emptier promises. In the immortal words of The Who..Won't get fooled again.

The Republicans never stopped trying to undermine Social Security from the moment FDR got it enacted.

Amy from Brooklyn,
You of course are joking when you say; "Where's the evidence that the taxpayers are actually getting any real value from the "investments" in education?"
We need more investment in education, not less and that is a no-brainer!

Lenny Kohm (#16)--do yourself a favor and watch the movie "Waiting For Superman". They overwhelmingly prove that more money does NOT solve the public education problem.

They also debunk this notion that poor minority children are victims of bad grades because of bad parenting and no opportunities. The real reason the schools are so bad is because of the corrupt, recycling, and manipulating Unions.

Why don't we start by cleaning that up first.

With the 235-to-193 party line vote in the House of Representatives last Friday afternoon on the 2012 budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican/Tea Party has 'jumped the shark."

The Ryan plan shows the Republicans in all their "Republicaness" as the party that wants to end Medicaid and Medicare as these programs presently exist (i.e., eliminate the guarantee of medical care for the poor and elderly), while giving a trillion dollars in tax cuts to wealthy Americans.

How despicable and ugly the Republican/Tea Party is. Their true colors are showing.

With this vote, the Republican/Tea Party is embracing the caricature of itself: telling the poor they'll have to do with less, throwing grandma and grandpa out of the hospital, and making life easier and more generous for millionaires and billionaires. The Republican/Tea Party claims its proposed "reforms" (block grants to states to cover some of the costs of health care for the poor and employing a privatized voucher system for the elderly that won't provide any guarantee of medical services) will strengthen Medicaid and Medicare. And it's again asserting that restoring the Clinton-era tax rates will impede economic growth. But its argument boils down to this (same as always): trickle-down economics, but this time accusing President Obama and others who link the Republican/Tea Party's draconian Medicare and Medicaid cuts to tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires of engaging in "class warfare."

During the 2011 budget compromise of a few weeks ago, the Republican/Tea Party message was simplistic: cut spending to save the economy. Of course, this doesn't make sense because cutting spending can reduce demand, which is not likely to boost a tepid economy. But it sounds reasonable. After all, if individuals have to tighten their belts in hard times, shouldn't the government? As public opinion polls indicate, cutting spending is far more appealing in the abstract.

The 2012 House budget plan is not so abstract. The main targets are known, and when it comes to Medicare, voters care a lot.

It's funny. In 2010 the Republican/Tea Party ranted and ran attack ads against Democrats assailing health care reform, which included hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare savings that the Republican/Tea Party blasted as "cuts" that would threaten the program. Now, in 2011, the Republican/Tea Party is proposing a far more radical change that would eviscerate Medicare's foundational premise: guaranteed service. Future seniors (those who are now under age 55) would be handed vouchers they can use to obtain insurance, which may or may not cover all the health care they need, and they would have to pay thousands of dollars more annually to cover their medical bills.

After having a difficult time contending with the Republican/Tea Party's continuing chants for government spending cuts, President Obama finally has a counter-weight: the Republican/Tea Party wants to destroy an essential and effective government program that individuals might need to lower taxes for the wealthy. At least President Obama now has a simplistic argument almost as easy to convey and grasp as the "cut baby cut" mantra.

Yes of course TR, we should base our national educational policy on a movie.

What do you mean; "The real reason the schools are so bad is because of the corrupt, recycling, and manipulating Unions." You are not really saying that the Unions are responsible for the inability of children to learn are you?