enough votes to pass but only barely. by our count, 18 republicans now say they would be willing to join all 200 house democrats in favor of such legislation. if you do the math, that would make 218 yes votes for this clean cr, or continuing resolution. you need 217 given the two vacancies in the house right now. that would be a bare majority. but that kind of rovote is not likely to come up unless the speaker would allow it to come up. they don't have enough votes to go around. let's bring in our senior white house correspondent jim acosta. he's standing by at the white house in the briefing room. it was pretty hastily organized, today's news conference. only a couple hours or so ago they announced the president would do this. >> twhhat's right, wolf. as you know, he canceled that trip to asia. the president has had some time on his hands. the white house usually provides a week ahead. what you've seen the president

do over the last several days is hold small, hastily arranged events at the last minute. yesterday he went to fema. today's holding this news conference. on friday, he went out for a sandwich. every day he's made the point of saying basically the same thing, that he's not going to negotiate with house speaker john boehner on a continuing resolution to reopen the government or on a debt ceiling increase until they basically, in the house of representatives, agree to do it in a clean fashion. these things have to be done without partisan strings attached. you mentioned, wolf, that the president is willing to talk about some of these other issues. he's also said that. he's said he's willing to talk about budget cuts, willing to talk about changes to health care reform, but he wants to do that outside of this threat of a government shutdown, outside of this threat of a debt default. but wolf, one thing i'll be watching for in this news conference is whether the president, whether this white house has really moved at all in recent days. you heard yesterday some talk of a short-term debt ceiling

increase as a potential compromise that might get the government away from the brink of october 17th. you've heard members of the house talk about a super committee, another budget super committee that might get both sides together in a room hammering out some kind of agreement that might pull the government away from the brink. we may hear the president ask these questions. we're probably also going to get asked -- or hear the president get asked about a debt default in general. it's unclear as to what might happen around the country to average americans and their businesses and daily lives if the country goes into default. the treasury secretary jack lew has said it's risky, dangerous if we go into default. you haven't heard the treasury department, you haven't heard this white house specifically lay out what might happen in the event of a default. we may hear the president talk about that. the other thing that has been happening while all of this has been going on, wolf, with this shutdown and this prospect of a debt default is that the

president and this white house has rolled out health care reform. they've opened up those online exchanges, but those exchanges have suffered from glitches and delays because of the mass influx of people going on to these websites and because these websites were not properly put together. you've heard that from the department of health and human services. there have been some issues with the software and layout and the capacity of these websites to take on that flood of new people coming into the system, trying to buy insurance. so you may hear the president asked about that as well. but this white house has had some cover in recent days because of the shutdown, because both sides haven't been willing to talk about this. health care has sort of been the undercurrent in all of this. we may hear the president asked about that as well. wolf, the main thing i think we're going to have to listen for in the next few minutes is whether or not the president has moved at all in any of this. you heard house speaker john bayer bay er -- boehner earlier this morning saying there's never been a

president who's refused to negotiate. >> an you'll let us know when the white house gives us that two-minute warning. >> will do. >> gloria borger is watching what's going on. it's interesting what the press secretary put out. they said the president repeated his willingness to negotiate on priorities he's identified, including policies that expand economic opportunity, support private sector job creation, enhance the competitiveness of american businesses, strengthen the affordable care act, and continue to reduce the nation's deficit. but he won't do any of that under the threat of the government shutdown or raising the nation's debt ceiling. so republicans will ask, why would they give up their leverage on these other issues and go into negotiations without much leverage if they were willing to accept this demand from the president? >> but you're presuming, then, that the republicans would not mind if the debt ceiling were not raised. you know, the republicans i talk

to actually say, you know, we all agree that would be a bad thing. john boehner has said that would be a bad thing. i think what we're looking at, wolf, is a way -- these parties all need to find a way to figure out how to talk to each other without talking to each other. they have to come up with a new definition for the word negotiate or they have to have other people do the negotiations for them because they are so dug in. the speak eer is so dug in. president is so dug in. there is no wiggle room here. the president said he's willing to negotiate with republicans but only after you remove the threat of the government shutdown and default. that's his clear position. that's why there are no negotiations going on. dana bash just sent us all an e-mail saying she talks to a senior republican on the hill who said nada, nothing. nothing is going on. i think they have to figure out a way around it.

i think they know they have to figure out a way around it, and there are people working to figure out a way around it, but i don't think they're there yet. >> as we're awaiting the president, he's going to be walking into the briefing room within a few moments. let's go to capitol hill. dana bash is standing by up there. i assume that's the major republican fear. if they were willing to accept these demands from the president, no negotiations as far as the debt ceiling, no negotiations as far as ending the government shutdown, their leverage would be lost in terms of dealing with maybe some revisions on obama care and some of these other sensitive issues. is that their big fear? >> absolutely. i think that's true for both sides. both sides feel the only way they have leverage at this point is sticking to their guns. i should tell you that john boehner just walked by here on the way to it the house floor a few minutes ago. i asked him what he wanted to hear from the president. he just looked at me like, really? because he's said so many times publicly what he says he wants to hear from the president, which is come on down, let's have a conversation.

i should also say it's john boehner's policy since he's been speaker not to talk to reporters in the hallway as he's walking to and from it the house floor. regardless, what gloria just said is very true. i've been talking to people in these halls, just even in the past 15, 20 minutes, saying, really, is there anything going on? any quiet conversations? anything that you're just not telling us about? the answer, really, is no. it's not that there aren't ideas along the lines perhaps of what gloria was talking about, a way for everybody to save face, a way for the president to still say and democrats to say they didn't negotiate on the debt ceiling but republicans to say they at least got a process moving to do things maybe in tandem and not attached to one another. i mean, this sounds very processy and maybe for a lot of people looking in maybe childish. that is where we are right now. both the democrats and republicans have so much at

stake here with regard to their credibility, not just with each other, but more importantly with their bases. they're all telling them to fight and to stick to their guns. so there needs to be a way out of it. there just aren't any discussions in order to get the ball rolling to find that way out, that way to thread the needle to get out of this mess that everybody is in. once those discussions start, it's probably easy for them to find that way. >> they need to find some way out of this because it is a horrible, horrible situation by all accounts. all right. stand by for a moment, dana. christine romans has been watching the markets. she's been watching what's going on. if we take a look at the president, let's say he makes his opening statement, christine, and answers a bunch of questions from reporters, i assume we'll probably see some fluctuation in the dow jones, some of the indices, investors it reacting to what they hear from the president. talk about maybe the disconnect between wall street and

washington. >> there really is right now. the people i talk to on wall street, my sources say they just don't believe that congress could be so stupid as to push the u.s. past the brink here. they think that there's going to have to be some sort of deal to raise the debt limit, but there's no evidence of that. that's why you've got some folks starting to get a little nervous about just how much damage could be done to your nest egg, your 401(k). you still have stocks up very, very big this year. the s&p has only taken off about 3% since the shutdown started and all this drama over the debt ceiling began. really, wall street is telling you, wolf, that they think this is going to have to be resolved. you know the politics. the politics right now aren't looking so good. when i look at the accounting, the numbers, october 17th and the month after that, i see tens of billions of dollars of bills coming due. just november 1st, you look at the bills coming due. you've got some $43 billion just to seniors on that day. you've got military pay coming

the next day. a few days later, $6 billion or $12 billion on interest on our loans. one after another, there are some big bills coming due after that october 17th day. there just isn't enough money to pay all those bills. american government finances itself. that's what this fight is about right here. wall street just doesn't believe they could be stupid enough to do this. >> you know, it's hard to believe. just to give us some perspect e perspective, a lot of us remember in 2008 when the markets collapsed, correct me if i'm wrong because you watch this a lot more closely, they were above 4,000 and went down to be below 7,000 as a result of that recession that impacted the u.s. in 2011 when there was a similar battle over raising are the debt ceiling, the dow jones collapsed about 2,000 points within a mat per of a few days. am i right? >> you're right. and here's the thing. how sad that a government

responds to market forces. one thing that's important to remember here is that the debt ceiling is the symptom. it's not the disease. it's not the problem. the problem is the fact you haven't had a budget since 2009. these two parties can't agree on how to run the government's business, right. the debt ceiling is just paying for what congress has already spent. i get it that i think there are a lot of people who think they have to have an intervention. the only thing they have to work with is this debt ceiling. when you look from warren buffett to charlie munger, to everybody kind of person who has their hand in the global economy, they say, you must raise the debt ceiling. you will hurt the u.s. economy. you will destabilize the globe. you must raise the debt ceiling. with one voice they're all saying that.

i think, you know, washington simply has to listen. the politics are not there yet. >> yeah, we'll see what happens. the dow jones right now, let's put it up on the screen. i want to see where the number is right now. then i want to compare it after the president is done with his opening statement, after he's done with his q&a. right now it's down 123 points or so. let's see what the number is when the president wraps it all up. i'm guessing 20 minutes or half an hour or so from now. christine, don't go too far away. gloria, we got some new poll numbers. i want to put them up on the screen. the public is angry almost at everyone. a little more angry at the republicans. 53% say they're angry at the president. 57% say they're angry at democrats. and 63% say they're angry at republicans. no one is coming out of this looking well. >> look, the voters are angry. you can't get half of the people in this country to agree on anything. more than half of them agree

they're angry at somebody. they may disagree on whom they're angry at, but it's terrible. they see what's going on in washington. they see this train wreck coming. they see congress being unable to deal with it. they see, you know -- at first they were blaming the republicans an awful lot more because of attaching the president's health care reform plan to keeping the government open. now the republicans are probably gaining a little traction with their talk that the democrats are unwilling to negotiate. maybe that's helping them to a certain degree. the big picture here is if you step back, they see a dysfunctional government. congress, which has an approval rating at 10%, and this is not what they bargained for after this last campaign. we heard the president after the campaign and john boehner after the campaign talk about how they had to work together and get along. of course, everything is dissolved. the president's agenda is on

hold. we're trying to just keep the government running and fund our credit card bill. we can't even do that. so why shouldn't they be angry? >> let me go back to jim acosta if he's still there. >> i'm with you. >> all right. good. did -- do we know if at the end of the conversation that the president had with the speaker john boehner today, did they say, let's continue these phone conversations, let's have dinner, let's have a meeting, let's go play golf? did they wrap it up on a note of continuing this conversation, or they just said good-bye? >> i think they just said good-bye, wolf. i think they will talk again, but here comes the president now. >> all right. let's listen. >> it go >> good afternoon, everybody. i'm eager to take your questions, so i'll try to be brief. this morning i had a chance to speak with speaker boehner. i told him what i've been saying publicly, that i'm happy to talk with him and other republicans

about anything, not just issues i think are important, but also issues that they think are important. but i also told him that having such a conversation, talks, negotiations, shouldn't require hanging the threats of a government shutdown or economic chaos over the heads of the american people. think about it this way. the american people do not get to demand a ransom for doing their jobs. you don't get a chance to call your bank and say, i'm not going to pay more mortgage this month unless you throw in a new car and an x-box. if you're in negotiations around buying somebody's house, you don't get to say, well, let's talk about the price i'm going to pay, and if you don't give me the price, i'm going to burn down your house. that's not how negotiations work. that's not how it happens in business. it's not how it happens in private life. in the same way, members of

congress and the house of republicans in particular don't get to demand ransom in exchange for doing their jobs. two of their very basic jobs are passing a budget and making sure that america's paying its bills. they don't also get to say, you know, unless you give me what the voters rejected in the last election, i'm going to cause a recession. that's not how it works. no american president would deal with a foreign leader like this. most of you would not deal with either co-workers or business associates in this fashion. we shouldn't be dealing this way here in washington. you know, i've heard republicans suggest that, well, no, this is reasonable, this is entirely appropriate, but as i've said before, imagine if a democratic congress threatened to crash the global economy unless a republican president agreed to gun background checks or immigration reform. i think it's fair to say that

republicans would not think that was appropriate. so let's lift these threats from our families and our businesses and let's get down to work. it's not like this is a new position that i'm taking here. i had speaker boehner and the other leaders in just last week. either my chief of staff or i have had serious conversations on the budget with republicans more than 20 times since march. so we've been talking all kinds of business. what we haven't been able to get are serious positions from the republicans that would allow us to actually resolve some core differences. and they have decided to run out the clock until there's a government shutdown or the possibility of default thinking is would give them more leverage. that's not my characterization. they said it themselves. that was their strategy from the

start. and that is not how our government is supposed to run. it's not just me, by the way, who has taken the position that we're willing to have conversations about anything. senate democrats have asked to sit down with house republicans and hash out a budget but have been rejected by the house republicans 19 times. at the beginning of this year, speaker boehner said, what we want is regular order and a serious budget process. so senate should pass a bill and house should pass a bill and then a committee comes together and they hash out their differences and they send the bill to the president. well, that's exactly what democrats did. except somewhere along the way, house republicans decided they wouldn't appoint people to the committee to try to negotiate. 19 times they've rejected that. so even after all that, the

democrats in the senate still passed a budget that effectively reflects republican priorities at republican budget levels just to keep the government open. and the house republicans couldn't do that either. the point is, i think not only the white house but also democrats in the senate and democrats in the house have shown more than ample willingness to talk about any issues that the republicans are concerned about. but we can't do it if the entire basis of the republican strategy is we're going to shut down the government or cause economic chaos if we don't get 100% of what we want. so my suggestion to the speaker has been and will continue to be, let's stop the excuses, let's take a vote in the house, let's end this shutdown right now. let's put people back to work. there are enough reasonable republicans and democrats in the

house who are willing to vote yes on a budget that the senate has already passed. that vote could take place today. shutdown would be over. then serious negotiations could proceed around every item in the budget. now, as soon as congress votes to reopen the government, it's also got to vote to meet our country's commitments, pay our bills, raise the debt ceiling because as reckless as a government shutdown is, the economic shutdown caused by america defaulting would be dramatically worse. i want to talk about this for a minute. even though people can see and feel the effects of a government shutdown, they're already experiencing it right now, there are still some people out there who don't believe that default is a real thing. we've been hearing that from some republicans in congress,

that default would not be a big deal. so let me explain this. if congress refuses to raise what's called the debt ceiling, america would not be able to meet all of our financial obligations for the first time in 225 years. because it's called raising the debt ceiling, i think a lot of americans think it's raising our debt. it is not raising our debt. it does not add a dime to our debt. it simply says, you pay for what congress has already authorized america to purchase. whether that's the greatest military in the world or veterans benefits or social security. whatever it is that congress has already authorized, what this does is make sure that we can pay those bills. now, the last time that the tea party republicans flirted with

the idea of default two years ago, markets plunged, business and consumer confidence plunged, america's credit rating was downgraded for the first time. a decision to actually go through with it, to actually permit default, according to many ceos and economists, would be, and i'm quoting here, insane, catastrophic, chaos. these are some of the more polite words. warren buffett likened default to a nuclear bomb, a weapon too horrible to use. it would disrupt markets. it would undermine the world's confidence in america as the bedrock of the global economy. and it might perm faanently increase our borrowing costs, which ironically would mean it would be more expensive to service what debt we do have and add to our deficits and debt, not decrease them. there's nothing fiscally

responsible about that. preventing this should be simple, as i said. raising the debt ceiling is a lousy name, which is why members of congress in both parties don't like to vote on it. it makes you vulnerable in political campaigns. but it does not increase our debt. it does not grow our deficits. it does not allow for a single dime of increased spending. all it does is allow the treasury department to pay for what congress has already spent. but as i said, it's always a tough vote. people don't like doing it. although, it has been done 45 times since ronald reagan took office. nobody in the past has ever seriously threatened to breach the debt ceiling until the last two years. and this is the credit worthiness of the united states we're talking about. this is our word. this is our good name. this is real. in a government shutdown, millions of americans face inconvenience or outright

hardship. in an economic shutdown, every american could see their 401(k)s and home values fall, borrowing costs for mortgages and student loans rise, and there would be a significant risk of a very deep recession at a time when we're still climbing our way out of the worst recession in our lifetimes. you know, the american people have already fought too hard and too long to come back from one crisis only to see a handful of more extreme republicans in the house of representatives precipitate another one. the good news is over the past 3 1/2 years, our businesses have created 7 1/2 million new jobs. our housing market is healing. we've cut the deficit in half since i took office. the deficit is coming down faster than any time in the last 50 years. america's poised to become the number one energy producer in the world this year.

this year for the first time in a very long time, we're producing more oil than we're importing. so we got a lot of good things going for us, but the uncertainty caused by just one week of this nonsense so far has caused businesses to reconsider spending and hiring. we've seen consumer confidence plunge to it the lowest level since 2008. you've seen mortgages held up by thousands of home buyers who weren't sure about the economic situation out there. and all this adds to our deficits. it doesn't subtract from it. so we can't afford these manufactured crises every few months. as i said, this one isn't even about deficits or spending or budgets. our deficits are falling at the fastest pace in 60 years. the budget that the senate passed is at republican spending levels. it's their budget that democrats were willing to put votes on just to make sure the government was open while negotiations took place for a longer term budget.

what's happened -- the way we got to this point was one thing and one thing only. that was republican obsession with dismantling the affordable care act and denying health care to millions of people. that law ironically is moving it forward. so most americans, democrats and republicans, agree that health care should not have anything to do be keeping our government open or paying our bills on time. which is why i will sit down and work with anyone of any party, not only to talk about the budget, i'll talk about ways to improve the health care system. i'll talk about ways that we can shrink our long-term deficits. i'll also want to talk about how we're going to help the middle class and strengthen early childhood education and improve our infrastructure and research and development. there are a whole bunch of things i want to talk about in terms of how we're going to make sure everybody's getting a fair

shake in this society and that our economy is growing in a broad based way and billing obur middle class. if anybody doubts my sincerity about that, i've put forward proposals in my budget to reform entitlement programs for the long haul and reform our tax code in a way that would close loopholes and help us invest in new jobs and reduce our deficits. some of these were originally republican proposals. i don't believe any party has a monopoly on good ideas. so i've shown myself willing to go more than halfway in these conversations. if reasonable republicans want to talk about these things again, i'm ready to head up top the hill and try. i'll even spring for dinner again. but i'm not going to do it until the more extreme parts of the republican party stop forcing john boehner to issue threats

about our economy. we can't make extortion routine as part of our democracy. democracy doesn't function this way. and this is not just for me. it's also for my successors in office, whatever party they're from. they shouldn't have to pay a ransom either for congress doing its basic job. we got to put a stop to it. last point i'll make. already this week i had to miss critical meetings in asia to promote american jobs and businesses. and although as long as we get this fixed that's not long-term damage, whenever we do these things, it hurts our credibility around the world. it makes it look like we don't have our act together. that's not something we should welcome. the greatest nation on earth shouldn't have to get permission from a few irresponsible members of congress every couple of months just to keep our government open or to prevent an economic catastrophe. so let's pass a budget.

let's end this government shutdown. let's pay our bills. let's avert an economic shutdown. let's drop the gimmicks, put aside what's good for any particular party, and let's focus on what's good for the american people because they know we've got a lot of work to do. all right? so with that, let me take a couple questions and i'll start with julie pace of ap. >> thank you, mr. president. obviously, if congress does pass a clean cr and a clean debt ceiling bill, those may be short-term measures. if that happens, does your offer to negotiate with them on issues like health care and spending and deficit reduction still stand in the intervening weeks? >> absolutely. what i've said is that i will talk about anything. what will happen is we won't agree on everything. i mean, the truth is, the parties are pretty divided on a whole bunch of big issues right now.

everybody understands that. by the way, voters are divide on a lot of those issues too. i recognize that there are some house members, republican house members where i got clobbered in the last election. you know, they don't get politically rewarded a lot for being seen as negotiating with me. that makes it harder for divided government to come together. but i am willing to work through all those issues. the only thing that our democracy can't afford is a situation where one side says, unless i get my way and only my way, unless i get concessions before we even start having a serious give and take, i'll threaten to shut down the government or i will threaten to not pay america's bills.

so, you know, i will not eliminate any topic of conversation, and i've shown myself willing to engage all the parties involved, every leader on every issue. >> that applies no matter how long the time frame is on the clean bill they would pass? >> the only thing i will say is that we're not going to pay a ransom for america paying its bills. that's something that should be nonnegotiable, and everybody should agree on that. everybody should say one of the most valuable things we have is america's credit worthiness. this is not something we should even come close to fooling around with. so when i read people saying, no, this wouldn't be a big deal, we should test it out. let's take default out for a spin and see how it rides.

i say imagine in your private life if you decided that i'm not going to pay my mortgage for a month or two. first of all, you're not saving money by not saving your mortgage. you're just a deadbeat. and you can anticipate that will hurt your credit, which means that in addition to debt collectors calling, you're going to have trouble borrowing in the future. and if you are able to borrow in the future, you're going to have to borrow at a higher rate. what's true for individuals is also true for nations, even the most powerful nation on earth. and if we are creating an atmosphere in which people are not sure whether or not we pay our bills on time, then that will have a severe long-term impact on our economy and on america's standard of living.

that's not something that we should even be in a conversation about. that is not something we should be using as leverage. okay. juliana. >> thank you, mr. president. you laid out the economic consequences of the default, but if we were to get to that point, would you prioritize and pay bondholders first to maintain a semblance of credit rather than social security recipients or military servicemen and women? how would you make that determination? >> i am going to continue to be very hopeful that congress does not put us in that position. i think if people understand what the consequences are, they will set that potential scenario aside. i do know that there have been

some who have said that if we just pay bondholders, just pay people who have bought treasury bills, that we really won't be in default because those interest payments will be made. to them what i have to remind them is we've got a lot of other obligations, not just people who pay treasury bills. we've got senior citizens who are counting on their social security check arriving on time. we have veterans who are disabled who are counting on their benefits. we have companies who are doing business for our government and for our military that have payrolls that they have to meet. if they do not get paid on time, they may have to lay off workers. all those folks are potentially affected if we are not able to pay all of our bills on time. what's also true is if the markets are saying we're not pay manager all our bills on time, that will affect our credit

worthiness even if some people are being paid on time. just to boil this down to personal examples, if you've got a mortgage, a car note, and a student loan you have to pay, and you say, well, i'm going to make sure i pay my mortgage, but i'm not going to pay my student loan or car note, that's still going to have an impact on your credit. everybody's still going to look at that and say, you know what, i'm not sure this person's that trustworthy. at a minimum, presumably they're going to charge a higher interest rate. that's what would happen to you if you made those decisions. the same is true for the federal government. so we are exploring all contingencies. i know secretary lew, secretary of the treasury, will be appearing before congress on thursday. he can address some of the additional details about this. but let me be clear. no option is good in that scenario. there's no silver bullet.

there's no magic wand that allows us to wish away the chaos that could result if for the first time in our history we don't pay our bills on time. when i hear people trying to down play the consequences of that, i think that's really irresponsible. i'm happy to talk to any of them individually and walk them through exactly why it's irresponsible. it's particularly funny coming from republicans who claim to be champions of business. there's no business person out who thinks this wouldn't be a big deal. not one. you go to anywhere from wall street to main street, and you ask a ceo of a company or ask a small business person whether it would be a big deal if the united states government isn't paying its bills on time. they'll tell you it's a big deal. it would hurt. it's unnecessary. that's the worst part of it.

this is not a complicated piece of business. and there's no reason why if, in fact, republicans are serious about wanting to negotiate, wanting to have a conversation, wanting to talk, there's to reason why you have to have that threat looming over the conversations. think about it. the only reason the republicans have held out on negotiations up until the last week or so is because they thought it was a big enough deal they would force unilateral concessions out of democrats and out of me. they said so. they basically said, you know what, the president is so responsible that if we just hold our breath and say we're going to threaten default, then he'll give us what we want and we won't have to give anything in return. again, that's not my account of the situation. you can read statements from

republicans over the last several months who said this explicitly. so for them now to say, well, it wouldn't be a big deal if it happens, that's not how they've been acting over the last couple months, and if it's not a big deal, why would i give them concessions now to avoid it? it is a big deal. nobody should be getting concessions for making sure that the full faith and credit of the united states is retained. sam stein. >> thank you, mr. president. what assurances can you give to those affected by a shutdown who are concerned about an even longer impasse, and how worried are you personally that your preferred solution to this is a clean cr at sequestration levels may do harm to the nation's economy and your second-term agenda? >> well, i mean, sam, you're making an important point, which is what we're asking of the republicans right now is to keep

the government open at funding levels that democrats think are very harmful to the economy and inadequate to make sure that the economy's growing faster, more people are put back to work, and the middle class is growing. we're willing to pass at least a short-term budget that opens up the government at current funding levels. it doesn't even address the harm that's been done because of sequestration. now, the democrats have a budget that would eliminate sequestration, this meat cleaver approach to deficit reduction, and make sure that we're adequately funding basic medical research and head start programs and va programs and a whole range of things that have been

really hard hit this year. but we recognize that there are going to have to be some compromises between the democratic position and the republican position. in the meantime, we shouldn't hurt the economy even worse by shutting down the economy. so let me just give you an example. very specific. because of sequestration, because of the meat cleaver cuts that have been taking place over the course of this year, thousands of families have lost head start slots for their children. you've had parents all across the country who have been scrambling trying to figure out how can i find some decent, quality childcare for my kids? now, the government shutdown means several thousand more are going to be losing their slots. if we vote today or tomorrow or the next day in the house of representatives to reopen the government, at least those additional several thousand

people will be spared the difficulties of trying to scramble and figure out where your kid is going to be when you're trying to go to work, but it doesn't solve the broader problems. if we were going to have real negotiations, democrats would say, let's solve the bigger problem. what about all those thousands who have been hurt by sequester? but democrats aren't making that demand right now. we understand there's going to have to be some give and take. what we are saying is don't hurt more people while we're trying to resolve these differences. let's just at least make sure that we keep the lights on while we're having these conversations. >> [ inaudible ]. >> roberta. >> you talked about the hit to credibility around the world that this impasse has caused. i'm wondering what you and your administration are telling worried foreign creditors like

china and japan, who are calling and asking about whether the united states is going to avoid defaulting on its debt. >> well, you know, i won't disclose any specific conversations, but obviously my message to the world is the united states always has paid its bills and it will do so again. but i think they're not just looking at what i say. they're looking at what congress does. that ultimately is up to speaker boehner. this will not get resolved. we're not going to calm predators until they see speaker boehner call up a bill that reopens the government and authorizes the secretary of the treasury to pay our bills on time. until they see that, there's going to be a cloud over u.s. economic credibility. but it is not one from which we can't recover. we've been through this before. you know, every country, every

democracy in particular, has tussles over the budget. i think most world leaders understand it. they themselves have been through it if they're in a democracy. what you haven't seen before i think from the vantage point of a lot of world leaders is the notion that one party in congress might blow the whole thing up if they don't get their way. they've never seen that before. that does make them nervous, particularly given what happened in 2011. keep in mind, wea we've been he before. i think the assumption was that it the americans must have learned their lesson, that there would be budget conflicts but nobody again would threaten the possibility that we would default. when they hear members of the senate and members of congress saying maybe default wouldn't be that bad, i'll bet that makes them nervous. makes me nervous. it should make the american

people nervous. because that's irresponsible. it is out of touch with reality. it is based on a flawed analysis of how our economy works. you cannot pay some bills and not others and think somehow that the fact you're paying some bills protects you from a loss of credit worthiness. that's not what happens in our own personal lives. i don't know why people think that's how it works for the united states government. >> do you think you might have the emergency power -- >> we have used a lot of emergency powers. jack lew has used a lot of powers to keep pay manager our bi -- paying our bills over the last several months. but at some point those run out and the clock is ticking. i do worry that republicans but

also some democrats may think that we've got a bunch of other rabbits in our hats. there comes a point in which if the treasury cannot hold auctions to tell treasury bills, we do not have enough money coming in to pay all our bills on time. it's very straightforward. i know there's been some discussion, for example, about my powers under the 14th amendment to go ahead and ignore the debt ceiling law. setting aside the legal analysis, what matters is that if you start having a situation in which there's legal controversy about the u.s. treasury's authority to issue debt, the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional. people wouldn't be sure. it'd be tied up in litigation for a long time. that's going to make people

nervous. so a lot of the strategies that people have talked about, well, the president can roll out a big coin, or, you know, he can resort to some other constitutional measure, what people ignore is that ultimately what matters is what are the people who are buying treasury bills think. again, i'll just boil it down in very personal terms. if you're buying a house and you're not sure whether the seller has title to the house, you're going to be pretty nervous about buying it. at minimum, you'd want a much cheaper price to buy that house because you wouldn't be sure whether or not you're going to own it. most of us would just walk away because no matter how much we like the house, we'd say to ourselves, the last thing i want to find out after i've bought it is i don't actually own it.

the same thing is true if i'm buying treasury bills from the u.s. government. what if there's a supreme court case deciding that these are invalid, that these aren't valid legal instruments obligating the u.s. government to pay me. i'm going to be stressed. which means i may not purchase. if i do purchase them, i'm going to ask for a big premium. so there are no magic bullets here. there's one simple way of doing it. that is congress going in and voting. the fact that right now there are votes, i believe, to go ahead and take this drama off the table, should at least be tested. speaker boehner keeps on saying he doesn't have the votes for it. what i've said is put it on the floor. see what happens. at minimum, let every member of

congress be on record. let them vote to keep the government open or not. and they can determine where they stand and defend that vote to their constituents. and let them vote on whether or not america should pay its bills or not. and if, in fact, some of these folks really believe that it's not that big of a deal, they can vote no. that'll be useful information for voters to have. if it fails and we do default, i think voters should know exactly who voted not to pay our bills. so that they can being responsible for the consequences that come with it. harry schapiro. >> thank you, mr. president. you mentioned the supreme court. a term started today with a campaign finance case. you called citizens united devastating to the public. i was wondering if you could

weigh in on the latest case. >> the latest case would go further than citizens united, essentially saying anything goes. there are no rules in terms of how to finance campaigns. there aren't a lot of functioning dmfunction ing democracies around the world that work this way, where you can basically have millionaires and billionaires bankrolling whoever they want, however they want, in some cases undisclosed. and what it means it ordinary americans are shut out of the process. and democrats aren't entirely innocent of this in the past. i had to raise a lot of money for my campaign. so there's nobody who operates in politics that has perfectly clean hands on this issue. what is also true is that all of us should bind ourselves to some rules that say the people who vote for us should be more

important than somebody who's spending $1 million, $10 million, or $100 million to help us get elected. we don't know what their agendas are. we don't know what their interests are. i continue to believe that citizens united contributed to some of the problems we're having in washington right now. you know, you have some ideological extremist who has a big bankroll, and they can entirely skew our politics. there are a whole bunch of members of congress right now who privately will tell you, i know our positions are unreasonable, but we're scared that if we don't go along with the tea party agenda or some particularly extremist agenda, that we'll be challenged from the right. and the threats are very explicit. so they tow the line. that's part of why we've seen a breakdown of just normal, raw teen business done here in

washington on behalf of the american people. all after you know it. i'm not telling you anything you don't know because it's very explicit. you report on it. a big chunk of the republican party right now are in gerrymandered districts where there's no competition, and those folks are much more worried about a tea party challenger than they are about a general election where they've got to compete a democrat or go after independent votes. in that environment, it's a lot harder for them to compromise. mark. >> thank you, mr. president. this week the president of china has visited several of the asian countries you were going to visit and have had to skip because of the shutdown. he's also taken a big role at the two regional summits, both

of which your administration has made a pretty big priority of as part of the broader asian pivot. does china benefit from the chaos in washington? more broadly, you've said in general that this hurts the reputation of the united states overseas. are there specific things that you can point to where you already have seen some damage? one that occurs to me is the trade deal you tried to do in asia. the leaders today announce they still want to wrap it up, but they no longer are able to say they want to wrap it up by the end of this year. had you been there, do you think you could have gotten that additional push? >> i think that's a great example. we don't know, but it didn't help that i wasn't there to make sure we went ahead and closed a trade deal that would open up markets and create jobs for the united states and make sure that countries were trading fairly

with us in the most dynamic, fastest growing market in the world. i should have been there. i can tell you because i had to apologize to some of the host countries that they understood that the most important thing i can do for them and the most important thing i can do for the bilateral relationship in america is making sure we reopen our government and don't default. so i don't think it's going to do lasting damage. as i said, if we deal with this the way we should, then, you know, folks around the world will attribute this to the usual messy process of american democracy, but it doesn't do lasting damage. in the short term, i would characterize it as missed

opportunities. we continue to be the one indispensable nation. there are countries across asia who have welcomed our pivot because they want to do business with us. they admire our economy. they admire our entrepreneurs. they know their growth is going to be contingent on working with us. they care about the security environment we maintain, help maintain and the freedom of navigation and commerce that's so important to them. so it's not as if they've got other places to go. they want us to be there and want to work with us. but in each of these big meetings that we have around the world, a lot of business gets done. in the same way that the ceo of a company, if they want to close a deal, aren't going to do it by phone. they want to show up and look at somebody eye to eye and tell

them why it's important and shake hands on a deal. the same thing is true with respect to world leaders. you know, the irony is our teams probably do more to organize a lot of these multilateral forums and set the agenda than anybody. we end up being engaged much more than china, for example, in setting the agenda and moving this stuff forward. so when -- it's almost like me not showing up to my own party. i think it creates a sense of concern on the part of other leaders, but as long as we get through this, they'll understand. we'll be able to, i believe, still get these deals done. the last point i'd make, though, is we can't do it every three months. back in the '90s, we had a government shutdown. that happened one time, and then

after that, the republican party and mr. gingrich realized this isn't a sensible way to do business. we shouldn't engage in brinksmanship like this. then they started having a serious conversation with president clinton about a whole range of issues, and they got some things they wanted. they had to give the democrats some things the democrats wanted. but it took on, you know, a sense of normal democratic process. so here we already went through this once back in 2011. then at the end of last year right after my election, we went through something similar with the so-called fiscal cliff, where republicans wouldn't negotiate about taxes despite the fact that taxes actually went up anyway even though they refused to negotiate. they could actually have gotten some things from us that they

wanted if they had been willing to engage in normal negotiations. so we have got to stop repeating this pattern. i know the american people are tired of it. to all the american people, i apologize you have to have go through this stuff every three months it seems like. lord knows i'm tired of it. but at some point, we've got to kind of break these habits and get back to the point where everybody understands that in negotiations, there's give and there's take. you do not hold people hostage or engage in ransom taking to get 100% of your way. you don't -- you don't suggest that somehow a health care bill that you don't agree with is destroying the republic or is a grand socialist scheme. if you disagree with certain

aspects of it, tell us what you disagree with and let's work on it. if you're concerned about long-term debt, that's a good thing to be concerned about. but don't pretend as if america's going bankrupt at a time when the deficits have been cut in half. that's what the american people, i think, expect. just civility, common sense, give and take, compromise. those aren't dirty words. there's nothing wrong with them. and, you know, i think the american people understand, you know, i may not -- not i may, i have flaws. michelle will tell you. one of them is not that i'm unwilling to compromise. i've been willing to compromise my entire political career. i don't believe that i have the answers to everything and it's

my way or the highway. but i'm not going to breach a basic principle that would weaken the presidency, change our democracy, and do great damage to ordinary people just in order to go along with what the house republicans are talking about. >> i did ask specifically about china. i'm wondering to what extend our loss is their gain. >> you know, i'm sure the chinese don't mind that i'm not there right now in the sense that, you know, there are areas where we have differences and they can present their point of view and not get as much pushback as if i were there. although, secretary of state kerry is there, and i'm sure he's doing a great job. but i've also said that our cooperation with china is not a

zero-sum game. there are a lot of areas where the chinese and us agree. on trade in particular, though, here's an area where part of what we're trying to do is raise standards, for example, intellectual property protection, which times is a big problem in china. if we can get a trade deal with all the other countries in asia that says you've got to protect people's intellectual property, that'll help us. richard mcgregor. >> can i go back to the issue of debt authorization. what are the legal liabilities here? what is your legal liability? must foreign debts be paid first -- >> richard, i'm going to let jack lew, secretary of the treasury, make a formal presentation on thursday before the senate committee. this is obviously sensitive

enough. i think people would be paying close enough attention that details count. i think prepared remarks from secretary lew on that topic would be more appropriate. but as i indicated before, we plan for every contingency. so obviously, you know, worst case scenario, there are things that we will try to do. but i will repeat, i don't think any option is good. steven dennison. >> i wonder if you could talk about budget process. in the past, you've negotiated along with the debt ceiling with the blue dogs, for instance, in 2009, 2010, along with a debt ceiling increase then. pay as you go reform. the republicans today are talking about making another committee that would work out our differences over the next few weeks.

is that something that you could talk about on the side, something that wouldn't necessarily be a concession but something that can be a format for getting a deal done. >> yeah, here's the thing, steven. i know speaker boehner has talked about setting up some new process or some new super committee or what have you. you know, the leaders up in congress, they can work through whatever processes they want. but the bottom line is either you're having good faith negotiations in which there's give and take or you're not. now, there is already a process in place called the budget committees that could come together right now. democrats have been asking for 19 months to bring them together. make a determination, how much

the government would be spending next year, the appropriations committees could go through the list. here's how much we're going to be spending for defense, and here's how much we're going to be spending for education. that's a process that's worked reasonably well for the last 50 years. i don't know we need to set up a new committee for a process like that to move forward. what has changed or what seems to be motivating the idea we have to have a new process is speaker boehner or at least some faction of the republicans in the house and maybe some in the senate are holding out for a negotiation in theory, but in fact, basically democrats give a lot of concessions to republicans, republicans don't give anything, and then that's dubbed as compromise. the reasons democrats have to give is because they're worried that the government is going to stay shut down or u.s. government sf goiis going to de.

again, that -- you can dress it up any way you want. if that's the theory that the republicans are going forward with, then it's not going to work. so let me just give you one specific example. i've heard at least, and i can't confirm that, that one of the ideas of this new committee is you could talk about reductions in discretionary spending. you could talk about entitlement reform and reductions in mandatory spending. you could talk about how long you'd extend the debt ceiling, but you couldn't talk about closing corporate loopholes that aren't benefitting ordinary folks economically and potentially if you closed them would allow us to pay for things it like better education for kids. well, you know, i don't know why democrats right now would agree to a format that takes off the table all the things they care

about and is confined to the things the republicans care about. so again, i don't know that that's exactly what's being proposed. my simple point is this. i think democrats in the senate, in the house are prepared to talk about anything. i'm prepared to talk about anything. they can design whatever formats they want. what is not fair and will not result in an actual deal is ransom taking or hostage taking and the expectation that democrats are paying ransom or providing concessions for the mere act of reopening the government or paying our bills. those are not things that you do for me. they're not things that you do for the democrats. >> but is there a point here where it's not necessarily a concession, where you negotiate what the negotiations are going

to look like. you don't have to agree to overturn obama care, but you can actually negotiate what the talks are going to look like so everybody is comfortable. you mentioned yourself, this is a tough vote for all these house republicans. you're asking them to take a very tough vote for the debt ceiling. usually people in both parties want to have some cover, something that they can coin to and say, hey, i want some budget process reform. >> which is fine. if they want to do that, reopen the government, extend the debt ceiling. if they can't do it for a long time, do it for a period of time in which these negotiations are taking place. why is it that we've got hundreds of thousands of people who aren't working right now in order for what you just described to to occur? that doesn't make any sense. the small business administration gives out $1 billion worth of loans every month to small businesses all across the country. that's not happening right now.

so there are small businesses in every state that are counting on a loan to get their business going, and you've got the party of small business saying, small business administration can't do it. that's what they call themselves. yet, they're suffering. you've got farmers who are waiting for loans right now. those loans can not be processed. the republican party says the party that looks out for farmers, i happen to disagree. i think the farmer has done real good under my administration. having said that, why would you keep the government shut down and those farmers not getting their loans while we're having the discussions that you just talked about? the republicans say they're very concerned about drilling. they say obama has been restricting oil production despite the fact that oil production is at its highest level in years and is continuing to zoom up.

they say, you know, the democrats are holding back oil production in this country. one of the things that happens when the government is shut down is new drilling permits aren't processed. so why would the republicans say to the folks who are interested in drilling for oil, sorry, we can't let those things be processed until we have some negotiations and cover to do what we're supposed to be doing anyway. that doesn't make sense. if there's a way to solve this, it has to include reopening the government and saying america's not going to default, it's going to pay its bills. they can attach some process to that that gives them some certainty that in fact, the things they're concerned about will be topics of negotiation. if my word is not good enough, but i'm happy to talk about it. if they want to specify all the items that they think need to be

topic of conversation, happy to do it. they'll want to say part of that process is we're going to go through line by line all the aspects of the president's health care plan that we don't like and we want the president to answer for those things. i'm happy to sit down with them for as many hours as they want. i won't let them gut a law that is going to make sure tens of millions of people actually get health care. but i'm happy to talk about it. all right? steven. i'm just going through my list, guys. talk to jay. >> [ inaudible ]. -- if we're going to see u.s. military operations all around, how does that square your contention that america cannot be at war forever? >> well, you know, if you look at the speech i gave at the

national defense college several months ago, i outlined how i saw the shift in terrorism around the world and what we have to do to respond to it. part of what i said is that we had decimated core al qaeda that had been operating primarily between afghanistan and pakistan. but you now had these regional groups, some of which are explicitly tied to al qaeda or that ideology, some of which are more localized. few of them have the ability to project beyond their borders, but they can do a lot of damage inside their borders. africa is one of the places where kbauz in some cases the lack of capacity on the part of the governments, in some cases because it is easier for folks to hide out in vast terrains

that are sparsely populated that you're seeing some of these groups gather. we're going to have to continue to go after them. but there's a difference between us going after terrorists who are plotting directly to do damage to the united states and us being involved in wars. the risks of terrorism and terrorist networks are going to continue for some time to come. we've got to have a long-term plan that is in the just military based. we've got to engage in a war of ideas in the region. and engage with muslim countries and try to isolate radical elements that are doing more damage to muslims than they're doing to anybody else. we've got to think about economic development because although there's not a direct correlation between terrorism and the economy, there's no doubt that if you've got a lot of unemployed, uneducated young men in societies, that there's a

greater likelihood that terrorists recruits are available. but where you've got active plots and active networks, we're going to go after them. we prefer partnering with countries where this is taking place wherever we can and we want to build up their capacity, but we're not going to farm out our defense. i have to say, by the way, the operations that took place both in libya and somalia were examples of the extraordinary skill and dedication and talent of our men and women in armed forces. they do their jobs extremely well with great precision at great risk to themselves. and i think they're pretty good examples for how those of us in washington should operate as well. >> did the captor of mr. libi comply with international law?

>> we know that mr. al libi helped plan and execute plots that killed hundreds of people, a whole lot of americans. we have strong evidence of that. and he will be brought to justice. mark miller. >> mr. president, while you're waiting for the shutdown to end, why is it that you can't go along with any of the bills the house is passing funding the fda and fema where you were yesterday and veterans benefits and head start? you've got to be tempted to sign those bills and get funding to those programs that you support. >> of course i'm tempted because you'd like to think that you could solve at least some of the problem if you couldn't solve all of it. here's the problem. what you've seen are bills that

come up wherever republicans are feeling political pressure, they put a bill forward. if there's no political heat or television story on it, then nothing happens. if we do some sort of shotgun approach like that, then you'll have some programs that are highly visible get funded and reopened like national monuments. but things that don't get a lot of attention like those sba loans not being funded. we don't get to select which programs we implement or not. there are a whole bunch of things that the republicans have said are law that we have to do. i don't get the chance to go back and say, you know what, this cockamamy idea this republican came up with, i don't

like that, so let's in the implement that. once you have a budget and a government with a set of functions, you make sure it's all operating. we don't get to pick and choose based on which paerlt likes what. that's where the budget discussions take place. if there's some things that the republicans don't like, they should argue for eliminating those programs in the budget, come up with an agreement for the democrats. maybe the democrats will agree and those things won't be funded. but you don't do a piecemeal approach like that when you're dealing with a government shutdown. i'm going to take one more question. your persistence has worked. >> mr. president, you talked about the political dynamics that leave house republicans feeling that they don't want to negotiate with you, they don't want to come to you. i want to ask you two things it about that.

looking back at the 2011 default discussions or the budget drama, is there anything that you wish you had done differently in 2011? after this, what you call this nonsense, has ended, what do you expect the political dynamics -- how do you think they'll have changed moving forward? >> i think it's an interesting question. in 2011, i entered into good faith negotiations with john boehner. he had just won the speakership. it was a time when we were still responding to the recession. deficits were high. people were concerned about it. i thought it was my obligation to meet him halfway. so we had a whole series of talks. at that point, at least, nobody had any belief that people would come close to potential default.

i don't regret having entered into those negotiations, and we came fairly close. whenever i see john boehner to this day, i still say, should have taken the deal i offered you back then. which would have dealt with our long-term deficit problem, would not have impeded growth as much, would have really boosted confidence. at that time, i think house republicans had just taken over. they were thinking, you know, we don't have to compromise. we came pretty close to default. we saw the impact of that. i would have thought they would have learned the lesson from that as i did, which is we can't put the american people and our economy through that ringer again. that's the reason why i've been very clear we're not going to negotiate around the debt ceiling. that has to be dealt with in a

reasonable fashion. and by the way, you know, i often hear people say, well, in the past it's been dealt with all the time. the truth of the matter is, if you look at the history, people posture about the debt ceiling frequently, but the way the debt ceiling often got passed was you'd stick the debt ceiling on to a budget negotiation once it was completed because people figured, well, i don't want to take a bunch of tough votes to cut programs or raise taxes and then also have to take a debt ceiling vote. let me do it all at once. but it wasn't a situation in which, what if i don't get what i want, then i'm going to let us default. that's what's changed. that's what we learned in 2011. so as a consequence, i said, we're not going to do that again. not just for me, but because future presidents, republican or democrat, should not be in a position where they have to choose between making sure the economy stays afloat and we avoid worldwide catastrophe or

we provide concessions to one faction of one party in one house. but let me tell you a lesson i did not learn. i did not learn a lesson we shouldn't compromise. i still think we should. i still think there are all kinds of issues we should be talking about. i don't expect to get 100% of my way. i'm still very open to having conversations with not just the speaker but any republican over there. so -- go ahead. >> if you enter into a series of short-term funding bills or a debt ceiling bill, you would be back in the same place presumably with the same members of congress. so what has changed in the political die nam fik you do the short-term -- >> i think they're aware of the fact i'm not budging when it comes to the full faith and credit of the united states. that has to be dealt with.

you don't pay a ransom. you don't provide concessions for congress doing its job and america paying its bills. i think most people understand that. i was at a small business the other day talking to a bunch of workers. i said, you know, when you're at the plant and you're in the middle of your job, do you ever say to your boss, you know what, unless i get a raise right now and more vacation pay, i'm going to just shutdown the plant. i'm not just going to walk off the job, i'm going to break the equipment. i said, how do you think that would go? they all thought they'd be fired. i think most of us think that. there's nothing wrong with asking for a raise or asking for more time off, but you can't burn down the plant or your office if you don't get your way. well, the same thing is true

here. i think most americans understand that. all right? thank you very much, everybody. >> so there's the president of the united states at length responding to the criticism he's been getting from the republicans in the house of representativ representatives. 65 minutes. a lot of reporters questions on a whole host of aspects involving the government shutdown and the need to raise the nation's debt ceiling, even a question as far as the international response to what's going on and a strong defense of the most recent commando raids in somalia and libya. loths to dissect. lots to assess. stephanie cutter is here. she's one of the co-hosts of "cross fire." s.e. cupp is here as well. we'll bring in our correspondents as well. gloria, very quickly to you. i did not hear the president budge on the key issue right now as far as the speaker of the house john boehner is concerned.

boehner says we have to negotiate the debt ceiling resolution. we have to negotiate raising -- ending the government shutdown. the president basically saying all that is up for negotiation, but not within the context of these two ransom demands as he calls them. >> this was not an olive branch kind of press conference. this was the president sort of hanging for a minute. if he were to do a word cloud about the words the president was using at this press conference, it would be hostage, ransom, nuclear bomb, insane, catastrophic, chaos. just a few of the words he was using. he did indicate that he thought john boehner ought to hold a vote today, pass a clean resolution, and then he said, look, i'm willing to talk to you about anything afterwards. there seem to be a little wiggle room on whether there could be a short-term continuing resolution and debt ceiling, wrap it into

one and attach a process to move forward on that, which is an idea that some republicans have circulated. his bottom line was, look, either you're going to negotiate or you're not going to negotiate. either we're going to talk or we're not going to talk. until we fund the government and make sure we pay our credit card bills, sorry. >> s.e. cupp, did you hear anything new, anything positive, anything that would encourage republicans to say, well, there's a deal there, we just have to finesse it a little bit? >> no, this was the president's attempt to look open and fair minded and negotiable. i'm here, i'm willing, i'm ready, come to me. reportedly he called speaker boehner's office earlier just to tell him i'm in the going to negotiate on this. the president's position on the debt ceiling is the extreme position. the debt ceiling is something that is routinely negotiated. it's been negotiated a number of times. most americans, if you look at any number of polls, believe that the debt ceiling should be

attached to spending cuts. for all of the president's real world examples of defaulting on your mortgage and failing to pay off your car note, the real world example is that people understand you only up your credit line as a result of good potential behavior, not spending with no checks in sight. that analogy doesn't work for the american people. his unwillingness to negotiate on this issue really puts him in the extreme minority on this issue. as you know, stephanie, the republicans think they have a very strong talking point when you hear the speaker say, i just want to have a conversation. i want to negotiate. then the president basically says on these two fundamental issues, no negotiation. >> i think what the president did today is clarify a couple of facts for the american people. that is, you know, if you want to negotiate, pay your bills. turn the lights back on in the government. then we can sit down and negotiation. but do your job. i'm not going to do your job for you. let's be clear about what the

debt limit is. the president said this in his press conference. this is money already spent. this is not upping your credit card limit. it's already spent. you've already charged this. you have to pay it. congress is the one that obligated that spending. you know, what they're trying to do, it's also not exactly clear what republicans want here. they're no longer talking about obama care. that's why we shut down the government. as the president said, democrats have been trying to negotiate over a long-term budget that would reduce the deficit, put important reforms in place for medicare, medicaid, cut spending, and pay our bills for months. we've tried to negotiate 19 different times, and republicans have shut that down. now with the debt ceiling looming, they want to talk, they want to negotiate. you know, i know the president said extortion several times, but that's what this is. it's extrorortionextortion. >> we have a republican congressman joining us from florida. i know you're from florida, but you're here in washington.

i assume you were listening to the president of the united states. did you hear something encouraging from him that would lead you to believe this government shutdown will end and the nation's debt ceiling will be lifted? >> no, he had a press conference to talk about what he was not going to talk about. look, if i can just have a moment of honesty and be a policy nerd for a second. look, this entire place is failing the american people, period. there's a real conversation that needs to be had here, where the adults need to come to the table as the republicans are asking. every single dollar that this government receives simply goes to medicare and medicaid, social security. pretty much everything else is borrowed. unless we do something about this, in the big picture with obama care and entitlements, in the short future we may not have any of these things that the poor, the needy, and our seniors are dependent on. the adults need to come to the table here. that's all we're asking. >> well, what's your proposal,

congressman? how would you get the government fully operational once again? you know the positions of both sides, the speaker's position, the president's position. how do you fix this? >> well, how do you fix it? i'm here nine months. i promise you i'm working as hard as i can. i think the adults need to come to the table here. every time you hear the president say that he's not going to negotiate, not going to talk, i'm sorry, but this is democracy. republicans are a small part of this picture. the democrats are in the senate and the white house. democracy works through compromise, through talking, and through negotiating. that's what we need to do. you know what? in the past with clinton, with bush, and with reagan, deals were made and done, including under president obama, over the debt ceiling and things like a cr. >> would you be willing to accept some other concessions from the president but forget about obama care for now in order to vote for favor of legislation in the house of representatives that would end the government shutdown?

>> i'm open to all ideas here. that's why i keep going back to the really big picture here, which is not to throw out talking points to you about obama care or this or that. the big picture is how we are responsible to the american people. my door is open to president obama and any democrat that i'm serving with today to find ways, to find solutions and get something done here. >> on the debt ceiling, are you open to voting in favor of raising are the debt ceiling by october 17th? >> we'll see. i want to make sure that -- again, i cannot stress this enough. the adults come to the table here, we find some solutions and move forward in a way that is responsible to you. >> one final question. you appreciate what could happen to the overall u.s. economy. so many of the middle class, your constituents out there, if the u.s. defaults on some of its financial obligations. >> i understand that. i understand the ramifications of what we're looking at on both

sides of the issue. i understand the ramifications that if we don't do anything, our government, our country is going to be in a terrible, terrible, awful situation. we default, again, a pretty bad situation. i think that we're willing -- i know that we're willing to be able to come to the table, get something done, and make sure we do not have catastrophic consequences for our country and economy. >> when you said we'll see when i asked you if you're willing to vote to raise the debt ceiling, that leaves open the possibility you wouldn't vote for it. >> wolf, you know, we'll see. i want to -- i'm not going to sit here and speculate, but i know what else i'm not going to do. i'm not going to accept that this president or harry reid simply shutting the door on all of our faces. this is democracy. this is about compromise. this is about working together when you have a divided government. seriously, is that too much to ask? i know i'm a freshman here, but is it too much to ask for a little compromise, some

negotiation, to put us on a better, more sound path for the american people? i don't think so. >> congressman, thanks very much for joining us. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity. >> let's bring in our senior white house correspondent jim acosta. he was in the briefing room listening carefully to every word the president said. correct me if i'm wrong, you did hear a nuance that might lead to some sort of opening. >> that's right, wolf. i think that's something that was very important. came almost at the end of this news conference. that was when the president said he was open to some kind of process that could be attached to votes to open up the government and to raise the nation's debt ceiling. he said, quote, they can attach to some process to that, that gives them some certainty that the things they're concerned about will be topics of negotiation. the president basically opening the door to say, listen, i'm not going to sign off on a debt ceiling increase or a continuing

resolution to reopen the government that has all these anti-obama care provisions or other partisan provisions. he said he is willing to talk about some sort of process that can be attached to legislation that he would sign that would get the government back open again as long as it's clean and to raise the debt ceiling as long as it's clean and they can have those negotiations later. he also said he was open to the possibility of a short-term debt ceiling increase. he hinted at that toward the end of the news conference. that would give both sides some breathing room to negotiate in this side process. the other thing we heard the president talk about and i think we'll hear about in the days to come, that is what happens on october 17th. you heard the president at one point during this news conference quoting warren buffett, quoting economists across the world who have said this would be catastrophic, like a fiscal nuclear bomb going off if the nation were to go into default. he mentioned treasury secretary jack lew will be testifying on capitol hill on thursday to lay some of that out. when he was asked, what are some

of the things, some of the trade-offs, the bills we would pay versus the bills we wouldn't pay, he said stay tuned for jack lew on thursday. that's coming up. the president is holding his ground. he's saying, listen, we're not going to do anything other than clean crs and clean debt ceiling increases. he said he's open to a process after that. >> all right. good point. jim acosta at the white house. we're going to check in with dana bash. she's getting reaction on capitol hill from the leadership there. we'll check in with christine romans. she's getting market reaction to what we just heard from the president. we'll also ask, where is the vice president joe biden in all of these negotiations or nonnegotiations depending on your perspective. much more of our special coverage here in the news room right after this. you really love, what would you do?" ♪

[ woman ] i'd be a writer. [ man ] i'd be a baker. [ woman ] i wanna be a pie maker. [ man ] i wanna be a pilot. [ woman ] i'd be an architect. what if i told you someone could pay you and what if that person were you? ♪ when you think about it, isn't that what retirement should be, paying ourselves to do what we love? ♪ paying ourselves to do what we love? if yand you're talking toevere rheuyour rheumatologistike me, about trying or adding a biologic. this is humira, adalimumab. this is humira working to help relieve my pain. this is humira helping me through the twists and turns. this is humira helping to protect my joints from further damage. doctors have been prescribing humira for over ten years. humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. for many adults, humira is proven to help relieve pain and stop further joint damage.

humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer, have happened. blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure have occurred. before starting humira , your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. ask your doctor if humira can work for you. this is humira at work. and zero heartburn is awesome. just like zero cutlery. and you can't beat zero. [ male announcer ] prilosec otc is the number one doctor recommended frequent heartburn medicine for 8 straight years. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

frequent heartburn medicine for 8 straight years. store and essentially they just get sold something. we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. before you invest in a mattress, discover the bed clinically proven to improve sleep quality. once you experience it, there's no going back. oh, yeah! at our columbus day event, save $500 to $700 dollars on the final closeout of our performance series mattress sets. but hurry-ends soon! only at a sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $699.99. sleep number. comfort individualized

all right. so the president spending 65 minutes in the white house briefing room answering reporters' questions and making an opening statement saying he's ready for negotiations but only after the government shutdown ends, only after congress votes for legislation to raise the nation's debt ceiling. while the president was answering reporters' questions, the senate republican leader mitchell mcconnell was on the senate floor. >> the other side revisiting a law negotiated by the president passed on a bipartisan basis that is actually reducing government spending ought not to be a part of the final outcome. but talk we should. the american people have given us a divided government. when you have divided government, it means you have to talk to each other. this is not 2009 and 2010 when our friends on the other side

had a total hammer lock on all the government. we now have divided government. it means we have to talk to each other and get to an outcome. >> let's bring in our chief congressional correspondent dana bash. she's been getting reaction to what we just heard from the president. let me guess, dana, the democrats liked what they heard, the republicans not so much. >> boy, you are good, wolf. have you seen this movie before or something? >> just guessing. >> that's exactly right. and more specifically, i was e-mailing with some house republican leadership sources saying, you know, give me a break. this is what the president has said publicly so many times. he called a press conference to re-enforce his position. shouldn't be surprising since he has made it very clear, even before today's press conference, that his position is not negotiable, not movable. he will not sit down and talk about any kind of deal dealing with anything until the government is reopened and until

the debt ceiling is raised so that america doesn't default. i should tell you that i was told earlier that the house speaker was going to watch the president. we assume that happened. i haven't heard back formally. we also are waiting to see if the house speaker already actually come out and rebut the president, if he's going to make a statement. again, we're not sure if that's going to happen. you just played a sound bite from mitch mcconnell. there was actually something rare happening on the senate floor. that was what's called a live quorum. that's when harry reid forces all of the senators to come to the floor. he did that in order to make the case that it's time to move on, that this an embarrassment to the country, it's an embarrassment to everybody who works in government, that this shutdown is still going on, on day eight. another interesting moment that happened during that live forum

call when all the senators were on the floor, is john mccain, who has been very silent about this, clearly not a fan of ted cruz, the republican from texas, and the strategy to attach obama care to the funding bill, which was of course what started this whole thing. he came out scene made a speech and said, you know, let's do this. let's talk. let's negotiate. the reason why that's interesting is because in recent months, he has been the point person that democrats have been able to deal with. mitch mcconnell, who you heard from, is in a tough re-election race. he has sort of bowed out of the deal making business. so, you know, we'll see. perhaps that is something -- he's somebody who could find a way out of this for everybody to save face, now that he appears to have inserted himself back in the game. that was an interesting thing that happened just as the president was speaking in the briefing room. >> we have a sound bite from what john mccain said.

i want to play that for our viewers right now. here's john mccain. >> why doesn't the senate lead? i have great respect for the other side of the capitol, but i understand the contradictions that are there and the difficulties that the speaker has. i'm in great sympathy there. so why don't we get together? why don't we sit down and -- look, this body voted 70-29, i think it was, to repeal the medical device tax. my colleagues want to renounce that vote they took on the budget. why don't we use that as one of the areas where we could reach agreement? what about this issue out there the american people believe we are under a different health care system than they are and ours is a better deal than ours? there's a number of issues that we could sit down and negotiate within an hour if we will stop, stop attacking each other and impugning people's integrity and honor.

>> clearly very frustrated, john mccain right there. so what's the answer, dana? he seems to be making some relatively reasonable points out there. what's the response you're getting from democrats? >> he is, but the problem is you just heard from president obama for more than an hour say over and over again he's not going to do that. he is not going to negotiate. every democratic source i've spoken to just like you, wolf, and gloria, and jim, everybody who we work with has gotten privately from democrats that he really means it. harry reid, the senator majority leader, really means it. they don't feel that they need to negotiate because frankly they feel that when we get to the 11th hour, that republicans will be the ones to back down. so for john mccain's offer or ideas to bear any fruit, he, just like everybody else, is going to need a negotiating partner. president obama made very clear he's not going to do that unless and until the government reopens

and congress passes an increase in the debt ceiling so america does not default. >> yeah, the stalemate obviously continuing. dana, stand by. i want to the get some reaction from wall street to what's going on. christine romans has been watching that. i made a note, christine, before the president started his opening statement, the dow jones was down about 123 points. it's still down, what, 108 points. talk a little bit about how washington views this bitter battle unfolding here in the nation's capital? >> well, the response we're seeing in the markets of late has not been in the stock market but the bond market, specifically in the tea bills. the 30, 60, 90-day instruments the government uses, that corporations use, money managers, mutual funds, all kinds of different companies. it's the backing of trillions of dollars of loans. those interest rates have been rising, showing there's concern, starting to be concern in the short end of the bond market that you could be headed into a difficult situation. the stock market still, you

know, less than 3% below where it was before the shutdown began. they're still really betting there in stocks that this is going to somehow be averted. if it's not, you're hearing from market strategists trying to handicap just how bad the damage could be. the consensus i'm getting from wall street insider today is if the debt ceiling is not raised, the damage comes to the stock market. the bond market, ironically, could see a flood of interest of people going to u.s. treasuries because if we undermine or destabilize the rest of the world, treasury bonds still are the place to be. the stock market ultimately would be the big reaction, even though right now it's in tea bills where we're seeing those concerns start to percolate. >> as i pointed out earlier, in 2008 when there was a recession, we saw the dow jones go from above 14,000 to under 7,000. 2011, there was a fight over raising the debt ceiling. 2,000-point collapse within a relatively brief period of time.

so there are a lot of nervous investors out there right now for good reason. all right, christine. thanks very much. let's get some more analysis from the left and from the right. chris, a lot of folks are saying, what's wrong with negotiating these two issues, the government shutdown and raising the nation's debt ceiling? whenever there has been a divided government in the past and a stalemate, they get together, sit down, smart guys come in the room or whatever and they work it out. the president is saying no negotiations. go ahead and explain. a lot of people still are confused when they hear the republicans want to negotiate, the democrats don't. >> well, there's nothing wrong with negotiating. i think one of the misnomers people have is democrats have negotiated. the spending limit that the democrats have agreed to is the republican spending limit. that is a significance of around $980 billion cr. that's a significant amount

lowlow er than what democrats wanted. in terms of the idea of negotiating with republicans, i'm curious. are we negotiating with republicans that wanted to defund obama care, then they wanted to delay obama care, and then they want to do something else in terms of spending cuts. how do you negotiate with someone that doesn't know what position they have? that's the problem with this, not to mention the fact it's an incredibly dangerous game the republicans are playing, particularly when it comes to the debt ceiling. if we default, it's not going to hurt democrats. it's not going to hurt republicans. it's going to hurt the entire country. that's the problem. >> it could hurt the entire world, given the economic ramifications from the u.s. defaulting and the importance of the u.s. dollar. go ahead and respond to that, will. you just heard chris make the case that, you know, the president is taking a reasonable position. >> yeah, i agree. jacking around with the debt ceiling is a bad idea.

it has the capability to roil the marks, upset the world economy, which leads to a question. why won't the president negotiate? i might be more fearful of the debt ceiling than the president. first of all, in 2006, the president specifically said then that he would not vote for a raise in the debt ceiling. at that time he didn't think it was so important. second, as you noted earlier, the debt ceiling has been negotiated dozens of times over the last 30 years that accompanied spending restraints. most recently in 2011 with this president on the other side of the bargaining table. now to say no way, no chance, i'm not negotiating, who's taking us closer to the debt ceiling brink? who's taking us closer? >> go ahead, chris. >> here's the problem with that argument. there's not a single republican that can tell me what the republicans want. what is the position that you want the president to negotiate about? what? what do you want to cut? what do you want to stop?

i mean, here's the problem. if you can't negotiate amongst yourselves, i'm talking about the republicans, if the republicans can't agree in terms of what their positions are and you see that in the house when at least 20 republicans are willing to vote for a clean cr, then how is the president supposed to sit down and negotiate with republicans? at some point, this madness needs to stop. i think the frustration of the american people -- the republicans have nice rhetoric, but the reality is far different. you cannot govern this way. if you want to be serious about negotiating, then pass a short-term extension. you can put in a string attached in terms of we have to sit down and negotiate in terms of the budget, the cr, the debt ceiling. you can do all that if you were serious. but politics is what they're playing. that's unfortunately the consequence of what we're seeing. >> you know, i think with all due respect, chris, that those are talking points that confuse the american public. one thing that can shed enlightenment is separating the

shutdown from the get ceiling. they want to address obama care. they want to address compromises in obama care. we don't know if that's the individual mandate or whatever it may be. that's been the condition for getting the government up and running again. >> it's not going to happen. >> you're right. we're not going to negotiate here on tv because they have to do that between president obama and the republican party. the table that president obama is unwilling to come to. some ideas are tax reform, further spending restraints. that's the kind of thing you negotiate over the debt ceiling. >> the president has made it clear he's willing to negotiate. >> i thought we just listened to him saying he's not. >> it's a standing law. i know the republicans don't like it, but the reality is it's a standing law. you expect the president to negotiate his law away. if this was reversed and democrats were in the minority and telling a republican president, listen, unless you guys pass background checks, we're shutting down the government and defaulting, republicans would be out here saying, you guys are crazy. that's exactly i think what the american people are seeing. a party that's completely out of touch.

>> guys, unfortunately we're going to have to wrap it up right now. a good, excellent debate. guys, thanks very much. we'll take a quick break. gloria borger is here. she's been doing some reporting. where is the vice president joe biden when it comes to all of these efforts to get the government fully operational and to raise the debt ceiling? to think about on't e where their electricity comes from. they flip the switch-- and the light comes on. it's our job to make sure that it does. using natural gas this power plant can produce enough energy for about 600,000 homes. generating electricity that's cleaner and reliable, with fewer emissions-- it matters. ♪ okay, who helps you focus on your recovery? yo, yo, yo. aflac. wow. [ under his breath ] that was horrible. pays you cash when you're sick or hurt?

[ japanese accent ] aflac. love it. [ under his breath ] hate it. helps you focus on getting back to normal? [ as a southern belle ] aflac. [ as a cowboy ] aflac. [ sassily ] aflac. uh huh. [ under his breath ] i am so fired. you're on in 5, duck. [ male announcer ] when you're sick or hurt, aflac pays you cash. find out more at aflac.com. [ male announcer ] when you're sick or hurt, aflac pays you cash. customer erin swenson ordebut they didn't fit.line customer's not happy, i'm not happy. sales go down, i'm not happy. merch comes back, i'm not happy. use ups. they make returns easy. unhappy customer becomes happy customer. then, repeat customer. easy returns, i'm happy. repeat customers, i'm happy. sales go up, i'm happy. i ordered another pair. i'm happy. (both) i'm happy. i'm happy. happy. happy. happy. happy. happy happy. i love logistics.

during this entire government shutdown crisis, we haven't heard a lot of the name joe biden, the vice president of the united states. he certainly has been front and center so many of the earlier showdowns between the white house and the congress but what's going on this time? politico's jonathan allen is joining us right now. he's got a new article, among other things he writes biden's deals rubbed democrats raw. he gave up too much, they said, and for that, they have frozen him out at least for now. jonathan is here. gloria is here as well. so what do you think, jonathan? where has the vice president been? we haven't seen him a lot publicly but is he playing a significant role as far as you can tell behind the scenes? >> it appears that he's been completely frozen out, wolf.

majority leader harry reid went to president obama this summer, they had a private meeting on their debt limit strategy, this strategy we are seeing playing out of not negotiating on the question of the full faith and credit of the united states, and majority leader reid said he had one stipulation for going along with obama's plan and that was to keep joe biden out of negotiations. they feel senate democrats in particular feel that joe biden's deals in 2011 and again in 2012 really sold democrats down the river. they don't want to see him swoop in at the end and cut a deal with mitch mcconnell like he did those times for fear that once again, democrats would find themselves on the losing end on policy. >> it's interesting, gloria, when the president's 65-minute news conference, he did mention the role that dennis mcdonough, the white house chief of staff, is making talking to republicans on the hill but i didn't hear any reference to the vice president. >> no. look, i think there's much more of a low profile for joe biden this time and it is because, as jonathan reports, that the senate democrats were none too

happy with some of the deals that he struck with the republican leader, mitch mcconnell. but i would also tell you, this is a different kind of negotiation. you've got the house republicans to worry about. joe biden is a former senator, deals with senators. harry reid has a united caucus on this. he's not so worried about losing those red state democrats and the strategy is a non-negotiation strategy as we just heard for the last hour from the president of the united states. so there aren't any back room deals that are being cooked up. they're just not talking to each other but biden has been in these meetings. it's very clear, though, that harry reid has said i'm taking the lead, i'm the guy this time around. >> a little awkward, indeed. jonathan, good reporting. thanks very much. gloria will stick around. we just heard john boehner, the speaker of the house, will be making a statement reacting to the president within the next half hour. we will of course have live coverage right here on cnn. things i prefer to do on my own.

but when it comes to investing, i just think it's better to work with someone. someone you feel you can really partner with. unfortunately, i've found that some brokerage firms don't always encourage that kind of relationship. that's why i stopped working at the old brokerage, and started working for charles schwab. avo: what kind of financial consultant are you looking for? talk to us today. if you have a business idea, we have a personalized legal solution that's right for you. with easy step-by-step guidance, we're here to help you turn your dream into a reality. start your business today with legalzoom.

even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness if you qualify, and new car replacement standard with our auto policies. so call liberty mutual today. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?

let's get to more reaction to what we heard from the president of the united states. amy holmes is joining us right now, a conservative commentator, anchor on the blaze. also joining us, a syndicated columnist, david serrotta. the speaker of the house, john boehner, will be speaking within the next half hour reacting to the president. what do you think he should say? >> what he should say is what he's been saying, which is that he wants to sit down with the president and negotiate a way out of this government shutdown and debt ceiling limit that's coming up on october 17th. you know, i think it's important to point out that the president actually holds a more extreme view on the debt ceiling than the american public. a poll out today finds that 6 in 10 voters want to see spending cuts attached to the debt ceiling hike. they don't want to see it coming after. they want these things put together. it's the same 6 in 10 that was found going into the government shutdown. >> david, what do you think? >> well, look, i think that we have to look at the broad

strokes here about what's actually happening. there's been a lot of talk about who's going to win, who's going to lose, and i think what's been lost in this is that the republicans have actually -- and conservatives have actually won a lot of this. remember, we're talking right now about spending levels. essentially it's sequestration levels. that's what we're arguing about. we all remember a couple months ago when having a sequester at all was considered really, really controversial. additionally, what's on autopilot in the government shutdown, what is actually not shut down, are parts of the military industrial complex, parts of the national security state that are republican priorities. so in the broad view, the republican party and the conservative movement has won until the president actually draws a line in the sand and democrats draw a line in the sand and say no more, you've won enough. >> because amy, as you know, a lot of -- democrats made a major concession by accepting the republican number basically in this continuing resolution, which is 70 or 80 or 90 billion

dollars less than they wanted. some say they already conceded. >> they also say they refuse negotiate which we heard over and over by president obama and in terms of continuing resolutions, that's been going on for the past five years. we still don't have a working budget. but in terms of moving forward, i think there's a lot that can be put on the table. we have the keystone oil pipeline, for example, that could be discussed with democrats. were they willing to come to the table. but look, at this point, it looks like the voters are blaming everybody. the blame is going all around. your own poll at cnn found that while 63% of folks blame republicans, another 57% blame democrats. that seems to me that that should be motivation for both parties to come to the table. >> a lot of blame going around for everyone, david? >> absolutely. there is a lot of blame going around. this is a teachable moment, where i think the president in his press conference today and democrats are going to need to start articulating the idea that the debate has moved way far to the right, too far to the right, and we need to be having a