Trying to Make Sense of the Debt Limit Debate?

I'm confused.

The United States Congress, under both Republican and Democrat, has from time to time established a 'debt limit' in order to force our government to recognize that there is a limit on the total amount of debt that our nation can amass. The purpose of this debt limit or debt ceiling was to put a limit on how much the government could spend in deficit spending once the limit was reached- in other words, our nation brings in $2 trillion in taxes and if the debt ceiling is hit, it should spend that $2 trillion and not more. Once long ago (15 years ago), our nation was able to do that- once, under different times (5 years ago) our nation only added $500 billion or so a year to our debt and so the debt limit looked a long way away. But that was different times, before the utter madness and insanity that is the Obama administration teamed with a liberal Democrat Congress.

We all know the story now- Obama has added more to the nation debt in the first term of his administration that almost every administration in the history of the United States combined (yes, even more than two term Presidents Reagan+Bush). His budgets (when they aren't being laughed off the table) project the utter bankruptcy of the United States in the near future, especially when massive new entitlements like Obamacare kick in and explode the cost of healthcare and dramatically increase unemployment while attacking the life, liberty, and property of the citizens of our nation.

In their infinite wisdom Congress has foreseen a time like this, and so the debt limit was put in place to stop the madness of King Obama. The limit has been reached- it is now time to stop spending money and live within the government's massively ample means. Or, if this means the utter collapse of America, then kick up the debt limit another trillion in return for a budget that adds a massively mind-blowing $500 billion in debt this year (we're still dealing with this year's budget since the Democrats in the House and Senate passed no budget last year when they controlled those institutions, and the Senate Democrats aren't even pretending any more to propose a budget for the current year even though they control that institution), $500 billion in debt next year, and a balanced budget given to the next President.  I'm okay with that kind of a deal, signed on by both parties.

Here is where the confusion strikes- neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are negotiating for this objective or anything like it.

President Barack Hussein Obama (Democrat, Illinois) and the Democrats in the House (Screechen' Pelosi) and the Senate (which they still have control over because idiots continue to vote Democrat), as far as I can gather, wants the debt limit raised $4 trillion (which will get him into his hypothetical next administration) in return for unspecified cuts of whatever amount that will occur long after he has left. The only concrete proposal that I have seen from him is a measly $200 billion cut for Medicare, a Medicare program that he cut $500 billion out of already as part of making his Obamacare screw-over laughingly 'budget neutral'. Other than that, there big solution is more taxes- they feel that they can take money from people who are currently earning it fairly based on their hard work and effort and innovation because there are fewer of these people and that's what tyrannies do- beat up on the few to give meager handouts to the many. They are proposing higher taxes on those who make over $250K year- not those who are already wealthy or who inherited their money, because those people are the super-rich hereditary elite who are increasingly ruling over us- but rather that those who are earning and making their money and working their way up are beat down, punished, discouraged, and driven back downwards to the bottom, creating a permanent class of rich who have and poor who have not.

Both Democrats and Republicans also have been talking about cutting 'tax loopholes' or cutting 'spending through the tax code'. Don't fall for this kind of stuff- the sorts of things that the government considers 'spending through the tax code' are tax credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, deferrals, and preferential rates. Examples of 'tax expenditures' include the mortgage tax deduction, the 'Bush' tax cuts, the 'Obama' tax cuts, having pensions be tax exempt, dividend taxes, exclusion of taxes your employer pays on health care, tax credits for children, the elimination of the 'marriage penalty, and many more. Cutting this sort of spending will raise taxes on families, employers, home owners, retirees, and many more, in order to transfer wealth to low income earners and other politically favorable groups who will be exempt from such devastating automatic tax increases.

The Republicans also talk about wanting the government to cut spending back to the bloated, inefficient, and massive levels that it existed under big-government Republican President George W. Bush, combined with 'reforms' that are meaningless mishmash of poor words thrown at a wall doing nothing for the future.

It is simple- the limit has been reached, government should only spend the unbelievable amount that it takes in, and figure out something for next year. I don't understand why everyone else is so confused about this issue.