Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt -- a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans. 晚上好。今晚，我想谈谈华盛顿正在进行的有关国债的辩论——这场辩论直接影响每一位美国人的生活。
For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card. 过去十年，我们花的钱超过了收入。2000年，政府曾有预算盈余；但我们没有用它来偿还债务，而是把钱用于数万亿美元的新减税，同时又把两场战争和一项昂贵的处方药计划一并记在国家的信用卡上。
As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -- on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit. 因此，在我就任那一年，赤字预计将突破1万亿美元。雪上加霜的是，经济衰退使政府收入减少，也迫使我们增加支出：为中产家庭减税以刺激经济，支付失业保险，援助各州以避免更多教师、消防员和警察被裁员。这些紧急措施也增加了赤字。
Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. 每个家庭都知道，少量信用卡债务尚可负担；但若继续沿着当前道路走下去，日益增长的债务会令我们失去就业岗位，并严重损害经济。
More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -- the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid. 我们会把更多税款用于支付借款利息。在一个连收支都无法平衡的国家，企业更不愿开店、雇人。所有借款人的利率都可能上升——背负房贷的屋主、申请助学贷款的学生、想要扩张的街角小店都会受到影响。届时，我们也没有足够资金投资教育、基础设施等能创造就业的领域，或维持医疗保险和医疗补助等重要项目。
Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches. 造成这一问题的决策，两党都不能免责，因此两党都有责任解决它。过去数月，我们一直在这样努力。我不想用每一项计划或提案的细节让你们厌烦，但归根结底，争论集中在两种不同做法上。
The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. 第一种做法认为，我们应大幅、历史性地削减政府开支，量入为出。应把国内支出降至艾森豪威尔总统任内以来的最低水平；把五角大楼国防支出削减数千亿美元。
Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare -- and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions. 应清除医疗保险等医保项目中的浪费和欺诈，同时作出适度调整，确保后代仍能享有医疗保险。最后，应请最富有的美国人和最大企业放弃一部分税收优惠和特殊扣除。
This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now. 这种平衡做法要求每个人都作一点贡献，而不让任何人作出过度牺牲。它可削减约4万亿美元赤字，让我们走上偿还债务的道路。削减也不会过于突然，以致拖累经济，或妨碍我们当下帮助小企业和中产家庭重新站稳脚跟。
This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks. 这一做法也具有两党合作性质。虽然我所在党内许多人不满意其中痛苦的削减，但只要负担得到公平分担，仍会有足够多人愿意接受。共和党人或许希望削得更深、完全不增加收入，但参议院有许多人表示：“是的，我愿意把政治放在一边，考虑这一方案，因为我关心如何解决问题。”值得肯定的是，过去几周，共和党籍众议院议长约翰·博纳一直在与我共同研究的，正是这样的做法。
The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -- an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about -- cuts that place a greater burden on working families. 这一平衡方案之所以尚未走向立法，唯一原因是国会中相当多的共和党人坚持另一种做法——只削减开支的做法；它根本不要求最富有的美国人或最大企业承担任何责任。由于不向收入最高者提出任何要求，这种做法只能以更严厉地削减我们都在乎的项目来弥补赤字，而这些削减会让工薪家庭承担更重负担。
So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. 所以，当下的争论并不在于我们是否需要作出艰难选择。民主党和共和党都同意需要削减多少赤字；争论在于怎样削减。
Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for? 多数美国人，无论党派，都无法理解：为什么要先让老年人为医疗保险多付钱，再要求公务机所有者或石油公司放弃其他企业没有的税收优惠？为什么要先让学生为大学教育多付钱，再要求对冲基金经理不再以低于其秘书的税率纳税？为什么要先大砍教育和清洁能源经费，再要求像我这样并不需要、也从未索取过税收优惠的人放弃这些优惠？
That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -- things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research. 这不对，也不公平。我们都希望政府量入为出，但作为一个国家，仍有一些支出必须负担：新建道路和桥梁、气象卫星和食品检验、退伍军人服务以及医学研究。
And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. 还请记住，在平衡方案下，年收入低于25万美元的98%美国人完全不会加税，一分钱也不会加。事实上，我希望延长面向工薪家庭的工资税减免。
What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -- millionaires and billionaires -- to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this: 所谓平衡方案，是请过去十年收入增长最多的美国人——百万富翁和亿万富翁——与其他人一道分担必须作出的牺牲。我相信这些爱国的美国人愿意出力。事实上，过去几十年，每当我们通过两党合作的减赤协议，他们都曾出力。第一项此类协议通过时，我的一位前任曾这样为平衡方案辩护：
“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.” “你们愿意通过向目前未缴纳公平份额的人增加收入，来降低赤字和利率；还是愿意接受更大的预算赤字、更高的利率和更高的失业率？我想我知道你们的答案。”
Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach -- an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, by myself, and by many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we’re left with a stalemate. 这番话出自罗纳德·里根之口。但今天，众议院许多共和党人拒绝考虑这种平衡做法——这种做法不仅里根总统采取过，第一任布什总统、克林顿总统、我本人以及联邦参议院许多民主党人和共和党人都曾采用过。因此，我们陷入了僵局。
Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -- a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before. 如今，这一僵局之所以格外危险，是因为它与所谓“债务上限”绑在了一起——华盛顿以外的大多数人此前可能从未听过这个词。
Understand -- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills. 请理解：提高债务上限并不允许国会多花钱；它只是让国家有能力支付国会已经欠下的账单。过去，提高债务上限是例行之事。自20世纪50年代以来，国会一向会通过，每位总统都会签署。里根总统曾18次这样做，乔治·W·布什曾7次这样做。我们必须在下周二、8月2日前完成，否则就无法支付所有账单。
Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach. 遗憾的是，过去几周，众议院共和党议员实际上表示：只有我们其他人同意他们大幅、只削支出的方案，他们才会投票阻止美国历史上首次违约。
If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -- bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses. 如果发生这种情况而我们违约，就没有足够钱支付所有账单，其中包括每月的社会保障支票、退伍军人福利，以及政府已与数千家企业签订的合同。
For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -- this one caused almost entirely by Washington. 我国历史上首次，AAA信用评级将被下调，全球投资者会怀疑美国是否仍是可靠投资对象。信用卡、房贷和汽车贷款的利率都会飙升，这相当于向美国民众加征一大笔税。我们还可能引发严重经济危机——而这一次，几乎完全是由华盛顿造成的。
So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem. 因此，对我们的债务违约是这场争论中鲁莽且不负责任的结果。共和党领袖也表示同意必须避免违约；但博纳议长今天提出的新做法，是以削减开支换取暂时提高债务上限，它会迫使我们仅在六个月后再次面对违约威胁。换言之，它没有解决问题。
First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road. 首先，把债务上限延长六个月，可能不足以避免信用评级下调，以及随之而来、所有美国人都要承担的更高利率。我们知道该怎样削减赤字，没有必要把皮球往后踢，以此让经济继续冒险。
But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way. 但这种做法还有更大的危险。从过去几周的情况看，我们知道六个月后会发生什么：众议院会再次拒绝阻止违约，除非我们其他人接受他们只削支出的方案。他们会再次拒绝要求最富有人群放弃减税或扣除；会再次要求严厉削减医疗保险等项目；而经济又会被挟持，除非他们如愿以偿。
This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare. 这不是治理地球上最伟大国家的方式。这是一场我们从未玩过的危险游戏，如今也承受不起。无数家庭的工作和生计正岌岌可危。我们不能让美国人民成为华盛顿政治战争的附带损害。
Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months. 国会现在还有一周时间采取行动，仍有前进的道路。参议院已经提出一项避免违约的方案，它先为削减赤字作出一笔首期贡献，并确保我们不必在六个月后再经历一次同样的危机。
I think that’s a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -- and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress. 我认为这好得多，尽管要大幅削减赤字，仍须应对社会保障性福利项目改革和税制改革这些艰难挑战。无论如何，我已告诉两党领袖，他们必须在未来几天提出一项公平妥协，既能在国会两院通过，也能由我签署。我相信我们能达成这种妥协。尽管存在分歧，共和党领袖与我过去也曾找到共同立场；我相信，两党终将有足够议员把政治放在一边，帮助我们取得进展。
Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all? 我知道，许多新当选议员与我在很多问题上看法不同；但我们都是由部分相同的美国人、基于部分相同的理由选出来的。确实，许多人希望政府开始量入为出；许多人也厌倦了这样一种制度：牌局似乎偏袒极少数最富有者，而不利于中产美国人。但你们知道人们最厌倦什么吗？
They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be. 他们厌倦了一个把妥协当成污名的首都。他们整日工作，许多人勉强维持生计，只为把食物端上餐桌。夜里，这些美国人疲惫不堪地回到家、打开新闻，看到的却仍是华盛顿这场党派纷争的三环马戏。他们看到的领袖似乎无法团结起来，做些真正能让普通美国人生活好一点的事。他们为此感到愤怒，而他们本就应该愤怒。
The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message. 美国人民或许投票选择了分治政府，但他们没有投票选择一个失灵的政府。因此，我请大家发出自己的声音。如果你希望以平衡方式削减赤字，就告诉你的国会议员；如果你相信我们能通过妥协解决这个问题，就传递这一信息。
America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. 毕竟，美国一直是一场伟大的妥协实验。作为由各种族、各种宗教组成的民主国家，在这里每一种信念和观点都受到欢迎，我们一次又一次检验建国理念的核心命题：合众为一。
We’ve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things -- without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.” 我们曾就时代议题进行激烈而热切的辩论；但从奴隶制到战争，从公民自由到经济正义问题，我们一直努力遵循杰斐逊写下的话：“没有人能在所有事情上都如愿；没有这种彼此让步的意愿，我们只是彼此脱节的个人，而不是一个社会。”
History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union. 历史遍布这样的故事：有人死守僵化意识形态，拒绝倾听异见者。但我们铭记的美国人并非如此。我们铭记那些把国家置于个人之上、为更大利益放下个人怨愤的美国人；我们铭记那些在国家最艰难时刻维系团结、放下自尊与党派立场，缔造更完美联邦的美国人。
That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth -- not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation. 这才是我们铭记的人，也正是我们此刻需要成为的人。全世界都在注视。让我们抓住这一刻，向世界说明美国为何仍是地球上最伟大的国家——不仅因为我们仍能信守承诺、履行义务，更因为我们仍能作为一个国家团结起来。
Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. 谢谢。愿上帝保佑你们，愿上帝保佑美利坚合众国。