we have breaking news you'll be following and other stuffs. >> thanks so much. see you over the weekend as well. breaking news from studio 7. i'm fredricka whitfield in for suzanne malveaux. two explosions have rocked central oslo in the last hour wounding at least eight people. reports from norway say govrt buildings were targeted, one houses the prime minister's office and most of the windows were blown out. reuters reports a mangled car outside one building suggesting a possible car bomb. reuters reports the prime minister is safe. cnn is following the developments for you from london. what more do we know about how this happened and why? >> reporter: the information is still trickling in from oslo at this point. the police have issued a stam saying that there are deaths and injuries. that's all they're saying right now. they're not saying what may have caused this explosion or explosions at this time. according to the state television, the norwegian state television one person is confirmed dead. that is unconfirmed by cnn independently, but according to norwegian state television, one person is dead. some eight are injured including two or three with serious wounds. looking at the footage coming out from central oslo, the downtown capital, some describe it as anw war zone. whatever caused this explosion was powerful enough to shatter the windows of several buildings including the office of the prime minister and you were saying the prime minister, as we understand, is safe right now. many are just saying that oslo is a relatively safe city, relatively safe capital city. things like this don't happen there very often. norway is a country that is relatively calm and quiet. many residents in that area are just shocked. some say they felt the explosion about a mile, a kilometer away, and that's how powerful it was. >> this is a global city. one that is considered one of great harmony. this city is the largest city there in norway. do people or are people there saying in way there have been any troubles, have there been any complaints about anything that might have preceded this? >> reporter: at this point, you know what? i was looking through some of the feeds that are coming in and even some of the discussions happening online in the social media as well. no one is saying that they're -- they're worried if this could have been a terrorist attack, but the question is why would it be? norway is a relatively -- it's like swits up lazerland. a neutral country. what links they had to afghanistan or iraq or any soldiers or troops they have there. that's all speculation right now. we don't know if it was an intentional explosion or if it was something that was a complete accident such as a gas explosion. police are not releasing any information right now. again, whatever it was was powerful enough. interesting to note, though, i heard on one of the other reports that this is a time when many people actually take vacations in oslo, so they're away from the city center and along the coastal areas. so perhaps that was a good thing. this could have been much worse had it been at the height of rush hour or the height of the time when people are actually in the city. >> thanks so much. we'll continue to allow you to do some more reporting on that and touch base with you momentarily. a lot of images you're seeing were shot by this person i'm talking to. christian, you were rolling as you were walking around to get a handle about what happened. what was your first experience with this explosion? where were you? >> sure, sure. well, at the time of the explosion i was working at a nearby building right next door almost. maybe 100 yards or so. i felt an incredible force, an incredible explosion, and the entire building was shaking. at first my immediate response was earthquake, but earthquakes rarely happen in norway, at least in oslo. after three or four seconds the shaking stopped and i realized this was a major explosion. i looked outside a window, and i saw that several windows in the nearby buildings were shattered. the alarm went off approximate in my building, and we evacuated the shbuilding. when i walked outside, glass was everywhere. glass was falling down from the buildings, to one lady injured on the ground was being attended to. people were shocked and confused. right after that i was just surveying the area, and i had noticed a building right next to the government building was on fire. there was thick smoke coming from that building. i did not see the government building itself, but i'm -- from what i'm hear obviously it has been affected as well. >> so christian, describe for me the streets and the buildings there. just looking at your images there, it's downtown and very congested. the buildings are very much close together. at about this time of day when this explosion happened, even given this is vacation time and a lot of people may be out of the city, would there be a lot of traffic on the street, a lot of foot traffic on the street? >> well, there certainly is traffic on the street. like you say, some are vacationing now. a lot people aren't works, but there's a lot of tourists here and there were a certain number of people on the streets. so i can't really say much more than that about that. >> okay. all right. christian, thanks so much, and thanks for your perspective. keep us posted on what you may learn there on the ground there in downtown oslo, norway. it was his picture that's helping you to get a better view about the chaos that ensued following those what appear to be two explosions take place right downtown and rights near government buildings. still unclear what may have caused these explosions, but already reportedly many injuries and possibly at least one death. we'll keep you posted on that. in the meantime, back in this country the big concern is the debl ceiling. president obama is at university of maryland right now. let's listen in. >> the worst financial crisis and the worst recession we've seen since the great depression. although some progress has been made, there's no doubt that this economy has not recovered as fast as it needs to. the truth is it's going to take more time because a lot of problems that we're facing right n now, slow job growth, stagnant wages, those were there even before the recession hit. for a decade the average wage to average income of the american worker had flat lined. those at the very top saw their incomes going up 50%, 100%, but those in the middle, the vast majority of americans, they had been struggling to keep up before the recession hit. so these challenges weren't caused overnight and won't be solved overlight. as john f. kennedy once said, our problems are man made. therefore, they can be solved by man. in the united states we control our own destiny. the question we have to answer, though, is where do we want to go? what's our vision for the future, and how do we get there? in the short term i've been urging congress to pass some proposals that would give the economy an immediate boost, and these are proposals by the way that traditionally have had support in both parties. i want to extend the tax relief we put in place back in december for middle class families so you have more money in your paychecks next year. if you have more money in your paychecks next year, you're more plik likely to spend it. that means small businesses and medium-sized businesses and large businesses will have more customers and they're in a position to hire. i want to give an opportunity to all those construction workers out there that lost their jobs when the housing bubble went bust. we could put them to work giving loans to private companies that want to repair our roads and our bridges and our airports. rebuilding our infrastructure, putting americans to work doing the work that needs to be done. we have workers in need of a job in a country that's in need of rebuilding. if we put those two things together, we can make real progress. i want to cut red tape that stops too many inventors and entrepreneurs that turns new ideas into thriving businesses. i want congress to send me trade deals that would allow our businesses to sell more products in countries in asia and south america that are stamped with the words "made in america." ne these are some things we could be doing right now. there are proposals in congress right in and out as we speak, and congress needs to act now. but i also believe that over the long term the strength of our economy is going to depend on how we deal with the accumulated debt and deficits that have built up over the last decade. and that's what the discussion in washington is about right now. now, i know it's hard to keep up with the different plans and the press conferences and the back and forth between the parties, but here's what it all boils down to. it's not that complicated. for a decade we have been spending more money than we take in. the last time the budget was balanced was under a democratic president, bill clinton. [ applause ] and a series of decisions were ma made, whether it was cutting taxes or engaging in two wars or a prescription drug benefit for seniors that weren't paid for and then a financial crisis on top of that, recovery act to try to pull us out of a great depression, all those things contributed to this accumulated debt. regardless of what you feel about the particular policies -- some of you may have supported the wars or opposed the wars, some of you may have agreed with the recovery acts. some of you may be opposed to it. regardless of your views on these various actions that were taken, the fact is they all cost money. the result is that there's simply too much debt on america's credit card. neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, but both parties have a responsibility to solve it. if we don't solve it, every american will suffer. businesses will be left likely to invest and hire in america. interest rates will rise for people who need money to buy a home or a car or go to college. we won't have enough money to invest in things like education and clean energy or protect important programs like medicare because we'll be paying more and more interest on this national debt. that money just flowing overseas instead of being spent here on the things that we need. now, the one thing we can't do, cannot do is decide that we are not going to pay the bills the previous congresses have racked up. that's what this whole issue of raising the debt ceiling is all about. basically there's some people out there that argue we won't raise the debt ceiling anymore, and the problem is effectively what that is saying is we're not going to pay some of our bills. well, the united states of america doesn't run out without paying the tab. we pay our bills. we meet our obligations. we have never defaulted our debt. we're not going to do it now. but even if we raise the debt ceiling, this debate shouldn't be just about avoiding some kind of crisis, particularly a crisis manufactured in washington. this is a rare opportunity for both parties to come together and choose a path where we stop putting so much debt on our credit card. we start paying it down a little bit. that's what we've been trying to do. so for my part i've already said that i'm willing to cut a historic amount of government spending in order to reduce the deficit. i'm willing to cut spending on domestic programs, taking them to the lowest level since dwight eisenhower. i'm willing to cut defense spending at the pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. i'm willing to take on -- i'm willing to take on the rising costs of health care programs like medicare and medicaid so that these programs will be there for the next generation. forfo for folks living longer. we have to make sure that these programs, which are the crown jewels of our social safety net, that sort of mixed metaphors there. that those are there for the future. some of these cuts will just eliminate wasteful spending, weapons we don't need and fraud and abuse in our health care system. i want to be honest. i've agreed to also target some programs that i actually think are worthwhile. they're cuts that some people in my own party aren't too happy about, and frankly i wouldn't make them if money wasn't so tight. but it's just like a family. if you've got to tighten your belts, you make some choices. now, here's the thing, though. here's what the argument is about. we can't just close our deficit with spending cuts alone. if we take that route, it means that seniors would have to pay a lot more for medicare, or students would have to pay a lot more for student loans. it means that laid-off workers may not be able to count on temporary assistance or training to help them get a new job. it means we have to make devastating cuts in education and medical research and clean energy research. just at a time when gas prices are killing people at the pump. so if we only did it with cuts, if we did not get any revenue to help close this gap between how much money is coming in and how much money is going out, then a lot of ordinary people would be h hurt and the country as a whole would be hurt. that doesn't make any sense. it's not fair. that's why i said if we're going to reduce our deficit, then the wealthiest americans and the biggest corporations should do their part as well. [ applause ] before we stop funding clean energy research, let's ask oil companies and corporate jet owners to give up the tax breaks that other companies don't get. these are special tax breaks. before we ask college students to pay more for their education, let's ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes that are lower on their rates than their secretaries. before we ask seniors to pay more for medicare let's ask people like me to give up tax breaks that we don't need and we weren't even asking for. i want everyone to have a chance to become a millionaire. i think the free market system is the greatest wealth generator we've ever known. this isn't about punishing wealth. this is about asking people who have benefitted the most over the last decade to share in the sacrifice. i think -- [ applause ] i think these patriotic americans are willing to pitch in if they're asked because they know middle class families shouldn't have to pick up the whole tab for closing the deficit. this idea of balance, this idea of shared sacrifice of a deficit plan that includes tough spending cuts but also includes tax reform that raising more revenue, this isn't just my position, this isn't just the democratic position. this isn't some wild-eyed socialist position. this is a position that's being taken by people of both parties and no party. this is the decision taken by warren buffett, somebody who knows about business and knows a little something about being wealthy. a position that's been taken by every democratic and republican president who signed major deficit deals in the past, from ronald reagan to bill clinton. i was pleased to see this week that it was a position taken by democrats and republicans in the senate. so we can pass a balanced plan like this. it's not going to make everybody happy. in fact, it will make everybody sbha unhappy. the easiest thing for a politician to do is to give you more stuff and ask less in return. it's a lot harder to say, we got to cut back on what you're getting, and you have to pay a little more. that's never fun. we can do it in a balanced way that doesn't hurt anybody badly. that doesn't put the burden just on one group. so we can solve our dif sit probl deficit problem, and i'm willing to sign a plan that has tough choices i wouldn't normally make. there's lots of democrats and republicans who want to do the same thing. the only people we have left to convince are some folks in the house of representatives. we're going to keep working on that, because i still believe we can do what you sent us here to do. in 2010 americans chose a divided government. but they didn't choose a dysfunctional government. [ applause ] there will be time for political campaigni campaigning with points. it should be about doing what's right for the country, for everybody. you expect us to work together and expect him to compromise and do whatever you have to do in order to get by and raise your families. you're meeting your responsibiliti responsibilities, and it's time for nose in washington to do the same thing. i expect to make that happen in the coming days. thank you, everybody. i'll take some questions. all right. so the way this works is you put up your hand, and i call on you. but i am going to go girl, boy, girl, boy to make sure that it's even and fair. all right? i'm going to start with you right there. yes. hold on. we have a mike here. introduce yourself, if you don't mind. >> hello, mr. president. >> hi. >> my name is amanda kanitz, and i'm a big fan from iowa originally. >> nice. >> yes. i'm an atheist, and in zaneville, ohio in 2008 you asserted that no organization receiving taxpayer funds would be able to discriminate in hiring or firing based on a person's religion. you have not resended this executive order. in a time of economic hardship when it's difficult for a person to get a job based on her skills, what would you say to a woman who has been denied employment because of her religion or lack of religious beliefs by a taxpayer-funded organization. >> well, this is a very difficult issue, but a more narrow one than i think might be implied. it's very straightforward that people shouldn't be discriminated against for gender, sexual orientation, and reported information. what happened is there has been a carveout dating back to president clinton's presidency for religious organizations in their hiring for particular purposes, and this is always a tricky part of the first person. on the one hand the first am amendment ensures they're freedom of religion. on the other hand we want to make sure that religion bodies are abiding by general laws. and so where this issue has come up is in fairly narrow circumstances where, for example, you've got a faith-based organization that's providing certain services. they consider part of their mission to be promoting their religious views, but they may have a day care center associated with the organization, or they may be running a food pantry. the question is does a jewish organization have to hire a non-jewish person as part of that organization. now, i think that the balance we tried to strike is to say that if you are offering -- if you have set up a nonprofit that is disassociated from your core religious functions and is out there in the public doing all kinds of work, then you have to abide generally with the nondiscrimination hiring practices. if on the other hand it is closer to your core functions as a synagogue or mosque or a church, then there may more leeway to hire somebody that is a believer of that particular religious faith. it doesn't satisfy everybody. i will tell you that a lot of faith-based organizations think that we are too restrictive in how we define those issues. there are others like you who think we're not restrictive enough. i think we've struck the right balance so far, but this is something that we continue to be in dialogue with faith-based organizations about to try to make sure that they're hiring practices are as open and inclusive as possible. thank you. yes, sir. back here. hold on a second. we've got a mike. >> yes. most of the american people on your side about a balanced approach, what we also know is most of the budget cuts are going to be in the out years, so the question is, why push so hard for a big settlement now when if you push hard and let the american people vote in 2012 and get ready of these hooligans in the house, we might actually have a reasonable settlement, maybe more like a one-t