In remarks on the Senate Floor on March 16, 2006, Sen. Obama said the need to raise the Debt Limit was “a sign of leadership failure.”
Sen Obama said the need to raise the Debt Limit was another reflection of the “Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
The[n], Sen Obama also denounced the rising National Debt as “a hidden domestic enemy” robbing cities & states of “critical investments.”
Denouncing the ever-increasing National Debt, then-Sen. Obama told the Senate he would oppose an increase in the Debt Limit.
Pwned.
It goes without saying, of course, that Mark Knoller is a racist.
Voting against a debt ceiling hike when it’s guaranteed to pass isn’t reckless, it’s routine political grandstanding. Voting against a debt ceiling hike when its passage is in doubt isn’t just reckless, it’s economic sabotage.
So Senator Obama was calling for economic sabotage?
Glad you cleared that up.
Senator Obama was grandstanding; he knew that the 2006 ceiling hike was going to pass, and that his vote would have no practical effect. The Congressmen who voted down a ceiling hike in 2011, and the ones gearing up to do so again, are saboteurs.
Jim, if it’s true (and it well might be) that as you say, Obama was grandstanding and railing against (and voting against) something he actually wanted to pass, could you please give me a definition of “hypocrite” that Obama, under your own definition, does not fit?
Issuing a protest vote against a necessary-but-unpopular measure that is sure to pass is pretty low on the scale of hypocrisy in politics.
And Obama’s critique was correct — Bush did run up the deficit unnecessarily.
Jim, don’t you ever get tired of being a tax-and-spend liberal? How many more trillions of dollars of Federal deficit are too many for you? Any?
Also, your little “grandstanding” claim means that he either was lying when he made it or is lying now. I guess you’re OK with a liar for a president[1].
[1] Remember, George W Bush didn’t lie about WMDs–everyone in the world thought Saddam had ’em.
The debt ceiling doesn’t keep Congress from passing laws that result in bigger deficits. It just destroys the economy when the debt hits the ceiling.
To grandstand — to seek favorable attention from the audience or media — is not the same as lying. Until 2011 every time we approached the debt ceiling the opposition party would get a chance to take potshots at the party in power, then the ceiling would be raised and life would go on. The idea of not raising it unless the party in power capitulated to a list of demands is a new phenomenon, and not something Obama ever suggested or supported. When the debt ceiling came up in 2007 Obama, Reid and the rest of the Democrats did not insist that Bush repeal his tax cuts or abandon any other part of his policy agenda in exchange; I doubt the idea even occurred to them.
Yes, lots of people thought Saddam had chemical and maybe even biological weapons (even as some well-placed sources disagreed). That didn’t stop the Bush administration from lying about the evidence (e.g. Condoleezza Rice’s comments on the aluminum tubes).
Saboteurs? It’s called being responsible. You don’t pay your Master Card with your Visa, do you?
Analogy fail. Borrowing money to carry out the duly passed laws of the land is the not paying MasterCard with Visa, it’s the legal and responsible thing to do. The alternative is self-inflicted damage to the economy.
The alternative is living within your means.
Borrowing money to carry out the duly passed laws of the land is the not paying MasterCard with Visa, it’s the legal and responsible thing to do. The alternative is self-inflicted damage to the economy.
Gee, I would have thought that spending beyond your means would be the real genesis of “self-inflicted damage to the economy”
Jim, Obama didn’t just vote against it, he railed against. He called Bush’s adding to the debt at 500 billion a year “unpatriotic”. At the time, it was one of the few things Obama had said that I liked, because I absolutely agreed; deficits are very bad. Unfortunately, this is just one of many issues where Senator Obama stands in direct opposition to President Obama.
Let’s see what a “constitutional law expert” has to say about Obama’s recent declarations that he doesn’t need congressional approval to launch a strike on Syria (and before that, Libya, which was never authorized and also violated the War Powers Act)
” Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
A. The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Obama is certainly nimble, as evidenced by his penchant for coming down firmly on both sides of so many issues.
Hrmmm.. Maybe Senator Obama just opposes President Obama due to racism?
deficits are very bad
It depends entirely on what you’re getting for them. Deficit spending to build infrastructure, counter invasions, relieve suffering, and educate the next generation all make sense. The U.S. would not be the rich, powerful country it is today were it not for past deficit spending. But deficit spending to cut wealthy people’s taxes and fight unwise wars doesn’t make sense.
When the govt can’t pay its enforcers, progtards like you will be screwed in the ass hard.
What’s the point of a ‘debt ceiling’ if you just increase it every time you reach it?
Is there any level of debt that will be too much?
I suppose making it a fraction of “chained” US GDP would be a better approach. Of course, it then gives the government more incentive to distort GDP and inflation estimates than it already has.
What’s the point of a ‘debt ceiling’ if you just increase it every time you reach it?
Exactly! There is no point. It’s like having a nuclear time bomb in the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, with a timer that can only be rewound by an act of Congress. The best-case scenario is nothing happens; the worst-case scenario is that the economy is ruined.
We should get rid of the debt ceiling.
“We should get rid of the debt ceiling.”
But the spending during the Bush years was totally evil.
Exactly — the existence of the debt ceiling doesn’t stop bad spending. The way to stop bad spending is to have Congress not authorize it in the first place. The idea that Congress should order the spending, and then refuse to raise the debt ceiling to pay for it, creating an economic crisis that makes the debt even worse — that’s insanity.
Some brave souls are trying to use the debt ceiling to prevent more bad spending but instead of helping Democrats are saying things like Republicans want to sabotage the economy and other ridiculous attacks.
Some brave souls are trying to use the debt ceiling to prevent more bad spending
The only way you can “use” the debt ceiling is to threaten to destroy the economy by not raising it. That isn’t “brave”, it’s insanely reckless.
Democrats are saying things like Republicans want to sabotage the economy
The Republicans are threatening to not raise the debt ceiling, and not raising the debt ceiling sabotages the economy. If the Republicans don’t want to sabotage the economy, they should stop threatening to do just that.
Next you will say extreme weather will increase if Obama is not obeyed. Why does everything always have to be do what Democrats say or Apocalypse?
It isn’t true and is getting old.
This sums up the Obama experience. Say things that are not true to rile up his rabid base then constantly contradict himself.
I understand you explaining how Obama didn’t say what he truly believed. He was just using lies to rally people behind a class warfare anti-war rhetorical machine. But I don’t understand why you would defend him doing it as a right and proper thing to do. Or that he shouldn’t be called out on it.
Those of us constantly accused of being racist based on the racist archetypes employed by Obama and his supporters are well aware that Obama lies in order to rally his base but it still doesn’t make Obama’s behavior ok if we know he is lieing about it. His followers actually believe the racism charges just like they (and you) believed what he said about spending at the time.
This is just another example of how Democrats conduct during the Bush years were not based on any actual principals but instead just cynical attacks to tear down Bush and our country so that Democrats could regain political power and enrich themselves from government coffers. Oh ya, and bomb brown people with impunity.
What did he say that wasn’t true?
Did Obama believe the words coming out of his mouth then or the contradictory ones coming out of his mouth now?
Just like you, “And Obama’s critique was correct — Bush did run up the deficit unnecessarily.”
So Bush’s smaller deficits were bad but Obama’s larger deficits are good.
“It depends entirely on what you’re getting for them.”
Or maybe the letter behind the name?
” Deficit spending to build infrastructure, counter invasions, relieve suffering, and educate the next generation all make sense.”
You are saying that all of the deficit spending under Obama only goes toward those things. Well, it doesn’t. It is government spending in total that leaves us with a deficit and it is disingenuous to pick out some unspecific themes like “relieve suffering” or “educate the next generation” and say that we only have deficits because Obama is trying to do good things.
And you seem to be saying that during the Bush years the federal government didn’t try and relieve suffering, build infrastructure, or educate the next generation. Or that the spending on those things during the Bush years didn’t count toward our deficits and debt and only bad wars did despite them being a small portion of our total spending.
I can play that game too. Bush’s deficits came from funding social security and medicare because he loves old people and wants to see them taken care of. You must hate old people and want them to die if you didn’t like Bush’s deficits.
And you know what? We don’t need trillion dollar deficits to do those things you mentioned. The federal government spends trillions of dollars every year. If Obama and the Democrats think some things are so so so important, then they should write a budget that reflects those priorities.
So Bush’s smaller deficits were bad but Obama’s larger deficits are good.
It isn’t about who was president, it’s about whether there was a demand shortfall in the economy. There was good reason for Bush to run deficits in 2001 and 2002, but not after that when the economy was doing better. Obama’s deficits were if anything too small for the economic situation he inherited.
The recession ended a few months after Obama took office. Our economic problems don’t stem from the government failing to run $2t+ deficits every year.
Your defenses are rather flimsy and rather easy to counter since they are just rhetorical games. Ever shifting, you continually change your story because you are not arguing out of principals. Like now you say deficits during the Bush years were good but only so you can say Obama’s much larger deficits are ok, not because you truly think that spending during the Bush years was at the right level.
And this wasn’t some evolution over many years. It was over a couple days of posting where defending the past actions of Obama and the Democrats became untenable.
The recession ended a few months after Obama took office
The demand shortfall continues to this day.
Our economic problems don’t stem from the government failing to run $2t+ deficits every year.
The economy would be better if the government was spending more.
rather easy to counter
Then why are you having such trouble?
not because you truly think that spending during the Bush years was at the right level
And you know what I truly think?
All I know Jim is that you constantly contradict yourself, like to play word games, are dogmatic in your fealty to Obama, and don’t always present a genuine argument based on what you believe.
It must suck being an Obama supporter right now. Where is you god now?
The debt ceiling keeps getting raised, and the time between the debt ceiling battles keeps getting shorter and shorter. Last time the interval between debt ceiling increases was almost two years. This is the second time in less than a year. And when they knuckle under and do it again next month, they’ll have even less time until the next debt ceiling battle, around January or February, and again in August 2014, and again in October 2014, and in December, and by 2015, well, who would want to trade in US dollars anymore? Who will sell you oil in exchange for worthless scrip? Sure, Alberta will sell you a years’ supply of natural gas, and all we want in exchange is a pittance, really, just a small chunk of Montana. And maybe some of North Dakota while we’re at it…
the time between the debt ceiling battles keeps getting shorter and shorter
Increases aren’t really more frequent; the debt ceiling was raised 18 times while Reagan was in office, and 7 times under George W. Bush. But they weren’t really battles — everyone accepted that it was something you had to do.
We could abolish these battles by abolishing the debt ceiling. It serves no useful purpose.
It does serve a useful purpose of requiring congress to justify their actions and for taxpayers to debate the conduct of our elected officials.
They should have the debate when they vote for the spending. When the bills come due it’s too late to do anything but 1) pay up or 2) destroy the economy. Congress shouldn’t have option 2).
And when was the last budget, Jim? When was there a debate? There hasn’t been a budget since Obama took office.
3) Stop spending on non-essential programs.
There are always more choices than what is offered.
A lesson Obama has hopefully learned by now after so many debacles he has stumbled into.
Jim, either you 1) Agree with me or 2) The world will be ruined and the universe will cease to exist.
Take your pick. It is all on you now. Make the right choice. Just remember what people will think of you. If you don’t agree with me, you want the world to be ruined and the universe to end. No pressure…
Yes President Obama should have immediately reversed the Bush Tax Cuts, restoring
tax rates back to the 1990’s and then added a small tax on financial instruments.
Because raising tax rates in a recession is such a good idea, right? Damn, you’re dumb.
So if Raising Taxes in a recession is dumb, how smart is cutting spending in a recession?
And if it’s a recession, why would you want to do either?
Well, we did raise taxes. It didn’t magically fix our economy as claimed it would. It also didn’t fix income inequality and the other class warfare arguments used in advocating for the tax increase. Predictions were made by high tax advocates and the results are not was predicted.
We did recently see a record amount of money taken through taxes but we still run a deficit.
People who support stimulus spending always forget that what the money is spent will effect the multiplier, if there is any multiplier at all. Throwing money around like monkies throw poo isn’t going to have a good multiplier effect.
“Well, we did raise taxes. It didn’t magically fix our economy”
Sure did wonders for the deficit.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/02/cbo-deficit-to-decline-to-24-of-gdp-in.html
So, if your concern is the multiplier, what was the multiplier of spending on the Iraq war?
What is the opportunity cost for raising those taxes? It is great that the deficits are finally going down due to sequestration and efforts of House Republicans to rein in Obama’s spending by making the Democrats pass a budget for the first time since Obama was elected.
“So, if your concern is the multiplier, what was the multiplier of spending on the Iraq war?”
Iraq wasn’t a stimulus program. Do you really think we went to war to stimulate the economy? What’s next, 9/11 an inside job?
Obama’s stimulus program was a failure. Remember “We learned shovel ready jobs weren’t so shovel ready. Heh heh heh.” To quote Obama. The reason why the stimulus didn’t perform as advertised is because giving money to Obama campaign donors doesn’t stimulate anything except political donations.
Iraq wasn’t a stimulus program. Do you really think we went to war to stimulate the economy? What’s next, 9/11 an inside job?
Well, 9/11 did give 19 people jobs for the rest of their lives for a cost of about half a million dollars. That’s pretty good by Obama administration standards (it’s a factor of 5-8 better than TARP or ARRA, for example).
Hey, you awful wingnuts–you were expecting “dcguy” NOT to be generous with other people’s money? Come on, get serious! That’s like asking Admiral Gerrib for a syllogism or Jim to takle his hand off your wallet.
C’mon, folks. If people just went around expecting leftists like dcguy and Jim to be all consistent and stuff, what would happen next?
Accept them in their incoherency and their vulnerability to The Current Revealed Truth, whatever that may be- for that very gullibility makes them what they are.
What did [Obama] say that wasn’t true?
I guess this according to your earlier comments, Jim:
the need to raise the Debt Limit was “a sign of leadership failure.”
or
reflection of the “Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
or
rising National Debt as “a hidden domestic enemy” robbing cities & states of “critical investments.”
Now I think what he said then was honest, but then I, like many others here, didn’t support President Bush’s excessive spending. Before there was TEA Parties, there was Porkbuster. So some of us are consistent, but apparently not you, Jim.
the need to raise the Debt Limit was “a sign of leadership failure.”
It was. If Bush hadn’t cut taxes, expanded Medicare without new revenue and started two wars, it wouldn’t have been necessary to raise the limit in 2006.
reflection of the “Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
See above.
rising National Debt as “a hidden domestic enemy” robbing cities & states of “critical investments.”
That one’s true in the sense that if you unnecessarily run up debt in good times, you may (depending on the economic intelligence of your leaders) find it difficult to spend as much in bad times, when that spending is really needed. But I’m guessing that the GOP would have opposed Obama’s spending regardless of how much debt Bush ran up.
but apparently not you, Jim
How so?
Whoa there. Bush only had to raise the debt limit because the Democrat controlled congress had already spent that money. Not raising the debt limit would have meant a default on obligations congress made in the past.
Indeed Wodun. Your argument is the same claim Obama is making now, just after threatening to start a war with Syria.
What Jim won’t mention is all his previous lies about “multiplier effects”, when Obama was given over a trillion dollars to fix the economy the way Obama claimed it could be fixed. Yet 5 years in, and the economy is so weak that the federal reserve is still pumping $85 billion into it monthly. Right there is another free trillion a year going into Obama’s economy, and it is still weak. That’s poor leadership!
when Obama was given over a trillion dollars
The stimulus was under $800B.
Right there is another free trillion a year
You are conflating fiscal policy with monetary policy. That’s a rookie mistake.
The stimulus was under $800B.
Hey Jim, I’m talking about the budget: The 2009 FY outlays for Obama was $3,997,842,000,000 compared to 2008 FY $2,982,881,000,000. That’s $1 Trillion, $15 billion, and $39 million dollars more than the previous year.
Obama did end up spending less than the outlays provided to him. But let’s ask the Federal Reserve what they think of the US economy today after 5 years of Obama’s leadership? “Economy still too weak to taper”
You are conflating fiscal policy with monetary policy.
I’m not. Obama and Bernanke are. Quantitative Easing via wikipedia definition: “Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the national economy when standard monetary policy has become ineffective.”
This is the US central bank purchasing US Treasury bonds in order to provide the federal government (economic policy) more money (monetary policy).
I just wanted to see Jim be forced to defend Bush. Lol.
Quantitative Easing via wikipedia definition: “Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the national economy when standard monetary policy has become ineffective.”
Right — quantitative easing is monetary policy. It’s about the supply of money in the overall economy. It is not the same thing as fiscal policy, which is about how much money the government taxes and spends.
This is the US central bank purchasing US Treasury bonds in order to provide the federal government (economic policy) more money (monetary policy).
You are confused. I will try to explain. Fiscal policy — how much the government takes in, and how much it spends — is decided by Congress. The Fed has no control over that. Once Congress has decided to spend more than it takes in, the Treasury has to borrow (sell bonds) to make up the difference. U.S. Treasury Bonds are the safest investment on the planet, so the Treasury Dept. has no trouble selling them (lately investors have been paying the government for the privilege of holding Treasury Bonds, i.e. the real interest rate for long term bonds has been negative!).
The Fed controls monetary policy, how much money is flowing through the entire economy, including every wallet, bank account, brokerage account, etc. Conventional monetary policy is to drop interest rates when the economy needs more money; lower interest rates will spur borrowing, which increases the money supply. But what if (as has been the case lately) interest rates are already at zero — you can’t go lower than zero. Then you get unconventional monetary policy, such as QE. The Fed has the power to clap its hands and make $1T appear out of nowhere. But having created that $1T, how do they inject it into the economy? One way is to buy Treasury bonds. They can also buy mortgage-backed securities, stocks, corporate bonds, or whatever else they feel like; the point is to put the money into action.
So yes, fiscal policy results in the selling of Treasury bonds, and monetary policy may include the buying of treasury bonds, but that doesn’t make them the same sort of thing at all. Fiscal policy — taxes, spending and the deficit — would be the same with or without QE. Bernanke has no control over that. He can give the economy more or less money, but he can’t give the federal government more or less money.
Here’s a link that might be helpful.
Leland: Another link that might be helpful:
Jim, what you need to be worried about is the bubble being pumped up right now by Obama’s policies. Maybe he will get out of office before it pops, he certainly is lucky that way. But while that may be good for Obama, it is going to suck for the rest of us.
Getting out of QE is going to be very tricky.
Jim, what you need to be worried about is the bubble being pumped up right now by Obama’s policies.
You seem to have Obama confused with Bernanke. Bernanke is not responsible for Obama’s fiscal policy decisions, and Obama is not responsible for Bernanke’s monetary policy decisions.
I see you are “grandstanding” again Jim. You’re trying to detach Obama’s poor leadership from the economic woes of the US by blaming the federal reserve while claiming Obama only has control of the federal government. This whole thing about Obama picking the next fed reserve chair must go over your head.
Jim, the fed reserve keeps the prime rate low by essentially underwriting debt. If a bank or US treasury offers too much bad credit that can’t be repaid; then the fed reserve will just print more money. That’s what QE is doing to affect the prime rate. QE1 purchased various banks toxic debt (as TARP allowed the US treasury to pick up the toxic debt). QE2 and QE3 is the fed reserve purchasing toxic US treasury debt.
You can reiterate your ignorance of these things by linking to articles that talk about 2008, but it’s 2013 and Obama has been leading us down a dark road for 5 years now.
You’re trying to detach Obama’s poor leadership from the economic woes of the US by blaming the federal reserve
No, I’m just trying to help you understand the difference between fiscal and monetary policy.
This whole thing about Obama picking the next fed reserve chair must go over your head
Yes, Obama nominates the Fed chair (and the rest of the Fed), but once in office the Fed members do not answer to anyone. Recall that Bernanke is a Republican originally nominated by Bush; Obama nominated him for another term because he valued continuity above having a Democrat in the job.
You can reiterate your ignorance of these things by linking to articles that talk about 2008, but it’s 2013
Do you think the difference between fiscal and monetary policy changed between 2008 and 2013?
Did you read the link? Do you now understand the difference between Obama spending $600B on the stimulus (the government buying goods and services, e.g. repaving a highway, never to see that money again) and Bernanke spending $1T on Treasury bills, which will later be sold (i.e. turned back into money)?
You can’t possibly think that the Fed sets up a policy like QE without the approval of the President.
Stop blaming other people for Obama’s decisions. We are a year into his second term. It is far past time for Obama to be held accountable for the actions of his administration.
What next, that Obama had nothing to do with the strategy in Afghanistan that is working out so well? That Obama never had anything to do with setting a red line in regards to the use of WMD in Syria? Oh wait…
The only shovel ready job created by Obama is for people defending him.
Do you think the difference between fiscal and monetary policy changed between 2008 and 2013?
Monetary policy has changed since 2008 to 2013. QE1 was supposed to be a one time effort to support low interest rates to provide time for mortgage owners to get out from under ARMs. It was done in conjunction with TARP to help relieve banks of “toxic assets” and prevent the banks that made bad loans from going under. Since then, we have made QE a continuous program of pumping an addition $65 billion a month (or more) into the US economy. When monetary policy is used to prop up the economy, it becomes a factor in economic policy.
And as wodun states, “You can’t possibly think that the Fed sets up a policy like QE without the approval of the President. “
The GOP-controlled Congress raised the debt ceiling in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006; you can’t blame those on Democrats.
Not raising the debt limit would have meant a default on obligations congress made in the past.
Correct, raising the limit was the right thing to do, regardless of which party voted for the spending. Getting rid of the debt ceiling altogether would have been even better.
Was it the right thing?
You keep saying how bad the deficits were during the Bush years. Obama called them un-American. During the Bush years, Democrats never stopped complaining about our deficits, never. And now when Obama’s spending has surpassed Bush’s by suddenly deficits are good.
So during the Bush years, Democrats didn’t think raising the debt ceiling was a good and proper thing to do.
“Correct, raising the limit was the right thing to do, regardless of which party voted for the spending”
That is your new position. It has changed and will change again due to R or D next to a person’s name.
Oh wait, it changed from literally one post to the next.
“”the need to raise the Debt Limit was “a sign of leadership failure.”
It was“
So during the Bush years, Democrats didn’t think raising the debt ceiling was a good and proper thing to do.
That isn’t true. The Democrat-controlled Congress raised the debt limit three times while Bush was President, because it was the right thing to do.
it changed from literally one post to the next
No, it didn’t.
the need to raise the Debt Limit was “a sign of leadership failure.”
That’s right, the need to raise it was a sign of failure. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been raised.
Imagine that a President and Congress allocated $1T to buy the Taj Mahal from India and move it to the National Mall, and as a result had to raise the debt ceiling. The need to raise the ceiling would be a sign of extremely poor leadership, but raising it would still be better than the alternative.
Raising the debt ceiling is always the right thing to do. Which is why it shouldn’t exist.
“That isn’t true. The Democrat-controlled Congress raised the debt limit three times while Bush was President, because it was the right thing to do.”
What was their rhetoric at the time? They certainly did not say it was the right thing to do. They said the exact opposite.
“No, it didn’t.”
You went from saying deficits under Bush were bad to saying they were good. Just like you went from saying deficits under Bush were bad to deficits under Obama being good.
“That’s right, the need to raise it was a sign of failure. ”
So, Obama is a failure. Glad we agree.
” but raising it would still be better than the alternative.”
What is the alternative? Is it some sort of apocalyptic prediction that is about as real as unicorns? Like GM going through bankruptcy would mean the company would disappear…
“Raising the debt ceiling is always the right thing to do. Which is why it shouldn’t exist.”
No, it isn’t always the right thing to do.
But what this comes down to is that you are saying there is a judgement call on what makes it ok for there to be trillion dollar deficits. According to your judgement, smaller deficits under Bush were bad because you didn’t like some of the things the government spent money on, despite those things being a small portion of our total spending. And larger deficits under Obama are ok because you like what he is spending money on regardless of our ability to fund them. Except of course when you switch it all around and contradict yourself.
But the thing is your judgement is based on who the president is and is not consistent, which is why you are struggling so hard defending positions that come down on both sides of the argument.
They certainly did not say it was the right thing to do. They said the exact opposite.
They voted for it, which is the thing that matters. I don’t care if Republicans complain all day long about the debt ceiling hike, it’s voting against it that does the damage.
You went from saying deficits under Bush were bad to saying they were good.
No, I consistently said that some were justified and others weren’t.
So, Obama is a failure.
No, Obama’s deficits were more than justified.
What is the alternative? Is it some sort of apocalyptic prediction that is about as real as unicorns?
It isn’t a joke. There was a very brief default in 1979 when Congress raised the debt ceiling at the last minute, and technical problems caused delays with a small number of government payments. Even that small glitch caused a permanent hike in interest rates, costing the country billions. And that was just a momentary glitch; if we actually go through the debt ceiling and Congress takes days to raise it, the damage to the markets’ faith in US debt will be irreparable. It will be the most expensive mistake in Congressional history.
despite those things being a small portion of our total spending
They made up most of the deficit.
your judgement is based on who the president is
No, it’s based on what the taxes/spending are, and what the economic situation is.
Words do matter and so do votes. Like Democrats voting for war, then sabotaging our efforts in the domestic and international media. It wasn’t too long ago that Democrats were all buddy buddy with Assad because they thought doing so would make Bush look bad for his positions on Syria. Party before country.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were less than $200b a year. A drop in the bucket of total federal spending. Blaming all of our debt problems on those wars and medicate part d, as you did earlier, is rediculous. You cherry pick what government expenditure you think makes up the deficit. It is especially rediculous when you rage against a $200b a year cost while defending $1.6t a year deficits as being too small and entirly spent on appropriate things.
FFS all we heard from Democrats during the Bush years was how deficits were destroying our country, as shown by the Obama quote that started this. Now, suddenly deficits are good but too small, well except for the much much smaller deficits under Bush. Those are still bad.
You know what? They were both bad. And Obama’s are an order of magnitude higher. Obama and the Democrats deserve to be judged on the standards they hold other people too. (Clearly they shouldn’t be judged on the standards they hold themselves to)
“But I’m guessing that the GOP would have opposed Obama’s spending regardless of how much debt Bush ran up.”
Who knows how Republicans would have responded to Obama if he didn’t treat them worse than Assad, Putin, and Ahmadinejad.
Do you honestly think that Republicans oppose Obama because he hurt their feelings?
If you go around saying someone wants to bring back slavery, ban tampons, kill grandma, will they be likely to help you with anything?
Yes, I think that if Obama employed soft power at home and hard power abroad, things would be much more different today. Do you even listen to the things Obama and elected Democrats say in their speeches? From day 1, Obama has been hyper-partisan in his use of derogatory rhetoric and not just toward Republicans.
Obama’s negotiating strategy:
1. Open with insults that would start a fight in a bar.
2. Make a bunch of unrealistic demands and state he will not negotiate.
3. Have his supporters dress like giant vaginas and occupy.
4. Go on a bus tour giving speeches about how those (insert taliban insult here) just wont work with him because Republicans want to hurt (insert group).
Again, you’re arguing that GOP lawmakers decide what to do based on what Obama says about them, rather than what they think is best for the country. If that’s true, it’s a terrible indictment of GOP legislators.
Na, you are assuming that whatever Obama wants to ram down our throats is a good thing, and it isn’t. Sadly, too many of Obama’s policies are not in our country’s best interests. Obama is unable to work with people with different political philosophies and part of the reason why is how he treats them.
What does it say about Obama that he is more interested in demonizing his political opponents and enriching his party and their donors than actually governing?
What we have seen from President “I won” Obama is unprecidented in terms of putting party before country, which is also another glaring case of hypocrisy showing how hollow and meaningless Democrat “ideals” are. Democrat ideals are not something they live by. Instead they merely serve as a vehicle to attack their opponents.
Jim, dcguy: goddammit, step up your game. Lately it’s been like watching Garri Kasparov play chess with a neophyte.
I thought DCguy was Jim’s replacement. But he’s not working out as well. As bad as Jim is, dcguy just can’t compete with Jim.