Obama In His Own Words – Again

We already know that Barack Obama is not a leader by his own admission. In 2008 he said that when George Bush asked for a debt ceiling increase that it demonstrated a lack of leadership. Obama, as the White House occupant, asked for a debt ceiling increase which means, he lacks leadership. He fit how he defined it so he is it. He also voted against the debt ceiling increase Bush wanted but then he and his party labeled the GOP as hostage takers, terrorists and putting party over country for not voting to raise the debt ceiling (or agreeing to the stupidity the Democrats wanted).

It would appear that Barack Obama is irresponsible and unpatriotic as well.

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. “That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic” ~ Barack Obama said July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D. CNS News

Barack Obama was talking about Bush and his record over an eight year period. In just under three years Barack Obama has increased our national debt by $4 TRILLION himself. Obama increased the debt in under three years by the same amount Bush did in eight years. Obama said that what Bush did was irresponsible and unpatriotic.

This means that based on Obama’s definition, he himself is irresponsible and unpatriotic.

It is also ironic that Obama mentions Bush taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children when his own Vice President, Joe Biden, is in China right now with his hat in his hand asking the Chinese to increase the credit limit on that bank card.

Even if Obama is only in office for one term it is certain that he will surpass the debt that George Bush added to our country and by quite a bit.

There is no way for him to avoid doing so because it is absolutely certain that Obama will not half our debt deficit** by the end of his first term, as he promised.

The GOP needs to take all these positions Obama had back then and use them against him in the next election.

Call the campaign “One and Done” and subtitle it, even Obama does not agree with what Obama has done…

**Thanks to Adam for pointing out it was deficit and not the debt. BD

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

11 Responses to “Obama In His Own Words – Again”

  1. Adam says:

    “The GOP needs to take all these positions Obama had back then and use them against him in the next election.”

    I tend to agree but the GOP has to be very careful because bringing up this subject means you have to admit the GOP ran up the debt big time. If you’re an alcoholic it may not be that wise to attack others for being heavy drinkers as well.

    “There is no way for him to avoid doing so because it is absolutely certain that Obama will not half our debt by the end of his first term, as he promised.”

    As far as I know Obama promised simply to half the deficit as a percentage of GDP by 2013. He didn’t say he’d half all our debt.

    His promise comes as a bit of a trick since he started with the massive 2009 deficit driven by the recession before he even took office.

    The deficit has decreased slightly each year and estimates still put us coming close to that. The slower economy will change those projections but it will still be pretty close to 50% unless there’s a second recession (still not likely).

    I don’t think I’d credit Obama with reducing it since the recession caused most of the debt but if you’re going to prematurely give him credit for not reducing it then I guess I can give him credit if it does end up 50% lower by the start of 2013.

    • Big Dog says:

      You are using the talking points. Yep, he said he would cut the deficit and the GDP part was not part of the speeches he gave. That qualifier was added later by people trying to justify his positions. And he said by the end of his first term. Anything reported as close happens in 2013 and is based on rosy projections that will not happen. I could say I will cut the deficit in half in a year and then release a plan that accomplishes it in 20 years. That would be dishonest and does not hold water.

      The GOP did not hold Congress all those years and a lot of the increase took place when Democrats held Congress. Very few of the GOP running for president were part of Congress and some who were voted against those things that raised the debt.

      Can’t blame them if they were not there or did not vote for it. And, you can’t blame them for the period Dems were in control.

      This is a problem that has been brewing a long time and a lot of people are responsible (from both parties) but Obama made promises about what he would do and how he would fix it. He has not done that. As your source indicates, it is misleading and Obama has played games with the numbers.

      He can claim he inherited a mess but he got that mess from Democrats who ran Congress. The economic numbers did not go south until they were in control.

      • Blake says:

        The esteemed Sci-fi writer Robt. Heinlein once wrote that there wer two types of politicians, the “business” politician, and the “Idealistic” politician, and of the two, the business pol was to be trusted more, simply because he wouldn’t take more than 10%, because to take more would be bad for business, and he always kept his word, because that was his “real currency”- while the idealistic pol was subject to changing his mind (and policies), depending on the direction of the wind and poll numbers, and he would have no attacks of conscience in doing so.

    • Ferd Berfel says:

      We can’t blame all the problems on Democrats.
      But if we did, we would be correct in 100% of the cases.

      Take Social Security;

      Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
      Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

      1.) That participation in the Program would be
      Completely voluntary,

      No longer Voluntary

      2.) That the participants would only have to pay
      1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
      Incomes into the Program,

      Now 7.65%
      on the first $90,000

      3.) That the money the participants elected to put
      into the Program would be deductible from
      their income for tax purposes each year,

      No longer tax deductible

      4.) That the money the participants put into the
      independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
      general operating fund, and therefore, would
      only be used to fund the Social Security
      Retirement Program, and no other
      Government program, and,

      Under Johnson the money was moved to
      The General Fund and Spent

      5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
      as income.

      Under Clinton & Gore
      Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

      Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
      now receiving a Social Security check every month —
      and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
      the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put
      away’ — you may be interested in the following:

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-

      Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
      independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the
      general fund so that Congress could spend it?

      A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
      controlled House and Senate.

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —

      Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
      deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

      A: The Democratic Party.

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —–

      Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
      Security annuities?

      A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
      ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the
      Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— –

      Q: Which Political Party decided to start
      giving annuity payments to immigrants?

      AND MY FAVORITE:

      A: That’s right!

      Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
      Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
      began to receive Social Security payments! The
      Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
      even though they never paid a dime into it!

      ———— — ———— ——— —– ———— ——— ———

      Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
      the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
      to take your Social Security away!

      And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

  2. Big Dog says:

    It is also worth mentioning that pointing this out would not reflect back as you think. Obama was the one who called it ireresponsible and unpatriotic and then he did it. Just like his debt ceiling vote, he takes contrary positions that are very damaging to him.

    It would be unwise for an alcoholic to attack the heavy drinkers but Obama was a self proclaimed non drinker who was attacking the heavy drinkers. It then turns out Obama was the alcoholic.

    He claimed not to be one of those people and described how irresponsible and unpatriotic they are and then he turned out to be one.

    The analogy you have only works if one is to subscribe to the idea that Obama was the alcoholic in the first place. He presented himself as sober and then became an alcoholic. He spent (drank) more in under 3 years then Bush did in 8 even though he decried it when running for the job.

  3. Adam says:

    “Yep, he said he would cut the deficit and the GDP part was not part of the speeches he gave.”

    You were unclear on what Obama was even going to cut in half but now you’re telling me he never said GDP? Even if that were true it doesn’t matter. Even in dollars alone it’s close to 50%. It’s useless to compare dollars alone instead of percent of GDP though as far as deficits are concerned.

    “And he said by the end of his first term.”

    His term ends in 2013. The deficit and budget in 2013 will be from his watch just like 2009 was still Bush’s deficit and budget.

    “The economic numbers did not go south until they were in control.”

    Now who’s using a talking point? The housing bubble didn’t form and pop all after January 2007 and risky Wall Street actions didn’t either. There is absolutely nothing either side could have done in 2007 to prevent what happened.

    “It then turns out Obama was the alcoholic.”

    Obama has done some drinking but it would be like taking all the empty beer bottles after the party and lining them up and saying Obama drank all those. That is exactly what your side does.

    I’ve demonstrated time and again that Obama’s spending accounts for a tiny part of the debt but you can’t see through GOP lies. Senator Obama has more blame on the debt than President Obama. Or maybe you just expect Obama to cut trillions from the budget during a recession in order to make up for lost revenue and increased stimulus spending?

  4. Big Dog says:

    How can Obama keep submitting budgets that incur 1.5 trillion dollars in debt each year and still halve the deficit? (1.5T x 4Y = 6T) That would be 6 trillion added to the debt or a 6 trillion deficit. If you are adding you are not cutting it. I know you are one of the Joe Biden philosophers who thinks that you have to spend money to cure a debt problem but spending more than you have will not reduce the deficit.

    And Adam, I was not unclear on what he was going to cut, I merely put the wrong word. Does that mean I am unclear to you? Obama said he visited 57 states. Was he unclear on how many we have or did he just misspeak?

    You decide.

    • Adam says:

      “…you have to spend money to cure a debt problem but spending more than you have will not reduce the deficit.”

      Spending is not the primary reason we’re in so much debt. The problem is still revenue. We’re not spending that much more than what we spent in the years before it and in some sense we may be spending less. But when Obama was spending it was because his administration chose to increase short term debt in order to grow the economy faster and let that growth tackle the lack of revenue problem. I know that these standard practice economics our government has used all our lives seems like a mystery to you when a Democrat does it, but it’s pretty basic. President Bush didn’t use a stimulus but he used the same principles in how he tackled the recession and recovery.

      “…I was not unclear on what he was going to cut, I merely put the wrong word.”

      The point of the post was about the overall debt, not the deficit, and you claimed Obama wanted to half it. If you say you simply wrote the wrong word then I guess that’s good enough for me but I find it odd.

      Of course this is another case where the Obama administration cited an estimate and you took it as an absolute promise. Your side seems to act like Obama came down off the mountain with a stone tablet that said unemployment would never be over 8% and he would half the deficit by the time he left office. The list of words on the stone grows as the election comes closer.

      • Big Dog says:

        His own people, the ones who wrote the report, admitted they said it would not go over 8%. They then admit they were wrong and it won’t go below that. Their words and they wrote it so no matter how much you rationalize, you are still wrong.

        My side did not act like he came down from the mountain, he and your side did.

        He was going to lower the sea levels, he was going to cool the planet, he was your messiah, (per Farrakhan and others), he was going to solve the problems.

        We have tried Keynsian economics before and it has never worked. When we used Austrian economics, it has. There is no revenue problem (aside from the one where we do not have enough taxpayers because of Obama’s unemployment), there is a spending problem.

        If government gets out of the way and allows the market to run we will have more jobs and then we will have more taxpayers. That means more revenue. The problem has always been that when they get more revenue (like after the Reagan tax cuts) they spend even more. They continue to spend. One only needs to look at how they raped Social Security and spent the money on things they should not have to see the way they work.

        The issue is you and they think the money people earns belongs to the government. It does not.

        • Adam says:

          “His own people, the ones who wrote the report, admitted they said it would not go over 8%.”

          You understand the definition of an estimate right? You understand that estimates aren’t promises?

          “…per Farrakhan and others…”

          Really? Farrakhan? Who cares about Farrakhan?

          “When we used Austrian economics, it has.”

          When was that again?

          “There is no revenue problem (aside from the one where we do not have enough taxpayers because of Obama’s unemployment)…”

          We’ve had unemployment this bad several times in the last few decades. Yet, revenue is as low as the year 1950. But keep on insisting there isn’t a revenue problem.

          “The issue is you and they think the money people earns belongs to the government.”

          No, we really don’t. Our country just has a lot of obligations to meet and we have to pay for it all somehow. You can call for getting rid of those obligations but you know we’re not going to.

      • Ferd Berfel says:

        “Spending is not the primary reason we’re in so much debt.” The problem is spending more than we take in. Obama (and Bush as well) wanted to increase revenue, and the Democrat-controlled branches of government, the ones that made and voted on the budget, tried many ways to take more money from citizens. Bush did his best to minimize the damage, but even with a Republican president, the actual factions in government that control the money were able to push forward policy that had government spending more than it made.
        Adam blames Bush, but smart people know who the real culprits are.
        Liberals, proof that Democrats should not be placed in positions where they can be bribed.