2006 Senator Obama on the Debt Ceiling - How Opinions Change

FISMA

Some of the posters on the board want to blame the GOP or the Tea Party Representatives for the debt ceiling situation, I think that's shortsighted. These debt negotiations are just politics as usual.

Back in 2006 then Senator Obama voted against raising the debt limit. Quoting.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.… Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Here's Speaker Stearns recently reading the original speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SLgdhvoyik

Every single Democrat voted No to raising the debt ceiling.
In addition to Obama's No vote, Harry Reid also voted No.

So Harry Reid voted No in 2006 but now he says "lawmakers would have to be “out of our minds” not to raise the nation’s borrowing limit." That's the kind of logic that takes science out of the term Political Science.

Truth be told, I bet there are a few dozen democrats that voted No in 2006 that are now coming up with all kinds of excuses to say Yes now.

Politics 101.

Finally, as I posted in another thread, the GOP is borrowing another play from the Democrats.

In the Words of Obama's then White House Chief of Staff, you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

Lies and hypocrisy or rhetoric and politics 101 - you decide.

gargleblaster

Politics is politics.

Remind me, because I forget, were we in danger of defaulting under Bush? Did the Dems use that fact to blackmail Bush to get major concessions (such as the ongoing attempt by Republicans to dismantle the social safety net)?


Also, for all you so-called fiscal responsibility fans - have some statistics. Amount of debt increase, by president:

Reagan 186%
Bush 54%
Clinton 41%
Bush II 72%
Obama 23%
Source CBO



Oh, and also, if you could find me something like this, but from a Democrat under Bush, that'd be great, thanks. There are a few Republicans talking like this, so if you want more examples, please let me know.

Senator DeMint is Willing to Cause Serious Disruptions to US Economy Over Debt Ceiling
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/07/262629/demint-debt-ceiling-severe-disruptions/

FISMA

gargleblaster wrote: »

Reagan 186%
Bush 54%
Clinton 41%
Bush II 72%
Obama 23%
Source CBO

gargleBlaster,
Have you the above statistics in $'s?:D They'd tell a much different story!

Overheal

FISMA wrote: »

gargleBlaster,
Have you the above statistics in $'s?:D They'd tell a much different story!

Would you like them weighted for modern day inflation as well?

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

Would you like them weighted for modern day inflation as well?

That would end up making QE look good. How about adding Jimmy Carter to it too?

Denerick

The comparison is stupid and knowingly flawed. The difference is that the Democrats knew the ceiling was going to be raised. You don't seem to understand American politics OP, its all about appealing to American idiocy. Take the second bill for TARP; notice how late some of the votes were. Then notice that most if not all of the late votes were against TARP. The reason? Quite simple really. They voted no when they were certain the bill would pass. So now they could campaign in their own districts against the bailouts. Its relentlessly cynical but American politics is like that. It helps to have a citizenry so poorly informed, so naive and so moronic that they are willing to lap up any amount of demagogic nonsense spewed forth by far right nutjobs.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

The comparison is stupid and knowingly flawed. The difference is that the Democrats knew the ceiling was going to be raised. You don't seem to understand American politics OP, its all about appealing to American idiocy. Take the second bill for TARP; notice how late some of the votes were. Then notice that most if not all of the late votes were against TARP. The reason? Quite simple really. They voted no when they were certain the bill would pass. So now they could campaign in their own districts against the bailouts. Its relentlessly cynical but American politics is like that. It helps to have a citizenry so poorly informed, so naive and so moronic that they are willing to lap up any amount of demagogic nonsense spewed forth by far right nutjobs.

Obama, if he has any integrity whatsoever, should vote the way he thinks is best for the economy. He clearly did not in 2006.

JBnaglfar

FISMA wrote: »

Have you the above statistics in $'s?:D

Ask and you shall receive. From the NY Times, this also indicates who owns US debt.

matthew8

JBnaglfar wrote: »

Ask and you shall receive. From the NY Times, this also indicates who owns US debt.

Very good. If Bill Clinton could hold off on the excess military expenditure he wouldn't have built up 1.4 trillion debt.

From that chart, we see Bush ran up a deficit averaging .75 trillion, with Obama's deficits averaging 1.2 trillion, therefore it seems Obama is more fiscally irresponsible.

Denerick

matthew8 wrote: »

Very good. If Bill Clinton could hold off on the excess military expenditure he wouldn't have built up 1.4 trillion debt.

From that chart, we see Bush ran up a deficit averaging .75 trillion, with Obama's deficits averaging 1.2 trillion, therefore it seems Obama is more fiscally irresponsible.

What amuses me is that you know that that kind of logic is sheer sophistry. Obama came to the Oval office in the middle of the most grim depression in 80 years. He authorised massive and unprecendted stimulus spending, the only sane response to what was happening. I'm sick of all the distortions, the downright lies, and generally cowardly manner in which the US right destroy all that is reasonable about political discourse.

Bush gave massive tax cuts to people who didn't need it, waged wars that were unjust and deceit-ridden, and generally managed to mess up the biggest economy in the world which was enjoying budget surpluses and relative domestic bliss.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

What amuses me is that you know that that kind of logic is sheer sophistry. Obama came to the Oval office in the middle of the most grim depression in 80 years. He authorised massive and unprecendted stimulus spending, the only sane response to what was happening. I'm sick of all the distortions, the downright lies, and generally cowardly manner in which the US right destroy all that is reasonable about political discourse.

Bush gave massive tax cuts to people who didn't need it, waged wars that were unjust and deceit-ridden, and generally managed to mess up the biggest economy in the world which was enjoying budget surpluses and relative domestic bliss.

The sane response to the deficit would be to stop dumb spending. He increased it.

FISMA

matthew8 wrote: »

The sane response to the deficit would be to stop dumb spending. He increased it.

That's my main problem with Obama: lack of leadership.

He comes in during tough times and what does he do?
(a) Immediately begin programs to stimulate job growth?
(b) Attempt to lay the foundations for future balanced budgets?
(c) Tackle gov't spending so that the debt ceiling need not be raised?

OR

(d) Spend much of the first two years of his Presidency to force/bully through the biggest entitlement program in the history of the US.

Answer: (d)

As for the Anti-American comments... I know, the yanks are sooo stjooopid. :rolleyes:

Why don't they just cop on and get the fine political system that the Irish and EU have?

Why can't they just get the incredible leadership that the auld sod shows in Fianna Fail and Fine Gael?

Sure isn't Fianna Fail and Fine Gael a grand reflection on the Irish?

Ya gotta love the Irish/EU system. In Ireland, if they vote the wrong way on a treaty, ahem Lisbon, sure all they have to do is explain it to them again and they'll get it right the second time.

Ah, Democracy in action!

Silly Yanks!

Denerick

matthew8 wrote: »

The sane response to the deficit would be to stop dumb spending. He increased it.

The sane response to the deficit perhaps, but would it be so for the economy? The US can afford to run a large deficit in the short term, a small deficit in the medium term with an eye on fiscal consolidation in the long term, with a particular focus on what it was like during the Clinton Golden years (A time when American influence, political and economic, was at its absolute summit)

You put your faith in small minded conservatives, intellectual pygmies (As they were called recently by the Economist) and then wonder why the US is in decline?

Historians will have great fun in the decades to come writing about the madness that overcame the American Empire in its dying years, as the lunatics and far right nutjobs drove a once great nation over the abyss.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

The sane response to the deficit perhaps, but would it be so for the economy? The US can afford to run a large deficit in the short term, a small deficit in the medium term with an eye on fiscal consolidation in the long term, with a particular focus on what it was like during the Clinton Golden years (A time when American influence, political and economic, was at its absolute summit)

You put your faith in small minded conservatives, intellectual pygmies (As they were called recently by the Economist) and then wonder why the US is in decline?

Historians will have great fun in the decades to come writing about the madness that overcame the American Empire in its dying years, as the lunatics and far right nutjobs drove a once great nation over the abyss.

I think I'll make a thread about the US decline and how it can return to greatness. As Max Keiser said we need to get the pain out of the way now and start the recovery tomorrow, which will be best in the long term. Reid, Boehner, Obama, McConnell, Pelosi, Geithner, Bernanke and company don't want to go down as the people in charge when the default happened so they kick the can down the road.

Exile 1798

FISMA wrote: »

That's my main problem with Obama: lack of leadership.

He comes in during tough times and what does he do?
(a) Immediately begin programs to stimulate job growth?
(b) Attempt to lay the foundations for future balanced budgets?
(c) Tackle gov't spending so that the debt ceiling need not be raised?

OR

(d) Spend much of the first two years of his Presidency to force/bully through the biggest entitlement program in the history of the US.

Simply not true. The Health Care Reform act is designed so as to be budget neutral. In fact the CBO estimates it will reduce the deficit.

Even if this weren't the case - to call it the "biggest entitlement program in the history of the US." would still be spectacularly false.

You need to re-examine all these untruths you think are facts, as basing your opinions on them is like building your house upon sand. (Matthew 7:26)

Also consider Mathew 21:17. "And he left them and went out of the city, into Bethany, and he lodged there"

Mark200

I think you're failing to realise that the US would not have defaulted if the Dems had succeeded in their no vote. The Republicans initially opposed the debt ceiling raise back around February. Since then the US has been living on reserve money (their equivalent of the Pension Reserve Fund). On Tuesday that money will run out. So voting against the debt ceiling now is not comparable to what Obama was referring to. What Obama was referring to is equivalent to what the Republicans did in February. Also I agree with Denerick, making huge cuts isn't exactly the best idea in a recession. 2006, when Obama was speaking, was the peak for the American economy. Yet America still couldn't afford to pay its bills.

matthew8

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Simply not true. The Health Care Reform act is designed so as to be budget neutral. In fact the CBO estimates it will reduce the deficit.

Even if this weren't the case - to call it the "biggest entitlement program in the history of the US." would still be spectacularly false.

You need to re-examine all these untruths you think are facts, as basing your opinions on them is like building your house upon sand. (Matthew 7:26)

Also consider Mathew 21:17. "And he left them and went out of the city, into Bethany, and he lodged there"

The CBO are typically spectacularly wrong. It will not reduce the deficit, but it won't be a massive spending increase.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

The CBO are typically spectacularly wrong. It will not reduce the deficit, but it won't be a massive spending increase.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2010/03/19/conservative-view-on-reliability-of-cbo-depends-upon-whether-they-like-the-results/