Posted on 01/16/2013 11:02:21 AM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- President Obama thinks the debate over raising the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling isn't the place or the time to be discussing runaway spending.
Essentially, that was his message Monday in a full-court press assault on Republicans in Congress for having the temerity to suggest that before we raise the debt ceiling by another $2 trillion, maybe we should begin discussing how to reduce spending, how to shrink our monstrous national debt and how the government must begin living within its means.
But with the government debt soaring toward nearly $19 trillion -- and likely to skyrocket to $25 trillion by the end of Obama's second term -- if this isn't the time to map out a plan to bring spending down, when is it?
The president says that will come after the debt ceiling is raised and not before. But Republicans and taxpayers have bought into Obama's flimflam promises before and have come up empty-handed when budget-making time rolled around.
The president knows he can depend on the Democratic majority in the Senate, which has been a black hole where GOP House budgets disappear, never to be seen again.
House Republicans have sent over budgets to slow the growth in spending, and each time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has tossed them into the wastebasket. It is not widely known by most Americans, but we've been without a budget for the past three years because the Senate has refused to adopt a formal budget resolution. Reid says we don't need one.
But living within one's means requires making a budget and sticking to it. Families do it. States do it. But when was the last time you heard President Obama call on Congress to send him a budget? He seems to be happy without one.
And why not? It's allowed Obama and the Democrats to engage in their favorite fiscal pastime: deficit spending.
They've been on a historically unprecedented spending binge since 2009. Here are the budget deficits over the past four years to prove it: $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011 and an estimated $1.2 trillion in 2012, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This year's budget deficit, according to the CBO, is on track to come in at $1.1 trillion.
If you are counting, this adds $6.3 trillion to our national debt, and yet Obama says the debt ceiling debate isn't the appropriate time to talk about budget cutting.
House Speaker John Boehner doesn't see it that way. "The American people do not support raising the debt ceiling without reducing government spending at the same time," he said Monday in response to Obama's attacks on the GOP.
"The consequences of failing to increase the debt ceiling are real, but so, too, are the consequences of allowing our spending problem to go unresolved."
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. But it was clear from Obama's combative remarks Monday, with disturbing illusions of hostage-taking, ransom demands and "a gun at the head of the American people," that he's looking for a political fight, that his campaign isn't over, and that this is the way he's going to govern for the next four years.
He repeated his annoying re-election boast, which he's made quite often since Election Day, that "the American people agreed with me."
"So they've (the Republicans) got a particular view of what government should do and should be. And, you know, that view was rejected by the American people ..."
Well, the American people also voted to keep the House in Republican hands by a decisive margin. Don't they have a say in this, too? Apparently Obama doesn't think so.
Boehner sincerely believes that blocking the debt-ceiling hike cannot be an option in any discussion about the size of the budget, and has said that a government default on our debt would have a calamitous effect on our economy.
But this doesn't mean a reasonable agreement can't be reached that cuts spending by the same amount we raise the debt ceiling -- which is what he wants to do.
The irony in all of this -- and let's throw in hypocrisy, too -- is that then-freshman Sen. Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 when he was attacking President George W. Bush just about every other day. Here's what he said at the time, according to National Review Online:
"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."
Bush's budget deficit in fiscal 2006 was a tame $242 billion when Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling. It fell to $161 billion in 2007 -- delivering on Bush's promise to cut the deficit -- the year before the great recession hit and tax revenues plunged, boosting the 2008 deficit.
Bush's last four deficits totaled $1.1 trillion. Obama's first four deficits totaled $5.2 trillion.
On Feb. 23, 2009, President Obama promised the American people he would "cut the deficit we inherited by the end of my first term in office."
Not even close. Not only have his record budget deficits remained in the trillion-plus range, but they are expected to stay in that range for the next several years at best and, possibly, for the rest of this decade.
The president is still blaming George W. Bush for his sky-high budget deficits, while others are more accurately calling the mountain of debt Obama has piled up "a failure of leadership."
In the final analysis, the two sides in this debate have been talking past one another. The Republicans want to work out a plan to cut spending and shrink the debt, while Obama seems fixated on shifting the blame, picking a fight and scoring political points.
The latter doesn't sound like leadership to me.
Obama has a complicit media, and a stupid public. Obama sees the Republicans are weak, and divided.
Obama intends to crush Republicans, win in 2014 and that will give him 2 years to “fundamentally transform” this country.
I hate the man, and what he’ll end up doing to us, but I like his chances of success.
Hey, here’s an idea. Not all of the Republican candidates are pure, so why not stay home in 2014? It worked so well in 2012.
The GOP should go along with Democrats and repeal the debt limit ceiling.
That way the discussion will be not whether we should pay our debts but rather how to reduce spending.
The public will blame the GOP for any government shutdown and damage not paying our debt on time would do to the credit rating of this country.
That’s a political loser and that’s exactly the fight Obama wants. Let’s not give it to him.
Based on today’s “Executive Order” release, I’d say Barky chickened out...
He is right, that the Republicans are divided. I see it here every day. It is no wonder that we lost the election. In order to win, we need to unite and stick together. Otherwise we’ll be the minority party forever. I doubt a new party will help, unless we decide which one we want and then stand and unite behind the candidates of that party
Classic Lenin/Stalin. Advance and blame, advance and blame.
This 4 years will be about destroying the political opposition. He's off to a damned good start ‘cause the GOP is looking bad.
Obama is nothing more than a classless thug community organizer with the same dreams as Hitler. What happened to Hitler? Oops he killed himself.
>> Boehner sincerely believes that blocking the debt-ceiling hike cannot be an option in any discussion about the size of the budget
Boehner and Lambro are BOTH wrong on that point.
Sorry but we cannot not pay our debts.
Try selling that argument to low info voters. They have to pay their bills and they won’t understand why the government shouldn’t make good on its debts.
That’s not a fiscally responsible nor conservative position.
Sorry, but the idea that we can’t pay our debt unless we raise the debt ceiling is preposterous horsecrap.
Then support a repeal of this ridiculous limit.
Make the fight about reducing spending - not over making good on the debt of the United States.
The picture should be made clear to the American people - and if they decide to support Big Government anyway, that’s their prerogative.
>> Make the fight about reducing spending
Without the ability to stop increasing the credit card limit, where’s the leverage to get that done?
>> making good on the debt of the United States.
You’re confused. Disallowing the ability to INCREASE our debt IN NO WAY restricts the ability of the US to “make good on its [existing] debts”.
You’ve apparently bought into the ‘Rat and GOPe talking points hook, line, and sinker.
The historical revisionists have not yet finished their dirty work of expunging from the record the violent events surrounding the birth of this nation. Of course, after over 2 centuries, there’s no way to ascertain the accuracy of that record, but it’s all we have.
Several sites I’ve found and studied are at the links below.
I commend them to you. If the looney left doesn’t stop pushing, we MAY well be on the verge of a live fire reenactment of these events.
Please review and discuss quietly among yourselves.
DB
PS: There are pages of sites on the topic. Do your own search and understand why these men, mostly shopkeepers, farmers, and simple tradesmen, put their lives on the line.
PPS: And if you want to know more about the leftist enemy we face, let me relate an event I witnessed REALTIME a number of years ago. Some time in 2000, one of the TV “news” shows sent a crew into Algore’s home during one of his political campaigns. One scene showed Gore and his kids sitting around the kitchen table trying to decide which newly released movie to watch that evening. One of his children suggested “The Patriot.” Gore immediately dismissed the idea with “No, I don’t think we want to see that one.”
Some background many of you have probably forgotten from 13 years ago: The left came out in full cry AGAINST the film! Why? During the memorable and moving scene following the shooting Benjamin Martin’s youngest son — in the back — Martin arms his two remaining young sons with muskets with instructions to “aim small, miss small.”
If you STILL have not seen this film, do so.
http://www.history.com/topics/battles-of-lexington-and-concord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
Duhh,
As I posted last month Dec, his plan is to decimate congressional Rs, he figures this is the way to do it. He thinks this is an easy win for him, and it probably is.
I would love to see Odumbo get his ass kicked by real people, if there were any on the opposite side of the aisle. There is nobody in Washington that has the gonads to stand up to that imposter. Consequently, they are allowing him to claim himseld “Dictator”.
Obuma picked a fight over the 2nd amendment and lost. Time to take the fight to this traitor in every way. The US House can start by defunding every bureaucracy that this worm depends on for power. Start by pulling all dollars for the Secret Service. Let him find a rock to crawl under for protection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.