Sunday, April 10, 2011

Obama in 2006: "Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure"

Another day, another hypocritical quote from Barack Obama.  Today we head back to March of 2006 where the young, inexperienced Senator was trying to score political points against then-President Bush.  The Senate was voting on whether to increase the debt ceiling and then-Senator Obama was against it.

Of course, five years later, President Obama is pleading with Congress to allow him to push the United States further in debt.  He is a hypocrite.  He has no idea what he is doing.  You've heard it all before, I'm sure.
Here is part of Congress's transcript from March 16, 2006:

Obama- Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.

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.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion'' with a "T.'' That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion...

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.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

Good work, genius.

Please bookmark!


  1. Does he care that no one takes him seriously?

  2. Is there audio/video of this, perhaps in the CSPAN archives? This could be GOLD for a radio/tv spot.

  3. I wouldn't be posting this months late if someone hadn't used your blogspot as some sort of credible source on the matter... but, that said...

    You, like many conservative critics of, frankly, ANY Democratic President, consistently lack context when you make your arguments. There are three major flaws in it -- all of which are failures to acknowledge context: in the original Senate vote in 2006, the circumstances surrounding the request for a vote this year, and the arguments Republicans made to justify the debt ceiling vote in 2006.

    First, in March 2006, when the incoming majority of Democrats took control of the Senate, the bill authorizing the extension of the debt limit was based on the prior Congress' spending decisions. Senate Majority Leader Reid knew exactly how many votes he had to pass the debt limit... there was absolutely no threat to getting the vote passed. It is common practice in both houses of Congress, from both party's leaderships to allow a certain number of dissenting votes for political purposes, so long as there are a confirmed number of safe votes. Obama's was no different. Feel free to read the entire text of the Congressional record for yourself.

    Second, the context of this vote is not like it was in 2006. Five years ago, there wasn't sufficient opposition in either party to actually threaten the vote from passing. There are far too many House GOP freshman in charge of governance who do not understand how the economy truly works, or the serious risks associated with a failure to extend the debt limit. To them, a default is an option. Their resistance isn't simply about making a political statement. They do honestly feel like letting the US government default is a way to reduce what they consider "out-of-control" spending. If you read Obama's speech on the floor of the Senate, and that of his colleagues, you'll notice that he acknowledges the need to do it, but not the desire to do it. VERY different than 2006. Also, take a listen... ... listen to the words, ones you've irresponsibly ignored for the sake of proving your narrative, of Republican Senators regarding the debt ceiling. If the argument against Obama is that on principle he should not have called for the limit to be raised now but opposed it back in 2006, then the Republican Senators who called for and voted for it in 2006 also have a serious problem for being against it now as well, right?

    Third, when then Senator Obama was calling for better leadership on the debt during that vote, then President Bush wasn't putting forward 2.5-4 trillion dollars in debt reduction on the table as an exchange for a vote to raise the debt ceiling, unlike Obama who has put A LOT on the table to negotiate downward. That said, Obama is keeping true the intent of his statement against irresponsible spending, by calling for a debt limit increase that has to happen, while simultaneously pledging a 4 trillion dollar 10-year reduction in government debt.

    I've no problem with people disagreeing with the decisions of the President, or any Democratic one for that matter. But if you are going to publicly parade an argument that lacks either appropriate context or evidence, you better be prepared to back up your claims. Otherwise, you're just as irresponsible as the posts you put forward. The truth speaks for itself, unless you choose not to speak it.

    1. Don't you look like an idiot now.......3 times he's raised the debt ceiling....Bush only did it once

  4. The president loses all credibility based on this speech. Society can only function if opinions expressed by its citizens and elected leaders express unwaivering values.

    Telling the truth is one of those values. Obama shares an opinion in the above quote...the opinion he states is likely shared by an overwhelming percentage of Americans, both in 2006 and in 2011.

    Context, as argued by the previous poster, matters only in that the opinion was apparently disingenuous when made. A disingenuous leader is not a leader, but a coward. Any government built on lies is destined to fail.