1.) bluecat - 09/19/2013

I love the way Obama always talks down to his subjects...


In a speech at the Business Roundtable headquarters in Washington, D.C., Obama dismissed concerns about raising the debt ceiling by noting that it'd been done so many times in the past:

"Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven't been keeping up :bang:-- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you've already racked up, Congress. :cf:
It's a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved." :cf:


Obama went on to suggest that "the average person" :td: mistakenly thinks that raising the debt ceiling means the U.S. is racking up more debt: :td:

"It's always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we're running up our debt, so people don't like to vote on it, and, typically, there's some gamesmanship in terms of making the President's party shoulder the burden of raising the -- taking the vote." :td:



But, isn't the fact that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling "over a hundred times" - and, thus, has had to keep raising it - proof that raising the limit does, in fact, lead to increased debt? :tu:

2.) DParker - 09/19/2013

Yes, I'd be shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you...if raising the debt ceiling led to a higher national. debt *this time*...right?

Not surprisingly, when the other party held the White House, then Senator Barack Obama had this to say on the floor of that august body (from the Congressional Record [url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2006-03-16/pdf/CREC-2006-03-16-pt1-PgS2236.pdf):[/url]

[quote]Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.

[B]The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.[/B] 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.

[B][COLOR="#B22222"]Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’[/COLOR][/B] 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.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans—a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators CONRAD and FEINGOLD, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending.

As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

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.

[B]I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.[/B][/quote]

Regarding the part in [B][COLOR="#B22222"]bold red[/COLOR][/B]...over the past not-quite 5 years of HIS "leadership", our federal debt has increased by ~$7 trillion to just a hair under $17 trillion. Still with a "T". The debt increased by more absolute dollars in Obama's first 3 years in office than his predecessor's full 8.

3.) bluecat - 09/19/2013

That is amazing DP.

4.) XJCraver - 09/19/2013

Doesn't matter. It's still Bush's fault.

:re:

5.) Floyd - 09/19/2013

I don't keep up too much, but I do have a question for DP. And who ever else wants to chime in.

When one connect the dots, does it reveal a pic of Barry destroying America....oops, The United States of America? Or at least the United States of America from 1776 to the, let's say, end of Reagan's term?

6.) DParker - 09/20/2013

[QUOTE=Floyd;10846]I don't keep up too much, but I do have a question for DP. And who ever else wants to chime in.

When one connect the dots, does it reveal a pic of Barry destroying America....oops, The United States of America? Or at least the United States of America from 1776 to the, let's say, end of Reagan's term?[/QUOTE]

I'm not quite that pessimistic, nor do I credit whatever declines we're experiencing to any one individual, no matter how much I dislike what they've done. Our system just doesn't give that much power to any one official. There's plenty of blame to go around in a representative democracy, including for you and me (meaning the electorate in general, not anyone in particular).

7.) Floyd - 09/20/2013

Didn't mean to suggest he would do it all by himself. Leaders do lead though. Some even set the stage for something to happen. The guy who invented the domino....never mind.

Any records broken since the domino craze?

8.) Floyd - 09/20/2013

I'm always optimistic. What I heard from you is, don't worry about Barry, nothing can go wrong with our system of government. In the long run it will be okay.

9.) DParker - 09/20/2013

[QUOTE=Floyd;10853]I'm always optimistic. What I heard from you is, don't worry about Barry, nothing can go wrong with our system of government. In the long run it will be okay.[/QUOTE]

I'm at a loss to understand how you got that out of what I've said. I spoke of "declines we're experiencing" (including my comments on the progression of the national debt) and said that there is a lot of blame to go around for these things. If I'd meant we shouldn't worry about anything the President is doing/has done or that everything was going to be peachy-keen via the miracle of our constitutional government then I would have said something along those lines. But I didn't.

10.) Floyd - 09/20/2013

Next question:

I don't keep up too much at all, but I do have a question for DP. And who ever else wants to chime in.

When one connect the dots (talking about anyone doing this, not Barry), does it reveal a picture of Barry changing America....oops, The United States of America the we know or know of? Or at least the United States of America from 1776 to the, let's say, end of Reagan's term or at least the 20th century. Change is good. Just talking in general. Because we know that our system of government is flexible to allow for change. Executive orders are a wonderful thing. Don't get me wrong DP. Americans, much less any people of this world would ever follow a charismatic person or any group of people into war, or heaven forbid a global war.

I'm just horsing around. "Our system just doesn't give that much power to any one official." I agree. I agree. Lately with O'care, debt ceiling, seemingly disregard for the constitution, political correctness, news media, social media, decline--oops change in our collective national moral fabric.... and the list goes on. I'm glad to hear from you our system just doesn't give that much power to any one official. Just for giggles, what would have to happen for one official to have much power or that much power?

11.) Floyd - 09/20/2013

[QUOTE=DParker;10855]I'm at a loss to understand how you got that out of what I've said. I spoke of "declines we're experiencing" (including my comments on the progression of the national debt) and said that there is a lot of blame to go around for these things. If I'd meant we shouldn't worry about anything the President is doing/has done or that everything was going to be peachy-keen via the miracle of our constitutional government then I would have said something along those lines. But I didn't.[/QUOTE]

I'm at a loss to why "dots" would lead you to believe that "dots" where solely associated to just the president and the connect the dots picture that resulted would have only him in it. Kind of leave out the support crew, fence sitters, non-voters, and whole cast of other characters. I guess CE would say, "Connect the dots was hard you never no that you going to get, sometimes easy you just no what is was going to be and then you like, WTF where did that come from? Then he would just burn the paper with his magnifier without a care in the world.

12.) Floyd - 09/20/2013

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights,” Stengel wrote.

A dot

I wonder why it can't be like this: We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, and we can let the Constitution become a stepping stone to the U.S.’s leadership moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights to the rest of the world.

Or a more appropriate variation. You know, whatever gets the job done.

Never mind me. I'm just shooting my mouth off waiting for the rapture. Or Vogons. Come on Halley's Comet big brother, Ralph. A simple fade to black would do to.

I think I just hear our own Chuck Norris, CE say, "Screw that, let's fight."

13.) Floyd - 09/20/2013

Mean while.....

[URL="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/19/scientists-very-very-confident-theyve-found-extraterrestrial-life-see-what-it-looks-like/"]They Came From Outer Space: Democrats Court New Voters[/URL]

14.) Swamp Fox - 09/20/2013

[QUOTE=Floyd;10852]Didn't mean to suggest he would do it all by himself. Leaders do lead though. Some even set the stage for something to happen. The guy who invented the domino....never mind.

Any records broken since the domino craze?[/QUOTE]



[I]"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." [/I]-- C. S. Lewis



This is one of the most recent articles chronicling Obama's proclivity to go around the law when he can't act through the law, and what it means for our representative republic. I suppose voters were napping through the first four years of his presidency since it didn't seem to bother them, but you didn't see angry editorials in the New York Times about how he was "shredding the Constitution" to try to wake them up, either. (You still don't, to my knowledge. You have to find a columnist for that.)

Leaving aside the fact that Lincoln strayed frequently and frighteningly with his own significant Constitutional infidelities, I thought this was a good comment (as are those that follow):


Jeffrey H. Anderson

[I]So how exactly can “a government of laws and not of men” work if the chief executive refuses to fulfill his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”?

Two years after the death of James Madison (the last surviving Constitutional Convention delegate), a young Abraham Lincoln preached steadfast regard for the law and warned his fellow countrymen to beware of leaders who might use lawless means to achieve their ends. Lincoln argued that “the history of the world tells us” that “supporting and maintaining [a constitutional] edifice that has been erected by others” will not satisfy certain “men of ambition and talents” as they “seek the gratification of their ruling passion.” When encountering such threats, Lincoln said, the solution is to rely on the people—specifically on their “general intelligence,” “sound morality,” and “reverence for the constitution and laws.”[/I]

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lawlessness-executive_750055.html?page=2[/url]


Ross Douthat

[I]This is why it’s so remarkable that our constitutional order has lasted so long, given the perpetual incentive — common to both parties, and all three branches of government — to abandon its safeguards in order to push a particular agenda.
Today those incentives are strongest for Democrats — visible in their support for Obama’s more dubiously constitutional forays, and also in the widespread liberal attempt to explain his struggles by casting him as a Gulliver tied down by an antiquated system of government.

Conservative pundits have noted that similar explanations were proferred [sic] to explain the failures of Jimmy Carter. That in and of itself isn’t proof that they’re wrong. But it suggests the possibility that some of the ways this president has been baffled, legislatively and perhaps soon in the courts, reflect the genius of our constitutional system rather than its failings. It’s a system that often lacks principled defenders, but that’s designed to defend itself.[/I]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinion/sunday/douthat-all-the-presidents-privileges.html?_r=0[/url]


Mona Charen

[I]Obama — greeted rapturously in 2008 as the “constitutional law professor” who would restore respect for our founding document — has demonstrated a contempt for law unseen since Nixon.

Nixon was devious, insecure and paranoid. Everyone knows that those are unfortunate traits. Ever since Nixon, we’ve been encouraged to be wary of leaders who are suspicious or guarded.

Obama is brimming with excessive self-regard, intellectual vanity and supreme self-righteousness. No one has ever warned Americans to regard these as dangerous traits, but they may be more worrisome than Nixon’s cynicism...

To paraphrase Dan Pfeiffer, the Constitution is “irrelevant” when you know you’re right.[/I]

[url]http://thesouthern.com/news/opinion/editorial/charen/president-obama-shreds-the-constitution/article_bdee5c52-c4f6-11e2-9020-0019bb2963f4.html[/url]


Andrew McCarthy

[I]Bona fide concerns over resource allocation and constitutionality are narrow exceptions to the general rule that obliges presidents to execute the laws. In Obama’s hands, however, executive discretion has become an affirmative license for lawbreakers. Worse, it has seamlessly devolved into an invitation — an inducement — to official malfeasance. Again, only the executive branch can enforce the law. When executive-branch officials know that illegal actions on their part will not be pursued, they are encouraged to commit them…

In a vibrant, pluralistic society, law, as an expression of the sovereign will, is unavoidably a product of compromise. In the contentious process, the competing sides bend; they settle on something that neither, given their druthers, would support; and they honorably agree to abide by the result. Under Obama, however, massive laws are enacted — such that no one can conceivably know what the law is. Then the president enforces the parts he approves of, contemptuously disregards the parts that enticed naysayers into compromising, and presumes to amend or repeal inconvenient provisions at his whim.

That is not the rule of law. It is how a dictatorship works.[/I]

[url]http://nationalreview.com/article/353328/obamas-rule-decree-andrew-c-mccarthy[/url]

15.) XJCraver - 09/26/2013

Nice quote from Lincoln. I wonder if he said that out of one side of his mouth - while the other side was unconstitutionally suspending habeas corpus, or issuing unconstitutional "Proclamations".

I read this somewhere, and it sums him up nicely: [I]It is likely, however, that his term as the President instituted the overbearing national government and the power structure that we have today.[/I]


This is a problem much bigger than any modern POTUS. Obummer will be but a footnote when the scribes someday write of our collapse. :(

16.) Swamp Fox - 09/26/2013

[QUOTE=XJCraver;11051]
I read this somewhere, and it sums him up nicely: [I]It is likely, however, that his term as the President instituted the overbearing national government and the power structure that we have today.[/I]
([/QUOTE]

To say nothing of ushering in the Age of Bureaucracy, as well.

Anybody want to tell me why it's a federal crime for you to put something in someone's mailbox without stamps on it?


Hmmm?


To be honest, I'd have to look up whether or not that criminality is pre- or post-Lincoln, but it IS a function of our centuries-long march toward bureaucratic and federalized norms, inarguably accelerated by and after Lincoln.