THE QUOTE OF THE DECADE

moneytree

The following is from a chain email called THE QUOTE OF THE DECADE.

“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 US Government cannot 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.”

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

It was so nice of him to give us this great quote for posterity — SO, USE IT!

Only 86% will send this on; It should be a 100%.

Please send it on if only to one person.

It’s true:http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp

Snopes.com attests to the authenticity of the quote. Then, of course, Snopes.com offers Obama’s excuse for his change of heart.  Supposedly, Obama now realizes raising the debt ceiling would be a disaster, but would it? What if Obama is lying?

Some say If Congress Doesn’t Raise the Debt Ceiling, Nothing Disastrous Will Happen. Why would Obama say otherwise?  Here is the reason. Obama does not want to just pay America’s bills. He wants to buy votes. Hence, somebody has introduced a bill.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) has introduced a bill designed to avert default by requiring the Treasury Department, if the debt limit hasn’t been raised, to prioritize the order that government bills are paid—giving precedence to interest payments, as well as to Social Security benefits and active-duty military pay. If there isn’t enough revenue on any given day to cover those priorities, Mr. Toomey’s bill also authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue just enough additional debt to cover those costs.

That would take some of the sting out of the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, Mr. Toomey said. (from here)

The Federal Government spends 4 trillion a year and borrows 40 percent of that money. Yet what does most of the news media want to talk about? The fact we are going broke? No. Instead of stopping runaway spending, the news media encourages us to give up our second amendment rights. For some reason we are suppose are suppose to give up our guns to the very same government we cannot trust to wisely spend our money.

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in economy, news media bias, unraveling and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to THE QUOTE OF THE DECADE

  1. jelillie says:

    Reblogged this on Reinventing the We'll and commented:
    Add your thoughts here… (optional)I thought these were interesting thoughts

  2. Biltrix says:

    Hi, Citizen Tom!

    Sorry I have not been around in a while (holidays, travel, trying to stay healthy). I just wanted to let you know that I nominated you for the Blog of the year award. You can pick up the details at http://biltrix.com/2013/01/18/5-stars-thank-you/ .

    God bless!

  3. The sad part about this was Obama’s later excuses for his statements. I listened to a number of his campaign speeches back in 2008; this 2006 quote does not stand alone, and the $10 trillion point was a major focus during the campaign.

    Now he says that it was just a “political” statement. As if President Obama, who still maintains his campaign operations, has ever not been political as president.

    Of course, this situation is typical — and its like can be demonstrated with regard to so many of his other statements, from transparency to earmarks to the rush passage of legislation.

    Had he made those statements to me during an interview, I’d have gently blocked his rhetorical exit and gotten a more frank discussion. The inadequacy of most journalists in interviews is annoying, quite independent of the fact that with Obama few indeed wish to ruffle feathers.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Obama did not on his own either become president or win reelection. He has had a great many people supporting him. On Judgment Day I would not be surprised if many of these people will have to explain why they supported such an obvious, conniving liar.

      The news media in particular has been a grave disappointment. Instead of doing their job and vetting Obama, they promoted him. They did so knowing his shady past. I have wracked my brain for years trying to understand why, and I still do not have a theory that satisfies me. How could people who could not help but know something about the nature of that man still support him?

  4. We cannot continue on this reckless path. You’re scratching your head about the media supporting Obama. I am scratching my head why any American, especially the presideint, would pursue a course that will ruin our economy and crash the dollar, resulting in chaos in every household in America and around the world. Obama is not stupid. I cannot come up with any explanation except there is a very sinister intent behind it.

  5. Mrs. L says:

    To be honest, this statement was because Obama was against raising the debt ceiling. This quote was to the President at the time, George Bush. Obama was bringing up the debt Bush had gotten the US into, the previous 5 years. The Iraq war cost $4 trillion dollars, which got the US into the debt problem in the first place, under Bush. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq wasn’t associated with al Queda, so it was a war for nothing. Then, while Bush was still in office, we went into the recession, and ended up bailing out the banks and Wall Street, for fraudulent and deceptive lending and investment practices. So I do think it’s a great quote, Obama saw the writing on the wall years ago and tried to do something about it. Unfortunately, our economy would be in a lot better shape if Congress decided to do something productive, instead of stonewall every effort.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Mrs. L – Please check out http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2012USrn. The defense budget was only 24 percent of the Federal Budget. That is about 900 billion out of a 3.8 trillion dollar budget. The deficit was 1089 billion. We could cut the entire defense budget, and we would still have a deficit.

      I don’t know where you got your cost for the Iraq War, but even Obama did not claim such an absurdly high figure. He said would be about 1 trillion, and that’s over a 9 year period. Even a story from our hyperventilating news media makes it obvious that that war did not break the budget. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/12/15/what-did-the-iraq-war-cost-more-than-you-think

      In any event, “Bush’s” Iraq War is over. Now their Obama’s wars, and Obama has no interest increasing defense spending. Defense spending does not buy enough votes from people who want to get their grubby little hands on somebody else’s money. What is breaking the budget? The budget breakers are programs our constitution never mentioned, programs like Social Security, Medicare, and now Obamacare. Those are mostly programs that allow the old to rob the young. You don’t like war? Well, robbing your own children is intergenerational warfare.

    • The Iraq war cost $4 trillion dollars…

      Except that it did not. The cost was less than 1 trillion over the entire period; President Obama spent that much with a single stroke of the pen.

      The Iraq cost has been inflated by figuring in various “hidden” costs, just as your lunch today cost $600 because of the effect it might have on your long-term medical outlook. But such numbers are dubious indeed, especially in light of the military having a fairly high “running cost” in any event.

      The Afghanistan war was fully supported by Obama, even as a state senator. He’ll occasionally make statements suggesting otherwise, but he’s demonstrated that he is willing to say anything for political reasons.

      Hussein’s Iraq was, of course, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism. That was ended. Hussein’s government involvement in the World Trade Center bombing (in 1993!) was revealed, then not discussed … but in any event, the worst estimates were that he would have “not had a nuclear weapon for perhaps as much as five years.”

      It’s been ten years. Hussein, at least, will never have one.

      I wrote a tribute to Saddam Hussein that may entertain you for a moment. It also contains tidbits that you might not have been aware of.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • Citizen Tom says:

        Keith – Thank you for your comment and the poetry. I wish I could write decent poetry, but I don’t have the knack (I also have not tried to develop what little of the gift I have.).

        Hopefully, your comment clears things up for a few people. I do wish people would not simply assume the truth of such stupid numbers. Unfortunately, it looks like we are going to have to suffer the consequence of our national gullibility first.

Comments are closed.