Raising the US debt ceiling

[Pliny]

Here's a quote but before I reveal who the author is I wonder if it is necessary toraise the debt ceiling.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americas debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. 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 Americas debt limit.

Republicans will probably bendover and do that next month and things will continue as usual. So is the above quote a fabrication and distortion of fact or will the US face an unheard of economic crisis of bankruptcy if they don't do it?

The above quote was from none other than Barack Obama himself in 2006. Harry Reid also said the democrats weren't in a hurry to pursue this reckless policy of raising the debt ceiling.

Things change I guess. Does America suffer from bad leadership today as it did in 2006?

Edited January 28, 2011 by Pliny

[bush_cheney2004]

...Things change I guess. Does America suffer from bad leadership today as it did in 2006?

There has been no change......politics follows economics. The debt ceiling must be raised as a matter of law to keep operating in the short term, regardless of any long term budget cutting or freezes.

[GostHacked]

Nope no financial crisis here, move along.

[Guest American Woman]

Does America suffer from bad leadership today as it did in 2006?

If one were to go by all the criticism out there, American has always suffered from bad leadership.

[The_Squid]

If one were to go by all the criticism out there, American has always suffered from bad leadership.

Nah.... don't exagerate. Your first couple Presidents were great!

[Topaz]

I heard one radio host ask the rich of the country, like the billionaires and millionaires, to help the country out by NOT taking the tax cuts that the Republicans are pushing across the board. The host said that he lower tax payer needs the money more than them and it would show the country how much they loved and cared about it and the fact, that they didn't need the tax cut as much as the lower level did. I think the Republicans, would do themselves a service not to take the tax cut.

[Pliny]

No really serious commment? How sad!

I think Barack should take a good look in the mirror if he wants to see a failure of leadership. He said it himself.

Yes, Topaz, I believe Barack's rich friends, Geroge Soros, Bill Gates, etc., have deserted Barack.

[dre]

Here's a quote but before I reveal who the author is I wonder if it is necessary toraise the debt ceiling.

Republicans will probably bendover and do that next month and things will continue as usual. So is the above quote a fabrication and distortion of fact or will the US face an unheard of economic crisis of bankruptcy if they don't do it?

The above quote was from none other than Barack Obama himself in 2006. Harry Reid also said the democrats weren't in a hurry to pursue this reckless policy of raising the debt ceiling.

Things change I guess. Does America suffer from bad leadership today as it did in 2006?

Republicans will probably bendover and do that next month and things will continue as usual. So is the above quote a fabrication and distortion of fact or will the US face an unheard of economic crisis of bankruptcy if they don't do it?

The above quote was from none other than Barack Obama himself in 2006. Harry Reid also said the democrats weren't in a hurry to pursue this reckless policy of raising the debt ceiling.

Things change I guess. Does America suffer from bad leadership today as it did in 2006?

Its suffered from bad leadership for almost 40 years. Or at least short-sighted leadership. And Eisenhower and Reagan are probably more to blame for the mess than Obama and Bush.

[TimG]

Its suffered from bad leadership for almost 40 years. Or at least short-sighted leadership. And Eisenhower and Reagan are probably more to blame for the mess than Obama and Bush.

The US and Canada had cleaned up the 70/80s era decifits by 2000. Canada stayed in surplus till 2008. The US immediately went into deficit. I would say the current problems are entirely the fault of Bush and Obama congresses (which have been controlled by GOP and Dems at different times).

[dre]

The US and Canada had cleaned up the 70/80s era decifits by 2000. Canada stayed in surplus till 2008. The US immediately went into deficit. I would say the current problems are entirely the fault of Bush and Obama congresses (which have been controlled by GOP and Dems at different times).

Obama and Bush wouldnt have had the luxury of borrowing all that money if it wasnt for Nixon (I said Eisenhower before I meant Nixon).

[bush_cheney2004]

Obama and Bush wouldnt have had the luxury of borrowing all that money if it wasnt for Nixon (I said Eisenhower before I meant Nixon).

Are you sure you know the difference?

[dre]

Are you sure you know the difference?

Sweet. Another drive-by post full of nothing by our resident laughing stock

[bush_cheney2004]

Sweet. Another drive-by post full of nothing by our resident laughing stock

Hmmmm...let's see...confusing Eisenhower with Nixon is even funnier.

I would expect better from our resident Google Cowboy.

[Pliny]

Its suffered from bad leadership for almost 40 years. Or at least short-sighted leadership. And Eisenhower and Reagan are probably more to blame for the mess than Obama and Bush.

According to what Obama said he should recognize himself as a member of the list and offer to step down.

[Guest American Woman]

According to what Obama said he should recognize himself as a member of the list and offer to step down.

If every leader who contradicted one of their earlier statements stepped down, the world would lose every leader it has. Continually. It would be an ongoing, never-ending process.

But in this instance it's up to Americans to decide in the next election if he should "step down" or not.

[GWiz]

The US and Canada had cleaned up the 70/80s era decifits by 2000. Canada stayed in surplus till 2008. The US immediately went into deficit. I would say the current problems are entirely the fault of Bush and Obama congresses (which have been controlled by GOP and Dems at different times).

I agree... "As ye sow so shall ye reap." Ergo, the people who ELECTED Bush (a whole lot more so than Obama, since he never paid for any of the debt the US incurred during his 8 years in office, like two wars, massive tax cuts that reduced income, adding a huge beaurocracy and departing office after adding an additional $700 BILLION bank bailout to that debt) are ultimately the culprits that are responsible for the huge debt the US has... So, the bottom line is, Americans have no one to blame but themselves... It's too bad that Canadians don't understand that concept, we're headed in that same direction with our Harper Gov.... No worries though, China still loves both countries so nothing to worry about...

[bush_cheney2004]

....So, the bottom line is, Americans have no one to blame but themselves... It's too bad that Canadians don't understand that concept, we're headed in that same direction with our Harper Gov.... No worries though, China still loves both countries so nothing to worry about...

Obligatory comparisons to Canadians aside, you are right but for the wrong reasons. Long term American fiscal problems have much less to do with "Bush" and "wars", since the lion's share of the budgets have been and will be growing non-discretionary spending on social programs. The wars will end eventually, but the entitlements are like herpes...forever.

[Pliny]

If every leader who contradicted one of their earlier statements stepped down, the world would lose every leader it has. Continually. It would be an ongoing, never-ending process.

But in this instance it's up to Americans to decide in the next election if he should "step down" or not.

That, for the most, can indeed be applied to "political" leaders. Political expediancy oeverrides principles, opinions and even economic axioms. The moment determines the rhetoric, and so ultimately what voter can know truth. Basically you are claiming their words are meaningless in the current political maelstrom that is social democracy and I would agree, one cannot judge these leaders by their words only their actions. One must look at each nominated official seeking votes and their actions in the past if one wants to get an idea of their country's future political direction. The options you have are welfare or warfare, Democrats or Republicans respectively on the path to the welfare/warfare state.

It is, as you so tenaciously claim, up to Americans to decide if he should "step down" but he himself has no confidence in his leadership. If he moves to the center and drops his liberal progressive agenda he may be re-elected but if he is he will continue to be a study in contradiction. He has betrayed his base, the far left, and lost the independents. His latest, uncharacteristic veering to the center tells us political expediency has overridden his own principles. Is it only after re-election we will again see those principles return when it is safe to reveal the truth?

Edited January 29, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Obligatory comparisons to Canadians aside, you are right but for the wrong reasons. Long term American fiscal problems have much less to do with "Bush" and "wars", since the lion's share of the budgets have been and will be growing non-discretionary spending on social programs. The wars will end eventually, but the entitlements are like herpes...forever.

If it could be "forever" one might tolerate herpes. Unfortunately, like any disease, the host is ultimately destroyed.

[dre]

That, for the most, can indeed be applied to "political" leaders. Political expediancy oeverrides principles, opinions and even economic axioms. The moment determines the rhetoric, and so ultimately what voter can know truth. Basically you are claiming their words are meaningless in the current political maelstrom that is social democracy and I would agree, one cannot judge these leaders by their words only their actions. One must look at each nominated official seeking votes and their actions in the past if one wants to get an idea of their country's future political direction. The options you have are welfare or warfare, Democrats or Republicans respectively on the path to the welfare/warfare state.

It is, as you so tenaciously claim, up to Americans to decide if he should "step down" but he himself has no confidence in his leadership. If he moves to the center and drops his liberal progressive agenda he may be re-elected but if he is he will continue to be a study in contradiction. He has betrayed his base, the far left, and lost the independents. His latest, uncharacteristic veering to the center tells us political expediency has overridden his own principles. Is it only after re-election we will again see those principles return when it is safe to reveal the truth?

The last thing you want is a leader that doggedly sticks to campaign promises even when he finds out the facts on the ground call for a change of course. This is one of the worst leadership qualities imaginable... the inability to adjust, and ditch some of your hubris when it becomes necessary. It has caused families, companies, and nations to make great mistakes.

That why the whole "flip flop" slogan is so moronic.

[GWiz]

Obligatory comparisons to Canadians aside, you are right but for the wrong reasons. Long term American fiscal problems have much less to do with "Bush" and "wars", since the lion's share of the budgets have been and will be growing non-discretionary spending on social programs. The wars will end eventually, but the entitlements are like herpes...forever.

There's a couple of things you may want to remember when posting to me:

1. Address WHOLE POSTS - which was -

- 'I agree... "As ye sow so shall ye reap." Ergo, the people who ELECTED Bush (a whole lot more so than Obama, since he never paid for any of the debt the US incurred during his 8 years in office, like two wars, massive tax cuts that reduced income, adding a huge beaurocracy and departing office after adding an additional $700 BILLION bank bailout to that debt) are ultimately the culprits that are responsible for the huge debt the US has... So, the bottom line is, Americans have no one to blame but themselves... It's too bad that Canadians don't understand that concept, we're headed in that same direction with our Harper Gov.... No worries though, China still loves both countries so nothing to worry about...'

2. When it's a comment or reply to someone else's post that I've simply agreed with, why not comment on that post rather than mine?

You wouldn't want to be changing the context, now would you? That wouldn't be "nice"...

[dre]

Obligatory comparisons to Canadians aside, you are right but for the wrong reasons. Long term American fiscal problems have much less to do with "Bush" and "wars"

The real problem is simply that the money is there, and not really any one kind of spending. Traditionally it was harder for governments to spend a lot of money because they had to fund their mandates with tax dollars. So it you wanted to spend money on a new entitlement or an elective war you had to go to the voters and explain why there would be a big tax hike.

But now you can increase spending and gut taxes at the same time, and dump the cost of your unfunded mandate on people that arent even born yet. Its sort of like putting a drug addict in a room with a big pile of cocaine and expecting him not to snort it.

And thats why every single administration since Nixon has increased spending and most of them have cut taxes as well. As long as the rest of the world is will to keep bailing the US out I imagine the US will gladly keep taking the money.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And thats why every single administration since Nixon has increased spending and most of them have cut taxes as well. As long as the rest of the world is will to keep bailing the US out I imagine the US will gladly keep taking the money.

Spending was increased and funded in a similar way for WW2...that was before "Nixon". So was that a mistake too?

[GWiz]

The last thing you want is a leader that doggedly sticks to campaign promises even when he finds out the facts on the ground call for a change of course. This is one of the worst leadership qualities imaginable... the inability to adjust, and ditch some of your hubris when it becomes necessary. It has caused families, companies, and nations to make great mistakes.

That why the whole "flip flop" slogan is so moronic.

Wish we had the "applaud" emoticon... Good post... Although, anything can be done to excess, at some point one has to take a stand regardless of consequences... For Ignatief that may be the next budget, we'll see... No matter what being "flexible" in regards to "the people" and sound practices is one thing... Doing something like that for strictly political reasons (see Layton/Republicans) is quite another... But that's another thread... I agree there's a lot of simularity between Ignatief and Obama... Perhaps both a little too nice and not quite where they should be when it comes the what they believe in...

[bush_cheney2004]

...I agree there's a lot of simularity between Ignatief and Obama... Perhaps both a little too nice and not quite where they should be when it comes the what they believe in...

Oh the irony...one has to prove he is an American...the other desperately tries to prove he is not.