Yes indeed, the Democrat-controlled Congress under George W. Bush is responsible for TARP and excessive spending, but if Obama were really concerned about the soaring debt crisis, he would have cut spending and not put it on steroids.But he wasn't done firing off vindictively:
Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.
Correction Mr. President, the only we in this equation are the Republicans in the House who have sent a budget proposal for 2012 to the Senate, where it sits on Harry Reid's desk along with the "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill. The Democrat congress under control of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were derelict in their duty, to pass a budget which congress is required to do by law, in both 2009 and 2010 . Without a budget all spending by this administration should be considered illegal and the whole bunch should be hauled off to court and prosecuted for fiscal malfeasance. If they were in charge of the fiscal affairs of a private organization or company these same people would be fired for fiscal mismanagement or possibly charged with fraud or worse. Obama does not wish to bore us with details of his proposals because he has none, neither does his party, which controls the Senate.
Understand; raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every president has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.
Obama has not always been an advocate of raising the debt ceiling, in fact he is on record opposing it:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “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…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 and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.
Obama followed these remarks by voting against the hike in 2006.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
What is reckless and irresponsible is the pretension that one man - or one party - is going to be able to dig us out of a decade of financial stupidity.
FYI, Allen, the illegal Iraq war, Medicare Part D, and Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy EACH cost more than Obama's stimulus package. Bush's tax cuts ALONE are costing us over a hundred billion per year of INTEREST on our deficit.
But I get it - Obama's the guy in the White House now, and just because he hasn't been able to snap his fingers, wave his magic wand and sprinkle fairy dust to fix what the Republicans took a decade to screw up (the SURPLUS that Clinton handed Bush was on track to erase our ENTIRE national debt by next year, remember), it's all Obama's fault.
Y'all go ahead and enjoy paying more for nearly everything you buy thanks to the default that the tea party Republicans are so eager to bring about now, y'hear?
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Oh, and Allen -
Remember, on the day Obama took office he faced not only the worst economic straits our nation has faced since the day FDR took office, but he also had two wars to fight. THEN he had to deal with the most obstructive Congress our nation has seen since the Civil War (again, thanks to the Republicans who somehow forgot they were the minority party). Even FDR didn't have to face such an irrational and irresponsible opposition. The last one who did face such opposition was Lincoln.
And yet you wonder why Obama hasn't gotten more done. If anything, you should be GLAD that we didn't have a REAL progressive Democrat in the White House, one that would have been willing to take the Republicans head-on, prosecute the torturers (and those who approved of it), prosecute the war criminals, prosecute the fraudulent banksters, and prosecute the election fraud, all committed by the Right and by those who supported the Right. If he had done so, the Republican party would be much weaker today rather than saying "do what we want or we'll trash the American economy!"
3 - Clavos
Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy EACH cost more than Obama's stimulus package.
Oh crap. Bush tax cuts and all, the top one percent of taxpayers TODAY pay more than the bottom 95 percent.
The top one percent pay ALL this country's bills, and Obama is doing his damnedest to foment hatred of the rich and class warfare. He is, as Allen points out, dividing us, which is the last thing a real leader would be doing.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
How about educating yourself? Here's Factcheck.org addressing the question about how much the top one percent pays...and more importantly, why they pay that much.
One major reason they pay that high a percentage, Clavos, is because of income inequality. Put most of the money in the hands of the richest, and let the incomes of the middle- and lower-classes stagnate or fall, and OF COURSE the percentage paid by the richest will increase!
Let me repeat that, Clavos - the greater the income inequality favoring the rich, the greater the percentage of the taxes the rich will pay!
If you want the middle- and lower-classes to pay a greater percentage of the federal taxes, then decrease the income inequality between the rich and the not-so-rich! Do that instead of buying into the conservative rhetoric (PITY THE RICH!) that simply worsens the income inequality and makes life harder for anyone who isn't a millionaire.
5 - Glenn Contrarian
And here is what Bush 43's economic advisers thought about the tax cuts he wanted. Hint: they really didn't think they were a good idea.
6 - zingzing
"He is, as Allen points out, dividing us, which is the last thing a real leader would be doing."
wait, dividing us on a 1% vs 95% line? which side are you on, clavos? and do you want to be on that side of the line? i got a 95-1 bet against you, with a 4% margin for error. i hope you're on steroids and your balls are shrunken and you got some anger issues...
7 - zingzing
and if you are part of that 1%, i'd suggest you attend to your caviar and sex slaves, or else, i'll fucking eat them all.
8 - Clavos
I'm on the side of the people and against the government (especially obama) zing.
The government is fucking the people more and more every year, and the jerk in the WH is leading the parade.
9 - Cindy
what Clav said...
10 - Clavos
The figures come from the IRS, Glenn.
11 - Cindy
all politicians are so obnoxious and objectionable it disgusts me to even hear anything from them. who the hell can stand these fucking idiots 'representing' them?
can't you see they are merely representing their own interests?
what utter fucking disgust i have for obama.
he is nothing he claimed to be and he is a criminal in the way he has spoken about Bradley Manning (the only person who deserves capital letters in this comment).
obama is a deplorable fucking hypocrite.
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
I'll make this REAL simple for you.
There are two people. One has an income of one hundred dollars, and one has an income of a thousand dollars...and the government's going to tax both of them at, say, 35%. The one with more money is going to pay 350 dollars, and the one with less is going to pay 35 dollars, right?
Right. The guy with more money is paying 90% of the income tax (and the conservatives cry foul, of course).
So time passes...and just as has happened with America since the advent of Reaganomics, the guy with more money is making lots more money, whereas the guy making less money is still making about the same amount. So the guy with more money now has an income of $2000, and the guy with less money still has the same income of $100...and the tax rate is still 35%.
The guy making more money pays $700 in taxes, and the guy making less money is still paying $35...and now the guy making more money is paying NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of the income taxes! And the conservatives predictably decry how life is even MORE unfair for the guy with more money.
Got that, Clavos? It's largely a matter of income inequality...and frankly, I'll take Warren Buffet's word before I'll take yours (or your reference's), since he knows firsthand that he'd wind up paying out millions more in taxes.
13 - Clavos
Warren Buffet's word before I'll take yours (or your reference's), since he knows firsthand that he'd wind up paying out millions more in taxes.
If he does, he's stupid, Glenn.
Or "patriotic," which is the same thing.
Income inequality is always going to exist, and those who make more will pay more (or hire better accountants).
Being envious of them and wanting to stick it to them because they have more is the mark of an immature whiner, which is what your president is.
14 - zingzing
clavos: "I'm on the side of the people and against the government (especially obama) zing."
so now "the people" are the richest 1%. gotcha. when did that happen? why would you bother fighting for them?
15 - Clavos
why would you bother fighting for them?
Why not?
16 - Allen Scott
For the record: in the last year with a budget adopted by a Republican-controlled Congress (2007), the federal deficit came in at $161 billion. The current federal deficit is roughly 10 times that (1.6 trillion). The annual deficits under the Republican are now monthly deficits under the Democrats.
How about we go back to the BUSH spending and only spend 161 billion over budget? HELL that will be a HUGE IMPROVEMENT over what we have now.
As Mark Steyn put it:
"There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called ‘debt ceiling’ negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers."
Really, it’s like your teenager maxing out his credit card, and you increase his limit even more, rather than help him pay off his debt and control his spending so it’s less than his income. It’s the debt and spending that is endangering our credit rating, according to the credit agencies themselves.
17 - Baronius
"Understand; raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up."
Someone on this site made a similar statement. It's false. Only a small portion of the increased debt is required to cover existing obligations. Most of it will be used to cover next year's deficit spending.
That seems like a small point. After all, as the other person (I forget who) said, you can't turn the budget process around on a dime. Even a severe deficit reduction plan would have to anticipate some deficit spending in the next few years.
But - why lie about it? The quoted statement, after all, is a lie. It is a very specific statement saying something that anyone familiar with the issue would know is false. So why say it?
"Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every president has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times."
That means that Reagan had to have the debt ceiling raised every 5 months; Bush, 14 months. Then why is it so necessary that this increase carry us through the next 18 months?
18 - Baronius
But I'm not going to let you off the hook for the crack about the czars, Allen. They account for something like .001% of the federal payroll, which itself is a small portion of the federal budget. A cheap shot is a cheap shot.
19 - Allen Scott
"But I'm not going to let you off the hook for the crack about the czars, Allen. They account for something like .001% of the federal payroll, which itself is a small portion of the federal budget. A cheap shot is a cheap shot."
Nothing cheap about it. .oo1% or not it is a cut that can be made with no adverse effects on our country, quite the contrary it might actually improve things a bit at least .001%.
But either your math or my math is off. .oo1$ of 3 trillion is 30,000. That does not even cover one csar's salary for last year and there are 30 or more depending on who you ask.
I feel that many of these appointments are nothing more than make work positions given as political favors. We can live with less government not more especially when we can no longer afford it.
20 - Allen Scott
My bad! My math was off by 3 zeros. Too many zeros in a trillion. So anyway the savings of $30,000,000 is nothing to sneeze at. But I guess when we are talking trillions what is a few million.
21 - Allen Scott
"Then why is it so necessary that this increase carry us through the next 18 months?"
Why can't the budget be cut and the spending decreased by an amount that will not exceed revenues?
Or is it like Obama said.. we already spent the money now America has to pony up and pay for it. Of course he spent the money without a budget. Spent money on things America said NO TO but no matter America will pay for it and anything else the ruling class tells us to pay for.
We say no and they say to hell with you. We say stop spending and they spend faster. We say quit raising our taxes and they call us greedy and selfish. There are greedy among us alright and they all work in DC.
22 - Baronius
Allen - I ballparked the numbers. Thirty people out of 3 million federal employees is .001%. Federal payroll is something like (again, I'm ballparking) 10% of the federal budget. I think that everything has to be on the table in a discussion of deficit reduction, but highlighting 30 paychecks feels more like a talking point than a serious proposal.
23 - roger nowosielski
Clavos, #15
May I refer you to comment #186, in particular, the segment of the show I'm linking to. There are serious economic ramifications to our present tax policies and tax structure, ramification which go beyond the question of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Even if you won't ultimately agree with the argument that's being advanced, it is food for thought.
24 - handyguy
Once again, here is Ezra Klein’s graph showing exactly how much Bush’s policies and Obama’s policies have contributed to the $14 trillion in accumulated debt. Bush = approx $5 trillion; Obama = approx $1.5 trillion.
So one of the premises for this terrible article is just plain wrong.
25 - handyguy
This "yes it is!/no it isn’t!" back-and-forth on what the debt ceiling does or doesn’t do is at root a difference in semantics caused by the scary magic of compound interest.
Even if Congress does not appropriate another penny of new spending, ever, the current spending keeps getting bigger, because the borrowed money keeps accumulating interest. [A lot of interest!]
So it’s true that the request for a $2.4 trillion bump up in the ceiling is entirely about paying bills already accrued. It’s just that those bills will keep getting bigger each month, whether we add new spending or not.