Debt Double-Speak

In a 2006 speech given on the Senate floor then Senator Obama made these remarks:  "Right now, we’re spending more money to pay interest on debt than we’ll spend on education, homeland security, transportation and veterans’ benefits combined this year. Surely, there’s something better to spend that money on. And those interest payments are a significant tax on Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. And just wait until interest rates rise, because at some point they will."  He went further and said:  "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."  Those were good words then and remain so today.  But President Obama has since changed his tune.

And my, my, my how so very much has Obama's opinion changed.  When he made that speech in 2006 he was lambasting George Bush as being a spendthrift and running up an unsustainable debt hurting the future prospects of our nation and its citizens.  So, to him the debt was bad then; but, now that he is president it is no longer a problem even though today the debt is nearing $17 trillion (almost twice the amount he thought was so troublesome in 2006).  To again quote Senator Obama, "That is 'trillion' with a 'T'".  If he were to level such charges against himself today, what would he have to say about his own record of accumulating a whopping $6 trillion debt in just his first four years in office?

Take a look at the first link for his explanation of why the debt mattered to him in 2009.  It was good.  However, take note of his comments about  Bush's lack of leadership - well it would be a real eye-opener if he displayed some himself.  My observation is that he is quite the talker, but certainly not a leader. 

To get a taste of Obama's change of tune regarding the debt read the second link.  The author of this piece quotes the President as saying earlier this week that “we don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next 10 years, it’s going to be in a sustainable place.” Huh?  Where did that come from?  He certainly didn't think that before.  On what basis can he possibly make such a claim now?  How dumb does he think we are?  The author adds "Take nearly any poll that gauges the concerns of the public. For a long time now, jobs and the economy were leading the list, but second is almost always debt. Green energy, one of the administration’s big concerns, is not even close. Neither is gun control. Neither is more regulation. Neither is immigration. Neither is most of the Obama agenda."  The author suggests the following:  "It would be nice if some reporter asked the president what happened. Why did debt matter in 2006 but not now? Why in 2009 did the president promise to cut the deficit in half if it’s nothing to fret over?"  Indeed, what happened to that promise?  My guess - he knew that not showing concern for the debt would hurt his reelection chances.  And, just like most of the repeated promises he has made it is quite obvious that he never intended to keep most of them and certainly not this one - he has other fish to fry.  Only these fish are the ones of his choosing and cost lots of money (more debt).  To heck with what the people want or what he promised!!!  As he likes to say "I'm the president".

When will people wake-up to his arrogant duplicity?  George Burns

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/13/in-2006-obama-explained-why-debt-matter-heres-the-speech/