☰ Menu

Thank you for checking out the All The King's Men blog. This blog is no longer being supported, updated and available on And has been discontinued.
You will be redirected in 7 seconds...

All Da King's Men

The Problem With Politicians

By David King Published: March 4, 2013

Try to name the politician who said the following words:

"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 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.

Over the past five 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.

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 five years. That is why I will once again co-sponsor 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 five 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.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

This speech sounds like something I would write, and I agree with nearly every word of it. It must one of those Tea Party "extremist" types who said all of the above, eh ? Or one of those guys who gets his talking points from Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. That must be it. It's definitely one of those right wing nuts talking, right ? That's what my liberal friends would think.

Newsflash, liberals. The words above were spoken by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)  in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt limit during Bush's presidency.

Obama the Tea Partier. Who knew ?

Or maybe former Tea Partier. In 2006, Obama's rhetoric was the polar opposite of his rhetoric on the same subject today. Here's Obama talking about raising the debt limit in 2013, during Obama's own presidency:

"To even entertain the idea of the United States of America not paying our bills is irresponsible. It's absurd.

[The Republicans] will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the economy. The full faith and credit of the United States economy is not a bargaining chip. And they better choose quickly because time is running short. The last time Republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our AAA credit rating was down for the first time in our history.

We are not a deadbeat nation, so there's a very simple solution to this: Congress authorizes us to pay our bills."

The two Obamas on display here are like night and day. There is no way to reconcile these two views being espoused by the same person. Simply put, no single person can hold both these contradictory positions. When his 2006 speech on the debt limit was pointed out to him, today's incarnation of Obama said 2006 was a "political vote".

Let's think about those two words for a moment..."political vote". What does that mean ?

It means Sen. Obama stood up in front of the United States Congress, gave a speech he did not believe in himself, and voted against his own conscience. He did these dishonest things without batting an eye. I'm sure he said every word with the same Obama conviction we all know today. He lied with conviction, and he did these dishonest things simply because there's a 'D' next to Obama's name, and there was an 'R' next to Bush's name. That's what constitutes a "political vote". The layman's term for it is BS.

Alternately, maybe Obama was telling the truth back in 2006, and he's playing political games now. How are we supposed to know ? All we can know for sure is that one of the Obama's is false.

There is even a third possibility. Maybe Obama has no convictions whatsoever, and will say anything anytime, whatever serves his goal at the moment. That is psychopathic behavior, but I can see where it could be a distinct advantage for a soulless political drone.

Therein lies the problem with politicians. Once you know they will lie to serve their interests, as we know Obama will do (and he's far from the only one), you can never again tell whether they are being honest or not. I don' t know about the rest of you, but I don't want people like that having too much control over my life. I want them to step the *%#$ back and leave me alone. I want them as far away from me as possible.



About This Blog

Prev Next