« The Biggest American Business | Main | Credit »

Obama Warns of Debt Load

Barack Obama is warning us about our debt load, as if our massive debt just magically appeared one day. He is the one who is responsible for our outrageous debt load. He is the one who demanded the porkulus bill and the massive budget filled to the brim with 9,000 earmarks that drove up the budget deficit to a level that is four times last year's record.

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending "unsustainable," warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

"We can't keep on just borrowing from China," Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. "We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt."

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually "get tired" of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. "It will have a dampening effect on our economy."

The president pledged to work with Congress to shore up entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare and said he was confident that the House and Senate would pass health-care overhaul bills by August.

"Most of what is driving us into debt is health care, so we have to drive down costs," he said.

What a joke. Obama sends our deficit and debt levels into the stratosphere, and he has the nerve to actually lecture us about how dangerous that is. That is what the tea parties were all about. Hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets on April 15 to protest the outrageous spending the government has been doing under his watch, and what was his reaction? He ridiculed them. Then a few weeks later he goes to New Mexico and delivers a lecture about how irresponsible it is to spend money we don't have. The gall.

Now that he has put us into the untenable position of having to borrow so much from China, he turns around and says we have to shore up health care. That means the government will spend even more money we don't have to meddle in our lives.

For more on Obama's deficit spending be sure to read Michael's post here.

Update: Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit tells us that Obama told ASU graduates in his commencement speech to not live on credit.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35682.

Comments (28)

Outrageous? absolutely.<br ... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

Outrageous? absolutely.
Surprising? not at all...
For those who said "well at least it's not Bush" are you re-thinking your stance on any of this? Obama's spending make's George W. Bush look fiscally responsible by comparison!

His M.O. is transparent. H... (Below threshold)
timajin:

His M.O. is transparent. He brings this up because his position is that the massive debt he's put us into is W's fault. He had to spend to fix what W did. Now he's laying the ground work for the massive tax increase he HAS to impose to keep his spending programs going and pay off our creditors. I guarantee it! The big increase is coming and he knows it. He just needs to shift the blame so he can still come out smelling good.

I hope everyone that voted for a "blank screen" is happy. You got what you deserve. Now apologize to my kids!

Obama is a joke. But what ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Obama is a joke. But what he's doing to the country and the economy isn't.

It's all simply about this:... (Below threshold)

It's all simply about this:

"Most of what is driving us into debt is health care, so we have to drive down costs," he said.

don't have a crisis to exploit? create one

He really can't be this stu... (Below threshold)
Pretzel Logic:

He really can't be this stupid can he?

He really can't be this ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

He really can't be this stupid can he?
Yes he can.

Talk about the pot calling ... (Below threshold)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle...

Never mind.

It doesn't matter whether h... (Below threshold)
Dave:

It doesn't matter whether he makes sense or sounds hypocritical or schizophrenic. As long as he has a Congress that will do his bidding, he can force through anything that he wants, such as health care reform. I doubt that he really cares what he says anymore, as long as the people eat it up.
The stupid MSM will go ahead and fawn about how refreshing it is to have a fiscally responsible adult in the White House now.

He seriously said th... (Below threshold)
JG:


He seriously said this?? I don't believe it.

The audience would have had to crack up on that one!

Theres a load to warn about... (Below threshold)
914:

Theres a load to warn about alright..And its the load of bullshit this idiot is ready to sell to get Him and his patsy friends rich off the taxpayers backs.

Unbelievable ignorance, or is it arrogance? Ah hell its both.

Wasn't there another Presid... (Below threshold)
jim:

Wasn't there another President before Obama? Someone who squandered a surplus, cut revenue while increasing spending, forbade bargaining for Medicare pharmaceuticals, and then did nothing while the economy imploded?

What was his name again?

President for 8 years? Help me out here.

Thank you Jim! It just tick... (Below threshold)
Jani:

Thank you Jim! It just tickles me how ppl love to shift the blame onto Obama when the previous holder to that seat had ALREADY driven us into debt years ago! I'm not an Obama fan but I can't believe some ppl have the "gall" as someone in a prior post stated, to say that it's ALL Obama's fault that the US in in debt. Oh! So the "lil' oil loving, I drove a multi-million dollar company to the ground before I became president" Texan wasn't at fault for starting the mess in the first place?? I can just imagine what our ancestors would thing if they could see us now. The old school bartering system way is starting to look good right about now.

Jim and Jani:It's ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Jim and Jani:

It's interesting to see how many people don't know how the US government works.

You see, The President isn't the one who controls the purse strings. You have to look to an organization called "Congress" for that sort of thing. For the first six years of George Bush's tenure, you can blame the Republicans (who spent a lot more money than they should, but who also had the post-9/11 market issues to deal with).

After the elections of 2006, the Democrats got control of Congress starting in early 2007. Remember the "first hundred hours" which then became "100 work hours," which became "100 days," then weeks (and apparently years)? Remember how they started spending massive amounts of money on all sorts of silly projects, and were only holding back because they couldn't push George into signing everything in sight?

You don't remember that, do you?

Well, that huge "Republican spending spree" (which was mostly spent during the last two years by Democrats) just kicked into second gear.

And no, you can't blame Bush for the incredible increase in spending of the last couple of months. What really happened with the Porkulus is that the Democrats (and many Republicans, to be fair) just pulled out every bill that got kicked to the curb over the last six years and tossed them into the "Stimulus" bucket. Now, they're having to make up new things to spend money on, so it's taking them longer - and people are starting to notice just how insanely much more they're spending.

It's like having a tab at a bar. "George, you spent nearly $50 with your GOP buddies until your Democrat friends took over. In the last two hours, they spent another $100. And now that Obama's here, they added another $600 in the last ten minutes, they're not slowing down, and they're trying to explain how it's your fault that your credit card just went over the limit..."

Cirby -LOL on your... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Cirby -

LOL on your bar tab explanation. That's about the best I've seen on it.

It IS amazing how there's people trying to justify Obama's excesses by pointing at what Bush did, ignoring the circumstances. What's sad, however, is that they either believe it - in which case they're both stupid AND unwilling to look at reality - or they're convinced OTHER people are stupid enough to accept THEIR version as what's true and accurate.

Either way, folks like 'jim' and 'jani' (wonder if they're from the same IP?) can't see beyond their scripts.

"We can't keep on ... (Below threshold)
kevino:
"We can't keep on just borrowing from China," Obama said.

Correct: because the Chinese have suspended our credit card. Hell of a job, Barry.

Wasn't there another Pre... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Wasn't there another President before Obama? Someone who squandered a surplus, cut revenue while increasing spending, forbade bargaining for Medicare pharmaceuticals, and then did nothing while the economy imploded?

The economy did not implode until Democrats took control of it.

It is amusing to see lefties assert that the solution for huge deficits is to quadruple them.

Obama Warns of Debt Load... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Obama Warns of Debt Load

drjohn warns of BS load

President Obama or his succ... (Below threshold)
James H:

President Obama or his successor must dramatically raise taxes if this country is to remain solvent. I would advocate lower spending, but I don't think that is realistic politically. Members of Congress start squirming when somebody proposes shaving even the tiniest amount of money from their pet programs.

Point the knife at agricultural subsidies and the Midwest squawks. Trim spending on the F-22, and congressman from the 40 states that build the F-22 pitch a fit. And so forth.

Ideally, we would have a Congress in which those in favor of lower taxes and those in favor of increased spending would reach a compromise that involves low taxes -- but not as low as one side would want -- and increased spending -- but not at a level the other side wants. It seems to me that too often in the last several years, the "compromise" has consisted of unwisely increased spending and unwisely lowered taxes.

It's interesting to see ... (Below threshold)
jim:

It's interesting to see how many people don't know how the US government works.

Oh, INDEED! Ha haha ha...

You see, The President isn't the one who controls the purse strings.

OK. Playing along with your theory then - that means Obama can't be to blame either, right? Ha hahahaha!

But your theory is factually wrong - which is what really amuses me about your statement of **other people** not knowing how the government works.

Two interesting facts for you:

1. The President submits the initial budget request. So it reflects HIS priorities
3. Most importantly, the President has VETO POWER over the budget.

Which Bush never used ONCE.

Therefore he owns the budget. If he didnt' want it, he could have vetoed it and sent it back. That's like eating a full meal but blaming the chef for making you fat.

And you may recall a certain President from 2000-2008 who proposed huge budgets, demanded and got no-bid contracts - seriously, what's wrong with bidding?? - AND actually forced his employees to LIE TO CONGRESS about the cost of his Medicare bill - which also, by the way, eliminated government power to lower costs by bargaining with pharmaceutical companies.

Oh, and then set the economy up for a fall, had the entire SEC chill out on enforcement and investigation, and basically fiddled while the economy imploded.

Good times.

You have to look to an organization called "Congress" for that sort of thing. For the first six years of George Bush's tenure, you can blame the Republicans (who spent a lot more money than they should, but who also had the post-9/11 market issues to deal with).

After the elections of 2006, the Democrats got control of Congress starting in early 2007. Remember the "first hundred hours" which then became "100 work hours," which became "100 days," then weeks (and apparently years)? Remember how they started spending massive amounts of money on all sorts of silly projects, and were only holding back because they couldn't push George into signing everything in sight?

You don't remember that, do you?

Well, that huge "Republican spending spree" (which was mostly spent during the last two years by Democrats) just kicked into second gear.

And no, you can't blame Bush for the incredible increase in spending of the last couple of months. What really happened with the Porkulus is that the Democrats (and many Republicans, to be fair) just pulled out every bill that got kicked to the curb over the last six years and tossed them into the "Stimulus" bucket. Now, they're having to make up new things to spend money on, so it's taking them longer - and people are starting to notice just how insanely much more they're spending.

It's like having a tab at a bar. "George, you spent nearly $50 with your GOP buddies until your Democrat friends took over. In the last two hours, they spent another $100. And now that Obama's here, they added another $600 in the last ten minutes, they're not slowing down, and they're trying to explain how it's your fault that your credit card just went over the limit..."

It is amusing to see lef... (Below threshold)
jim:

It is amusing to see lefties assert that the solution for huge deficits is to quadruple them.

Here's the deal, as I see it:

1. It's not good to go into debt. But sometimes you have to, if the alternative is a Great Depression collapse.

2. The problem isn't just going into debt - it's what you spend the money on. The Bush administration went into debt in a lot of ways that put little to no money back into the real economy - the pockets of the poor and middle class.

Think of it this way - the head of a family can go $100k into debt sending his kids to college, or he can go $100k into debt gambling in Las Vegas. Are both debts equally smart and productive, and likely to bring rewards to the future?

"demanded and got no-bid... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

"demanded and got no-bid contracts - seriously, what's wrong with bidding??"

You do know that Obama has already awarded a no-bid contract?

You do know that 87% of Halliburton contracts were Congressionally approved?

You realize that if Bush was wrong Obama is four times wronger? >sarc

So Jim, because Bush sent u... (Below threshold)
bnorm:

So Jim, because Bush sent us 100 feet into a debt hole, it's OK for Obama to dig the hole 400 feet deeper?
See where your logic leads?

Obama is limiting no-bid co... (Below threshold)
jim:

Obama is limiting no-bid contracts, which is something Bush never did.

Read here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/05/obama_promises_to_limit_no_bid_contracts/

So your argument of "Obama approved one no-bid contract, therefore he's as bad as Bush" doesn't work, since Obama is seeking to limit the entire practice of no-bid contracts throughout government. In other words, this molehill of no-bids does not equal that mountain.

Many of these Bush-era no-bids we are still stuck with, because it's too late and/or difficult to switch to another supplier.

2. Did you get the metaphor I posted, of debt for good reasons vs. debt for bad reasons?

I'll expand the metaphor to include your '4 times' figure.

Let's say the head of a family can go $100k into debt sending his kids to college, or he can go $25k into debt gambling in Las Vegas and do *nothing* for college. Are both debts equally smart and productive, and likely to bring rewards to the future?

Do you see what I'm saying?

Bnorm, please note the meta... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bnorm, please note the metaphor I just posted for dr john also.

Sometimes debt is unavoidable. What's important is what you go into debt FOR.

Here's another take on the same metaphor:
A new $100,000 Ferrari? Not a good thing to go debt for. A $400,000 operation that could save your daughter's life? A good thing to go into debt for.

See what I mean?

LOL! @25. Anger managemen... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

LOL! @25. Anger management is a good thing.

OK WAIT A MINUTE EVERYONE!!... (Below threshold)
Missy:

OK WAIT A MINUTE EVERYONE!!! Our countries finanical problems started when REAGAN was elected in 1980. And how is that true? Because he cut taxes. If he would have kept the tax rates at where they were then all the freakin multimillonaires would of had to pay their FAIR share of taxes that could have kept the budget at least some what structured. Yeah ole Ronnie did a good thing! HA HA! We went from having few billion dollar deficeit when Reagan left office, to having an ELEVEN TRILLION dollar deficeit when Obama took the office. Now how in the world is this "financial crisis" his fault? I don't totally agree with what Obama is spending our countries money on, but it sure as heck beats spending it on bombing Iraq and then giving them money to rebuild it. How smart is that? The man, whether he's black or not (not sure what his color has to do with all this) hasn't been in office that long, give him a chance. We don't need credit from other countries (especially ones that put lead in our childrens toys), what needs to happen is a really big tax INCREASE for all of you that make over 250,000 a year. And if the Bushes' (both of them) would have done something about the outragous inflation, instead of letting the rich get richer by jacking the price on everything, I may have not said that. How about we make Exxon and Mobile Oil help us out, since they made so much profit while W. was in office. Hmm wanna argue a good point?!

Our hundred thousand year d... (Below threshold)
Data Don - Medford, NJ:

Our hundred thousand year debt....114,152.5 years to print $3.6 trillion.

If Obama's new plan is to remove $17 Billion from his $3.6 Trillion budget and you use time as an analogous comparison to help you understand what this means to the total reduction, the $17 billion would represent taking 538.9 years off a total of 114,152.5 years where 114,152.5 is how long it would take to print $3.6 trillion at a $1 a second or $31,536,000 a year!

If you make, or print, $1.00 a second it would only take 11.5 days to collect/print $1 million. Knowing this, you would think that it would not take 31,700 years to collect $1 Trillion! Ive done the math on this and found it incredibly amazing. Here is the math...

60 secs/$ a minute X 60 minutes an hour = 3600 secs/$ per hour
3600 secs/$ an hour X 24 hours = 86,400 secs/$ per day
86,400 secs/$ a day X 365 days a year = 31,536,000 secs/$ per year

$1,000,000 / 86,400 secs/$ a day = 11.57 days
$1,000,000,000 / 31,536,000/$ a year = 31.7 year
$1,000,000,000,000 / 31,536,000 secs/$ a year = 31,709 years

It is amazing when you put this in these terms that we can recognize and I think that you can help in educating the public on just what we are doing to ourselves. These figures put in these terms are very telling and informative. I hope that this will help you help the public get a arm around the figures in more relative terms.

The thing about Obama know recognizing that this is unsustainable should have everybody wondering and/or awakening. He is not a stupid person, far from it. So it took him until know to realize that he grew a budget that can't be handled? I think not. Was the rebellious Tea Party protesters that woke him up? I think not.

I will venture to say that he knows exactly what he is doing. Do I know what it is that he is up to...no. I would bet that it is something that I will not like and it will contain a large socialistic agenda! What I am saying is that he had a plan to derail our economy to fit into his plan to get his agenda. He will introduce a program that, with the current debt and economic disastrous situation that we now face because of his spending that he termed necessary and had to be done immediately, we cannot be without. It will be his plan and it will make him look as if he is saving or helping us get out of the problem that he could not help but create. Watch and see. He is the slickest of all. That is why i did not vote him. I was going to until I saw actions similar to this and knew that he is a salesman to the nth degree. He sells you something that you don't need but you swear that you do.

So Missy's argument, in sho... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

So Missy's argument, in short form:
If Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush had only continued to strangle our economy, Obama wouldn't be able to kill that which was already dead.
Oh, wait, in her version, Clinton did no wrong. All those cruise missles he launched didn't count... Hmmm.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy