Obama Says ‘We Don’t Have To Worry About It In The Short Term’ RE Debt (If My Doctor Said That About Cancer I’d Get A New Doctor)

So you’re diagnosed with cancer, and you’re kind of worried.  Particularly given that you’re doctor just said “We don’t have to worry about it short term” and letting you know he wasn’t going to treat you.

Now, we could literally ALSO be talking about Obama killing us with his damned ObamaCare.  Because that’s true, too.  But we’re talking about the debt that Obama could care less about that’s just as fatal for our country as cancer is for us:

Posted on September 18, 2012
Obama On Debt: “We Don’t Have To Worry About It Short Term”

President Obama addressed the debt and deficit, saying it is not a problem in the “short term,” during an appearance on CBS’s “Late Show” with host David Letterman. Obama also said he did not know what the national debt was when he took office.

When a concerned Letterman asked him about the debt, Obama laid the responsibility for the U.S. national debt and deficit on his predecessor former President George W. Bush.

“Well, here’s what happened. We had a surplus when Bill Clinton was president,” Obama said. “It was projected to continue to be a surplus. We decided to launch two wars on a credit card. We cut taxes twice without finding offsetting costs for it or ways to pay for it, a prescription drug plan and then we had a massive recession.”

“When I walked into office we had a trillion dollar deficit, debt had mounted and then we had to take a bunch of emergency measures, that cost money, saving the auto industry, making sure that the financial system got back on track,” Obama said.

“So now what we’ve got to do is we’ve got to pare down that deficit, get that debt under control and I think the only way we’ve ever been able to do that effectively is when you do it in a balanced way,” Obama explained.

When asked if he remember what the national debt was when he entered office, President Obama said “I don’t know what the number was precisely.” Obama told Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.”

“A lot of it we owe to ourselves. Because if you invest in a treasury bill or something like that then essentially you’re loaning the government money. In fact, the majority of it is held by folks who live here, but we don’t have to worry about it short term,” Obama said.

“Right now interest rates are low because people still consider the United States the safest and greatest country on earth, rightfully so, but it is a problem long term and even medium-term. And so we’re going to have to take care of this debt and deficit, but we’ve got to do it in a balanced way,” he added.

For the record, the national debt was $10.626 trillion the day Obama took office.  Bush increased it by $4 trillion during his entire 8-year presidency and Obama demonized him.  But by the time Obama looks at his calender on January 20, 2013 (hopefully his last day in the White House), he will have racked up more than $6 trillion in just four years.

Obama says, “When I walked into office we had a trillion dollar deficit.”  That’s actually a blatant lie.  When Obama walked into office Bush handed him a (still way too high unless you compare it to Obama) $400 billion budget deficit.  That $400 billion was the deficit that Bush left Obama for fiscal year 2009 if Obama hadn’t then loaded and larded it up with debt piled on top of debt.

Obama is blaming Bush for: 1) Obama’s $862 billion stimulus; 2) Obama’s $79 billion bailout for Government Motors and their union Democrats; 3) Obama’s $410 billion Omnibus bill; 4) Obama’s  $350 billion in TARP money that Obama voted for and that Bush left for him.  That’s how you turn Bush’s $400 billion into Obama’s whining about a trillion. 

In a way what Obama is trying to do with his deficit is what he’s trying to do in pretty much everything.  Obama spends $79 billion to bail out GM.  Obama takes credit for it as an evidence of his glorious Obamaness.  But who does Obama stick with the bill?  Bush.  That deal happened in March of 2009 and therefore is “Bush’s fault.”  Bush gets zero credit but gets stuck with the entire bill for Obama’s extravagence.

Our real debt isn’t the $16 trillion ($6 trillion of which accumulated under Obama’s watch); it’s $222 trillion PLUS because of all the unfunded costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

And of course that doesn’t count the massive debt of the states, such as California’s $500 billion unfunded pension debt, plus at least another $210 billion for Illinois’ unfunded pension debt, etc. etc.

The way we’re printing money, “the short term” is going to be really, REALLY short and that “long term” that Obama says is so far off is right around the corner.

Tags: , , ,

6 Responses to “Obama Says ‘We Don’t Have To Worry About It In The Short Term’ RE Debt (If My Doctor Said That About Cancer I’d Get A New Doctor)”

  1. Daniel McKay Says:

    I largely agree with what Obama said, I don’t on everything but this talk about the debt is coming at the wrong time.

    I think we need to be concerned about anemic growth and spreading eurozone messes and speed up growth through investment practices… then strangle the government.

    http://www.ideafart.com/2012/09/do-we-need-to-be-concerned-debt.html

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Daniel McKay,

    I think that people need to be concerned about liberal idiocy.

    Our real debt is not a paltry $16 trillion – which is STILL more than we could ever possibly hope to be able to repay.

    Our real debt is $222 trillion. And I want YOU to pay that because I sure as hell don’t want to.

    But even that isn’t our real debt. Our real debt is that now well over $222 trillion PLUS the debt of all the states like California (with unfunded liberal union pension funds of $500 billion) and Illinois (with unfunded liberal union pension funds of $210 billion) plus all the other states’ unsustainable and unpayable debt. You see, we’ve got a problem with “deadbeat states” that are flat-dead-BROKE and can’t pay for SQUAT because of dumbass liberals like YOU.

    The United States of America is necessarily going to collapse because there are just too damn many people like you who will not live up to your spending and say “let the children pay it next generation so I can have my Obama-money NOW.” We’re living in that period of the body of the chicken that doesn’t know that its head has been cut off yet.

    There is just no freaking END to the stupidity of you people who keep saying that we need more government stimulus money to make everything better. We’re following the destruction of Europe because of just that very stupidity.

    The big government beast is coming, and it is obvious why people will worship him and take his mark.

    I wrote a very amply documented article that demonstrated that “tax cuts INCREASE revenues; they have ALWAYS increased revenues.” If we want to stimulate growth, we need to immediately reduce our tax rates and allow people to be rewarded for their success rather than thinking government needs to punish people for daring to try to grow the economy.

    But that will not save us. BECAUSE WE NEED TO RADICALLY CUT OUR SPENDING AND RADICALLY REDUCE THE SIZE OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

    It is probably too late as it is. But if we don’t massively cut our spending now, we are utterly and completely doomed and the end won’t be 20 years away.

  3. Daniel McKay Says:

    First, I do not consider myself a liberal OR a “dumbass” and that is probably not the best way to get your point across if you wanted me to listen to any of that.

    But because I will try to see past your complete lack of courtesy, I will answer to your response.

    Yes the overall debt is more than 16 trillion IF you count entitlements that are set to kick in and are unfunded. This is a REAL problem, and I believe the article mentioned that. 222 Trillion is that amount including entitlements. This you need to worry about, not the 16 trillion (which is actually only 4 if you were to net what other countries owe the US.)

    We are not talking about the states, and if we were to include them, of course we would be talking about more. However, the states do not represent that debt and credit of the United States Federal government, and do not impact our credit worthiness whatsoever, our states are independent in their actions and are solely responsible for the debt they pile up.

    Stimulus comes in many forms, I advocated for increased small business loans, educational and research grants. These are PRIVATE in nature and do not involve the governments sticky hands.

    It is simple economics, if you can borrow at a low rate and earn a higher rate you are making positive cash flow… you can pay off the debt or lower the burden with either growth or return. I say, but you must have skimmed over it, that the problem is with the government and how to get them to stop reckless spending.

    I support spending where it makes economic sense, I consider myself a economic conservative, and only think spending should be done when it can be justified. I do not think people should get money or support from the government when they don’t need it, that is not the America I want to live in.

    I will read your article, top to bottom. Tax cuts stimulate growth, and I am all for that, you put me in a box that I don’t belong in. Under our current situation we should be talking about tax cuts for all and increased spending along with it. I know you probably agree with one of those prospects.

    Please don’t judge, and cool down the rhetoric and name calling. It just aint civil.

    Sincerely,
    A “dumbass” liberal more qualified to speak on the economy than you. Stick to divinity studies.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Daniel McKay,

    My first to your first, three things: 1) given that you want to expand the size and spending of government, you ARE a liberal – as I continue to document below. And if you’re too much of a dumbass to know what you are, it aint my fault; 2) I frankly don’t care if you are only capable of listening if I’m politically correct with you. That again is an incipient liberal mindset that I’ve got to be some Obama apologizing to the Muslim world in order to reach out to you; 3) and related to 2) I provided a number of FACTS in my response to you and if you’re NOT a dumbass you would interact with them rather than whining about name-calling as if it’s all your smart enough to comprehend.

    But what do you do? Other than saying the words “$222 trillion” and asserting that we don’t have to worry about states like California that are $500 billion in a hole they will never be able to crawl out of (I live here; we can’t even close a $15 billion gap let alone a $500 billion one) you kind of show that you ARE in fact a dumbass.

    Our healthcare system is going to go bankrupt. More and more doctors are refusing to accept Mediare or Medicaid patients because the government ALREADY CAN’T pay for these boondoggles. When even the New York Times admits that we’ve got a way-past serious problem. We have already MASSIVELY devalued the dollar in order to try to monetize our way out of debt that we can’t pay. Our states are going to go bankrupt one large city at a time which is already happening across California. We are borrowing more than forty cents out of every single dollar and we’re increasingly struggling JUST TO PAY THE INTEREST, which at $423 billion a year now with our artificially low rates is like doing a damn Obama stimulus every single year but paying it to other nations. And your “solution” is to keep whistling and hope the pile of money goes away. Oh, and massively devaluing the dollar and massively increasing the money supply by adding more zeros to the Fed computer.

    We’re at QE3 – which is really QE4 given that “Operation Twist” was basically QE3 – and it’s time to damn STOP. But people like you will NEVER stop until we implode under the weight of our own debt.

    What is happening now? Massive hidden inflation in the form of sky-high increases in gas and food prices. And a gigantic decrease in household wealth as the government massively taxes Americans without the people even realizing it.

    The best “stimulus” is allowing the people to keep their own money that they work to earn and risk to invest and start businesses. Anything else is invariably big government boondoggle that sucks the money out of the private sector in the belief that “experts” know better how to spend the people’s money than the people who earned it when history shows they no they DON’T.

    And AGAIN that’s symptomatic of your liberalism: free market capitalism is based on free people making sound decisions about their OWN lives and money and the economic system grows around that. It is NOT BASED ON YOUR STUPID GOVERNMENT STIMULUS. So you can lecture me about “simple economics” like you know diddly about it, but to quote Reagan:

    Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.

    Which is of course a nice way of saying they’re ignorant.

    And as an example of YOUR ignorance, you say:

    “Stimulus comes in many forms, I advocated for increased small business loans, educational and research grants. These are PRIVATE in nature and do not involve the governments sticky hands.”

    Well, whose sticky hands DO these loans come from? I feel the word “dumbass” coming to mind again. What is the source of all of these loans? What entity is deciding to make them??? IT’S THE GOVERNMENT, STUPID. And what government is doing is reditributing tax dollars from the wealth generators they they want to punish/exploit so they can give it to their politically-connected interests an overwhelming majority of the time. You want to give business a break? Lower the taxes. You want true private sector investment? Lower capital gains and allow private individuals to invest in the businesses and research fields THEY want to invest in. But whatever the hell you do, DON’T CALL THESE GOVERNMENT LOANS GOVERNMENT-FREE. Because you are a liar.

    You are NOT an economic conservative when your first idea is to increase government spending. You cited my “divinity studies” and it’s funny how you remind me of heretics: they fundamentally redefine Christianity in a way that utterly violates the teaching of Scripture and then they call themselves “Christians.” You’re doing the same damn thing with conservatism and calling yourself “an economic conservative.”

    For most of our nation’s history, we were a people who took care of our own. We didn’t need to depend on the federal government and we DIDN’T depend on the federal government. So again, while you call yourself a “economic conservative” you are clearly far more of a New Deal socialist masqurading as a “conservative.” I’ve got an article on how you people have HURT the poor you constantly profess to help. In that article I cite Burton Folsom’s New Deal or Raw Deal in which he states:

    Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function. Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands. Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups. It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

    The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity. James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

    Again, you lecture me on “SIMPLE economics” because that’s all you understand. In your words:

    “It is simple economics, if you can borrow at a low rate and earn a higher rate you are making positive cash flow… you can pay off the debt or lower the burden with either growth or return…”

    You blatantly fail to understand the COST of artificially manipulating interest rates the way we have. But a retiree at the time Bush handed over the office to Obama could buy a bond with a typical $300,000 nest egg and earn $1,500 a month in interest. Thanks to your “low rates” that retiree who HAD BEEN able to live off his or her interest just a few years ago – and then leave the principle for his/her children so the American dream of building a better future for your children could come true- can now only earn $200 a month in interest. There’s no WAY a person can live off that. The rest of that money – that $1,300 a month – was STOLEN from them by the government. Especially when gas and food prices have skyrocketed as a result of currency manipulation that GOT us to your “low rates.” Everybody who is living on a fixed income is SCREWED because all you and your pals have is “simple economics.”why

    Given that you call YOURSELF a dumbass liberal, I will assume that such is what you wish to be called.

    And, again, yes, my expertise is in divinity studies; but given your total ignorance of anything beyond “simple economics” while you imply that it’s YOUR field of competence, I must point out at least I HAVE an expertise in something.

    Why don’t you stick to posting on somebody else’s blog. Because I truly don’t enjoy wasting my time on the opinings of arrogant dumbasses who misrepresent themselves.

  5. Anonymous Says:

    anyone who voted for Obama is a dumbass in my book and I don’t give a rat’s ass what your social status is…..you are a dumbass if you voted for him!!! Jackass is also an appropriate word to use in this case.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    Well, these dumbass jackasses are the people who will vote to implode and end America, and the collapse is coming sooner rather than later.

    But I’m trying to get past the anger and put this election into the proper perspective, which is: “Okay, God. You said the world was going to end and its happening. Thanks for the head’s up!”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: