Wednesday, January 05, 2011
By Fred Lucas
Washington (CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration is warning of catastrophic consequences if Congress does not increase the debt ceiling, the legal limit on how much the federal government can borrow, but Barack Obama held a different view on the issue as a senator in 2006.
Five years ago, then-Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) voted against raising the debt ceiling and even spoke about it on the Senate floor before the Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to increase it.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” Obama said on March 16, 2006. “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.”
Fast-forward to January 2011: The White House is now stressing the need to increase the debt ceiling, currently $14.3 trillion, while Republicans in Congress believe a vote to raise the debt limit should be offset by significant debt-reduction spending cuts. The national debt stands at just under $13.9 trillion.
Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that not raising the debt limit would mean the United States is “essentially defaulting on our obligations, which is totally unprecedented in American history. The impact on the economy would be catastrophic.”
CNSNews.com reported last month that the 111th Congress, in the last two years with Obama as president, racked up more debt – $3.22 trillion — than the first 100 Congresses combined.
Nevertheless, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked about Obama’s 2006 speech, blamed former President George W. Bush’s policies for the fiscal problems facing the country.
“Based on the outcome of that vote, the country’s full faith and credit was not in doubt,” Gibbs said on Wednesday. “The president used it to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline.”
Not saying Democrats are totally at fault here…..Republicans with their porkulous spending + Congressional spending accounts added to the recession.
A review of the HOUSING MARKET COLLAPSE:
(video from 2008 but worth revisiting here)
When Regulators tried to put the brakes on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they were confronted this way:
EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration’s “BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” They forced banks to
The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
September 2, 2010
With the July 27, 2010 enactment of the FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4899/P.L. 111-201) Congress has approved a total of $1.121 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
Of this $1.121 trillion total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $751 billion (67%), OEF $336 billion (30%) and enhanced base security about $29 billion (3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1/2%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 5% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and 1% for medical care for veterans.
Since 9/11/01 to July 27, 2010 = 9 Years
***Did ALL of the ABOVE cause the Recession?****
A bit of info that is discerning:
December 26, 2009
Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell
Even though politicians already have flushed $400 billion down the rathole, the Obama Administration has announced that it will now give unlimited amounts of our money to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-created mortgage companies. While President Obama should be castigated for this decision, let’s not forget that this latest boondoggle is only possible because President Bush did not do the right thing and liquidate Fannie and Freddie when they collapsed last year. And, to add insult to injury, Obama’s pay czar played Santa Claus and announced that that a dozen top “executives” could divvy up $42 million of bonuses financed by you and me. Not a bad deal for a group of people that more properly should be classified as government bureaucrats. Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post about the Administration’s latest punch in the gut for taxpayers:
The Obama administration pledged Thursday to provide unlimited financial assistance to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an eleventh-hour move that allows the government to exceed the current $400 billion cap on emergency aid without seeking permission from a bailout-weary Congress. The Christmas Eve announcement by the Treasury Department means that it can continue to run the companies, which were seized last year, as arms of the government for the rest of President Obama’s current term. But even as the administration was making this open-ended financial commitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disclosed that they had received approval from their federal regulator to pay $42 million in Wall Street-style compensation packages to 12 top executives for 2009. The compensation packages, including up to $6 million each to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s chief executives, come amid an ongoing public debate about lavish payments to executives at banks and other financial firms that have received taxpayer aid. But while many firms on Wall Street have repaid the assistance, there is no prospect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will do so.