obama on raising debt ceiling in 2006.

[I invented that]

In March 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., found the notion of raising the debt ceiling quite distasteful.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “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. … 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 and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

He did. It passed narrowly – by a vote of 52-48.


hmmm, he said leadership failure. that's odd, who knew obama was a seer.

[MatthewT]

him talking about leadership is like flafla talking about hot chicks

[I invented that]

On that particular vote in March 2006, 44 Democrats voted "nay," including 31 senators who are still in office. They are Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Max Baucus of Montana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Barbara Boxer of California, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Tom Carper of Delaware, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Patty Murray of Washington, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Harry Reid of Nevada, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Chuck Schumer of New York, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Ron Wyden of Oregon. In addition, three members of Obama's cabinet voted the same way: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

[I invented that]

Tom Carper of Delaware said

“We’re in a hole and we need to stop digging,” Carper said. “We’re running up bills that will be left for our children and grandchildren to pay. We simply cannot continue down this path."

[I invented that]

Ben Nelson of Nebraska said

Raising the debt ceiling allows Washington to continue to spend without cutting costs. Instead of forcing Washington to adopt a pay-as-you-go budget, this proposal encourages government to spend now without even a plan to pay for it later. If we raise the debt ceiling, the nation will just go deeper in debt. Washington will never get out of the hole if it doesn’t stop digging.

[I invented that]

n September 2007, 21 of the 42 "nay" votes on raising the debt ceiling again were Democrats, 17 of them are still in office. Those senators were Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Barbara Boxer of California, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tom Harkin of Iowa, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Jon Tester of Montana, and Jim Webb of Virginia. Incidentally, five senators did not vote on this measure, including then-presidential candidates Sam Brownback of Kansas, John McCain of Arizona, Joe Biden of Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois. Democrats like Chuck Schumer say these days that voting against raising the debt ceiling is "playing with fire,"

[racerx]

him talking about leadership is like flafla talking about hot chicks

dems never leaders, reps always leaders. we know that.
he was playing politics(lying) as a congressman, the same as the rep congress is now. i understand why they do it.
but us fools on a stern board don't benefit from playing politics, so why do it?

it's a bogus issue. but technically, its the conservative position to pay back past debts. voting against it accomplishes nothing.(other than possible political points)
it has nothing to do with future spending

[I invented that]

it just shows that both sides are feckless douche bags.

[shitcunt]

I find myself liking the old Obama. Too bad it was all bullshit.

[I invented that]

dems never leaders, reps always leaders. we know that.
he was playing politics(lying) as a congressman, the same as the rep congress is now. i understand why they do it.
but us fools on a stern board don't benefit from playing politics, so why do it?

it's a bogus issue. but technically, its the conservative position to pay back past debts. voting against it accomplishes nothing.(other than possible political points)
it has nothing to do with future spending

please explain how it has nothing to do with future spending

[racerx]

please explain how it has nothing to do with future spending

even if there was never another spending bill, i think it would need to be raised, to pay for things that were already agreed to be paid for(previous spending bills, most of which reps voted for)
i don't know how to explain
ask baucus or hatch

[I invented that]

even if there was never another spending bill, i think it would need to be raised, to pay for things that were already agreed to be paid for(previous spending bills, most of which reps voted for)
i don't know how to explain
ask baucus or hatch

the way i understand it is, the increased debt ceiling is all about the ability to spend more money. money that doesn't exist currently.

[MatthewT]

some democrats are leaders; obama is not. obama voted "present" more often than not, and prefers to hide behind women's skirts (clinton, rice, etc.). he's kind of known for "leading from behind", which is a nice way to say "coward"

[MatthewT]

even if there was never another spending bill, i think it would need to be raised, to pay for things that were already agreed to be paid for(previous spending bills, most of which reps voted for)
i don't know how to explain
ask baucus or hatch

correctimundo; the current unfunded liabilities approaches $90,000,000,000,000

i think that number is bigger than the current wealth of all the nations in the world, combined

[racerx]

the way i understand it is, the increased debt ceiling is all about the ability to spend more money. money that doesn't exist currently.

yea spend more money(that we don't have)... to pay for past spending bills.

[racerx]

some democrats are leaders; obama is not. obama voted "present" more often than not, and prefers to hide behind women's skirts (clinton, rice, etc.). he's kind of known for "leading from behind", which is a nice way to say "coward"

you are better than repeating talking points brah.
the generals disagree with you.

[I invented that]

even if there was never another spending bill, i think it would need to be raised, to pay for things that were already agreed to be paid for(previous spending bills, most of which reps voted for)
i don't know how to explain
ask baucus or hatch

unfunded liabilities are not necessarily spending bills that were voted on.

Unfunded liabilities are debt the U.S. government owes or will owe for federal employee pensions and benefits, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Corporations are required to state them on their balance sheets

[MatthewT]

you are better than repeating talking points brah.
the generals disagree with you.

who, mccaskill? that dopey patreus? as a military man, they're both dogshit. however, any general at any time in the US history would categorically and professionally assert that the president is acting appropriately. to do otherwise would be a violation of their oath of office (something obama has zero problems with)

[SiriusDawg]

to do otherwise would be a violation of their oath of office (something obama has zero problems with)

Let's delve into this!

Like what exactly?

[MatthewT]

the military is under civilian rule, and it's hierarchical; extremely so. yet the president is the commander-in-chief, whether he is in the military or not, so he outranks everyone in the military.

really not much to "delve" into; the oath is to protect the constitution and the country from enemies both foreign and domestic. unfortunately, nobody really defines what a domestic enemy to the constitution looks like.

well, i do, of course; it looks like a half-breed from kenya