I am not so sure that President Obama is not intentionally trying to bankrupt the United States of America. I know I am not supposed to say that out loud, but I am just looking at how the man behaves.
When a problem like our country’s debt is spiraling out of control – and economists and serious thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum warn against the coming calamity due to the debt -- and Obama shows absolutely no interest in trying to cut or even slow down the borrowing and spending, it does make me wonder what his motives are.
While a U.S. Senator in 2006, Obama voted no on raising the debt ceiling. Every Democratic senator did and it passed 52-48. Said Obama about the vote then: “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. … 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 cite that statement to prove that Obama does, in fact, know the seriousness of the debt problem our country faces. That was $6 trillion dollars ago. So if he knew the graveness of the situation then, yet when he gets elected president and can actually do something about the out-of-control spending, he doesn’t. Again, it makes you wonder why he would lead an action that, according to his own words, “weakens us domestically and internationally.”
Normally, one would assume that the president would care about this, but there has been no evidence in four years now to demonstrate that he does. The lone exception was the debt commission that he put together at the beginning of his first term and when they issued their report, Obama threw it in the trash. It was as if the commission was all for show and he never had any intention to implement their recommendations.
In a January 2011 editorial, even the liberal Washington Post editorialized with a headline that said this: “Mr. Obama has chosen not to lead on the deficit. Is there a plan B?” Near the end of the editorial, after giving two other possibilities why Obama has chosen not to do anything about debt, the WP writes this: “The third, and scariest, possibility is this: The White House may have decided that debt reduction is so tough it has to await what officials, speaking not for attribution, have termed a "forcing event" - a spike in interest rates, a reluctance by foreigners to buy U.S. debt or some other market disruption that would frighten Congress into action. What's disturbing about this idea is that such "forcing events" tend to take on lives of their own; once a panic starts, it's not easily controlled.”
Since Obama took office the national debt has gone from $10 trillion dollars to $16 trillion dollars. This is what I mean when I suggest he either does not care about the surging debt or – to take a more sinister view – he is actually trying to run up the debt. But to what end?
Another item that raises my suspicions about Obama’s intentions is the fact that his Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner now says we need to get rid of the “debt ceiling” altogether. The debt ceiling is the limit to the amount of money the federal government can borrow. Only the Congress can extend that amount. In other words, Obama’s number one financial guy says the president should be able to borrow an unlimited amount of money without congressional interference. Is this a sign of an administration that is in any way serious about reducing the size of government?
While my questions about Obama’s intentions are the things movies are made of, as I have said, I am only looking at the facts and his actions and inactions. Here you have a house smoldering and the owner does not even want to get out the garden hose? Does that make sense?
But as I have stated before, Republicans must shoulder some of the responsibility for the debt as well. But at least they want to do something about seriously cutting spending including entitlement reform, which is the big reason we continue to go into debt. Obama doesn’t even want to do that. And the American people, by a 51% to 49% advantage, affirmed Obama’s position of continued trillion dollar yearly deficits. Half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes so they don’t see themselves as having skin in the game. It is human nature – they are not paying in so what do they care?
In a few weeks we could have the Mother of All Show Downs when the debt ceiling vote comes up again. President Obama, before he left to go back to Hawaii for more golf, told Republicans he will not discuss with them the debt ceiling increase. In essence he told them: “You will borrow more money without any concessions of spending reductions on my part.”
And unless the Republicans want to “shut down the government” or “put America into default” they will do exactly as they have been told by Obama. The pressure on House members who threaten to vote no on borrowing more money to feed the federal government beast will be enormous.
It should be noted, as Senator Ted Cruz and others have pointed out, there is plenty of revenue for the federal government to service the debt at current levels. But to do that would mean that the government would then have to make priority choices about what other departments and programs get funded, albeit very painful choices, with the monies left over. In other words, the government does not have to default. A default means you have no way of paying a debt. That is not the case.
Again, all the above makes me wonder if this is an intentional effort to push us to the point of no return, if we are not there already. By “point of no return,” I mean the point at which a full blown economic collapse is inevitable. I don’t know that the looks like exactly, but I’m told by those who know something about economics it will look real, real ugly.