Debt Ceiling?

In 2006 then Senator Obama gave a very impassioned speech on why we should NOT raise the debt limit. A link to an article which quotes the entire speech is at the end if this post. Read the entire speech and see if Senator Obama can convince you that the debt ceiling should not be raised.

In the conclusion of the speech he said, “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 therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Now President Obama says that NOT raising the debt limit weakens us domestically and internationally. Was he right then, or now?

Now President Obama says, "This is not normal..." So, in 2006 when then Senator Obama said, “I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” was he being abnormal? How not normal is it? Congress fought with Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush over the debt limit. On numerous occasions over the years the treasury has had to go to extraordinary measures to keep from default, and keep funding programs. Is in normal?  You keep using that word, “normal”, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Now President Obama says, "...politics is a battle of ideas, but you advance those ideas through elections and legislation – not extortion." In 2006 was he attempting extortion?

I have heard, though I could not find a good quote on the matter, that President Obama now refers to his 2006 vote NOT to raise the debt ceiling as a “political” vote. (As an aside, is not every vote made by a “politician” a “political” vote?) I presume that by “political vote” he means that, he obviously knew that the debt ceiling had to be raised, and only because of the fact that the majority of the Senate was going to vote for it anyway was Senator Obama able to vote against it because it was going to pass without his vote, and, had there not been enough votes to pass it without Senator Obama's vote, he would have voted for it, knowing how important it is. At least that is what I think he means by that. Is that some twisted “political” logic?

Had he said something like, “I support the effort to increase the debt limit, but, knowing that it will pass anyway, I am going to vote against it as a political vote.” then it would be consistent with what he is saying now. But in 2006 he said, “I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” Not just “vote against rising the debt limit.” but, “oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

If I correctly understand what he means now by a “political” vote, then he, in fact, supported the effort to increase America's debt limit, he just voted against it. So, did he lie? Did he then oppose or support the effort to increase America's debt limit? Does he now oppose or support the effort to increase America's debt limit? Which is his true core belief?

If he lied in his 2006 speech because it was political, has he lied in other speeches because they are political?

Read more about it...

Read the entire speech along with some commentary here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/annotating-obamas-2006-speech-against-boosting-the-debt-limit/2013/01/14/aa8cf8c4-5e9b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.