In Debt Speech, Obama Quotes Reagan, Forgets to Quote Himself

In a speech about the debt deal negotiations tonight, President Obama warned that “we can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage” to Washington’s “political warfare" and proposed a deficit cutting plan consisting of both tax hikes and spending cuts. To bolster his position, he offered up the following quote from "a predecessor" of his:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment?  And I think I know your answer.”

Only after reading the entire quote did Obama reveal its original speaker: Republican President Ronald Reagan—the not-so-subtle implication being that Reagan, a Republican icon, would've been on Obama's side in the debt deal debate. 

But as long as we're digging through the history books, it's worth noting that Obama might not always have been on the side he's currently taking in the debt debate. Obama started tonight's speech by noting that another predecessor of his, President George W. Bush, is responsible for a substantial portion of the national debt. This is true. And what did Obama, as Senator, say when Bush wanted to raise the debt limit? Here's ABC News with the relevant quote:

“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.”

Obama followed these remarks by voting against the hike. 

Eventually, the current federal debt limit will probably end up being raised; every budget proposal—even the Republican budget plan drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan—requires it. But as the debate over how to do so proceeds, it's worth remembering that the president, despite tonight's warnings, is no stranger to debt limit-driven "political warfare," and, in previous skirmishes, has voluntarily fired a shot or two himself. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share,"

    Well now that would be the 50% of the population that are not paying any federal income taxes. Since they are getting the same government services that the rest of us are - and even more since a bunch of them get some sort of handout that the rest of us aren't - that means they aren't paying their "fair share" and should start coughing up the dough.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Their fair share" = "GodfuckingDAMMIT, those rich bastards should be stripped down to their next-to-the-last penny!"

  • ||

    He wants to send us back to that economic hellhole we call "The Clinton Administration".

  • Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates||

    You're welcome!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    No he doesn't.

    He wants the government to keep spending a lot more money than it did during the Clinton administration.

  • ||

    No lie, that. In constant 2010 dollars, we spent $2.54 trillion dollars. In 2010, we actually spent $3.46 trillion, and have upped the ante by about $400 billion for 2011. Also, annual spending increases were only an average of 3.7%, whereas now we increase by 10% a year.

    If Dems really understood what happened in the 1990s, they'd shut up about Clinton and the budgets.

  • ||

    That would be excellent considering government spending was about half what it is now!

  • ||

    I'm not sure you should be too worried about that.

    The rich will be fine. Don't worry.

  • ||

    Don't forget that those #$%^@& rich bastards as u called them are the ones that generate jobs, if their business go under the unemployment rates will sky rocket, even more

  • L13||

    Absolutely Mr. President. I agree! The folks who pay nothing in, have never paid anything in, but still get military defense, police, fire, roads, schooling and particularly social programs should start paying something!

  • JoJo Zeke||

    “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.”

    Obama followed these remarks by voting against the hike.

    It's different when you're the Jug-Eared Jesus, though.

  • rather||

  • ||

    Not with Tonie's "dick".

  • Tony||

    Obama followed these remarks by voting against the hike.

    Zing! Good thing reason writers' jobs aren't affected by market conditions.

    The president's a hypocrite, that means what about the current situation? Where's the editorial discussing the correct pragmatic thing to do? Have to make room for another petty snipe worthy of Matt Drudge?

  • ||

    Where's the editorial discussing the correct pragmatic thing to do?

    Here you go.

    Assuming, that is, you were asking an honest question rather than making a petty snipe of your own.

  • Nipplemancer ||

    When has the Tony Collective ever argued in good faith?

  • ||

    How can a sockpuppet argue in any faith?

  • Nipplemancer ||

    Arguing in bad faith doesn't count?

    If it weren't for the fact that SF never posts after work, I'd swear he was the one behind it. Or it's an intern which would explain the subtle changes over the years.

  • ||

    NutraSweet doesn't have the time to run the Tony sockpuppet; I can't even imagine who does. Besides, these bad-faith leftist sockpuppets aren't his style.

  • Nipplemancer ||

    Whoever it is, it's still better than the passive-aggressive stalker anonpussy.

  • ||

    If the puppeteer spends all of this time arguing as a braindead liberal, wouldn't it follow that the author is in fact a braindead liberal? I mean we're talking about someone who spends hours every day arguing and arguing, and for what? Just to raise the cackles of his ideological fellow travelers. Seems odd.

    I just don't understand the motivation for someone to puppet to the extent that we see. If Tony isn't real, and if his creator doesn't share his politics then the puppetry would almost have to be pathological.

    I think that Episiarch has some direct knowledge of the situation, but isn't sharing because he's protecting someone.

    Who are you protecting, Episiarch? And, why?

  • ||

    I agree, cap, that spending that much time sockpuppeting seems insane, but we've seen plenty of examples of dedicated sockpuppetry, from the excellent Neil to the execrable Tony/Chad. Some people get off on pushing people's buttons and getting them to argue the same shit endlessly.

    If I were protecting someone, cap, believe me, the last thing I would do would be to bring attention to the sockpuppet aspects.

  • ||

    It's just all so weird. These are scary people we're dealing with. If sockpuppeting is so important in their online lives then how do they translate this aspect into their meatspace experiences? How does one sockpuppet in interactions with those in the outside world?

    I'd say the sick fucker uses some combination of rape, murder, and general villainy to achieve its twisted goal of real-life sockpuppetry.

  • ||

    Or would it be? *cue dramatic music*

  • Apogee||

    I mean we're talking about someone who spends hours every day arguing and arguing, and for what?

    I've asked that before.

    It's too literate to be the complete moron that can't learn from the discussion.

    It smells to me like somebody that is paid to spew the talking points. Unfortunately, I find that more believable than someone who actually buys that shit.

  • ||

    I mean we're talking about someone who spends hours every day arguing and arguing, and for what?

    You're assuming it's one person. My theory is that Tony was real at one time and has long since left, and there are several people left over from his heyday who post as him every once in a while to make jokes, creating the illusion of a single frequent commenter.

  • ||

    A sort of "Dread Pirate Tony"?

  • ||

    Nope, not glib enough to be SF.

  • rather||

    ....sick fucker uses some combination of rape, murder, and general villainy

    I can't imagine how crazy you get when you read a comic book

  • Geppetto||

    spending that much time sockpuppeting seems insane

    But spending this much time talking about it is perfectly rational. Anti-trollers dedicate the same amount of time engaging trolls (and admonishing others not to) that trolls spend in baiting and arguing with their playthings.

  • ||

    I'm for the hired "talking points" gun since I have little time to interact on this board - job and life.

    But this begs the question - why would anyone bother a bunch of Libertarians? We're (if I can include myself in this bunch) politically weak! Of no consequence!

  • rather||

    but you're toys to be played with

  • sevo||

    "When has the Tony Collective ever argued in good faith?"

    In my experience, shithead has never done so.

  • Tony||

    I mean with regard to the debt limit. At best reason is washing its hands of the issue. This article's point was that Obama is a hypocrite. It did not express an opinion on what the correct policy is. What is the added value? Were you guys unaware of Obama's moral imperfection?

  • ||

    Everyone knows what we have to do: charge the Am Ex bill to the Visa card. And then pretend like we have averted crisis and have maintained the AAA rating bestowed by agencies that have proven beyond all doubt that they're incompetent.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Paul Krugman claims the ratings agencies are too strict on government debt. I guess he thinks the federal government should be AAAA+++ or something, like an eBay review.

  • sevo||

    Tony|7.25.11 @ 10:12PM|#
    "At best reason is washing its hands of the issue."

    Question:
    "When has the Tony Collective ever argued in good faith?"
    In my experience, shithead has never done so. And it continues.
    Duck and weave, shithead; it's quite amusing.

  • Joe M||

    Weaksauce. The correct policy has been expressed elsewhere, plenty of times, on this very site.

  • ||

    This article's point was that Obama is a hypocrite.

    I wonder what Reason's position was back when Obama didn't want to raise the debt limit.

    100$ says it had the same position that it has now:

    Don't raise it and cut spending.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, you're just gonna give Obama a pass, Tony?

    I am amaze.

  • Tony||

    No, but I'm sure as hell not gonna make his crime on equal par with the Republicans thinking they can threaten mass harm to the world economy for petty ideological reasons. Shame on Obama! Shame!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Liars are liars, Tony. We should stop trusting them.

    No matter which capital letter appears in parentheses after their names.

  • Tony||

    Unless it's an R.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Your Team is riddled with liars, Tony. I don't see any reason to trust them, either.

    You're under the impression that I regularly vote for Republicans. I can count on one hand the amount of those rat bastards I've wasted votes on in the last few election cycles, and still have a middle finger left to hoist at both Teams.

    Whereas, you, OTOH...

  • Tony||

    The single biggest immediate threat to this country is Republicans. The only thing standing in their way is Democrats. I'm a pragmatist, I do what's necessary. Nobody in this country has the luxury of pretending to be above it all and wallow around in utopian ideologies.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Talk about utopian ideologies... pot, kettle, Tony.

    You're half-way there, though. You're right, Rs are half the threat.

  • stonewyrm||

    If this is such a crises, why not raise the limit for 6 months? Why not agree to any of the plans that the house has passed? If this is the end of days, wouldn't you do ANYTHING to prevent it?

  • ||

    At what point did it become "utopian" to suggest that government spend within its means?

  • Paul||

    I am amaze.

    And I am disappoint.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I was sarcast.

  • ||

    Me lol

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The president's a hypocrite, that means what about the current situation?


    That we have a clumsy demagogue as president?

    Where's the editorial discussing the correct pragmatic thing to do?


    "Pragmatic"? How about the economically sound thing to do?

  • Tony||

    The economically sound choice is perfectly clear. Unless by sound you mean high interest rates and the buying power of millions reduced, often to zero.

    So you guys no longer care about the uncertainty bogeyman why? New week?

  • ||

    Hey, we're working on that purchasing power thing. Give it time.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The economically sound choice is perfectly clear. Unless by sound you mean high interest rates and the buying power of millions reduced, often to zero.


    Not raising the debt ceiling does NOT lead to that. You're just repeating terms you clearly do not understand.

    What lowers the purchasing power of money is already happening: It's called "debasement of the currency." The interest rate is ALREADY high, except not in the Fed's "cost of money" terms but in the scarcity of credit. THE PRICE OF SOMETHING WILL ALWAYS LET ITSELF KNOW, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

    So you're already too late with your doom and gloom "prediction."

    So you guys no longer care about the uncertainty bogeyman why? New week?


    The only certain thing with this government is that one cannot know with certainty just how screwed we will be after Congress or King Obama The Handsome decide to "do something."

  • Tony||

    OM you're sitting here trying to argue that interest rates are high, when it is patently obvious that they are very low. This is why you people and your colleagues in the GOP are unfit to govern--you think facts are things you can invent to suit your purposes.

    Seriously--the entire purpose behind your theories about low taxes and regulations is to increase certainty and confidence. Now you're advocating for the single biggest self-inflicted measure of uncertainty possible, for no good reason.

  • "you people"||

  • ||

    Massive reading fail. You know what, godammit? Mikey, is this you, you little SOB?

    *I have a "friend" who argues just like Toni, he constantly "misunderstands" or "overlooks" part of your argument. I wouldn't put it past him to have followed me here long ago, and to have been merrily trolling away ever since.*

  • ||

    The above comment is also evidence that Toni could very well not be a sockpuppet. There actually ARE actual people just like him.

  • ||

    my bad...redundancy is redundant...

  • sevo||

    Tony|7.25.11 @ 10:20PM|#
    "...So you guys no longer care about the uncertainty bogeyman why? New week?"

    Question:
    "When has the Tony Collective ever argued in good faith?"
    In my experience, shithead has never done so. And it continues.
    Duck and weave, shithead; it's quite amusing.

  • ||

    Dishing out social security and medicare checks to the richest generation in American history at the expense of working tax payers is the perfectly clear sound economic choice?

  • Tony||

    What universe do you live in?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I guess the Baby Boomers are about to find out pretty damn quick why they were fools to not save their money like their parents did.

  • Tony||

    Millions of baby boomers not able to afford retirement and we'll just see how convincing the never-tax-the-rich philosophy is.

  • ||

    Maybe they should have thought about that while voting for the same fuckwads that used ss to pay for everything under the sun.

    Oh and they are the richest generation in the history of the country so why exactly should I worry about their retirement?

  • Shorter Tony||

    "Damn, this is one tasty man-knob, though -- !!!"

  • Old Mexican||

    "Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer."


    Yeah, I know the answer: You don't present a false dichotomy as a valid argument.

    By the way, you don't reduce interest rates by robbing people. That only shows you that Reagan is simply not a quotable person.

  • Rich||

    Good call, OM.

    I yell "False dichotomy!" at the TV a lot these days. 8-(

  • ||

    My go-to is "DUPLICITOUS MOTHERFUCKERS!", but I like yours. I could get away with screaming it in more venues.

  • ||

    "or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment?"

    Obama has already accepted larger budget deficits, and higher unemployment.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Obama has already accepted larger budget deficits

    ... and is fighting like a wounded fucking badger for the unalloyed right to still more.

  • Jason||

    That has been the choice of American president since Hoover.

  • SIV||

    Eventually, the current federal debt limit will probably end up being raised; every budget proposal—even the Republican budget plan drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan—requires it.

    Boehner blocked a vote to prioritize spending if the debt ceiling isn't raised.That proposal could keep things running w/o an increase.

  • Tony||

    Why keep anything running? If they were concerned about government functioning they could pass a clean bill. This is a manufactured crisis.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Nancy Pelosi: "It is clear we must enter an era of austerity [...]"

    When even Team Blue's pop-eyed Queen of Batshit Cuh-RAAAAAAZY can finally see the gargantuan, blood-red writing on the nation's fiscal wall (But poor ol' Tony still can't/won't)...

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Evidently, poor, saintly ol' Granny Botox has been declared a non-person by the Online Obama Apologia Choir, now that she's managed to dodder her way off of the Team Blue reservation on this one matter.

    Cold, cold business, that.

  • ||

    Pretty sure Pelosi means "austerity for rich people who aren't union members or public employees".

  • Nipplemancer ||

    ^this

  • Tony||

    Because the same burden would be placed on either group under "austerity..."

  • JoJo Zeke||

    She must be a filthy teabagger, then, Tony. There's simply no other explanation possible.

    In the coloring book inside of your head.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Geithner: "We Write 80 Million Checks A Month"

    Tragically, insofar as the Obamas and the Tonys of the world are concerned: this doesn't even remotely qualify as a bug, but (rather) a-full-tilt-balls-out-"ON"-switch-for-the-OrgasmaTron feature.

  • ||

    Well at least you can tell that it's been manufactured. And right here in the Good Ol' U. S. of A.

    And they say all of our manufacturing jobs are being outsourced.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Sulky President Boy-King unilaterally rejected a bipartisan deal on the debt ceiling.

    Not all the whining and sniveling in the world on the parts of his increasingly desperate online apologists can, will or should change the bald and incontrovertible fact of this. Sorry.

  • Tony||

    5 Dem votes in the House equals bipartisan now?

  • Jeff||

    Sure, why not? Obamacare was "bipartisan" with zero Republican votes.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    It's different when you're the Jug-Eared Jesus, though.

  • ryback's cook||

    Technically, yes.

  • Tony||

    Technically a constitutional amendment debate within a week of a otherwise preventable economic meltdown is scary crazy.

  • JoJo Zeke||

  • Tony||

    Desperate GOP talking points, I'm so convinced.

    A simple debt limit increase bill--a bill to affirm the country will pay for what it has bought--would end the crisis immediately. He is perfectly willing to sign that bill. What is the GOP doing?

  • ||

    "A simple debt limit increase bill--a bill to affirm the country will pay for what it has bought..."

    Raising your debt limit does not mean you will pay your bills. Paying your bills means you will pay your bills. Raising your debt just means you will have more bills.

    Your points get worse every post.

  • Tony||

    Apparently you don't know what you're talking about AA. The spending was already passed by Congress. This is a legal technicality they have to pass in order to raise an arbitrary number that permits government to pay for what it has already bought. If the Republicans didn't want to spend so much money, they shouldn't have done so. No economic philosophy endorses not paying your bills. Does yours?

  • ||

    Under my economic philosophy, you don't get to perpetually increase debt to pay for everything you want. Under your's, its apparently OK to raise the debt if you can just keep taking other people's money to pay for it. This is a legal technicality to spend more money, not pay for what's already spent. You continuing to blame Red Team for all of this is getting obscene. Blue Team held both houses for, what, 4 years? And yet you take no credit and keep tossing the blame.

    Talk about shallow talking points: "its their fault! Never ours!

  • Tony||

    You are just confused about what the debt ceiling is AA. The obligations have already been made by Congress by legislation. You can't bitch about paying your tab after you've eaten the meal. The scary thing is a lot of congressmen might be as confused as you are.

    Of course I blame team red: why are you defending them? They are the ones blocking this technicality. If their policies were so great, why can't they bring them to a vote outside of a hostage situation?

  • ||

    I'm definitely not defending Red Team, and their policies are not great at all. I'm not a Republican, and their economic policies do not reflect most of what Libertarians support. Please stop confusing the two.

    Why can't you take equal blame? You seriously believe Blue Team has nothing to do with this? Come on.

    "The obligations have already been made by Congress by legislation. You can't bitch about paying your tab after you've eaten the meal."

    True, but you can stop eating so many meals, or less expensive meals. You can't just keep raising your debt because of your irresponsible spending. Taking out more debt does not pay for current debt. Its spending that is the problem. Of course you could just raise taxes whenever, but you can't do that perpetually either.

    Do you think its ever pragmatic to lower taxes, for everyone?(including the evil rich)

  • Tony||

    Why can't you take equal blame?

    Because that's just lazy thinking that tends to reward the worse actor. Fine, Dems share blame for the debt--about 20% of it. We'll leave aside what the money was spent on, because in this debt-centric universe wars based on lies are exactly equivalent to an attempt at healthcare reform.

    We are not increasing our spending limit, we are increasing a legislative quirk called the debt ceiling. To pay for things already appropriated for. I agree that (in normal times like the Bush years) Congress should pay for the things it buys. It should tax people to pay for wars, for example. But since they not only didn't see it necessary to do this, they caused the biggest recession since the great depression, which of course only contributed to the problem. Equal blame? Yeah, if you want to let Republicans off the hook. Sorry, not gonna happen.

    Yes it's good to lower taxes sometimes. Like in a recession. That's the Keynesian view. But Republicans, and you guys when you aren't watching what you're saying, want to pretend there's such a thing as half-Keynesianism. My issues with taxes aren't the issue--the dogmatists are on your side. If this horrible destructive debt is the biggest problem we face, yet you can't entertain raising taxes even now, then when will you ever?

  • some guy||

    "Fine, Dems share blame for the debt--about 20% of it."

    http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

    Dems ran up $5T in debt through 1994. Reps ran up $4T in debt from 1994 through 2006. Dems ran up over $5T in debt since then.

    So that's Dems > $9T. Reps ~ $4T.

    Where do you get 20% from?

  • some guy||

    "If this horrible destructive debt is the biggest problem we face, yet you can't entertain raising taxes even now, then when will you ever?"

    Tony, even you are aware that revenues have never exceeded 20% of GDP regardless of the tax code. "Raising" taxes will not increase revenue to the > 25% of GDP needed to cover current Federal spending. Spending MUST be cut by at least 20%. There is no alternative.

    You want to raise revenue, but you keep talking about raising taxes. Get your thoughts straight.

  • ||

    That's funny because in every other fucking argument you've ever gotten in you think it's okay to RAISE taxes during a recession.

    Asshole.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    obligations have already been made by Congress by legislation. You can't bitch about paying your tab after you've eaten the meal.

    And the Republicans have already offered, more than once, to raise the debt limit in exchange for equal cuts to current & future spending. Which part of this do you not understand?

  • Tony||

    They've moved the goalpost so many times nobody knows where it is anymore. Now they're requiring a constitutional amendment before agreeing to not destroying the economy. What about this says a reasonable approach to legislating to you?

  • MrDamage||

    If you make a budget without regard for your bank balance and your credit limit, you're going to wind up in trouble. Applying for an increase in the credit limit isn't the solution: A new budget that respects your credit limit is the solution. Your disrespect for the federal governments credit limit is symptomatic of the attitude which pervades both Republican and Democrat politics and which led directly to Americas financial woes.

  • MrDamage||

    If you make a budget without regard for your bank balance and your credit limit, you're going to wind up in trouble. Applying for an increase in the credit limit isn't the solution: A new budget that respects your credit limit is the solution. Your disrespect for the federal governments credit limit is symptomatic of the attitude which pervades both Republican and Democrat politics and which led directly to Americas financial woes.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    A simple debt limit increase bill--a bill to affirm the country will pay for what it has bought

    LOL at this bit of goon fiction. A debt limit increase just means that we'll use the national credit card to pay with debt for things we already couldn't afford to begin with. Debt, incidentally, that will end up costing US taxpayers more in the end thanks to the interest.

    You really are too stupid to understand compound functions, aren't you?

  • Tony||

    I agree, Republican's shouldn't have spent all that money the country didn't have. But since they did, why do they get to throw the country into default now that they no longer have the White House.

    This is an invented crisis from the bottom up. It's a totally arbitrary time to say the debt must be addressed now--still with near 10% unemployment!, and the risk of default is also totally the product of choices Republicans have made.

    We can save the debate over the role of government when we're in normal legislative mode. If they can't get their agenda passed outside of a hostage situation, then maybe it's not such a great deal.

  • some guy||

    What's the matter Tony? Can't you handle the thought that maybe the Republicans are starting to live up to all their "small government" talk? Are you afraid the Statists are losing their monopoly on power in this country?

  • ||

    I completely agree, Republicans definitely should not have spent all that money that the country didn't have. But that's no reason to go and spend more now that Democrats are calling the shots. Lets have this debate about all this new spending on health care and bailing out corporations in prosperous times, not when we don't have the money to pay the bills we do have. The fear mongering that hell will be let loose if they didn't spend all this money is ridiculous.

  • ||

    This logic makes no sense, Tony. Obama is the one holding up the deal by insisting on both higher taxes, and a "grand deal" that takes him safely past the next election. He could have a 6-month extension today, or a month ago, if he wanted it.

    And it is utterly illogical to argue that Bush spent too much money, but then to argue that Obama, who is spending 50% faster, needs to spend even more.

  • ||

    Last time I checked it was Obama and Timmah that began blasting the horn that we HAD to raise the debt ceiling or risk default. So the White House would be the ones manufacturing the crisis.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    No matter how shrilly or repeatedly you insist that any/all contradicting and/or correcting you are GOP, moppet... the sad, unvarnished fact remains, regardless: you'll never, ever be able to will it so, strain however you might.

    Cope. Deal.

  • ||

    What's scary is Elmer Gantry in the White House. Technically.

  • ||

    If the Sisters of Maine and the bicuriously named Lindsey makes it bipartisan then so does 5 house members.

    Goose, gander.

  • Mo||

    I wouldn't use Rubin as a reliable source of info for anything. Earlier that same day she said that the bombing in Oslo by Islamists is proof that we can't cut a red cent from the DoD budget. She then edited the post without noting that she edited the original.

  • Mo||

    Oops, fucked up. Mistook her post that linked to itself that was supposed to go to her Friday post as an edited version of her Friday post. Doesn't change that she doubled down on the assertion that the DoD budget can't be cut because of an act of domestic terrorism.

  • Tony||

    Jennifer Rubin on the Oslo attacks:

    "This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists."

  • rather||

  • Obama||

    That gal makes a shit load of sense is the reason why I've got bombings going on in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. Plan to vote for me again, hotstuff?

  • rather||

    Obama, I know you read my blog and know that I've never voted

  • rather||

  • JoJo Zeke||

    I've got bombings going on in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia.

    Little known "fun" fact: hapless third world brown people actually enjoy -- yes, and even appreciate, goddammit! -- being bombed into dozens upon dozens of bloody little bits, just so long as it's The HE Whom We've All Been Breathlessly Awaiting sanctioning the drones in question.

    I read it on the Daily Kos, so you know it's revealed truth.

  • ||

    Shouldn't every American who earns income pay something, that is, as long as an income taxation system exists?

    How can anyone say it is fair that millions of Americans get exempt from paying any sum of money? How can anyone say it is fair that taxpayers cut checks to millions of Americans who earn income?

  • Obama||

    I reject your unbalanced approach! Shared sacrifice! Millionaires and billionaires! Planes, trains, and automobiles!

  • shared sacrifice?||

    I'm so glad to hear you say that, boy. Lets make sure that before any American has to go without his Social Security check that all those retired federal workers and Congress people, whose retirement system is NOT part of Social Security, get to go without theirs first. Especially since they were the ones responsible for all this mess.

  • ||

    Whatever makes my life easier is fair. And having some of your money sure sounds like easy street. My friend Barak will help you find your checkbook.

  • alan||

    Sure, just be careful not to drop it.

  • juris imprudent||

    Oh, come, come - it is even better than that. Today's minimum wage worker may not have much federal income tax deducted from his wages, but the full bite of SocSec comes out of every dollar. All so upper and middle class old farts can collect 'what is rightfully theirs'.

    You wouldn't want those geezers monocles to fog up, would you?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Minimum wage workers get their share of FICA eliminated with the earned income credit; if they have at least one qualifying child, they receive negative tax credits in excess of their employer's share of the payroll tax as well.

  • The Ghost of Thomas Jefferson||

    You do remember, Mr. President, that I said other things as well, don't you?

    I'm quite certain you do.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Yeah - such as the one where Jefferson said that the policy of the American government is to leave it's citizens free - neither aiding them nor hindering them in their pursuits.

  • ||

    He quoted himself plenty. "Let me be clear", "There are those who say", "Now, this is what happened", and of course the trademark Obama "uh uh uh um".

  • ||

    I'm just a blue-collar caveman. This fancy oratory frightens and confuses me. My primitive brain can't handle things like debt limits and interest rates. But there is one thing I do know: I'm entitled to half your income.

  • alan||

    I laughed, but then I cried. Too true.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    I'm entitled to half your income.

    The official campaign slogan for Obama/Biden '12.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Only half?

    Give that duo a lame-duck administration, and they'd abuse the fuck out of the next four years.

  • some guy||

    Only if they had a friendly Congress to abet them.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Geez, you reasonoids and your quotes. Next thing you know, you'll be digging up ancient history like Barack not closing Guantanamo Bay, or signing an executive order permitting indefinite detention.

  • spencer||

    The way he talks in is speeches bugs the shit out of me. It's like he actually thinks, "If only I put it in small words they can understand they will agree with me. It's not that we have a fundamental disagreement on this major issue, it's that I need to talk to them like they're fucking morons so they will see how fucking moronic they are."

    Anyway, pisses me off. And that whole speech was full of shit and whiny.

  • ||

    Wouldn't you have contempt for the electorate if you were Barack Obama and the schmucks elected you president? Of course he thinks we're morons. We put him in the f**king *White House.*

  • Almanian||

    I didn't watch (can't listen to The One any more), and haven't read the article. But let me guess:

    1) The congresstards need to stop fighting and "get serious"
    2) Reagan was for the deficits before he was against them, so it's OK for me/us to drive the US FURTHER into debt.
    3) OMGPOCOLYPESAGEDDON!!! if "we don't do something™".
    4) I offer no specifics, some generalities, platitudes, blah blah blah congress/senate get serious or the world will end August 2 the end.

    How'd I do??

  • Joe M||

    Yes. Really, just remove #2 and the specific date in #4, and you've got basically every speech he will ever give.

  • ||

    I was working tonight and only caught bits and pieces, but from what I was you nailed it.

    Lots of talk about "America not being able to pay its bills!" Yes, because when I think of financially responsible people, I think of those that pay off their triple refinanced mortgage (that bought a flat screen and a vacation to Key West) with a credit card.

    Also, he mentioned a bunch of stuff that wouldn't be paid for if the ceiling wasn't raised, "military contracts, interest to our borrowers, blah, blah" then slipped in at the end "social security checks."

    I could hear the elderly gasp as they collectively clutched their emergency supply of cat food.

  • marlok||

    The cat food line had me in stiches, big l.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Pretty good. You left out the lying part, though.

  • Almanian||

    I forgot one thing: "Rethuglitards are TEH EVUL!!!"

  • Trespassers W||

    CORPORATE JETZ

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Of course he thinks we're morons. We put him in the f**king *White House.*

    Can't conceivably be ^THIS'd^ enough.

  • Joe M||

    Obama is an idiot. On Facebook, everyone is bitching about how he interrupted either Master Chef or The Bachelorette. Not a good way to win hearts and minds, even if his speech had been a shit.

  • Joe M||

    Hehe, worth a shit.

  • ||

    The lady I work with watches the Bachelorette, I was actually happy to see the president make a speech.

  • ||

    Because it kept you from experiencing those funny feelings when you see so many handsome men in the same place?

  • ||

    The more time that you spend staring into your magic notebook the more braincells you lose. It's like sniffing paint: it's fun at first but you'll end up a blathering madman.

    You've been especially incomprehensible of late.

  • ||

    It was funnier when he preempted Donald Trump's show to beat his chest about killing bin Laden. This time he was just an asshole.

  • ||

    Yawn. Politicians play politics, film at 11.
    When he made those comments in 2006, we were no where near the position we are in now.

  • Obama||

    Through our sound management after the Democratic take over of the Congress later that year, we got there in record time. Don't thank me, babycakes, just bend over.

  • rather||

    I see you're in charge of the pledge

  • Team Blue Shills & Sycophants||

    we were no where near the position we are in now.

    PRAISE HIM -- !!!

  • ||

    And when Reagan made the statement Obama is quoting it was a different universe almost. But that doesn't stop you from relying on it.

    I am sorry but "of course we were pieces of shit when we were in the minority" doesn't cut it.

  • what Obama shoulda done...||

  • rather||

    Is that a reasonoid fraternity pledge dance?

  • ||

    Why do I torture myself by still occasionally glancing at the BBC?

    Final paragraph

    If the debt ceiling is not raised, the US Treasury could run out of money to pay all of its bills - which could lead to interest rate rises, threaten the US economy and in turn the global recovery.

    The whole world will be threatened by not raising taxes in the US! Dogs and cats, etc.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    The whole world will be threatened by not raising taxes in the US!

    "Please... please: won't you think of the dear, sweet Greek children?"

  • ||

    They can always dance.

  • Barack Obama||

    Raising taxes! What? No, no... we need to increase revenues by making people who fly in private jets pay their fair share. Nobody said anything about taxes!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Shorter version - "Please don't shatter our globally shared illusion of free money."

  • Liam||

    This guy should do more research. Obama already addressed and answered this exact question in an interview.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Man spends four weeks in jail for failure to identify himself to authorities. At least it's not costing them anything to keep him locked up. Oh wait, yes it is.

    http://news.yahoo.com/mystery-.....53847.html

  • AlmightyJB||

    Wow. really? I don't think I could possibly have more distain for the media.

    Norway attacks focus attention on US right-wing extremists

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43.....-security/

  • Obama||

    So Bush made him do it?

  • NotSure||

    A politicians "fair" is not the same as my definition of fair, for a politician something is not fair if people with money do not hand over their money to poor people that vote for the same politician.

    My definition of fair is that you worked for it you earned it, you did nothing to earn it then it is unfair that you get paid for it.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    UH-oh:

    New polls confirm Obama's Democratic base crumbles

    Lincoln, evidently, was right. ;)

  • ||

    Comment of the morning so far

    Every time I listen to Obama (which I admit is not often; I cannot stand the man) I wonder how the American people ever came to elect this strange man.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....s-been.php

    Strange is a good way to put it.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    I wonder how the American people ever came to elect this strange man.

    Regrettably, more than a few hands hereabouts are anything but "clean" in that regard.

    (... and on a site called Reason, no less -- !!!)

  • ||

    They sold a brand. Voting for a Obama was a way for people to show they were not racist and not one of "those people". It was shallow stupidity and snobbery.

  • ||

    I can't really throw stones, as I voted for Barr just to show I wasn't prejudiced against facial hair.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    And that's an ABC/Wapo poll, too.

    Obama is trying to win back the center, but so far he's only willing to do so with talk. He seems to think that by stringing together the correct combination of magical words, he can still do whatever he wants AND get people to support him at the same time.

  • ||

    That is his only move. Even the Presidency doesn't have infinite political capital. The "national televised speech" is the big gun. If you go to it too much, it looses its effect. And that is Obama's only move. He goes on TV more than any President in history. People have just tuned him out.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "He goes on TV more than any President in history"

    But he sure doesn't do the same for press conferences where people get to ask him questions.

    He only likes a monologue where he can't be called on any of his bullshit.

  • The Ghost of Helen Thomas||

    Mr. President, WTF?!

  • ||

    The problem is he doesn't have anything approaching a monopoly on the TV at this point in time. When Jimmy Carter wanted to talk to the American people about sweaters and rabbits and stuff, he could pretty much guarantee that his mug would be the only moving image on any TV in the country.

  • Eurocrackpot||

    BUSH MIGHT AS WELL HAVE PULLED THE TRIGGER.

    RON PAUL MIGHT AS WELL HAVE BLOWN UP THE NORWEIGAN CAPITAL.

    YOU PEOPLE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE RAPED AND PILLAGED YOUR WAY ACROSS CIVILIZATION.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    If you were really Steve Smith, you would have accused Ron Paul of "RAPING THE NORWEGIAN CAPITAL."

  • Eurocrackpot||

    Are you fucking kidding me? Steve Smith is a filthy Americunt and a capitalist!!11!1!!1111

    If you can find me a reputable, decent communist rapist, I'll be glad to emulate him!

  • Bill Clinton||

    "PRESENT!"

  • Eurocrackpot||

    That's a pretty badass anthem, actually

  • ||

    Think Obama will ever realize that he cant jsut throw a speech at everything and make it all good??

    www.web-privacy.au.tc

  • Invisible Finger||

    The only alt-text needed for most pictures of politicians is: WOULD YOU LOAN MONEY TO THIS MAN?

  • ||

    A simple debt limit increase bill--a bill to affirm the country will pay for what it has bought

    The only thing that has been "bought" has been votes.

  • ||

    Obama reminds me of the shipyard foreman in The Restaurant at the End of the Unverse:

    A junior Disaster Area accountant, visiting the shipyard where this ship was being constructed, had demanded to know of the works foreman why the hell they were fitting an extremely expensive teleport into a ship which only had one important journey to make, and that unmanned. The foreman had explained that the teleport was available at a ten per cent discount and the accountant had explained that this was immaterial; the foreman had explained that it was the finest, most powerful and sophisticated teleport that money could buy and the accountant had explained that the money did not wish to buy it; the foreman had explained that people would still need to enter and leave the ship and the accountant had explained that the ship sported a perfectly serviceable door; the foreman had explained that the accountant could go and boil his head and the accountant had explained to the foreman that the thing approaching him rapidly from his left was a knuckle sandwich. After the explanations had been concluded, work was discontinued on the teleport which subsequently passed unnoticed on the invoice as 'Sund. explns.' at five times the price."

  • ||

    Really? Quote from Reagan taken out of context! Can the economic era of the early '80's be compared to now? NO! Obama is a hypocrite and the country is surely not better off right now with the "change" that the naïve voted for. All I know is this, America, under Ronald Reagan's leadership, was a proud, properous nation that defeated the Soviet Union without a single shot fired. To hear this idiot try to use Reagan's "words" to advance his agenda is nauseating to say the least. Shame on him! Obama, I'm one American that truly hopes that you're the 21st century's Jimmy Carter! The economy, then, was almost as bad as it is now, and he was a "one termer". I hope the same for you! I'm already tired of your stagflation, high gas prices, high unemployment, debt ceiling raising, let's tax the shit out of the rich so we can give more money to the poor, bullshit socialist economic plan!!! Don't go away mad, just GO AWAY!!

  • tori burch||

    He just wants his votes!
    So regret about our dear president

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement