By His Own Definition Obama Is A Failed Leader
by Big Dog on Dec 12, 2009 at 15:37 Political
I was watching one of the shows on Fox last evening and a Democrat was gushing over Obama’s leadership and how wonderful he was as a leader but Barack Obama is not a leader. Obama could not lead a group of people out of a burning building. Sure, he has followers but more like the Pied Piper had followers. I imagine that people follow him but only out of morbid curiosity.
It does not matter what I think about Obama’s leadership (even though I have more leadership experience than he does) what matters is what Obama says about leadership and what he said is that he is not a leader or more accurately, he is a failed leader.
The Democrats are set to raise the debt ceiling to 14 TRILLION dollars. They say only raise it 1.8 trillion to make it sound better but they are raising it to 14 TRILLION. This is the Democrat party that voted as a group not to raise the debt ceiling when Bush asked for it. Obama was one of the Senators who voted against it and he gave an impassioned speech (he is good at speeches) on the floor in opposition to raising the debt ceiling:
“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.” The Hill
OK Obamabi, if Washington was shifting the burden of bad choices onto the backs of our children when the debt ceiling was being raised to a lower amount back then, what changes anything now that you are raising it higher?
If it was a debt problem back then why is it not a debt problem now? And the kicker is, Obama said that this was a failure of leadership which means that raising the debt ceiling now, to an even higher level, is a failure of leadership.
I know that B-HO is now running around saying that deficits are bad and we have to curb spending but he spent like there was no tomorrow and ran up huge deficits in 11 months. He has spent more than any other and we still have three years to go.
So let’s be clear, Obama has stated that raising the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership and he is raising the debt ceiling. Therefore, it is a failure of his leadership. Additionally, those Democrats who voted en masse not to raise the limit are going to vote to do it now. This is all coming from the people who brought you the collapse of our economy, the Democrats who were in control when it happened. The Democrats who promised the most transparent, honest, ethical, and open government (Pelosi made that promise) are the ones who crashed the economy and are hiding everything. The Democrats who told you America’s debt problem and raising the debt ceiling were the results of failed leadership are now the leaders raising the ceiling. They have failed us and Obama is a failed leader.
But it will be hard to convince Democrats of this. There is a woman named Deborah White who wrote a scathing post about the Republicans and spending and discussed how responsible Democrats were. Her post came when Republicans raised the debt ceiling to 9 Trillion so I wonder how she will handle this Democrat raise to 14? I am willing to bet that White will not change what she wrote even though Obama has broken all the records and exceeded the things she discussed as bad when Republicans did them.
Democrats like to point to the so called four straight years of surpluses in government revenue just prior to 2001. Of course there was no excess because of intergovernmental debt and because of the way they count but if I give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt on this and agree then I would have to be willing to admit that Republicans “balanced” the budget and created surplus. If there was a surplus then Newt Gingrich was responsible for it because Congress is responsible for the budget. Liberals credit it to Clinton but presidents do not have the authority to spend or money (or not spend it). Congress makes the budget, not the president.
So we went from being fiscally responsible and balanced when Gingrich did it to overspending after Gingrich was gone to a collapse once Democrats took over…
And we have gotten a man, who by his own admission, is a leadership failure.
I am willing to bet that some liberal will comment here and say it was Bush’s fault or different because Obama must save us all…
Related Items:
USA Today
Cleveland.com
Osmoothie
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: debt ceiling, deficit, failed leadership, Obama
One thing we can always count on is that whatever bedevils Obama will always be someone else’s fault. He has no tolerance for criticism, and a gift for rhetorically shifting all odium onto others’ shoulders.
In fact, I think I begin to see the rationale behind his choices of Cabinet secretaries and “czars:” they’re extra bodies on the sled, that he can throw to the pursuing wolves as needed. No wonder they didn’t have to be competent, or decent, or patriotic Americans!
That is a great quote from Obama, great find! If this was an example of failed leadership back then it certainly is now as well. Funny how it is different with Democrats in charge.
[quote]“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.” –Obama
DAR
That is a good quote from Obama, and he was right.
Bigd then asks; “what changes anything now that you are raising it higher?”
A fair question that deserves an answer.
See… there’s good debt and there’s bad debt. At the individual level, bad debt would be racking up credit cards to go to Vegas, buying lotto tickets, purchasing that extra SUV you don’t need, blowing it on parties, etc.
Good individual debt would be for things like furthering your education, solid real estate, improving home or vehicle efficiency etc.
And it’s similar when a nation does it. Bush borrowed more foreign money than all previous presidents combined. His deficits largely went to support his immense shoveling of cash to the ultra rich. Remember, the top one fifth got 71% of the his tax cuts. Note:
“Enacted in 2001 and 2003, the Bush tax cuts are projected to cost about $2.1 trillion in lost revenue in the 10 years since they were first passed,… if you include the interest charges, this bumps the total cost of the tax cuts to about $2.48 trillion.”
Then there was the $800 billion medicare cash cow for big pharma (Kennedy had his hands all over that one). Then there was his multi-trillion dollar war adventure and complete kybosh in Iraq (Ossama tried to warn him). Even though he specifically said he wasn’t going to do that:
“If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I’m going
to prevent that.”
–Bush v Gore debate, October 3, 2000
This kiddies, is what we call “bad debt.”
This is “the burden of bad choices” being shifted “onto the backs of our children and grandchildren” Obama was talking about. And he was exactly right.
So, as I have laid out in detail before, with careful references, most of Obama’s debt is going to pay for Bush’s bad decisions. To clean up the mess. Some of Obama’s debt proposals, a very small portion of it, is “good debt” investment. This is because it goes for very good and necessary things. Good investments that pay back now and in the future. Necessary investments in infrastructure, education, vehicle and building efficiency, fixing the giant sucking chest wound that is American healthcare. Etc.
Hope this helps.
D.
————–
“Public debt in dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992, and remained at about the same level by the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] rising from 54% of GDP to 75% of GDP.” Link
And leaving us in an economic ditch, -6% negative GDP and bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. Nice.
Ha ha ha! What a good joke,
“(Bush’s tax) deficits largely went to support his immense shoveling of cash to the ultra rich. Remember, the top one fifth got 71% of the his tax cuts.”
You are a master of liberal weasel-word double-talk. As Mr. Miagi said in Karate Kid, “…Wax on, wax off!”
You are waxing off.
Shoveling cash = not stealing as much.
top one fifth = all the people who actually pay tax, rather than get refunds.
bleeding 700,000 jobs a month = 700,000 useless liberals fired from governement agencies, canned from the military or reduced from the workforce for poor performance per month.
That was a good start, now if you would just line the Anti-illigal alien fence with them and it would start to be a good country again. Darrel, git in line.
“Congress makes the budget, not the president.”
You can’t ignore the role the president has through the OMB to set the budget agenda. You also can’t forget the tax increase that was pushed by Clinton. Don’t forget the Executive Branch role in the Federal Reserve who’s policies were tied to the booming economy. The Clinton factors in the balanced budget are hard to nail down precisely but to say Gingrich (or Congress in general) had more of a role than Clinton means ignoring a lot of counter evidence.
No Darrel, you don’t get to play that game. No such thing as good debt. The Founders warned against running a deficit and not paying our bills.
You can make excuses for Obama but it is a failure of leadership and all the ass kissing on your part makes no difference.
You are wrong, Obama is a failure by his own standard. And, regardless of the good or bad debt (which is a fallacy) it still puts the burden on the backs of our children.
Washington has a failure of leadership and its name is Obama.
Try Darrel, but it is not going to work. Swallow for him if you want but it will not change things. You cannot lie or rationalize out of this.
Bigd: “No such thing as good debt.”>>
DAR
I used to believe that too, when I was a teenager and didn’t know about such things. I thought it best to always save up and pay cash (still do for lots of things). Then my uncle, who is a multi-millionare, taught me otherwise.
Anyone who doesn’t know the difference, or doesn’t know how to use debt wisely to increase their wealth, is sadly misinformed or just monetarily immature. I meet these folks all the time, being a landlord and all.
D.
D- you have to be a dyed in the wool liberal to say something as unambiguously ignorant as “good debt”- debt is NEVER good- we work all our lives (if we are responsible people, and not liberals who feel “entitled” to our money) WITH THE GOAL OF ELIMINATING DEBT- DEBT IS OUR ENEMY, IT KEEPS US POORER, AND HOLDS US BACK- and ANYONE who excuses debt, especially government debt, is sadly and wrongly mistaken.
It was bad when Bush did it, and it is not ANY better now that your mess-iah is gettin’ down inthe Oval office.
I could do a MUCH better job than he- that is how you can tell how bad he is- I am CERTAIN beyond a shadow of a doubt I could do better.
BLK: “omething as unambiguously ignorant as “good debt”- debt is NEVER good-“>>
DAR
Shirley, even in your blind hatred of all things true and rational, you money loving silly bunnies can think of some examples of “good debt.” I can think of lots.
I have a friend that with scholarships and jobs worked her way through law school. She still needed to borrow about $100k to finish. Now she is a very good lawyer and works at a top flight law firm in LA, starting wage: $160k. (She’s so good a scouting firm was paid $30k just to find her). She needed to borrow that money for school, for her education. Now she earns an excellent income.
This is an example of “good debt.”
Every home I have bought has been a good investment and was only possible with the help of “good debt.”
I like to carry about $10- $15k on interest free credit cards. Having that $15k sitting in my checking account (at 3.5% interest) earns me $45 per month, for doing nothing.
That’s good debt.
Etc.
Use your noggins for something other than a hat rack please.
D.
And don’t call me Shirley-
We have lost what, 7 million jobs under Obama. He has raised the debt 4 trillion in less than a year.
You can play the games but the Republicans gave you the good years when Clinton was president (Congress makes the budget so Newt is the one responsible).
When we have had bad times, Democrats have been in charge of Congress, the money spending branch of government. Check it out. It is in the Constitution.
Obama lost 7 million jobs, unemployment up to 10%, much higher than he said it would be if we passed the stimulus. He has screwed it up.
In January the unemployment numbers will go up again and inflation is heading this way. Then you will have an even harder time getting on your knees for Obama.
Bigd: Obama… has raised the debt 4 trillion in less than a year.>>
DAR
Why don’t you just say $10 trillion while you’re at it? Since your just pulling this from your bum you might as well make the lie even bigger. First of all, the current ’09 budget is still shared with Bush obviously.
Your rightwing Heritage friends quote the current CBO estimate as 1.85T for ’09.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Let’s see you defend your howler.
D.
Let’s see- the Omnibus spending Bill, which is 1.4 trillion dollars of money we do not have, the stimulus, which is all Nobumma’s- the Stim II, the Cash for Clunkers, (astupid program if there ever was one- sheer idiocy)- gee, I could go on, but it seems clear to everyone EXCEPT the Latte apologists, (who feel that we should cut Nobumma some slack, I guess under the mandate of affirmative action( he isn’t really qualified, you know-), just so he can feel better about his unqualified- ness)- what a crock-
This is his mess now, and he hasn’t even made an ATTEMPT to begin to fix it, instead ramming thru all kinds of trash bills that run up our debt and do NOTHING to solve the situation.
Sorry Adam, the Congress did it and Clinton took the credit. The budget was not balanced and there was no surplus, just an accounting gimmick that they were all involved in but if we are going to give credit then it must be to those who gave us the welfare reform and who cut the spending. Clinton just signed it.
He was in so much trouble he was going along to get along. I know you want to give him credit, and he gets some, but Republicans gave us that.
Now Democrats, who have been in charge since Jan 2007, they crashed the economy. You can’t blame it on Bush, Congress spent that money. Bush should have never signed it but Democrats like to add stuff to must pass bills, like they are doing now.
They are cowards and should be taken out and hanged.
Then I guess by your definition of fault the dot.com bubble bursting and the recession that followed is the fault of Republicans in Congress. The slow, jobless recovery that followed is the fault of the Republicans in Congress. The trillions added to nation debt between the recession and the end of the Republican control of Congress? You guessed it. It must be the fault of Republicans in Congress.
But then again you take a very sophomoric view of the economy when you lay blame like you’re doing. You’re pretending the economy “crashed” because Democrats spent too much money? You know better.
Anymore than you pretend it was Republicans spending too much money. I told you before why it tanked. Democrats just happened to be in charge when it did.
As for what you mentioned, some of it falls on Republicans in charge and some on Democrats in charge (policies sometimes take a while to have an effect) but the reality is that they are all to blame, a point I have made a number of times.
We need to get rid of all of them but right now all the blame is on the Dems because they have a big enough majority not to need Republicans. They only want Republican votes so they can have cover when the crap hits the fan.
The economy crashed for a number of reasons and the reality is Congress spent too much money, regardless of party.
Bigd: “(policies sometimes take a while to have an effect)”>>
DAR
Good point. And a good lag factor to keep in mind when considering Obama’s job creation record. It’ll be a while before we can really judge that, unless you want to be so unreasonable as to think he could turn around a 700k per month job bleed instantly. He’s good, real good, but he ain’t that good.
But lets look at some context. Let’s consider the record of your guy using your favorite rightwing methods. His report card has arrived. Enjoy.
***
Wall Street Journal
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record.
“…[Bush had] almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.
His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.
Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.
Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.”
See chart.
DAR
Bush pooped the bed real bad and it’s going to take quite a while to get it cleaned up. At the end of Obama’s eight years I think we will find he does far better than Bush in this category and others of course. But that’s not saying much considering it would be rather hard to do worse.
D.
————–
Notice in job creation Jimmy Carter comes in fourth.
We both know the recession was not the fault of the Democrats just because they controlled Congress but your blame depends on the topic.
You can pretend to be critical of both parties while blaming Democrats for everything. The good things in the 90’s when the Republicans barely had a majority? That’s all Republicans. The Democrats in Congress had nothing to do with it nor did President Clinton.
The bad stuff in this decade? Well, first of all 9/11 was all Clinton’s fault of course. Then the recession, that was Clinton as well, wasn’t it? The Republicans balanced the budget but Clinton ruined it all somehow. Then of course you say Democrats in Congress share the blame for that recession as well somehow.
Then comes Bush Recession Part 2. That’s 100% the fault of the Democrats even though it was only 1 year into the 110th Congress when the recession started in December 2007. Boy, those Democrats sure wrecked it all in a hurry, didn’t they? Or maybe it was Fanny and Freddie which the Democrats didn’t let Bush fix, because he was just so adamant about fixing it. The Democrats blocked Bush “at every turn.”
So then there’s Obama. The recession started a year before Obama took office? That means he’s at fault for the job losses. I mean, if he can’t end the recession and bring a full recovery in just 11 months in office then what is he even doing in charge? He’s a failure, obviously.
Wow- I don’t even know how to respond to a refusal to see the facts, true ignorance such as you are displaying- I guess I can either believe you are THAT dumb, or believe you are just an apologist for an incompetent president and administration.
Which should it be, Adam?
Darrel, your friend has personal debt that she is repaying. If she demanded or the government decided that the taxpayer should pay her debt then it would be a bad debt.
I have a house payment, good personal debt because I can afford my house. If I bought one I could not afford and then expected you to pay for it then it would be bad debt.
Government debt that uses money in a reckless fashion and expects the producers in this country to pay for it is bad. We should not spend beyond our means and we should not use the taxpayer as an ATM machine.
Government debt is not good. If we soend more than we have it is bad. If we continue to spend and expect taxpayers to pick up the bill then it is worse.
The government needs to be able to borrow and spend but it must not live beyond its means. Short term debt is one thing and, much like your pawyer, should be paid for based upon the means of the government, not by taking more and more from producers. We should not saddle future generations with debt. You want less war (and who does not):
“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1820. FE 10:175
Bigd, earlier: “No such thing as good debt.”
Bigd, now: “I have a house payment, good personal debt…”
DAR
Good to see you’ve come around.
Bigd: “Government debt is not good.”>>
DAR
Of course that’s false too. When a small town or city wants to raise money to build a library, a school or add a park, sometimes they go into debt don’t they? Usually this is too good effect. The idea that this would always be bad, is ridiculous.
I think putting down Hitler and his nazis was a good thing. That required massive debt on the US governments part. Again, a good and necessary thing. Good government debt.
In 1867 the US bought Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. I am not sure if the US had much debt or in effect borrowed that money at the time but if so, it certainly would be an excellent example of good government debt wouldn’t it? One boat load of oil out of there is worth more than that (depreciated dollars of course).
There are no end of examples. Perhaps you can think of some.
D.
——————
“…debt is “good” when the benefits of the expenditures outweigh the cost and obligation of carrying and servicing the debt.”
No debt is necessarily good, it is just a lesser of two evils. Pay as you go is best and if the town needs to raise money it should sell bonds or, if the people agree, have a tax increase.
The debt we have now is unsustainable and that in and of itself makes it bad.
We could inflate our way out but that will further collapse the economy.
You seem to miss the point. If I have debt I am responsible for then it is on me. If I expect you to pay for it and I keep running up the bill then it is bad.
Government keeps running up the bill and expects us to pay for it.
More oil from Alaska would be great. Why don’t you work on getting libs to let us drill for it.
Perhaps I should have said unsustainable debt but our Founders were clear that we should not push our burdens on our children. We have reached pushing it on our grandchildren. Bad no matter how you look at it.