Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama threatens America with harm – while pretending not to

Today from CBS:

Mr. Obama…called on Congress to extend the nation’s borrowing authority beyond the current $16.7 trillion limit. Republicans have asked for negotiations…Mr. Obama reiterated a promise to negotiate…only after the government is reopened and the debt ceiling increased.

“We’re not going to negotiate under the threat of further harm to our economy,” he said.

But who is the one actually harming, or threatening to harm, our economy? Answer: President Obama.

First, there’s Obamacare which, as is widely discussed/known, is presently killing people’s insurance plans, job hours, and more. The GOP should refuse to negotiate under the continuing threat of economic harm from Obamacare.

Second, Obama and his minions are fond of warning of ‘disaster’ if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. As Obama said last week:

“As reckless as a government shutdown is … an economic shutdown that results from default would be dramatically worse…”

So, in Obama’s mind, hitting the debt ceiling means automatically that the U.S. shall default on its national debt. But, in reality, default is a choice. You are only in default when you stop making your minimum debt payments. Our ongoing tax revenues of about $2.3 trillion per year are many times greater than needed to make our minimum debt payments.

The deficit is now about $700 billion per year, or roughly 23% of spending. Obama can avoid default by simply under-spending the budget that much. That percent less on federal salaries, Social Security, Medicare, defense, discretionary items and Obamacare all together.

It would be painful for some, but as far as the laws of the Universe are concerned, it’s entirely possible. It could be done. If Democrats are as constructive and helpful as they want the rest of us to believe, they could help minimize or remove the obstacles.

So let’s be clear: When Obama or his minions talk about the dangers of default, they’re actually threatening America with the optional default that they would choose to impose – because they are so far opposed to under-spending any part of the federal budget.

In doing so, they signal the world that U.S. credit is not trustworthy. They signal that, if the U.S. ever has a serious budget crisis, U.S. debt holders will be screwed first of anyone; that Obama & co. intend to hold U.S. bond owners in lower priority than anyone or anything else in the federal budget.

That damages our economy. Conclusion: The GOP should refuse to negotiate under Obama’s (needless) threat of default.

I know that refusal is not going to happen; the GOP feels it’s best to stress their willingness to negotiate. But if the world were more sane – or, at the very least, if the GOP were something more like Obama and the Democrats are – it would happen.

Share

15 Comments

  1. Senator Obama in July 3, 2008 speech:

    You know, there are all these Wall Street journal editorials and stuff: Obama wants to tax people.

    I don’t want to tax people. I would love if we could just say, “You know what? Nobody pays taxes. Tax holiday for everybody.” I would love to do that.

    The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.

    That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

    Everyone, of course, understands that Obama has worked ceaselessly to stem the hemorrhaging and get control of runaway government debt.

    This can only be done by raising the debt ceiling. As Obama brilliantly explained on October 3, 2013:

    I want to spend a little time on this. It’s something called raising the debt ceiling. And it’s got a lousy name, so a lot of people end up thinking, I don’t know, I don’t think we should raise our debt ceiling, because it sounds like we’re raising our debt. But that’s not what this is about.

    *It doesn’t cost taxpayers a single dime. It doesn’t grow our deficits by a single dime. It doesn’t allow anybody to spend any new money whatsoever. So it’s not something that raises our debt.*

    What is happening is that George W. Bush is to blame. He keeps running up the national debt from his bunker in Texas and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are in on the scheme.

    If the market tanks, it will be the fault of rich Republicans and conservatives on Wall Street messing with Bernanke for personal gain. Greed and malice and hateful anti-socialists are the villains. We need to abolish the Republican Party and beg Obama to be our emperor. I certainly hope he is not so vexed that he refuses the crown.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 7, 2013 @ 6:42 pm - October 7, 2013

  2. Obama is totally detached from the American people. His notion of being royalty is par for the course for a man that loves Saul Alinsky, the Jewish Communist.

    Comment by davinci — October 8, 2013 @ 8:39 am - October 8, 2013

  3. So the party of personal responsibility would have me believe that the shutdown they forced is not their fault, at all? This doesn’t sound like taking personal responsibility. I don’t understand how someone can be confused about this – it’s quite clearly the Republcians’ fault, like 100%. Why would Obama repeal his signature legislation? Republicans are essentially asking him to erase his administration from the history books, why would he do that?

    Comment by Errrr — October 8, 2013 @ 9:02 am - October 8, 2013

  4. Err: First, I’m an Independent. Second, it’s as if you didn’t read my post.

    Why would Obama repeal his signature legislation?

    Because it’s hurting our economy.

    If, note IF, the principle here is “We’re not going to negotiate under the threat of further harm to our economy” as Obama has postured…then the GOP should, note should (not ‘will’), rightly refuse to negotiate as long as Obamacare exists.

    Furthermore (ideas that I did not use in my post, but could have):

    (1) Obamacare was passed unconstitutionally. That makes it illegitimate. (The bill originated in the Senate. The SCOTUS has found that it is a form of tax. Under the Constitution, taxes must originate in the House and only in the House.)

    (2) Obamacare was passed, and is being maintained, against the wishes of a clear majority of the American people.

    An economy-destroying measure, rammed through unconstitutionally and against the will of the people – That’s what you’re defending here. Just think about it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2013 @ 10:28 am - October 8, 2013

  5. I’m considering a ominous omen that my browser displayed this ad today from Amazon.

    I might just buy one…..

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 8, 2013 @ 11:11 am - October 8, 2013

  6. Dang, that is a nice axe Ted.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 8, 2013 @ 1:36 pm - October 8, 2013

  7. […] Obama threatens America with harm – while pretending not to […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama ups his rhetoric (much of it lies) another notch — October 8, 2013 @ 3:41 pm - October 8, 2013

  8. Hi ILC,
    “That percent less on federal salaries, Social Security, Medicare, defense, discretionary items and Obamacare all together.

    It would be painful for some, but as far as the laws of the Universe are concerned, it’s entirely possible.”

    Why do you expect that cuts would be 23% out of all spending categories. Why not take it out of some categories more than others? Is he required to do as you suggest? If not, why not take it out of categories dear to Rep hearts, and let the pressure build?

    Comment by Passing By — October 9, 2013 @ 3:04 am - October 9, 2013

  9. What the bawling and screaming Passing By is attempting is to rationalize why government is absolutely required to provide liquor-stocked private airliners for multimillionaires and big-screen TVs and furnishings for six-figure Federal bureaucrats.

    Remember, Passing By, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have all shrieked that not a dime of Federal spending is wasted, not one single thing of these can be cut without collapsing the economy, and that anyone who says otherwise is a suicidal radical terrorist arsonist with a bomb strapped to their chest.

    But perhaps you can’t see the contradiction in that with your head buried in the welfare trough.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2013 @ 10:17 am - October 9, 2013

  10. Hi NDT,
    I get your argument. You are saying that it is a contradiction to say that every dollar spent is vital, and that if the Big O decides to cut something, that would be a contradiction, because the Big O has previously said that doing so will collapse the economy. I just want to point out that this would in fact be the argument to counter ILC’s claim that: “It would be painful for some, but as far as the laws of the Universe are concerned, it’s entirely possible. It could be done.” ILC suggests the very thing you are now arguing is “contradictory.” Unless, it is only contradictory if the Big O makes it, but not ILC.

    So, what do you want to do, NDT?

    I think you could see what I said in a different way though, if you wanted, that might also take the conversation in a direction where you are not so apparently at odds with ILC. That was why I was asking ILC for clarification. Assume ILC is right, if the Big O has discretion in what can be shut down to save money, this is not necessarily a win for Republicans, the way ILC envisages. It is possible for the Big O to close programs and areas of government dear to the hearts of Repubs. Totally a consequence of politics dressed up as “national necessity.” Take a great big heaping out of defence, you get the idea. Throw in some “shared national sacrifice” “caused by” the Repubs. Folks here think that this will be bad for Dems. I agree. But, it will be a DISASTER for Repubs. Oh, and the country gets screwed as well… If this goes to an intransigent endgame (without a gimmick to solve it at the last moment), I don’t think the Repubs hold much of anything in 2014. Could the Dems get screwed? Sure. The odds are in their favour though that this will play out like the 90s clashes, but with extra hurt for Repubs.

    Comment by Passing By — October 9, 2013 @ 2:34 pm - October 9, 2013

  11. OK, Passing By, I get your argument. You are stating that because Obama has black skin and is a Democrat, that everything he does is right and that ILC is a racist and hypocrite for saying otherwise.

    Of course you would think that, because you are trapped in defending Obama’s inane actions because doing otherwise would make you a racist. Since Obama has black skin, you are unable to criticize him, because that would make you anti-black.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2013 @ 6:30 pm - October 9, 2013

  12. I don’t really care if the Dems take everything in 2014. Let it burn.

    Comment by V the K — October 9, 2013 @ 8:54 pm - October 9, 2013

  13. […] Obama threatens America with harm – while pretending not to […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » K Street vs. Tea Party: the GOP’s real civil war? — October 10, 2013 @ 12:57 pm - October 10, 2013

  14. Hi NDT,
    “OK, Passing By, I get your argument. You are stating that because Obama has black skin and is a Democrat, that everything he does is right and that ILC is a racist and hypocrite for saying otherwise.”
    Sometimes, I think your sense of humor can be a little subtle, but I have to admit, you cracked me up with that one! Thank you.

    Comment by Passing By — October 10, 2013 @ 1:24 pm - October 10, 2013

  15. […] Obama threatens America with harm – while pretending not to […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » How to rationally discuss the ‘shutdown’ and budget — October 12, 2013 @ 11:32 am - October 12, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.