By Tim Wildmon
I want to follow up on what I wrote about two weeks ago suggesting President Obama was intentionally trying to bankrupt our country. Under normal conditions, this would sound crazy, I agree. But I am only looking at his actions and when a person’s actions do not make any sense applying conventional thinking, then maybe it’s time to put the Oliver Stone hat on.
As you know, Obama is pushing to raise the debt ceiling again. Yet, in 2006 there was a vote in the U.S. Senate on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. Barack Obama was a senator from Illinois. President Bush was in office. Sen. Obama went to the microphone and delivered a lengthy message that could have been given at any Tea Party event. I will excerpt because Mr. Obama went on and on and on about the danger of our debt problem then:
“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. 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 therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
And so he did vote against raising the debt ceiling as did every Democrat in the Senate that day. These guys were downright indignant over the debt increasing under Bush, Obama even calling Bush “unpatriotic.” Don’t laugh. I’m serious.
That was $6 trillion ago.
So somewhere along the way, the Democrats lost their outrage over increasing the debt. (It should be noted that Republicans have also voted to raise the debt along the way.) I cite his comments as clear evidence that he knew then how the soaring debt, in his words, “weakens us domestically and internationally.”
So, if Obama knows this as a senator and yet when he gets elected president and has the power to do something about the very problem he warned about so passionately, and yet he does nothing but piles a breathtaking $6 trillion more debt onto the backs of, his words again, “our children and grandchildren,” then it is certainly within reason to see this as intentional.
And I am not alone in my skepticism. Two years ago, January 2011, the Washington Post editorialized with this headline: “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.”
On purpose? If it walks like a duck…
Tim Wildmon is a Lee County resident. He is president of the American Family Association, but the column represents his personal opinion. Contact him at email@example.com.