This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

"We Are Not A Deadbeat Nation" - Full Obama Transcript

Tyler Durden's picture


The punchlines: "...the issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. We are not a deadbeat nation... And if the Republicans in Congress have made a decision that they want to shut down the government in order to get their way, then they have the votes, at least in the House of Representatives, probably to do that.... So we've got to pay our bills. And Republicans in Congress have two choices here. They can act responsibly, and pay America's bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy ... We've got to stop lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis when there's this clear path ahead of us that simply requires some discipline, some responsibility, and some compromise. That's where we need to go. That's how this needs to work."

Yet should the "worst" (i.e. living within its means) happen to the US, then "Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn't get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money. Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire.... As the speaker said two years ago, it would be, and I'm quoting Speaker Boehner now, "a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy.""

Still think "we are not a deadbeat nation"?

Full speech transcript:
OBAMA: Please have a seat everybody. Good morning.
     I thought it might make sense to take some questions this week, as my first term comes to an end. It's been a busy and productive four years, and I expect the same for the next four years. I intend to carry out the agenda that I campaigned on -- an agenda for new jobs, new opportunity, and new security for the middle class.
     Right now, our economy is growing and our businesses are creating new jobs. So, we are poised for a good year if we make smart decisions and sound investments, and as long as Washington politics don't get in the way of America's progress.
     As I said on the campaign, one component to growing our economy and broadening opportunity for the middle class is shrinking our deficits in a balanced and responsible way. And for nearly two years now, I've been fighting for such a plan, one that would reduce our deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade, which would stabilize our debt and our deficit in a sustainable way for the next decade.
     OBAMA: That would be enough not only to stop the growth of our debt relative to the size of our economy, but it would make it manageable so it doesn't crowd out the investments we need to make in people and education and job training and scientist and medical research, all the things that help us grow.
     Now, step by step, we've made progress towards that goal. Over the past two years, I've signed into law about
$1.4 trillion in spending cuts. Two weeks ago, I signed into law more than $600 billion in new revenue, by making sure the wealthiest Americans begin to pay their fair share.
     When you add the money that we'll save in interest payments on the debt, altogether that adds up to a total of about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the past two years, not counting the $400 billion already saved from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
     So we've made progress. We are moving towards our ultimate goal of getting to a $4 trillion reduction. And there will be more deficit reduction when Congress decides what to do about the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that have been pushed off until next month.
     The fact is, though, we can't finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone. The cuts we've already made to priorities other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense mean that we spend on everything from education to public safety less as a share of our economy than it has -- than has been true for a generation. And that's not a recipe for growth. So we've got to do more both to stabilize our finances over the medium and long term, but also spur more growth in the short term.
     Now, I've said I'm open to making modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to protect them from future generations. And I've also that we need more revenue through tax reform, by closing loopholes in our tax code for the wealthiest Americans. If we combine a balanced package of savings from spending on health care and revenues from closing loopholes, we can solve the deficit issue without sacrificing our investments in things like education that are going to help us grow.
     It turns out the American people agree with me. They listened to an entire year's debate over this issue. And they made a clear decision about the approach they prefer. They don't think it's fair, for example, to ask a senior to pay more for his or her health care or a scientist to shut down life-saving research so that a multimillionaire investor can pay less in tax rates than a secretary. They don't think it's smart to protect endless corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans rather than rebuild our roads and our schools, invest in our workers' skills, or help manufacturers bring jobs back to America.
     So they want us to get our books in order in a balanced way, where everybody pulls their weight, everyone does their part. That's what I want, as well. That's what I've proposed.

And we can get it done, but we're going to have to make sure that people are looking at this in a responsible way, rather than just through the lens of politics.
     Now, the other congressionally imposed deadline coming up is the so-called debt ceiling, something most Americans hadn't even heard of before two years ago. So I want to be clear about this: The debt ceiling is not a question of authorizing more spending. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to.
     OBAMA: These are bills that have already been racked up, and we need to pay them. So, while I'm willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficits, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they've already racked up. If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America's bills on time, Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed.
     We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn't get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money. Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire.
     It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy. It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession. And ironically it would probably increase our deficit. So to even entertain the idea of this happening, of the United States of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It's absurd. As the speaker said two years ago, it would be, and I'm quoting Speaker Boehner now, "a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy."
     OBAMA: So we've got to pay our bills. And Republicans in Congress have two choices here. They can act responsibly, and pay America's bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The financial wellbeing of the American people is not leverage to be used. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they better choose quickly, because time is running short.
     The last time republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. Our businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three years, and ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the deficit.
     So it shouldn't be surprising, given all this talk, that the American people think that Washington is hurting rather than helping the country at the moment. They see their representatives consumed with partisan brinkmanship over paying our bills while they overwhelmingly want us to focus on growing the economy and creating more jobs.
     So let's finish this debate. Let's give our businesses and the world the certainty that our economy and our reputation are still second to none. We pay our bills, we handle our business, and then we can move on because America has a lot to do.
     We have got to create more jobs. We have got to boost the wages of those who have worked. We've got to reach for energy independence. We have got to reform our immigration system. We've got to give our children the best education possible. And we've got to do everything we can to protect them from the horrors of gun violence.
     And let me say, I'm grateful to vice president -- Vice President Biden for his work on this issue of -- of gun violence, and for his proposals which I'm going to be reviewing today and I will address in the next few days and I intend to vigorously pursue.
     With that I am going to take some questions and I am going to start with Julie Pace (ph) of A.P. And I want to congratulate Julie for this new, important job.
     QUESTION: Thank you very much.
     OBAMA: Yes?
     QUESTION: I wanted to ask about gun violence. Today marks the one-year -- or one-month anniversary of the shooting in Newtown, which seemed to generate some momentum for reinstating the assault weapons ban. But there's been fresh opposition to that ban from the NRA, and even Harry Reid has said that he questions whether it could pass Congress.
     Given that, how hard will you push for an assault weapons ban? And if one cannot pass Congress, whatever measures would need to be included in a broad package in order to curb gun violence successfully?
     OBAMA: Well, as I said, the vice president and a number of members of my cabinet went through a very thorough process over the last month, meeting with a lot of stakeholders in this, including the NRA; listened to proposals from all quarters. And they've presented me now with a list of sensible, common sense steps that can be taken to make sure that the kind of violence we saw at Newtown doesn't happen again.
     I'm going to be meeting with the vice president today. I expect to have a -- a fuller presentation later in the week to give people some specifics about what I think we need to do. My starting point is not to worry about the politics. My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works, what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we're reducing the incidence of gun violence.
     OBAMA: And I think we can do that in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment. And then members of Congress, I think, are going to have to have a debate and examine their own conscience. Because, you know, if in fact -- and I believe this is true -- everybody across party lines was as deeply moved and -- and saddened as I was by what happened in Newtown, then we're going to have to vote based on what we think is best. We're going to have to come up with answers that set politics aside. And that's what I expect Congress to do.
     But -- but I -- what you can count on is, is that the things that I've said in the past -- the belief that we have to have stronger background checks, that we can do a much better job in terms of keeping these magazine clips with high capacity out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them, an assault weapons ban that is meaningful, that those are things I continue to believe make sense.
     Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know. But what's uppermost in my mind is making sure that I'm honest with the American people and with members of Congress about what I think will work, what I think is something that will make a difference and -- to repeat what I've said earlier -- if there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take that step.
     OBAMA: I'll present the details later in the week.
     Chuck Todd, NBC.
     QUESTION: Thank you, sir. As you know, Senate Democrats -- Harry Reid sent you a letter begging you, essentially, to take -- consider some sort of executive action on this debt ceiling issue. I know you've said you're not negotiating on it. Your administration has ruled out the various ideas that have been out there, the 14th Amendment, but just this morning, House -- one of the House Democratic leaders, Jim Clyburn, asked you to use the 14th Amendment and even said sometimes that's what it takes. He brought up the Emancipation Proclamation as saying they took executive action when Congress wouldn't act, and he compared the debt ceiling to that. So are you considering a Plan B? And if not, why not?
     OBAMA: Well, Chuck, the issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. We are not a deadbeat nation. And so there's a very simple solution to this: Congress authorizes us to pay our bills.
     Now, if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so that they don't have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I'm happy to take it. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, had a proposal like that last year. And I'm happy to accept it.
     But if they want to keep this responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done. And, you know, there are no magic tricks here. There are no loopholes. There are no, you know, easy outs. This is a matter of Congress authorizes spending. They order me to spend. They tell me, you need to fund our Defense Department at such- and-such a level, you need to send out Social Security checks, you need to make sure that you are paying to care for our veterans. They lay all this out for me, and -- because they have the spending power. And so I am required by law to go ahead and pay these bills.
     OBAMA: Separately, they also have to authorize a raising of the debt ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are paid. And so what Congress can't do is tell me to spend X and then say, "But we're not going to give you the authority to go ahead and pay the bills."
     And I just want to repeat, because I think sometimes the American people understandably aren't following all -- all the debates here in Washington. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize us to spend more. All it does is say, that America will pay its bills. And we are not a deadbeat nation.
     And the consequences of us not paying our bills, as I outlined in my opening statement, would be disastrous. So, I understand the impulse to try to get around this in a simple way. But there's one way to get around this. There's one way to deal with it, and that is for Congress to authorize me to pay for those items of spending that they have already authorized. And the -- you know the -- the notion that Republicans in -- in the House, or maybe some Republicans in the Senate would suggest that in order for us to get our way on our spending priorities, that we would risk the full faith and credit of the United States, that I think is not what the founders intended.
     That's now how I think most Americans think our democracy should work. You know they've got a point of view. Democrats in Congress have a point of view. They need to sit down, and -- and work out a compromise.
     QUESTION: (Inaudible) If you're not negotiating, and they say you have to negotiate (inaudible) considering other Plan B? You do see (inaudible)?
     OBAMA: Well, look, Chuck, there -- there are -- there -- there's a pretty straightforward way of doing this, and that is to set the debt ceiling aside, we pay our bills. And then we have a vigorous debate about how we're gonna do further deficit reduction in a balanced way.
     Now, keep in mind that, you know, what we've heard from some republicans, in both the House and the Senate, is that they will only increase the debt ceiling by the amount of spending cuts that they're able to push through. And, in order to replace the automatic spending cuts, the sequester, that's $1.2 trillion. Say it takes another $1 trillion or $1.2 trillion to get us through one more year, they'd have to identify $2.5 trillion in cuts just to get the debt ceiling extended to next year, $2.5 trillion.
     They can't even -- Congress has not been able to identify $1.2 trillion in cuts that they're happy with, because these same republicans say they don't want to cut defense. They've claimed that they don't want to gut Medicare or harm the vulnerable, but the truth of the matter is, is that you can't meet their own criteria without drastically cutting Medicare, or having an impact on Medicaid, or affecting our defense spending. So the math just doesn't add up.
     Now, what -- here -- here's what would work. What would work would be for us to say, we've already done close to $2 trillion in deficit reduction, and if you add the interest that we won't be paying, because of less spending and increased revenue, it adds up to about $2.5 trillion.
     OBAMA: The consensus is we need about $4 trillion to stabilized our debt and our deficit, which means we need about $1.5 trillion more. The package that I offered to Speaker Boehner before we -- before the new year would achieve that. We were actually fairly close in terms of arriving at that number.
     So -- so, if the goal is to make sure that we are being responsible about our debt and our deficit -- if that's the conversation we're having, I'm happy to have that conversation. And by closing some additional loopholes through tax reform, which Speaker Boehner has acknowledged can raise money in a sensible way, and by doing some additional cuts, including making sure that we are reducing our health care spending, which is the main driver of our deficits, we can arrive at a package that gets this thing done.
     I'm happy to have that conversation. What I will not do is to have that negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people -- the threat that unless we get our way, unless you gut Medicare or Medicaid, or, you know, otherwise slash things that the American people don't believe should be slashed, that we're going to threaten to wreck the entire economy. That is not how historically this has been done.
That's not how we're going to do it this time.
     QUESTION: (inaudible) not searching for (inaudible)?
     OBAMA: What I'm...
     QUESTION: (inaudible)
     OBAMA: Chuck, what I'm saying to you is that there is no simpler solution, no ready, credible solution other than Congress either give me the authority to raise the debt ceiling or exercise the responsibility that they have kept for themselves and raise the debt ceiling, because this is about paying your bills.
     OBAMA: Everybody -- everybody here understands this. I mean, this is not a complicated concept. You don't go out to dinner and then, you know, eat all you want and then leave without paying the check. And if you do, you're breaking the law. And Congress is -- should think about it the same way that the American people do.
     You don't -- now, if Congress wants to have a debate about maybe we shouldn't go out to dinner next time, maybe we should go to a more modest restaurant, that's fine. That's a debate that we should have. But you don't -- you don't say, in order for me to control my appetites, I'm going to not pay the people who already provided me services, people who already lent me the money. That's not -- that's not showing any discipline. All that's doing is not meeting your obligations. You can't do that.
     And -- and that's not a credible way to run this government. We've got to stop lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis when there's this clear path ahead of us that simply requires some discipline, some responsibility, and some compromise. That's where we need to go. That's how this needs to work.
     Major Garrett?
     QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, sir, finding votes for the debt ceiling can sometimes be complicated. You yourselves as a member of the Senate voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history, President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997 all signed deficit reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You yourself four times have done that; three times those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers.
     What Chuck and I and I think many people are curious about is this new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history in the modern era of American presidents in the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn't that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation, because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?
     OBAMA: Well, no, Major. I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult and budgets in this town are always difficult. I went through this just last year. But what's different is we never saw a situation as we saw last year in which certain groups in Congress took such an absolutist position that we came within a few days of defaulting.
     And, you know, the fact of the matter is, is that we have never seen the debt ceiling used in this fashion, where the notion was, you know what, we might default unless we get 100 percent of what we want. That hasn't happened.
     Now, as I indicated before, I'm happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits further in a sensible way, although one thing I want to point out is that the American people are also concerned about how we grow our economy, how we put people back to work, how we make sure that we finance our workers getting properly trained and our schools are giving our kids the education we deserve. There's a whole growth agenda which will reduce our deficits that's important, as well.
     OBAMA: But what you've never seen is the notion that has been presented so far at least by the Republicans that deficit reduction will only count spending cuts, that we will raise the deficit -- or the debt ceiling dollar for dollar on spending cuts. There are a whole set of rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without doing severe damage to the economy. And so what we're not going to do is put ourselves in a position where in order to pay for spending that we've already incurred, that our two options are; we're either going to profoundly hurt the economy, and hurt middle- class families, and hurt seniors, and hurt kids who are trying to go to college, or alternatively we're going to blow up the economy. We're not going to do that.
     QUESTION: (Inaudible) three-month extension for this? What ever Congress sends you, you're OK with?
     OBAMA: No, not whatever Congress sends me. They're going to have to send me something that's sensible. And we shouldn't be doing this...
     OBAMA: ...then we should -- and we shouldn't be doing this on a one to three month time frame. Why would we do that? This is the United States of America, Major. Why -- what -- we can't manage our affairs in such a way that we pay our bills? And we provide some certainty in terms of how we pay our bills? Look I -- I don't -- I don't think anybody would consider my position unreasonable here. The -- I have...
     QUESTION: (Inaudible) talk about this on a daily basis
     OBAMA: Major, the -- I am happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits. I am not going to have a monthly, or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills. Because that, in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It's hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn't be having that debate.
     OBAMA: If we want to have a conversation about how to reduce our deficit, let's have that. We've been having that for the last two years. We just had an entire campaign about it. And by the way, the American people agreed with me, that we should reduce our deficits in a balanced way, that also takes into account the need for us to grow this economy, and put people back to work.
     And despite that conversation, and despite the election results, the position that's been taken, on the part of some House republicans, is that, "Nope, we gotta do it our way. And if we don't, we simply won't pay America's bills."
     Well, you know, that -- that can't be -- that can't be a position that is sustainable over time. It's not one that's good for the economy now. It's certainly not going to be the kind of precedent that I want to establish, not just for my presidency, but for future presidents. Even if it was on the other side.
     Democrats don't like voting for the debt ceiling when a Republican's president. And yet, you -- you -- but you never saw a situation in which Democrats suggested somehow that we would go ahead and default if we didn't get 100 percent of our way. That's just not how it's supposed to work.
     Jon Karl?
     QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
     On the issue of guns, given how difficult it will be, some would say, impossible, to get any gun control measure passed through this Congress, what are you willing or able to do using the powers of your presidency to act without Congress?
     And -- and I'd also like to know, what do you make of these long lines we're seeing at gun shows and gun stores all around the country? I mean, even in Connecticut, applications for guns are up since the shooting in Newtown.
     OBAMA: Well, my understanding is the vice president's going to provide a range of steps we can take to reduce gun violence. Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I'll be reviewing those today, and as I said, I'll speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and propose later in the week.
     But I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president. And where you get a step that has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it.
     QUESTION: (inaudible) any idea of what the (inaudible)?
     OBAMA: Well, I think, for example, how we are gathering data, for example, on guns that fall into the hands of criminals and how we track that more effectively. There may be some steps that we can take administratively as opposed to through legislation.
     As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns, I think that we've seen for some time now that those who oppose any common sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government's about to take all your guns away. And, you know, there's probably an economic element to that. It obviously is good for business, but I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don't have anything to worry about.
     OBAMA: The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment. The issue is: Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a -- in a shockingly rapid fashion?
     And surely we can do something about that. And -- you know, but -- but part of the challenge that, you know, we confront is, is that even the slightest hint of some sensible, responsible legislation in this area fans this notion that somehow here it comes and that everybody's guns are going to be taken away. It's unfortunate, but that's the case, and if you look over the first four years of my administration, we've tried to tighten up and enforce some of the laws that were already on the books. But it'd be pretty hard to argue that somehow gun-owners have had their rights infringed.
     OBAMA: Excuse me?
     OBAMA: Well, as I said, I think it's a fear that's fanned by those who are -- are worried about the possibility of any legislation getting out there.
     Julianna Goldman?
     QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to come back to the debt ceiling, because in the summer of 2011, you said that you wouldn't negotiate on the debt ceiling, and you did. Last year, you said that you wouldn't extend any of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and you did. So as you say now that you're not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling this year, why should House Republicans take that seriously and think that if we get to the one minute to midnight scenario that you're not going to back down?
     OBAMA: Well, first of all, Julianna, let's take the example of this year and the fiscal cliff. I didn't say that I would not have any conversations at all about extending the Bush tax cuts. What I said was, we weren't going to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. And we didn't.
     Now, you can argue that during the campaign, I said -- I set the criteria for wealthy at $250,000, and we ended up being at $400,000, but the fact of the matter is, millionaires, billionaires are paying significantly more in taxes, just as I said.
     So from -- you know, from the start, my concern was making sure that we had a tax code that was fair and that protected the middle class. And my biggest priority was making sure that middle class taxes did not go up. You know, the difference between this year and 2011 is the fact that we've already made $1.2 trillion in cuts. And at -- at the time, I indicated that there were cuts that we could sensibly make that would not damage our economy, would not impede growth.
     I said at the time, I think we should pair it up with revenue in order to have an overall balanced package, but my own budget reflected cuts in discretionary spending. My own budget reflected the cuts that needed to be made. And we've made those cuts. Now, the challenge going forward is that we've now made some big cuts. And if we're going to do further deficit reduction, the only way to do it is in a balanced and responsible way.
     OBAMA: The alternative is for us to go ahead and cut commitments that we've made on things like Medicare or Social Security or Medicaid and for us to fundamentally change commitments that we've made, to make sure that seniors don't go into poverty, or that children who are disabled, are properly cared for. For us to -- to change that contract we've made with the American people, rather than look at options like closing loopholes for corporations that they don't need.
     That points to a long-term trend in which you know we have fundamentally, I think, undermined what people expect out of this government, which is that parties sit down, they negotiate, they compromise, but they also reflect the will of the American people that you don't have one narrow faction that able -- is able to simply dictate 100 percent of what they want all the time, or otherwise threaten that we destroy the American economy.
     Another way of putting it is, we've got to break the habit of negotiating through crisis over and over again. And now that we've -- now is as good a time as any, at the start of my second term. Because if we continue down this path, then there's really no stopping the principle. I mean literally -- even in divided government, even where we've got a Democratic president, and a Democratic Senate, and that a small group in the House of Representatives could simply say, you know every two months, every three months, every six months, every year we are going to more and more change the economy in ways that we prefer, despite strong objections of Americans all across the country, or otherwise we're going to have America not pay its bills.
     OBAMA: And, you know that is no way for us to do business.
     And, by the way, I would make the same argument if it was a republican president, and a republican senate, and you had a handful of democrats who were suggesting that we are gonna hijack the process and make sure that either we get our way 100 percent of the time, or otherwise, you know, we are going to default on America's obligations.
     QUESTION: (inaudible)?
     OBAMA: No, no look, what I've said is, is that I'm happy to have a conversation about deficit reduction.
     QUESTION: (inaudible)?
     OBAMA: No, Julianna, look, this -- this is pretty straightforward. Either Congress pays its bills, or it doesn't.
     Now, if -- and they want to keep this responsibility, if John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think that they can come up with a plan that somehow meets their criteria that they've set for why they will -- when they will raise the debt ceiling, they're free to go ahead and try.
     But the proposals that they've put forward, in order to accomplish that, only by cutting spending, means cuts to things like Medicare and education, that the American people profoundly reject.
     Now, if they think that they can get that through Congress, then they're free to try. But I think that a better way of doing this is to go ahead and say, "We're going to pay our bills." The question now is, how do we actually get our deficit in a manageable, sustainable way. And that's a conversation I'm happy to have.
     OBAMA: All right.
     Matt Spetaling (ph).
     QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
     You've spoken extensively about the debt ceiling debate, but some Republicans have further said that they're willing to allow a government shutdown to take place rather than put off deep spending cuts.
     Are you prepared to allow the government to grind to a halt if you disagree with the spending cut proposals they put forth? And who do you think the American people would blame if that came to pass?
     OBAMA: Well, ultimately Congress makes the decisions about whether or not we spend money and whether or not we keep this government open. And if the Republicans in Congress have made a decision that they want to shut down the government in order to get their way, then they have the votes, at least in the House of Representatives, probably to do that.
     I think that would be a mistake. I think it would be profoundly damaging to our economy. I think it would actually add to our deficit because it will impede growth. I think it's short-sighted. But they're elected representatives and folks put them into -- into those positions and they're going to have to make a decision about that.
     And I don't -- I suspect that the American people would blame all of Washington for not being able to get its act together. But -- but the larger issue here has to do with what is it that we're trying to accomplish. Are we trying to reduce the deficit? Because if we're trying to reduce the deficit, then we can shape a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit.
     I mean, is that really our objective? Our concern is that we're spending more than we take in. And if that's the case, then there's a way of balancing that out so that we take in more money, increasing revenue, and we reduce spending. And there's a recipe for getting that done.
     OBAMA: And in the conversation that I had with Speaker Boehner before the end of the year, we came pretty close. I mean, a few hundred billion dollars separating us when stretched out over a 10- year period, that's not a lot.
     But it seems as if what's motivating and propelling at this point some of the House Republicans is more than simply deficit reduction. They have a particular vision about what government should and should not do, so they are suspicious about government's commitments, for example, to make sure that seniors have decent health care as they get older. They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat or whether we should be spending money on medical research.
     So they've got a particular view of what government should do and should be. And, you know, that view was rejected by the American people when it was debated during the presidential campaign. I think every poll that's out there indicates that the American people actually think our commitment to Medicare or to education is really important, and that's something that we should look at as a last resort in terms of reducing the deficit, and it makes a lot more sense for us to close, for example, corporate loopholes before we go to putting a bigger burden on students or seniors.
     But if the House Republicans disagree with that and they want to shut down the government to see if they can get their way on it, that's their -- that's their prerogative. That's how the system's set up. It will damage our economy. The government is a big part of this economy.
     And it's interesting that a lot of times you have people who recognize that when it comes to defense spending. Some of the same folks who say we've got to cut spending or complain that government jobs don't do anything, when it comes to that defense contractor in their district, they think, "Wow, this is a pretty important part of the economy in my district and we shouldn't stop spending on that. Let's just make sure we're not spending on those other folks."
     OBAMA: Well, you know, look, my hope is, is that common sense prevails. You know, that's always my -- my preference.
And I think that would be the preference of the American people, and that's what would be good for the economy.
     So let me just repeat: If the issue is deficit reduction, getting our deficits sustainable over time, getting our debt in a sustainable place, then Democrats and Republicans in Congress will have a partner with me. We can achieve that and, you know, we can achieve it fairly quickly.
I mean, we know what the numbers are, we know what needs to be done, we know what a balanced approach would take, and we've already done probably more than half of the deficit reduction we need to stabilize the debt and the deficit.
There's probably been more pain and drama in getting there than we needed.
     And so finishing the job shouldn't -- shouldn't be that difficult, if everybody comes to the conversation with an open mind and if we recognize that there are some things, like not paying our bills, that should be out of bounds.
     I'm going to take one last question. Jackie Calmes?
     QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
     QUESTION: I'd like to ask you, now that you've reached the end of your first term, starting your second, about a couple of criticisms, one that's longstanding, another more recent. The longstanding one seems to have become a truism of sorts, that you're -- you and your staff are too insular, that you don't socialize enough. And the second, the more recent criticism, is that your team taking shape isn't diverse -- isn't as diverse as it could be, or even was in terms of getting additional voices, gender, race, ethnic diversity.
     So, I'd like you to address both of those.
     OBAMA: Sure, let me -- let me take the -- the second one first.
     You know, I'm very proud that in the first four years, we had as diverse, if not a more diverse, a White House and a cabinet than any in history. And I intended to continue that, because it turns out when you look for the very best people, given the incredible diversity of this country, you're going to end up with a diverse staff and a diverse -- a diverse team, and that very diversity helps to create more effective policy making, and better decision making for me, because it brings different perspectives to the table.
     So if you think about my first four years, the person who probably had the most influence on my foreign policy was a woman. The people who were in charge of moving forward my most important domestic initiative, health care, were women.
The person in charge of our Homeland Security was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme Court were women. And 50 percent of my White House staff were women.
     OBAMA: So, I think people should expect that, that record will be built on during the next four years. Now, I've made what -- four appointments so far? And one woman -- admittedly a high profile one -- is leaving the administration -- has already left the administration, and I have made a replacement. But I would just suggest that everybody kind of wait until they've seen all my appointment, who is in the White House staff and who is in my cabinet, before they rush to judgment.
     QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
     OBAMA: But I -- I -- I guess what I'm saying Jackie, is -- is that I think until you've seen what my overall team looks like, it's premature to -- to assume that somehow we're going backwards. We're not going backwards, we're going forward. With respect to the -- this truism about me not socializing enough, and patting folks on the back and all that stuff, most people who know me know I -- I'm a pretty friendly guy.
     And I like a good party. And you know the truth is that, you know when I was in the Senate, I had great relationships over there, and up until the point that I became president, this was not an accusation that you heard very frequently. I think that -- I think -- I think that really what's gone on in terms of some of the paralysis here in Washington, or difficulties in negotiations, just have to do with some very stark differences in terms of policy.
     OBAMA: Some very sharp differences in terms of where we stand on issues, and you know if you think about, let's say myself and Speaker Boehner, I like Speaker Boehner personally. And when we went out and played golf, we had a great time. But that didn't get a deal done in 2011. You know when I -- when I'm over here at the congressional picnic, and folks are coming up and taking pictures with their family, I promise you, Michelle and I are very nice to them, and we have a wonderful time.
     But it doesn't prevent them from going onto the floor of the House and, you know, blasting me for being a big-spending socialist. And -- and the reason that, you know, in many cases Congress votes the way they do or talks the way they talk, or takes positions in negotiations that they take, doesn't have to do with me. It has to do with the imperatives that they feel in terms of their own politics. Right? They're worried about their district. They're worried about what's going on back home.
     I think there are a lot of Republicans at this point that feel that given how much energy has been devoted in some of the media that's preferred by Republican constituencies to demonize me, that it doesn't look real good socializing with me. Charlie Crist down in Florida I think testifies to that.
And I think a lot of folks say, "Well, you know, if we look like we're being too cooperative or too chummy with the president, that might cause us problems; that might be an excuse for us to get a challenge from somebody in a primary."
     So -- so that tends to be the challenge. I promise you, we invite folks from Congress over here all the time. And I
-- and when they choose to come, I enjoy their company. Sometimes they don't choose to come, and that has to do with the fact that I think they don't consider the optics useful for them politically.
     OBAMA: And ultimately, the way we're going to get stuff done, personal relationships are important. And obviously, I can always do a better job. And the nice thing is is that now that my girls are getting older, they don't want to spend that much time with me anyway, so I'll be probably calling around, looking for somebody to play cards with me or something, because I'm getting kind of lonely in this big house. So maybe -- maybe a whole bunch of members of the House Republican caucus want to come over and socialize more.
     But my suspicion is, getting the issues resolved that we just talked about, the big stuff, whether or not we get sensible laws passed to prevent gun violence, whether or not America's paying its bills, whether or not we get immigration reform done, all that's going to be determined largely by where the respective parties stand on policy and, maybe most importantly, the attitude of the American people.
     Now, if the American people feel strongly about these issues and they push hard and they reward or don't reward members of Congress with their votes, you know, if -- if they reject sort of uncompromising positions or sharp partisanship or always looking out for the next election and they reward folks who are trying to find common ground, then I think you'll see behavior in Congress change. And that'll be true whether I'm the life of the party or a stick in the mud.
All right? Thank you very much, everybody.


Transcript via Bloomberg


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:31 | 3151436 JR
JR's picture

Wow! Powerful rejoinder!

“The 'private sector' of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the 'public sector' is, in fact, the coercive sector.” -- Henry Hazlitt

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:50 | 3151545 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

+1 for Hazlitt!

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:18 | 3151371 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

fuck that clown, we need to impeach that lying cocksucker now.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:42 | 3151488 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture


Whattaya, some kind of stooge?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:18 | 3151372 wcvarones
wcvarones's picture

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Deadbeat Nation.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:24 | 3151373 busted by the b...
busted by the bailout's picture

Not yet anyway.

Our generous paper supply covers up many defects.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:19 | 3151377 q99x2
q99x2's picture

He needs an attorney at this point.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:20 | 3151379 justanothersucker
justanothersucker's picture

All that verbage just to say, "Shut the fuck up and do as I say!"  What a waste of everyone's time.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:44 | 3151501 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Congratulations! You've just described everything that's ever occurred in DC.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:20 | 3151383 Catullus
Catullus's picture


There's nothing that forces interest rates to be link to US Treasuries. They've been a benchmark because they're considered safe. If they're not considered safe, it ceases to be the benchmark. It has little to do with how you assess other risks. These things can and probably should be mutually exclusive.

WE are not anything as a nation. The federal government contracted the debt, not every US citizen.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:20 | 3151384 ciscokid
ciscokid's picture

This is a clear treath.


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:21 | 3151389 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

When Ronald Reagan was president the debt ceiling was raise eighteen (18!) times.  With Dubya it was raised 7 or 8 times.....and in all 25+ cases, Republicans had no problem doing it whatsoever.  The hypocrisy here is staggering.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:23 | 3151402 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Indeed. Government grows a lot under GOP rule.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:30 | 3151430 notadouche
notadouche's picture

Hypocrisy works both ways here:

Patriot Act



Borrowing from China to pay our bills

Raises for Congress but everyone must "shared sacrifice"

Please don't start acting like one side or the other has a monopoly on "hypocrisy".  The very notion is hypocritical.


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:36 | 3151467 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

Stick to the subject at hand sir.   Reagan raised the DC 18X. The Republicans think he was/is a saint/god.  Obama has raised it once.  And the Republicans think he's an irrespnsible asshole.  Fine, but it seems to me that would make Reagan 18x as big an irrespnsible asshole.  Think many Republican would agree? 

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:47 | 3151523 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Who gives a fuck?


All you're doing is empowering this idiocy of divide and conquer.

Here's a clue, THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANY OF THIS! (other than what's in it for them)

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:57 | 3151582 skipjack
skipjack's picture

OK, how about you consider this ?  By what total amount did Reagan raise the debt ceiling, vs Obama ?


Get the picture ?  Size matters, shitforbrains.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:09 | 3151629 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

National Debt increase:

Reagan 190%

Obama 52%

And when ole Ronnie wasn't too busy jacking up the debt............he took time out to give all the illegal immigrants amnesty.  


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 18:25 | 3152321 hooligan2009
hooligan2009's picture

lets see...debt limit increase from 500 billion to 1.5 trillion = "a whopping" 1 trillion, but 200% increase

12 trillion to 16 trillion and beyond = $4  trillion = a "meagre" 4 trillion

and he hasn't stopped yet

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:21 | 3151707 notadouche
notadouche's picture

You opened the "hypocrisy" pandora's box.  OBJECTION DENIED.   And while we're on the subject most of the left thought Reagan was the biggest ahole on the planet during his time.  Only since Obama and trying to use him as some type of comparator and "middle friendly"  have they started speaking more kindly about Reagan.  Hmmm...

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:29 | 3152132 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

See my response below, you're either an idiot or dishonest.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:40 | 3152125 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

When Ronald Reagan was president the debt ceiling was raise eighteen (18!) times.


Reagan wanted to lower taxes AND cut spending.

“In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency."


Now democrats use this against republicans, as if republicans were responsible. It was actually the other way around, the Reagan tax cuts helped the economy, unfortunately the lack of spending cuts made the debt explode. Right now with democrats in power, Americans get the worst of both worlds: higher taxes and no spending cuts.

Unfortunately the republicans although still marginally better for the economy, don't want the required spending cuts either. Both parties are a disaster for the American people.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:21 | 3151390 jubber
jubber's picture

WTF is the DOW rallying on this bollox statement?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:50 | 3151546 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Surely you didn't expect otherwise?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:22 | 3151396 news printer
news printer's picture

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is scheduled to speak and answer audience and online questions at the University of Michigan.
U can ask questions on Twitter !!!!
the conference with Ben Bernanke starts at around 4 p.m.
Live with Twitter questions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:51 | 3151542 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Y U Twit?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:22 | 3151397 905ozs
905ozs's picture

Kaiser...but the BIS Rothschild Inc has all the gold, a standard based on this is a planned new slavery.

We are again at sq 1. Baah?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 16:12 | 3151881 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Right now they have printing presses at their disposal.  Under a gold standard, they might well have a good % of the world's gold.  But that is still not nearly as much power as having a printing press at your disposal.

In the one case, you have an ongoing, unlimited source of income.

In the other, you have a fixed quantity of gold, once its gone, its gone.  So yes, it is possible, and even likely that the Elite are ready for a return to a Gold Standard (and that the 4 years since 2008 have been primarily to give them a chance to turn income and other savings into PMs).  But its still a more honest system than what we've got now, and it would distribute the power and wealth a lot more widely than it is currently distributed.

Listen, people don't want a gold standard because it is flawless.  They want it because it would mean the current f*cks lose their complete and utter control of the currency.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:23 | 3151399 From Germany Wi...
From Germany With Love's picture

too long; did not read.

Is this relevant for anybody in the real world?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 22:46 | 3152969 August
August's picture

No, of course not.  I confess I didn't invest my time in reading this garbage either, though.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:24 | 3151405 Snakeeyes
Snakeeyes's picture

Actually, we are.


47,525,329 people and 22,932,705 households on SNAP (food stamps).


Almost 50% of people pay little or no Federal income taxes.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:25 | 3151408 justanothersucker
justanothersucker's picture

 "Chuck Todd, NBC.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. As you know, Senate Democrats -- Harry Reid sent you a letter begging you, essentially, to take -- consider some sort of executive action on this debt ceiling issue. I know you've said you're not negotiating on it. Your administration has ruled out the various ideas that have been out there, the 14th Amendment, but just this morning, House -- one of the House Democratic leaders, Jim Clyburn, asked you to use the 14th Amendment and even said sometimes that's what it takes. He brought up the Emancipation Proclamation as saying they took executive action when Congress wouldn't act, and he compared the debt ceiling to that. So are you considering a Plan B? And if not, why not?"

Here is Chuck Todd advocating for another civil war.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:25 | 3151409 justanothersucker
justanothersucker's picture

 "Chuck Todd, NBC.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. As you know, Senate Democrats -- Harry Reid sent you a letter begging you, essentially, to take -- consider some sort of executive action on this debt ceiling issue. I know you've said you're not negotiating on it. Your administration has ruled out the various ideas that have been out there, the 14th Amendment, but just this morning, House -- one of the House Democratic leaders, Jim Clyburn, asked you to use the 14th Amendment and even said sometimes that's what it takes. He brought up the Emancipation Proclamation as saying they took executive action when Congress wouldn't act, and he compared the debt ceiling to that. So are you considering a Plan B? And if not, why not?"

Here is Chuck Todd advocating for another civil war.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:26 | 3151416 surf0766
surf0766's picture

We have not paid out debt since 1959. We are not a dead beat nation !!

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:31 | 3151434 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

I bought some Series E bonds.  I cashed them in.  And I got paid. 


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:27 | 3151418 Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

"We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn't get their paychecks."

Uuummmm.....yeah we could. Claw back the trillions doled out by the fed to the criminal banksters, immediately stop every dime of 'foreign aid' payments, send a CINC order to the Pentagon to immediately begin closing bases in Opiumlanistan and the rest of the Sandbox, along with Europe and the Pacific Rim (bring our men and women HOME to defend THIS country for ONCE), ground the metastasizing domestic drone fleet, shut down the DHS and TSA, immediately shut down ALL the palatial 'Institute of XXXXXX' megabuildings in Washington D.C......and that's just for starters.

I think we could SOMEHOW manage to pay for those items you're lamenting there Barry. Oh yeah, and fuck you for threatening the people with punishment if your masters are not allowed to send the Republic further into the lower circles of hell. Fuck you and your handlers, fuck you very much.

P.S. You too, Boner.



Mon, 01/14/2013 - 16:34 | 3151936 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

Fill in the blank, Predator = __________?

BACON, FRANCIS. 16th century British writer, politician. In his The New Atlantis, he remarked that Predators

"hate the name of Christ and have a secret and innate rancor against the people among whom they live."

He also disapproved of non-Predatorish usurers as "Judaizers" who would wear "tawny bonnets" like Predators.

LUTHER, MARTIN. 16th century German religious reformer.

"They are the real liars and bloodhounds, who have not only perverted and falsified the entire Scriptures from beginning to end and without ceasing with their interpretations. And all of the anxious sighing, longing and hoping of their hearts is directed to the time when some day they would like to deal with us heathen as they dealt with the heathen in Persia at the time of Esther... On how they love the book of Esther, which so nicely agrees with their bloodthirsty, revengeful and murderous desire and hope. (1)
The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they, who imagine to be the people of God, and who desire to and think they must murder and crush the heathen. And the foremost undertaking which they expect of their Messiah is that he should slay and murder the whole world with the sword. As they at first demonstrated against us Christians and would like to do now, if they only could; have also tried it often and have been repeatedly struck on their snouts...
Their breath stinks for the gold and silver of the heathen; since no people under the sun always have been, still are, and always will remain more avaricious than they, as can be noticed in their cursed usury. They also find comfort with this: "When the Messiah comes, He shall take all the gold and silver in the world and distribute it among the Preditors. (2) Thus, wherever they can direct Scripture to their insatiable avarice, they wickedly do so.
Therefore know, my dear Christians, that next to the Devil, you have no more bitter, more poisonous, more vehement and enemy than a real Preditor who earnestly desires to be a Preditor. There may be some among them who believe what the cow or the goose believes. But all of them are surrounded with their blood and circumcision. In history, therefore, they are often accused of poisoning wells, stealing children and mutilating them; as in Trent, Weszensee and the like. Of course they deny this. Be it so or not, however, I know full well that the ready will is not lacking with them if they could only transform it into deeds, in secret or openly. (3)
A person who does not know the Devil, might wonder why they are so at enemity with the Christians above all others; for which they have no reason, since we only do good to them.
They live among us in our homes, under our protection, use land and highways, market and streets. Princes and government sit by, snore and have their maws open, let the Preditors take from their purse and chest, steal and rob whatever they will. That is, they permit themselves and their subjects to be abused and sucked dry and reduced to beggars with their own money, through the usury of the Predators. For the Preditors, as foreigners, certainly should have nothing from us; and what they have certainly must be ours. They do not work, do not earn anything from us, neither do we donate or give it to them. Yet they have our money and goods and are lords in our land where they are supposed to be in exile!
If a thief steals ten gulden he must hang; if he robs people on the highway, his head is gone. But a Predator, when he steals ten tons of gold through his usury is dearer than God himself!
Do not their TALMUD and rabbis write that it is no sin to kill if a Predator kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob (as they do with their moneylending) from a heathen, is a divine service... And they are the masters of the world and we are their servants - yea, their cattle!
I maintain that in three fables of Aesop there is more wisdom to be found than in all the books of the Talmudists and rabbis and more than ever could come into the hearts of the Predators...
Should someone think I am saying too much - I am saying much too little! For I see in [their] writings how they curse us Goyim and wish as all evil in their schools and prayers. They rob us of our money through usury, and wherever they are able, they play us all manner of mean tricks... No heathen has done such things and none would to so except the Devil himself and those whom he possesses - as he possesses the Predators.
Burgensis, who was a very learned rabbi among them and by the grace of God became a Christian (which seldom occurs), is much moved that in their schools they so horribly curse us Christians (as Lyra also writes) and from that draws the conclusion that they must not be the people of God.
Now behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when they complain about being captives among us! Jerusalem was destroyed more than 1,400 years ago during that time we Christians have been tortured and persecuted by the Predators in all the world. On top of that, we do not know to this day what Devil brought them into our country. We did not fetch them from Jerusalem!... Yes, we have and hold them captive, as I would like to keep my rheumatism, and all other diseases and misfortunes, who must wait as a poor servant, with money and property and everything I have! I wish they were in Jerusalem with the other Predators and whomsoever they would like to have with them.

Now what are we going to do with these rejected, condemned Predatorish people?... Let us apply the ordinary wisdom of other nations like France, Spain, Bohemia, et al., who made them give an account of what they had stolen through usury, and divided it evenly; but expelled them from their country;. For as heard before, God's wrath is so great over them that through soft mercy they only become more wicked, through hard treatment, however, only a little better. Therefore, away with them!
How much more unbearable it is that we should permit the entire Christendom and all of us to be bought with our own money, be slandered and cursed by the Predators, who on top of all that be made rich and our lords, who laugh us to scorn and are tickled by their audacity!
What a joyful affair that would be for the Devil and his angels, and cause them to laugh through their snouts like a sow grinning at her little pigs, but deserving real wrath before God. (From THE PREDATORS AND THEIR LIES)
Maybe mild-hearted and gentle Christians will believe that I am too rigorous and drastic against the poor, afflicted Predators, believing that I ridicule them and treat them with much sarcasm. By my word, I am far too weak to be able to ridicule such a satanic brood. I would fain to do so, but they are far greater adepts at mockery than I and possess a god who is master in this art. It is the Evil One himself.
Even with no further evidence than the Old Testament, I would maintain, and no person on earth could alter my opinion, that the Predators as they are today are veritably a mixture of all the depraved and malevolent knaves of the whole world over, who have then been dispersed in all countries, similarly to the Tartars, Gypsies and such folk."

WASHINGTON, GEORGE, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.

"They (the Predators) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."

This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.

"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Predators.
In whatever country Predators have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.
For over 1,700 years, the Predators have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.
If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.
If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Predators for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.
Predators, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Predators are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.

STYVESANT, PETER. 17th century Dutch governor in America.

"The Predators who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry also fearing that owing to their present indigence they might become a charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak newly developing place and land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves also for the general community of your worships, that the deceitful race - such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ - not be allowed further to infect and trouble this new colony. (Letter to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company, from New Amsterdam, September 22, 1654.)

The Predators whom he attempted to oust merely applied to their fellow Predators in Holland, and the order came back from the Company countermanding the expulsion. (For a similar situation during the Civil War, see ULYSSES GRANT). Among the reasons given by "their worships" for over-ruling their governor, one stands out rather glaringly, in view of the usual Predatorish contention that their people were 'poor and persecuted:' " ...and also because of the large amount of capital which they have invested in shares of this Company." (Harry Golden and Martin Rywell, THE PREDATORS IN AMERICAN HISTORY)
THE GEORGIA COLONY IN AMERICA. On January 5, 1734, the trustees ordered that three Predators who had been sending correligionists into the colony without authorization "use their endeavors that the said Predators may be removed from the Colony of Georgia, as the best and only satisfaction that they can give to the Trustees for such an indignity offered to Gentlemen acting under His Majesty's Charter." (C. Jones, HISTORY OF SAVANNAH)

JEFFERSON, THOMAS. 18th century American statesman.

"Dispersed as the Predators are, they still form one nation, foreign to the land they live in. " (D. Boorstin, THE AMERICANS)
"Those who labor in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he had a chosen people. " (NOTES ON VIRGINIA)

BEAMISH, HENRY H. 20th century British publisher.

"There is no need to be delicate on this Predatorish question. You must face them in this country. The Predator should be satisfied here. I was here forty-seven years ago; your doors were thrown open and you were then free. Now he has got you absolutely by the throat - that is their reward. " (New York speech, October 30, 1937)

HARRINGTON, LORD. 19th century British statesman. Opposed admission of Predatorish immigrants to England because:

"They are the great moneylenders and loan contractors of the world... The consequence is that the nations of the world are groaning under heavy systems of taxation and national debt. They have ever been the greatest enemies of freedom. (Speech in the House of Lords, July 12, 1858)

WALTER CRICK, British Manufacturer, in the NORTHAMPTON DAILY ECHO, March 19. 1925)

"Predators can destroy by means of finance. Predators are International. Control of credits in this country is not in the hands of the English, but of Predators. It has become the biggest danger the British Empire ever had to face."


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:27 | 3151420 905ozs
905ozs's picture

I said baah and I got one, FROM GERMANY :)

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:28 | 3151421 Crabshacker
Crabshacker's picture

Haaa....Shit after immigrant reform we'll have plenty of  (future) children to sell.. Forward Bitch!!

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:28 | 3151422 etresoi
etresoi's picture

"Congress have made a decision that they want to shut down the government in order to get their way, then they have the votes"

Obama has said it and I agree.  Shut down the US government and the world will thank you.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:29 | 3151424 Zer0head
Zer0head's picture
178 years ago today we had a national debt of $0

(actually a week ago tomorrow)

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:34 | 3151427 JR
JR's picture

“..either immediately or ultimately every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation. Once we look at the matter. In this way, the supposed miracles of government spending will appear in another light.” -- Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:30 | 3151429 adr
adr's picture

Wait, so Obama cut $2.4 trillion from the deficit in the past two years? So we already went over $20 trillion already?

Somebody should clue Obama into the basic workings of math. It your debt increased, you didn't reduce it.

Fuck you clown in chief.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:29 | 3151744 DOT
DOT's picture

Adding to spending, but less than what was requested is considered a cut.

Raising the deficit, but less than the whisper number  is considered a reduction.

Not giving the Pres. what he wants is "bad math".


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:30 | 3151435 cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

"But you citizens don't understand economics, derivatives, banking, military and how it is our responsibility to keep these humungous entities afloat for the good of us all.  It doesn't work the same in government as it does for a household.   We pay our bills because Ben can print, you can't.  That is the difference.  Trust us, we know best how to deal with these things because we are elected public servants, the cream of the crop, the best of the best and we do it all for you."   ......teleprompter

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:33 | 3151445 Stormtower
Stormtower's picture

I don't think I've ever been more disgusted with a President in my lifetime. I'm living in some kind of nightmare.........I say to myself.......this is America isn't it? And sadly.............IT is!

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:03 | 3151618 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

Because he wants to raise the DC?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 18:50 | 3152411 notadouche
notadouche's picture

What hypocrisy Obama is showing.  As a senator he was against raising the debt ceiling and said something negative about borrowing from China to finance the nations debt.   Unbelievable.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:34 | 3151449 The Miser
The Miser's picture

"I am going to fundamentally change America."  Obama.  He sure is fundamentally changing America.  Print money and raise the debt until the whole system colapses. 

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:50 | 3151549 surf0766
surf0766's picture


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 19:15 | 3152478 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:33 | 3151450 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

I read this whole speech, without puking. Barely.

Obama is clearly insane. Does he actually believe the shit that cascades out of his mouth?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:34 | 3151452 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

I read this whole speech, without puking. Barely.

Obama is clearly insane. Does he actually believe the shit that cascades out of his mouth?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:35 | 3151455 IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

"OBAMA: Well, my understanding is the vice president's going to provide a range of steps we can take to reduce gun violence. Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I'll be reviewing those today, and as I said, I'll speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and propose later in the week.
     But I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president. And where you get a step that has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it."

Let's think about the actual steps that he can legally take, given that there is no amendment that has, as of yet nullified the second amendment.

1. He can disarm the military.

2. He can disarm the secret service and other government agencies.

3. He can veto any appropriations bill for the purchase of weaponry and ammunition

4. He can stop the justice department from gun running

Other than that anything he does is illegal. He may call it legal because his gang is bigger and more powerful than any other gang in the country and they have shown that they are willing to use threats and violence to get their way (they believe themselves all-powreful). He can have his gang put illegal laws on the books, which he has with his executive orders.

HOWEVER, UNTIL HE GETS THE STATES TO RATIFY AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ALL OF THE LAWS CONFLICTING WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS EXECUTIVE ORDERS (which are not allowed by the constitution) THAT HE IS ENFORCING ARE ILLEGAL LAWS ... and anyone who has taken an oath of office should understand this and do their best to prevent him from enforcing his illegal laws.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:43 | 3151496 Sockeye
Sockeye's picture

Illegal laws. A concept that not enough of us get.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:05 | 3151627 JR
JR's picture

"Awash in Hypocrisy and Hubris, Obama and His Party Push Toward Despotism" by Michael Scheuer of


Obama’s eagerness to use the deaths of the Connecticut youngsters to further his ideological quest to destroy the 2nd Amendment is not his sole use of dead Americans to further his ideological goals and lust for power. Every Marine and soldier who has died in Afghanistan since Obama’s administration announced U.S. forces would leave that country in 2014 has died for absolutely nothing…

Obama’s dabbling with the personal and political usefulness of gratuitous murder is never more apparent than in his and the Democratic Party’s intimate ties to the merchants of death who dominate the U.S. entertainment industry. Throughout the late presidential campaign, we saw Obama pass up no chance to appear with actors and directors who produce films and TV programs that condition America’s youngsters to accept large-scale murder and mutilation as commonplace, as well as to regard women essentially as whores. He also appeared with singers who use lyrics that celebrate and even advocate murder and describe women as sub-humans worthy only of servicing the desires of men, as well as with IT geniuses who specialize in producing video games that allow youngsters to kill huge numbers of people for multiple hours a day. Just this month, as Obama, Vice President Biden, and New York Governor Cuomo campaigned for abrogation of the 2nd Amendment, their pals and funders in Hollywood were raking in 40-plus million dollars a week from their most recent lets-kill-for-the-fun-of-it movies: Texas Chainsaw – 3-D and Django Unchained.

Obama and his party prate endlessly about education, but seem to carefully define it in the narrow sense of a classroom education, the milieu in which they and their teacher-union friends deliberately have taught several generations of grammar and high-school students to misunderstand and so grow to hate America; to dismiss religion as a form of superstition or even mental illness; to look to the federal government for life-long help and so avoid hard work; and to fanatically believe in the indefinable but society-destroying concepts of diversity and multiculturalism.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:35 | 3151460 905ozs
905ozs's picture


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:39 | 3151477 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

The country has become a disgusting mess. Have all politicians been compromised? Is there not one single elected official who can speak the truth. Not a single one has challenged (effectively) the forged birth certificate Obama presented on the White House website. Not one will say that Constitutional rights cannot be suspended by a mere law or executive order. Not one who will say loudly that our debts are indeed unpayable with a dollar at it's current value.

Do all of them have a closet full of skeletons ? Are they all stupid? Are they all on the take? Are they all planning how to hide from a near apocalypse? Does anyone know? 

My guess is that they are all compromised. The NSA has collected some piece of damning information on every single one. Petraeus was the example.

Hopefully Congress will decide to re-assert itself...or just quit en masse. As they are at present they are useless. 

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:30 | 3152134 irie1029
irie1029's picture

They are all in the same club.  

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:39 | 3151478 Brokenarrow
Brokenarrow's picture

hat in hand? SG in hand?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:45 | 3151493 yogibear
yogibear's picture

The US Federal Reserve bank will print any money Obama needs to pay it's bills.

The question is how long other countries will accept the US dollar while the Fed performs infinite printing.

The Federal Reserve can jawbone all it wants, the market will call it's bluff at some point.


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:43 | 3151495 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Still pushing the Newtown/Sandy Hook flase flag hoax? The evidence of this fraud is piling up on YouTube.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 19:12 | 3152472 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture


These evil bastards mean to kill us ALL.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:45 | 3151498 IamtheREALmario
IamtheREALmario's picture

The whole situation is so full of irony ...

"We pay our bills." How? You have no means to pay your bills. You produce nothing of value. You are simply a parasite with delusions of grandeur. So you borrow money that is created out of thin air by a criminal crony organization and through the threat of force proclaim that the fiat money created out of thin air is what people must take in settlement of your debts.

Maybe you should start by think about what you can produce of value and how you can stop borrowing from the fiat pimps.

Tue, 01/15/2013 - 03:36 | 3153435 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

He just chose not to complete the sentence. If there's one thing politicians love, it's half-truths, and they always give us the pretty side.

The full sentence is: "We pay our bills... by levying involuntary taxes on our productive citizens, and, if they do not comply we force them into submission with endless harassment and if necessary, imprisonment."

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:44 | 3151500 DeliciousSteak
DeliciousSteak's picture

When Obama speaks you better listen, and you better listen carefully. Because he usually tells exactly what he's going to do. Remember when he said he wants to create a civilian force that is just as powerful, just as strong as the military? Because it's necessary for Americas security? Well, agencies like IRS have become like a "civilian military". They use military training, they use military tactics and they behave on the ground like military forces in a hostile country.

When he speaks, listen carefully. He means business.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:45 | 3151502 Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

Does every ***** person act like this when you cut off their credit cards?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:49 | 3151535 RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

No, they get even worse.  Try cutting off EBT and SNAP cards and see what happens...

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:46 | 3151511 Manthong
Manthong's picture

“We are not a deadbeat nation”

He’s right.. we’re a dead meat nation.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:54 | 3152222 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

YES! The USA can be metaphorically compared to a terminally sick body. The USA has developed systemic cancer, which started as a brain cancer, caused by the bankster parasites, which has spread throughout the entire body ... There is no reasonable hope, except that the USA is currently not organized anything close to an advanced multicellular animal, but only a little more complicated than a slime mold. Therefore, the death of that "dead meat" society might not be as total as the death of a more complicated and already integrated, advanced multicellular entity. But nevertheless, the basic metaphor is that the USA has a terminal cancer, which spread from the parasites that took control of its governments, in ways that enabled that to legalized fraud, and back that fraud up with legalized force. That advanced triumph of frauds has spread throughout every aspect of American society, so much so that that there are no treatments left which could work. The only thing left is to wait and watch as it gets sicker, faster, and until it dies ... which is NOT something I personally wish to see accelerated, since the consequences will be so extremely BAD as to go off the scale of what we can imagine ... However, there is no reasonable doubt that the USA is a "dead meat nation."

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:48 | 3151520 RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

"You don't go out to dinner and then, you know, eat all you want and then leave without paying the check. And if you do, you're breaking the law."

You don't even think about going out to dinner in the first place unless you've got the money to do so.  This is a totally bogus argument:  We spent the money, now you need to put more in our checking account, or we can't pay...

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:47 | 3151524 madcows
madcows's picture

All you politicians just STFU.  You have no credibility.  Quit flapping your gums, We aren't listening. 

Here it is.  Words are meaningless, especially when spoken by a politician.  Quit lying to us and just balance the budget.  It's really a simple thing, just don't spend more than you take in.  That's it.  Now go F yourself.  We, the people, didn't make us broke.  You, the politicians, did.  I say we sell you into slavery in China to pay down the debt.  What does one corrupt, useless politician go for on the slave market?

Tue, 01/15/2013 - 04:56 | 3153469 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I agree. The problem is that debt must grow or the banking ponzi collapses. Private debt is not growing nor likely to grow anytime soon, which means public debt must grow. If public debt goes down as a result of any actual progress toward balancing the budget, then the ponzi goes bust. They've painted themselves into a corner but I don't expect them to ever say this out loud. This is just a show, a diversion that is so transparent it's painful to watch the willful and blatant lying.

I like the slave market idea, since they seem so fond of that form of social arrangement. Seems a fair tit-for-tat. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them. My preference is that we bring back the lions, and maybe throw in some hyenas to keep things interesting. Put it all on internet streaming and pipe it into every public space in the world, especially airports. The idea of an "elite" heretofore quasi-omnipotent banker shitting and pissing himself right before he's bitten in-half and eaten-alive seems like a reasonable, fair, and just repayment in-kind for what bankers have done to this world. Oh, and yea, sure, throw in the politicians as well. Nobody will miss the narcissistic psychopaths, and like when doctors go on strike, the death rate will plummet.

*This post may or may not contain /sarc

Note to NSA/TSA/DHS/???: No, I do not have any lions or hyenas.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 14:50 | 3151526 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

Is he speaking as the nigger in chief, or the cracker in chief?

.... Cause one side is about 95% more right than the other.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:01 | 3151608 More_sellers_th...
More_sellers_than_buyers's picture

It was always said the majority in this country operate on an 8th grade level.  That is who he is speaking to. He can say what he likes and no one calls him on it, because even if the so called journalists asked a real question, they can't explain it on an 8th grade level.  I know college educate people who have no understaning whatsoever of economics.  To them its my guy vs. you guys.  For anyone with half a brain, there is nothing to do but watch what is coming. SAD

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:01 | 3151611 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Yes we are a dead beat nation, and no, we don't pay our bills, we extend them on a credit card, and yes, shut this motherfucker Government down because it doesn't work anyway. Give us our Revolution / Communist purge the sooner the better so we can right the ship our way and fuck your Globalist agenda. You don't like the Constitution? go move to Russia.


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:30 | 3151746 Clesthenes
Clesthenes's picture

Has it ever occurred to you that there are two types of revolution… one that advances the cause of tyranny… and the other that advances the cause of liberty?

I call one a Bolshevik – the other, an American – revolution; after their most recent and spectacular examples.

And no one seems to know the difference.

Of the tens of thousands of slave revolts/rebellions that have occurred in human history, only THREE have advanced the cause of liberty.  But for them, we’d live in caves and gullies, eat berries and roots and leftovers from lion or coyote kills.

If you prefer the former, don’t worry; just do nothing; it will happen.  And, you will have to deal with Mossad/CIA/FBI death squads or starving men who roam city and countryside like clouds of locusts.  In the latter case, you might be able hold them off a few days, until you close your eyes in exhaustion, and which will be your end.

Above all, do not worry, it will happen… it has happened… almost beyond counting.

On the other hand, If you want to survive – or advance man’s cause, you must replace that intellectual sludge, that some call propaganda, with real facts of history; and then live by such knowledge.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 16:14 | 3151877 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

Here is a small sampling of history

Fill in the blank, Predators = __________?


CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman stateman, writer. 

"Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Predators have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills." (Oration in Defense of Flaccus)

Cicero was serving as defense counsel at the trial of Flaccus, a Roman official who interfered with Predatorish gold shipments to their international headquarters (then, as now) in Jerusalem. Cicero himself certainly was not a nobody, and for one of this stature to have to "speak softly" shows that he was in the presence of a dangerously powerful sphere of influence.
and on another occasion Cicero wrote:

"The Predators belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers."

SENECA (Lucius Annaeus Seneca). First century Roman philosopher. 

"The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength that they have now been received in all lands. The conquered have given laws to the conquerors." (De Superstitione)

DIO CASSIUS. Second century Roman historian. Describing the savage Predatorish uprising against the Roman empire that has been acknowledged as the turning point downward in the course of that great state-form:

"The Predators were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood... In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Predator may set foot in Cyprus today." (Roman History)

DIODORUS SICULUS. First century Greek historian. Observed that Predators treated other people as enemies and inferiors.

"Usury" is the practice of lending money at excessive interest rates. This has for centuries caused great misery and poverty for Gentiles. It has brought strong condemnation of the Predators!

BERNARDINO OF FELTRO. 15th century Italian priest. A mild man who extolled patience and charity in normal circumstances, he described himself as a "barking dog" when dealing with Predators:

"Predatorish usurers bleed the poor to death and grow fat on their substance, and I who live on alms, who feed on the bread of the poor, shall I then be mute before outraged charity? Dogs bark to protect those who feed them, and I, who am feed by the poor, shall I see them robbed of what belongs to them and keep silent?" (E. Flornoy, Le Bienbeureux Bernardin the Feltre)

AQUINAS, THOMAS, Saint. 13th century scholastic philosopher. In his "On the Governance of the Predators," he wrote:

"The Predators should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to worked so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious."


"There is already something like a Predatorish monopoly in high finance ... There is the same element of Predatorish monopoly in the silver trade, and in the control of various other metals, notably lead, nickel, quicksilver. What is most disquieting of all, this tendency to monopoly is spreading like a disease."

H. H. BEAMISH, in New York Speech, October 30, 1937

"The Boer War occurred 37 years ago. Boer means farmer. Many criticized a great power like Britain for trying to wipe out the Boers. Upon making inquiry, I found all the gold and diamond mines of South Africa were owned by Predators; that Rothschild controlled gold; Samuels controlled silver, Baum controlled other mining, and Moses controlled base metals. Anything these people touch they inevitably pollute."

W. HUGHES, Premier of Australia, Saturday Evening Post, June 19, 1919

"The Montefiores have taken Australia for their own, and there is not a gold field or a sheep run from Tasmania to New South Wales that does not pay them a heavy tribute. They are the real owners of the antipodean continent. What is the good of our being a wealthy nation, if the wealth is all in the hands of German Predators?"


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 19:10 | 3152465 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

He cannot go back to his Motherland until he fulfills his Russian Masters' orders.

Perhaps we should arrest him before he turns Bill Ayers and the Zyklon-B gas loose.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:09 | 3151642 yogibear
yogibear's picture

Like good old home Hyde Park Chicago. Stiff your creditors one way or another. Print the US dollar silly.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:14 | 3151667 All Out Of Bubblegum
All Out Of Bubblegum's picture

"Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a -- in a shockingly rapid fashion?"


Maybe future shooters could follow Dear Leader's lead and just use drones to kill kids instead? It seems to work for Barry.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:22 | 3151714 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

The school his kids go to has 11 armed guards, not including the SS for his kids, so maybe that would be a possible solution? Wouldn't keep the deranded moron from walking in, but likely keep him from killing anywhere near 20.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:15 | 3151670 100pcDredge
100pcDredge's picture

I am not going to read all this crap.

If you don't mind.

And if you do mind - I still won't read it.

All right?

Thank you very much.


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:24 | 3151721 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

We aren't? Really? Prove it.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:25 | 3151723 loveyajimbo
loveyajimbo's picture

I read one line... LIAR.  He actually must be pshycotic... he seems to expect people to believe the crap he spouts.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:26 | 3151728 pcrs
pcrs's picture

Orwell speaking

Act responsible and pay the bills with the trillion dollar coin.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:26 | 3151730 shutupnsing
shutupnsing's picture

There's something that sits between comical and tragical when one hears the words "discipline" & "responsibly" uttered from this serpent's tongue!

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:36 | 3151769 Uncle Keith
Uncle Keith's picture

The Cult of The Individual was what doomed the Hedonist/American Conservatives "movemnt". It wasn't sustainable; it wasn't gonna not lead to Social Unrest.


So, the Plutoccrats had A Plan. Their Plan involved "perpetuating a feeling of economic insecurity". So, they bought MSM and, they employed a bunch of social psychologists. Their agenda? Wealth Consolidation. Their motive? Ego and Greed. Not the betterment of Society; not the betterment of their country; not the betterment of anyone or anything not directly related to their acquisition of more and more. Power - and, their despotic reign. 


So, Old Barry's gonna make Bitch and Boner take a Big Bite of their own Shit Sandwich. Heh... I can't wait. The Great Lady from Kentucky and The Bi-Sexual from Ohio are going to throw a two month long temper tantrum, lose, and fade into obscurity. The Social Awakening with the Younger and the Long Term Unemployed will be an electoral turning point in 2014. We're going to be looking at One Party Rule for the forseeable future. For better or for worse.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:43 | 3151788 Wave-Tech
Wave-Tech's picture

For those who have yet to awaken and are not brain-dead, this woman will turn your world completely upside down in less than 45-minutes.  It appears clear that the fundamental "planned" transformation of America has been underway for a long, long time.


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:44 | 3151793 Clesthenes
Clesthenes's picture

Did you notice, he never suggested cutting the most useless expense in the federal budget?

Every month, the federal government sends checks to millions of federal employee; some active, SOME RETIRED.  Former grunt bureaucrats collect $4000, or more, EACH MONTH; judges and department heads, $15,000 or more.

He suggests in several places cutting the federal payroll so that it will most severely impact taxpayers.

But does he ever suggests stopping retirement checks sent to former bureaucrats who spent their entire time as bureaucrats warming chairs, drinking coffee, watching porn on tax-paid computers, or making life miserable for taxpayers?  Most of their time, of course, they just warmed chairs.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:51 | 3151805 sbenard
sbenard's picture

This man is so utterly, completely, and irredeemably deceitful that he has earned the moniker Deceiver in Chief. Unfortunately, just as with Germans under Hitler, there are many fools that believe him. Is there a word for a person so foolish that they would engage in such self-immolation?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:52 | 3151813 sbenard
sbenard's picture

Saul Alinsky and his self-declared inspiration source, Lucifer, must be proud!

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:52 | 3151817 Peterus
Peterus's picture

Which deadbeat admitted publicly that he's just floating on other people's money until it runs out?

Well, it probably won't run out until guns and gold get registered. Than some crazed extreme right-wing fanatics will conveniently storm a hotel or airport with outlawed assault rifles and drum magazines. Take hundreds of hostages. SWAT will go in, killing all attackers. About 200-300 civilians will die in cross-fire. Bold action will be taken to avert this crisis, starting with full confiscation of (now registered) weapons. To support this GREAT, GREAT... did I forget to say GREAT? NATION in time of need everybody will be asked to help by paying his fair share and immidiately turning in all of his/her (now registered) gold.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 19:04 | 3152451 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Man, don't give him any ideas. We already know he kills children for fun.

Probably eats their livers, too, where he's from.


Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:56 | 3151833 Tom_333
Tom_333's picture

Why even bother printing a full transcript?

There will not be any default.The debt-ceiling will be raised.What is the option? And then the reality show will roll on.Because everyone wants it to.Needs i to.During all this posturing and crazy mix of doomsday secenarios and nirvana-like belief in ever better days to come no one seems to point out the huge generational change on an unprecedented scale.The short-changing of everyone younger than baby-boomer generation.On a scale not seen since the..err..depression.But I suspect this can be more malign since the 30ies saw a complete wipe-out,liquidation and reset.What we have here has never been tried before.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:37 | 3152164 OneEyedJack
OneEyedJack's picture

I read the entire transcript.

What a waste of time

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 16:06 | 3151862 jumbo maverick
jumbo maverick's picture

DUCK! There's some loose nuclear material floating around here. Call out the "loose nuclear material specialists" to help us!

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 16:08 | 3151870 ivana
ivana's picture

"As the speaker said two years ago, it would be, and I'm quoting Speaker Boehner now, "a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy."

Sounds like Paulson few years ago ... if you don't give us some more (your) money - we will pull the plug ... same old blackmail routine

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 16:18 | 3151890 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

If this White House press corps was around in the 1960s we'd still be in Vietnam.

If this White House press corps was around in the 1970s Nixon would still be president.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 16:36 | 3151949 Fix It Again Timmy
Fix It Again Timmy's picture

“Every government is run by liars,” independent journalist I.F. Stone observed, “and nothing they say should be believed.”

Need I say more?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 16:40 | 3151972 Fix It Again Timmy
Fix It Again Timmy's picture
"We Are Not A Deadbeat Nation"  - That's for sure, we passed that milestone about 100 years ago - we're much further down the road....
Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:02 | 3152038 skunzie
skunzie's picture

Thank God, there are people out there who recognize the pure unadulterated BS we are being fed by this dictator and his sycophantic followers.  Congrats ZH readers and thanks for your spot-on comments. 

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:15 | 3152080 dscott8186
dscott8186's picture

Obama speaks of having achieved deficit reductions and yet he and Reid are spending $1.2 trillion a year more than we take in.    All talk of deficit reductions over 10 years are bogus and therefore a LIE.  When we actually spend less on a YOY basis, then and only then can anyone truthfully claim a deficit reduction has occurred.  

Obama has yet to explain on what he has been spending the $1.2 trillion per year for the last 4 years.  We know some of it he gave a mea culpa on ...  Solyndra.  

It's long past time to cut up his credit cards and force him to live within his means.  That starts with an actual budget that tells everyone what exactly he and Reid are spending the money on.  No increase in debt limit unless and until an actual budget is passed, i.e. agreed upon.  I expect 13 appropriation bills as the law requires, and every dollar spent must be justified.  

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:29 | 3152131 dscott8186
dscott8186's picture

The last time republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. 

Say what, who's fault was it for not being reasonable in even considering cutting spending at all?  Our AAA rating was lost because you Obama were unwilling to face we have a spending problem and you even have repeatedly stated we don't from your own mouth.  Spending $1.2 trillion more than you take in is a spending problem not to mention that federal spending ramped up higher than in the Bush years even with the end of the Iraq war.

Our businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three years, and ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the deficit.

If the statement was written in isolation as a statement of fact without blaming anyone as you falsely did then it would be true.  A half truth, your regulations killed millions of full time jobs only to be replaced with part time ones NOT TO EXCEED 30 hours per week. 

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:39 | 3152171 billsykes
billsykes's picture

SO If I was a complete fucking idiot, listening to obama I would think we are doing a pretty good job. After all its a new term for him and the first 4 years on the job was just him getting his bearings. 

This time round he is really making some kick ass progress, like real change I can believe in. 

Good job el presidente.





Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:45 | 3152197 joego1
joego1's picture

Thinking about all these trillions makes me want to drop acid and contemplate how big the universe is and beyond...

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:46 | 3152199 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

"Now, I've said I'm open to making modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to protect them from future generations."

Typo, freudian slip or statement of fact?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 17:59 | 3152234 Marley
Marley's picture

Here, I agree with him.  Congress puts the budget together.  Ya here the one about GE not paying any corporate tax as a condition to get the last Fiscal Clifftm agreement through Congress?  Are you just a tool?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 18:02 | 3152241 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Fuck you, barry!

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 19:00 | 3152438 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Americans are not deadbeats, but you, sir, are a deadbeat and you are not an AMerican.


the taxpayers you are screwing in your vile homosexual way.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 20:07 | 3152460 reTARD
reTARD's picture

The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of "conservatism" and "liberalism" which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.

The goal of the "liberals"—as it emerges from the record of the past decades—was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the "conservatives" was only to retard that process.)


It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of "Freedom or dictatorship?" into "Which kind of dictatorship?"—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).

That fraud collapsed in the 1940's, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders— that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political "right," but of the "left"—that the basic issue is not "rich versus poor," but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government— which means: capitalism versus socialism. 

The smear of capitalism's advocates as "fascists" has failed in this country and, for over a decade, has been moldering in dark corners, seldom venturing to be heard openly, in public— coming only as an occasional miasma from under the ground, from the sewers of actual leftism. And this is the kind of notion that the "liberals" are unfastidious enough to attempt to revive. But it is obvious what vested interest that notion can serve.

If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two "extremes" at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, "moderate" middle—with a "moderate" amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a "moderate" amount of government handouts to the poor—with a "moderate" respect for rights and a "moderate" degree of brute force—with a "moderate" amount of freedom and a "moderate" amount of slavery—with a "moderate" degree of justice and a "moderate" degree of injustice—with a "moderate" amount of security and a "moderate" amount of terror—and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those "extremists" who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.

The notion of compromise as the supreme virtue superseding all else, is the moral imperative, the moral pre-condition of a mixed economy. A mixed economy is an explosive, untenable mixture of two opposite elements, which cannot remain stable, but must ultimately go one way or the other; it is a mixture of freedom and controls, which means: not of fascism and communism, but of capitalism and statism (including all its variants). Those who wish to support the un-supportable, disintegrating status quo, are screaming in panic that it can be prolonged by eliminating the two "extremes" of its basic components; but the two extremes are: capitalism or total dictatorship.

The mentally paralyzed, anxiety ridden neurotics produced by the disintegration of modern philosophy—with its cult of uncertainty, its epistemological irrationalism and ethical subjectivism— come out of our colleges, broken by chronic dread, seeking escape from the absolutism of reality with which they feel themselves impotent to deal. Fear drives them to unite with slick political manipulators and pragmatist ward-heelers to make the world safe for mediocrity by raising to the status of a moral ideal that archetypical citizen of a mixed economy: the docile, pliable, moderate Milquetoast who never gets excited, never makes trouble, never cares too much, adjusts to anything and upholds nothing.

The best proof of an intellectual movement's collapse is the day when it has nothing to offer as an ultimate ideal but a plea for "moderation." Such is the final proof of collectivism's bankruptcy. The vision, the courage, the dedication, the moral fire are now on the barely awakening side of the crusaders for capitalism.

"EXTREMISM," OR THE ART OF SMEARING, BY AYN RAND, The Objectivist Newsletter, September 1964.



In the end, they WILL blame capitalism as the strawman for all the failures.

Tue, 01/15/2013 - 14:37 | 3154672 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

The problem is government, everywhere, always.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 19:22 | 3152490 Mr. Hudson
Mr. Hudson's picture

Obama stated: "When you add the money that we'll save in interest payments on the debt, altogether that adds up to a total of about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the past two years.."

This is a deception. He is talking about future proposed cuts to be done years from now after he is out of office; spending cuts that the next president can (and will) refuse to follow-up on when he or she takes office.

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 19:54 | 3152509 Coldfire
Coldfire's picture

We are not a deadbeat nation.

What do you mean "we", kemosabe?

Mon, 01/14/2013 - 23:47 | 3153134 indio007
indio007's picture

kABUKI theater

Tue, 01/15/2013 - 01:03 | 3153298 Cosimo de Medici
Cosimo de Medici's picture

Only inside the Beltway does not spending money you don't have count as debt reduction.

Not buying the Gulfstream G-650 I'd like, so as to avoid TSA at the airport, will "save" me $65 million, but I can't seem to remember where I left all that money.

Tue, 01/15/2013 - 07:11 | 3153532 MickV
MickV's picture

Again, when are you going to get it. The American Reoublic is over. The Usurpation of the Presidency by non natural born Citizen Obama ended it. He was born BRITISH, of a British subject father, and that dual allegiance at birth voids eligibility. The NWO and Congress know all of this, and know that the Constitution is meaningless when the POTUS, who is the executor of the laws, is not eligible for the office. There are more Constitutional constraints on government power. and no more sovereignty for US Citizens--- and it was planned that way. This is the consolidation of power phase. Your liberty was stolen while you looked down at your Chinese slave labor made IPHONE. Speak the whole truth and it will set you free. The erosion of liberty is the SYMPTOM if the Usurpation. The first step in restoring the Republic is the recognition of an illegal President. Everything else is useless whining.

Tue, 01/15/2013 - 14:38 | 3154661 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

I like how the prick mentions possible interest rate cost spikes hurting people and small businesses. Like they aren't spiking taxes, regs, etc. on these very same entities.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!