>>snip
>>
>>In related news, another turnaround:
>>
>>In 2006 on the Senate floor:
>>
>>“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”
>>
>>Obama later joined his Democratic colleagues in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.
>>
>>Today:
>>
>>Now Obama is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling, something lawmakers are almost certain to do despite misgivings about the federal debt. The ceiling already has been hiked three times in the past two years, and the House took action earlier this year to raise the ceiling to $13 trillion.
>>
>>
>>http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/57493-senate-must-raise-debt-ceiling-above-12t
>>
>>I'd say his statement back in 2006 is true today:
>>
>>“America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”
>
>Don't you things have changed a little since 2006? If the government had not poured so much money into the economy starting a year ago I think we would be a lot worse off than we are now.
>
>It surprises me (although maybe it shouldn't) that our politics remain as polarized as they were for the past 16 years. The conservative backlash against Obama's speech to school children today is a perfect example. People keeping their kids home so they don't have to hear it, saying Obama is trying to push a socialist agenda. A draft of the speech has been released and there is no socialist or any other agenda other than "stay in school." How can that be objectionable? But it is. If he said the sun rises in the east there would be some who would rant and rave about it.

I guess you missed the news where the final speech was modified after the huge response? The draft you are reading is not the original one. They changed the lesson plan language. You can google that yourself. I think you are uninformed about who was involved in the backlash as well - it was not entirely a 'conservative backlash.' Families all over this country from all political spectrums complained. Personally, I didn't have any problem with it as long as he kept politics out of it. Sometimes you attempt to polarize a subject and then complain about it being polarized. Amazing.

Regardless, that was not the subject I posted about. You attempted to turn the conversation into a different direction rather than address my post.

As to your one response above, yes things have changed. I take from your post that you think that whatever this administration spends money on and the effect of raising the deficit is completely justified. It is not possible to discuss anything to do with this administration with you because you seem to only pay attention to talking points and don't do any real research. You didn't read the cap and trade, you didn't read the healthcare bill (even though I posted the link to it), and you are writing now as though his request to raise the limit is only due to the money he poured into the economy for his stimulus bill (which was poorly designed and poorly done). The need to raise the deficit limit is not only based on the money that went into the economy and I'm pretty sure you know that.