Obamateurism of the Day

posted at 8:05 am on May 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Thanks to Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit for catching this jaw-dropping hypocrisy from Barack Obama during his commencement speech at Arizona State University. Perhaps the heat in Tempe got to the President, but then he repeated himself in Albuquerque yesterday. Either way, this line should have gotten laughs rather than applause:

We’ve become accustomed to our economic dominance in the world, forgetting that it wasn’t reckless deals and get-rich-quick schemes that got us there; but hard work and smart ideas -quality products and wise investments. So we started taking shortcuts. We started living on credit, instead of building up savings.

He then scolded a town-hall audience in Albuquerque about borrowing money from China:

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Just a reminder about the spending plans for the President who derided the American habit of “living on credit”:

See all that red going downwards? That’s Obama having America live on credit for the next decade at a higher rate in terms of real dollars and percentage of GDP than any American president since FDR. He has the least amount of standing to talk about spending within one’s own means of anyone in Washington DC.

Feeling “dampened” yet?  We’re positively soaked, and there’s a big storm a-comin’.

I’ll be on vacation for the next week, but that doesn’t mean you can’t send your suggestions for an Obamateurism of the Day! If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at [email protected] with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.

Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Now how in the hell didn’t the audiences, to this ummmm well….I’ll just say it. Idiotic speeches not see right thru this?

I think I would have got up, and walked out, or hollared out….then why did you do this to us???

capejasmine on May 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM

He’s positioning for massive tax increases and nationalization of industry.

mr.blacksheep on May 15, 2009 at 9:09 AM

That might be it. We’ve all being working in the framework of the knowledge that increased tax rates will not increase tax revenues, a la Laugher curve. He doesn’t believe that, so this all a drive to up the tax rates.

Count to 10 on May 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM


This is exactly what we’ve been saying at the Tea Parties.

madmonkphotog on May 15, 2009 at 10:47 AM

I would say not. We’ve discussed this before. The problem is universal suffrage and allowing people to vote who have no idea what they are voting for and have no stake. Requirements of holding land/paying taxes for whatever level of government the vote is for, along with proving one is qualified to make an informed decision (knowing the bare minimum about our nation and its governance) is a must. Universal suffrage, without any requirements is a sure recipe for disaster.

progressoverpeace on May 15, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Generally, only the motivated vote in our system, anyway. In some respects, it is important that anyone that really wants to vote be allowed to. Otherwise, you get revolutionary tendencies.

The problem is that, in the last election, we had people trying to break that by going out and pressuring all of the disinterested into voting (for their guy).

Universal suffrage is fine, just so long as you don’t have people trying to game the system with “Rock the Vote” efforts.

Count to 10 on May 15, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Yeah, I’m really going to take what this dude says about debt seriously.

Did anyone else see this yesterday (found at Ace of Spades’ headlines section):

President Obama’s troubling mantra: In debt, we trust
Saturday, May 2nd 2009, 4:00 AM

It is no surprise that President Obama supports unprecedented spending and borrowing in the federal budget since he has never suffered any consequences from the excessive spending and borrowing in his private life.
And I’m not just talking about the First Lady’s $540 sneakers.

A close examination of their finances shows that the Obamas were living off lines of credit along with other income for several years until 2005, when Obama’s book royalties came through and Michelle received her 260% pay raise at the University of Chicago. This was also the year Obama started serving in the U.S. Senate.

During the presidential primary campaign, Michelle Obama complained how tough it was to make ends meet.


Let’s examine how tough things were for this couple using various public records.

In April 1999, they purchased a Chicago condo and obtained a mortgage for $159,250. In May 1999, they took out a line of credit for $20,750. Then, in 2002, they refinanced the condo with a $210,000 mortgage, which means they took out about $50,000 in equity. Finally, in 2004, they took out another line of credit for $100,000 on top of the mortgage.

Tax returns for 2004 reveal $14,395 in mortgage deductions. If we assume an effective interest rate of 6%, then they owed about $240,000 on a home they purchased for about $159,250.

This means they spent perhaps $80,000 beyond their income from 1999 to 2004.


These numbers clearly show the Obamas were living beyond their means and they might have suffered financially during the decline in housing prices had they relied on taking ever larger amounts of equity from their home to pay the bills.

But in 2005, Obama’s book sales soared and the royalties poured in. Michelle explained, “It was like Jack and his magic beans.”

Without those magic beans, the Obama family would have eventually suffered the consequences of too much debt.

Actually, I’m pretty sure those “magic beans” were Skittles…

Y-not on May 15, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Y-not on May 15, 2009 at 11:10 AM

It doesn’t hurt, that they had influential acquaintences either. I’m pretty sure they didn’t get where they are…..alone! Obama is far from a self made man.

capejasmine on May 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM

but then he repeated himself in Albuquerque yesterday.

Not to be toooo nit-picky, but he was actually in “Rio Rancho”, not Albuquerque.
This is like how South Park Colorado is really a suburb of Denver but they call it a city. Rio Rancho has its own mayor, and everything…

I for one is glad he wasn’t in MY city LOL (He was still too close. quoting Chavez the stench of sulfur is steeeel here.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on May 15, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Rush is talking about this right now….LOL!! He said Obama just threw himself under the bus.

deidre on May 15, 2009 at 12:11 PM

deidre, heh.

How can you physically drive a bus over yourself?

But The One can make it happen!

He’s right, of course. Those of us “waving teabags around” knew it MONTHS ago. Glad to see he’s on board. Anyone care to invite him to a tea-party?

JeffWeimer on May 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

How can you physically drive a bus over yourself?

JeffWeimer on May 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Drone bus.

progressoverpeace on May 15, 2009 at 12:31 PM

“Do as I say, not as I do” — the liberal politicians’ mantra.

Christian Conservative on May 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM

What should we do with the salaries of the wastefull spenders? 90% tax seems about right.

I suspect the commies will soon wisen up and start blocking economic data. The media will go along and the Mr Hussein O will say the numbers mean nothing. He has all under control and we aren’t ready to understand the facts anyhow.

seven on May 15, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Not to be toooo nit-picky, but he was actually in “Rio Rancho”, not Albuquerque.
-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on May 15, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Those of us in the Southwest call it “Rio Raunchy”. It was a planned community, built near some large businesses that moved into the area outside of Albuquerque. Most of the houses were originally built in the same ugly style, thus the name “Rio Raunchy”. They remind me of the old song “Little Boxes of Ticky Tacky”.

Susanboo on May 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM

How’s this for an Obamateurism…

Howard Davidowitz: “We’re now in Barack Obama’s world where money goes into the most inefficient parts of the economy…”

Rae on May 15, 2009 at 10:54 PM