No Guys, Obama Isn’t Saying Struggling Homeowners Are Deadbeats
Oh man, this is even less borderline than the “you didn’t build that” controversy. In the debate over the debt ceiling, Obama used an analogy:
OK, it’s obvious what he’s saying. If you have committed to a certain expenditure, but that at the last minute decide you simply aren’t going to pay it (even though you have the financial ability to do so), then you’re not saving money etc.
We can debate whether this is a good analogy or not, but my interpretation above is clearly what he is saying.
Yet now that clip is running around Twitter etc. with people saying:
How many homeowners, who may have fallen on hard times, offended by President Obama calling them a deadbeat because they missed a payment?
C’mon guys. There’s plenty of outrageous stuff to flip out about, rather than putting words in Obama’s mouth. This is just going to distract from truly horrendous things, like him claiming the legal ability to blow up Americans with no trial.
Pinko Obama apologist.
Actually, Daniel_Kuehn, I was expecting people to react with eye rolling about “lol you can’t treat the government like a household”, yet Obama is explicitly advancing the comparison here.
If Congress has the constitutional power of the purse (and I have yet to see anyone really dispute that they do), then are they really “committed” to certain expenditures. Why? Because they said they would pay them? Obama said he would close Gitmo. Bush said he wouldn’t nation build. Politicians break promises all the time.
Provided that Congress is acting constitutionally, I fail to see the real problem here. They are not legally wrong to back out of a financial commitment, because the federal government’s official position is that they are above the law and nothing they do is illegal.
One of the conversations I loved having when I was in the military was with people who always talked about the “guaranteed” retirement. I would try to explain to them that it’s not REALLY guaranteed. It’s just something that the government has promised, and that they could easily un-promise if situations (like, say, I don’t know, a dramatically huge budget deficit) required, to which they would respond with “Well they’d never do that.” Maybe. Good luck taking your chances with that, though.
The only people suffering here are those who put a whole lot of blind trust into the federal government to keep its promises. Might I dare to suggest that these people are getting exactly what they deserve.
Refusing to pay for spending required by law is not a politician “breaking a promise.” It’s a politician refusing to follow the law.
The House can’t change a spending bill without getting it through the Senate and signed by the President.
What you said about military retirement benefits is incorrect. Social security benefits are not guaranteed based on two Supreme Court rulings. Social security taxes are not a savings account. Military retirement benefits are a contractual obligation.
Military personal are not placing “blind trust” in the federal govt any more than any party to a contract is placing “blind trust” in govt. It’s safe to assume the courts will enforce the contract.
“It’s safe to assume the courts will enforce the contract.”
Really? Even if the judge is the opposing party to the contract? Congress makes the law. If Congress and the President both approved legislation dismantling military retirement benefits, I struggle to believe that the courts are somehow going to force them to pay out.
Oh god, the MMT’ers’ heads are spinning right now. lmao
” Your gonna have to borrow at a higher rate” BHO 2013
Seems like Bernanke and Bambam are on 2 different pages…
The left would be in an uproar if a Republican called foreclosure “victims” deadbeats.