Obama to Unveil New Vote-Buying Scheme

Posted by on Feb 01, 2012 at 7:38 am
Barack Obama

I’ve got a better idea than the president. How about just giving everybody a check for $100,000? Or maybe a million dollars? Why not? It’s about as realistic as this vote-buying scam. Even better: How about arranging a sweetheart mortgage deal like the one he got from his convicted felon buddy, Tony Rezko?

The Obama administration is trying to fix a stubborn drag on the economy by allowing all homeowners to refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates even if they owe more than their homes are worth, tackling a difficult issue of vital concern in states key to President Barack Obama‘s re-election.

Can you imagine the media reaction if in 2004 George W. Bush came up with some scam in order to try and buy votes? But mark it down: The Republicans will be portrayed as Scrooges for opposing this obvious attempt at buying votes in swing states.

It says enough that the White House understands what shaky ground this failed president in on that they’re reduced to such an obvious scam.

The administration proposal faces a major hurdle in Congress. The program would be paid for by a fee on large banks. The administration has tried unsuccessfully before to win support for assessments on large banks.

Those banks, of course, will just pass it on to their customers, the same people this clown purportedly wants to help.

Tags: , ,

20 Responses to “Obama to Unveil New Vote-Buying Scheme”

  1. Chilisize on 1/01/12 at 8:45 am

    Looking for any real evidence that this is “vote buying,” and not instead just what it advertises itself as: An attempt to get some traction on the housing collapse.

    By your “reasoning” any action by any president ever is in effect “vote buying.” Of course you will only admit as much when that president is a Democrat.

    Oh wait, I made the mistake of addressing you as if you weren’t a boob. My mistake: You are a right-wingo idiot, so you are apt to say stupid things, things that aren’t really substantiated in any way, and it doesn’t bother you even a little…

  2. Willy on 1/01/12 at 9:01 am

    Sigh… Chilisize: another angry, name-calling liberal. Why all the “hate speech” when you’re so evolved and renaissance-like. And “boob”? Why the sexism? There’s probably racism in there too–I just need to keep looking. I bet there’s even something in Jammie’s blog post that made the planet a degree warmer.

    I would say that any attempt to redistribute cash into the pockets of voters in an election year is vote buying, plain and simple, regardless of party. Are you able to rebut this? Or should we expect just to hear more things like “idiot stupid stupid right wing stupid”?

    Vote buying seems to hold a bigger appeal to democrats, who never seem to understand the concept of deferred gratification. This is a particularly egregious, expensive example. Mature people who have responsibly paid their mortgage and didn’t “overbuy” will be made to subsidize young, materialistic democrats. Just think–now you’ll be able to afford the iPad 3!

  3. Susan on 1/01/12 at 9:10 am

    Chilisize your talent for name-calling, magnificent as it may be, unfortunately prevents you from understanding basic economic principles.

    Not all is lost, at least you have a talent for something; even if it is as lowly as lowly can be.

  4. Dustin on 1/01/12 at 9:20 am

    “Looking for any real evidence that this is “vote buying,” and not instead just what it advertises itself as: An attempt to get some traction on the housing collapse. ”

    OK, let me lay this out for you:

    If democrats do not have potent political power, then these promises programs that offer a direct financial advantage to some voters will never happen.

    So if you vote for Republicans, you lose the sweetheart refinance deal, perhaps the food stamps, perhaps the 99 weeks of unemployment, perhaps some of your social security and medicare, the subsidized health insurance via Obamacare.

    If you vote Republican, the only thing you get is a fleeting hope that such programs will be reformed to the point where they are sustainable instead of ripping off taxpayers and leaving debt to our kids. If you vote Democrat, it’s party time for more and more programs.

    This leads to dependency, which is why cities like Detroit and Baltimore and the like are so hopeless. They kept making that short term tradeoff, and then the long term reality emerged.

    Yes, of COURSE when politicians promise goodies to voters near election time, that is about buying votes. That’s exactly the most fair interpretation of the rhetoric of this accurate blog post.

    You could reply by noting the various ways Republicans also pander. For example Romney was pretty shameless about how Perry would “kill social security”, AKA grandma’s check.

    One does not need to be blindly partisan to see the problem here. In fact, if you value these social programs and entitlements or the financial sector’s viability, you should want liberals to keep things sustainable. the biggest threat to such concepts is that we’re headed straight for that “running out of other peoples’ money” conclusion Margaret Thatcher warned us about.

  5. David M on 1/01/12 at 9:38 am

    Actually giving every home owner $200,000 to pay off or down their mortgage would be more beneficial than allowing them to refinance with an artificially low interest rate, it isn’t always the interest on their mortgages that those who are being foreclosed upon are having problems paying, it’s the high principals that they are saddled with because they took out mortgages, on over priced homes, with no money down.

    Furthermore, the means to pay for this low rate would be a fee on banks, who are going to just shift that cost to their customers, like they always do, so in the end any savings from the low rate would be lost in extra fees.

    For those who owe more than $200,000, they could pay off a significant portion of their mortgage, those who owe less than $200,000 would gain a windfall (taxable of course) and the banks would get paid by everyone. This would alleviate the need for another bailout, in fact it most likely would have alleviated the need for the original bailout, it would shore up and quite possibly eliminate the housing crisis and it would keep American’s in their homes.

    A win, win, win…which means of course that we could never do something so incredibly simple.

  6. DADvocate on 1/01/12 at 9:39 am

    As a homeowner whose home is worthless than what I owe, there is no circumstance short of a gun to my head in which I would vote for this joker.

  7. Ezra Gonzalez on 1/01/12 at 9:49 am

    and not instead just what it advertises itself as: An attempt to get some traction on the housing collapse.

    ROFL…is that what it is, an attempt to reverse the horrible condition of residential housing?

    You get your economic acumen from the back of a cereal box, right?

  8. JAL on 1/01/12 at 10:09 am

    Band-aid on dissecting aortic aneurysm.

    (The Dems can’t see they are on the road to make us into Greece. Or maybe they do.)

  9. PamK on 1/01/12 at 10:31 am

    Once again President Obama is trying to redistribute wealth from those who work, pay their bills, live small to save money, and act responsibly to those who are irresposible with money and/or too self-important to take low-paying jobs or work they do not like. The banks will pass those charges along to the consumer. All consumers will be affected. But the ones who get the lower rates will get equity growth in homes they cannot afford and the ones who saved and purchased homes they could afford and paid them off will be stiffed paying for Obama’s largesse. It is a case of rewarding people for bad behavior and punishing those who who were good. The world is being turned upside down to buy votes. Let those who acted wrongly by intent or gullibility find a way out of their problems without penalizing those who act responsibly.

  10. john b on 1/01/12 at 10:39 am

    I’ll take the refi deal if it’s offered, but I wouldn’t vote for Obama if you put a gun to my head.

  11. Blacque Jacques Shellacque on 1/01/12 at 12:06 pm

    “I’ve got a better idea than the president. How about just giving everybody a check for $100,000?”

    If he gives me $100k, I promise to vote for him next November.


  12. nraendowment on 1/01/12 at 12:29 pm

    Hmmm, a fee (tax) on large banks. Guess who’s really going to be paying those “fees” (hint: it’ isn’t the banks…)?

  13. aaron on 1/01/12 at 12:31 pm

    The plan is actually a good idea and should have been done years ago. The question is why is being now instead of 3 years ago.

  14. memomachine on 1/01/12 at 12:33 pm

    So let me get this straight.

    The big banks that we spent hundreds of billions bailing out. That are still very shaky financially. That are still being largely propped up by the Federal Reserve’s low interest rates.

    Those banks are the ones Obama is going to tap for cash to fund this?

    You know this reminds me of the time I had a bleeding ulcer and ended up in the hospital. They gave me 4 liters of whole blood, because I had almost completely bled out. Then immediately took over 27 vials of blood from me. In one arm there was a tube delivering blood into my body. In the other arm a nurse was drawing out blood for testing.

    And I asked her: “just whose blood do you think you’re actually getting at this point?”

  15. aaron on 1/01/12 at 12:35 pm

    No, HAMP mistakenly targeted distressed mortgages. This is for mortgages in good standing.

    These should generally people with good paying jobs, but due to stagnant are declining wages and increasing cost of living have no discretionary income. This will free up income for savings, investment, and spending for people who are working and active participants in the real economy.

  16. aaron on 1/01/12 at 12:36 pm

    These should generally be people with good paying jobs, but due to stagnant and declining wages and increasing cost of living have no discretionary income. This will free up income for savings, investment, and spending for people who are working and active participants in the real economy.

  17. JeffC on 1/01/12 at 5:42 pm

    this program would in fact be de-stimulating to the economy …

    Obama claims it would save homeowners $70 billion (10 year horizon) which is true … so +$70B in stimulus …

    BUT …

    unseen is the fact that the money currently paid in interest by homeowners flows thru to private investors to spend … those investors would lose about $280-350B in interest payments over the same 10 year window … that money would now be paid to FHA (aka Uncle Sam) and would no longer be spent or invested by private investors …

    So we end up with +70B in private stimulus on one hand vs -250B in private stimulus on the other …