Quote Of The Day: Why Obama Might Just Be Better Than Hillary Edition

From last night’s debate.

First, here’s Hillary on the mortgage crisis:

I think it’s imperative that we approach this mortgage crisis with the seriousness that it is presenting. There are 95,000 homes in foreclosure in California right now. I want a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days so we can try to work out keeping people in their homes instead of having them lose their homes, and I want to freeze interest rates for five years.

As I noted last month, this is a horribly bad idea.

Now, here’s Obama a few minutes later:

On the mortgage crisis, again, we both believe that this is a critical problem. It’s a huge problem in California and all across the country. And we agree that we have to keep people in their homes.

I have put forward a $10 billion home foreclosure prevention fund that would help to bridge the lender and the borrower so that people can stay in their homes.

I have not signed on to the notion of an interest rates freeze, and the reason is not because we need to protect the banks. The problem is, is that if we have such a freeze, mortgage interest rates will go up across the board and you will have a lot of people who are currently trying to get mortgages who will actually have more of a difficult time.

Now, I’m not saying Obama is acceptable but this strikes me as an indication that at least he’s not an obsessed socialist who would wreck the economy.

  • Tim

    I feel really sorry for those people who are going to lose their homes.

    However, I live in a modest little subdivision, in a modest little town, and have a modest little mortgage. My children both live in modest little subdivisions, in modest little towns, and have modest little mortgages. Big fancy houses would be great, more value to begin, means more appreciation, BUT. We bought what we could afford to buy. We will take what appreciation we can get on what we can afford. No complaints, TANSTAAFL.

    But now I am being told that I should help those who took big risks in the expecation of big rewards out. Hillary (and Obama) want to take my tax dollars and bail out those who took the big risks. Hell, where were they when my 401k took a dive in 2001 and 2002? I lost as much value as some of those jerks who risked their homes, because IT WOULD NOT DESTROY ME if the market tanked. HELLO!?!?!! IS ANYONE LISTENING???!!! NOT MY FAULT!!!! DON’T WANNA PAY!!!!!

    I would like to take a few fliers trying for some big returns myself. Is the government going to guarantee I won’t take a bath? Cause if they will, I am going to get into the venture capital business. No downside, lots of potential upside.

  • http://www.nwhall.com Nathan

    I agree that Obama got the right answer on this, but it seems clear he didn’t get it for the right reasons. Obama’s position has two big problems.

    1) What’s so evil about protecting banks? They’re a core institution, critical to our prosperity, and I don’t like the idea that their property rights could be abridged if only it were more practical. Are Democrats so full of disdain for “the rich” that Obama has to go specifically out of his way to explain that he doesn’t intend to uphold their rights except when, by coincidence, it happens to be in the interests of someone else?

    2) The reason he gives is that a foreclosure moratorium would raise interest rates. Hillary has proposed freezing interest rates. I would like to hear Obama explain why this is an appalling idea, instead of sidestepping it.

  • Not a Yank


    A freeze on interest rates means there will be no money for mortgages. Nobody is going to loan money to anyone at an interest rate does not compensate for the risks including the risk that the government will in the future “freeze interest rates”. It is the same as saying you are going to work for the next five years at your current rate of compensation. Would you accept that deal.

  • Jay Season

    What constitutional construct gives the President the right to dictate (freeze) interest rates? Void variable interest rate contracts? Take over the free trade of loaning / buying money?

    Ms. Clinton will instruct the Federal Bank to freeze it’s interest rate (on lending money)? Fine. But what if Joe’s bank wants to loan out money for more or less? A Clinton dictatorship can then FORCE restrictions on free trade, free markets?

    Welcome to Amerika, Socialism. We’re toast.

  • Diggs

    I take investment risks by purchasing stocks. The next time any of my stocks go down, I expect Hillary or Obama to step in with federal money to ensure I don’t suffer a monetary loss. It’s only fair, as stocks are part of the horrible capitalist system that they abhor, and I’m just a simple middle-income slob that doesn’t know any better.

  • http://www.nwhall.com Nathan

    Not a Yank,

    Of course not. What you said is exactly what I would like to have heard Obama say. My point is that he didn’t explain that, so I hope folks won’t go overboard with the adulation. Being slightly more sane than Hillary on economic issues doesn’t exactly take an honorary degree from the Chicago School.

  • http://artshealingsecrets.com cindy

    Do We Need A New Constitution?
    Larry J. Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, seems to think so, and he’s even written a book about it. However, some of his complaints indicate that he simply doesn’t understand that the document was designed for different purposes than he wishes it to be:
    The Senate is horribly undemocratic, Ron Paul is the only candidate who lives and wants OUR RIGHTS lived constitutionally.

    Forgive my ignorance but what war powers allow the president to set aside the constitution. And what war? The war on terror? If we are prepared to set aside the constitution because of the so called “war on terror” then we must be prepared to null the constitution for ever because there will never be an end to the war on terror.