I know it’s not exactly what he’s saying saying here, but Drudge is already trumpeting that Obama THREATENS TO HOLD UP SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS. OK, you may despise Drudge all you want, but isn’t it a jaw dropping rookie mistake for Obama to hand him that headline in the first place? There’s a lot of things the president could have said there, starting with “God forbid,” “I’ll sweat blood before I let that happen,” and “not gonna happen – though we may disagree, I’m confident that my respected opponents in the House consider that just as unthinkable as I do.”
Instead, and after all this time, it still doesn’t seem to have gotten through Obama’s head that a flat statement that’ll win you points in the faculty lounge is often just the last thing you want to say to the media.
Remaining Obama fans, don’t you ever privately wring your hands that your guy is so politically inept? (Putting this in the Elections thread for I think obvious reasons, but if mods want to move it that’s fine.)
I’m not seeing the problem here. He’s saying it’s urgent the debt ceiling be raised and sending a signal to Social Security recipients - that is, old people, who vote - that he wants to make sure they get their checks and that if they don’t, they can blame the Republicans. It’s positioning, and I don’t think it’s clueless.
There’s a lot of ways he could convey that, including what I mentioned in the OP. But his words were “I cannot guarantee those checks will go out.” First person, taking ownership of the issue; and “I cannot guarantee” sounds a lot like “nice house you got here here, shame if something happened to it.” Yes, yes, yes, that’s not what he meant, and another college professor engaged in cool debate with him would be able to parse that. My point is any experienced politician would know that you don’t hand your opponents something that could be used to scare elderly voters, and that’s just what Obama’s done here.
Scaring elderly voters is the point. If the Republicans don’t work with us, you might not get your Social Security check. He’s not threatening to not send the checks, of course; but he’s saying it’s possible they won’t be able to send them if a deal isn’t made.
There’s been plenty of scaremongering on both sides here. If we don’t address the deficits, the country’s going to go broke and China will buy us and force us to eat lead. If we don’t raise the debt ceiling, the country will default and the Sun will explode. There are legit issues underneath all that, but it’s a little late to rap anybody on the knuckles for scaremongering.
I didn’t say he should get a pass. I said everybody’s scaremongering, and they have been for a couple of months now. It’s a little late to come up with that particular criticism.
Regardless of whether scaremongering is a legitimate tactic under the circumstances, Obama’s approach is incredibly amatuerish. And I’m not sure it’s even calculated for political gain, so much as an instinctive determination to assert that he’s right. The CBS interviewer was trying to lob him a softball so that Obama could appear presidential and assure voters he’s working for their benefit come hell or high water; and instead he slams back with something that could easily be interpreted as a crude threat.
While I am loathe to let someone by for using fear to motivate, he’s clearly scaremongering because people should be scared. This is a legitimate problem, and so many people are not concerned about it, because Obama’s opposition has convinced them emotionally–not logically–not to care. So he has to convince them emotionally–not logically–that this is a real concern. I have a harder time blaming Obama over the people not taking this seriously.
It’s crunch time, and this is unfortunately a necessary evil.
He is just making a point that the government can not pay its debts. Social Security is one of those debts. To placidly allow the Repubs to play a dirty game with the economy is dangerous. Elections have consequences. This is one consequence in putting the Reupbs in power.
Robert Rubin told Newt Gingrich in 1996 that SS checks weren’t going out unless the debt ceiling was raised. I don’t recall Bill Clinton getting much blowback from that, though the Republicans certainly did.
The hints about raising Medicare eligibility age is what makes me wonder about Obama. I can’t tell if he’s serious, or he’s trying to expose the Republicans for rejecting a deal that they should be jumping at if they were serious about reducing the deficit.
The interviewer asked him more than once, “Can YOU as PRESIDENT guarantee that SS checks will go out August 3rd”. The truth is, he can’t. If the US defaults, the checks won’t go out. It’s not Obama holding up the talks, or holding up the decisions, so what he said is the correct answer. I don’t think it’s scaremongering, he was asked the question, he answered the question. The answer was not exaggerated for effect, the truth is there will be a lot of checks to go out and not enough money to cover them all. How is that “amateurish”?
I don’t view his statements as inept. I see them as factual. People need to know the effects of their actions or, in this case, inaction.
Obama is not a party-guy-at-all-costs. I don’t think he really cares if he is popular or liked a shoo-in for reelection. He seems to be after real change to the way some of the political game has been played (small fixes that just kick the problem down the road for someone else to fix at some later date) for years.
I see in Obama a guy who has a vision of the big picture, and not just the next election, and who has been patiently trying to prod the Republicans to do the right thing for the country a couple of years now. I see a person who really believes in ‘country first’ instead of just paying lip service to the idea.
I’m no fan of Obama’s, especially on monetary and fiscal issues (largely because he trends more to the right and does not heed the advice of sane people like Paul Krugman), but the facts are the facts.
Failing to raise the debt ceiling is not a joke, and it has consequences. It’s hardly scaremongering to let people know what those consequences will be. What, do Republicans see all of this as theoretical? If they stand on principle, the sounds of a bunch of seniors’ butts all puckering at once should not scare them.
Of course, the recent McConnell/Boehner plan to concede all adult responsibility to Obama on this matter reveals exactly the level of principled thought and action we are dealing with here.
What Hentor said. Not to mention, the GOP won back the House last year basically on the strength of seniors’ votes. It doesn’t hurt to remind them that the GOP is NOT on their side with respect to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and I’m glad Obama availed himself of that opportunity.
“A sprawling coalition of Wall Street and Main Street business leaders sent an unmistakable message to lawmakers Tuesday: Enough squabbling. Get the debt ceiling raised.”
Are their fears of the consequences of default “scaremongering” as well?
Do the Republicans have the cajones to alienate seniors and the business community simultaneously? We’ll find out!