Smallscreen News
CNBC's Rick Santelli stands up to Robert Gibbs VIDEO
By April MacIntyre Feb 22, 2009, 15:02 GMT
On the Web
Latest Headlines in Smallscreen
- 1. Jennifer Ellison sick with concussion after skating accident
- 2. Cher Lloyd wants Louis to quit X Factor
- 3. Holly Willoughby and Dermot O'Leary top TV crushes
- 4. Jenny Frost leaves Snog, Marry, Avoid
- 5. Gary Barlow to return to X Factor?
Older Talkback
page: 1
The stimulus package handed tens of billions of dollars to states that spent profligately during the prosperity years. The Obama housing plan will force people who bought sensible homes to subsidize the mortgages of people who bought houses they could not afford. It will almost certainly force people who were honest on their loan forms to subsidize people who were dishonest on theirs.
I'm a Southern California renter, and that's because I knew I couldn't afford a house and that the prices were wildly inflated. Friends urged me to get some sort of exotic loan, but I refused because LOANS MUST BE REPAID, and I knew I couldn't do that.
I'm no genius with a degree in finance, and I'm no whiz at math, but it was blazingly obvious that these properties weren't worth the price and that taking out loans that you couldn't possibly pay back unless you win the lottery is INSANE.
The people defaulting on their mortgages either made poor decisions, or were people with lousy credit handed government-backed loans they should never have gotten, or speculators who made a bad bet. I don't want any of my money going to these people.
If they lose their houses, the poor deciders will learn a lesson, the folks with the lousy credit will still have lousy credit and can RENT AN APARTMENT like I do, and the speculators will take their lumps.
I have no problem with any of this.
Punish predatory lenders, sure -- and dismantle the government agencies that forced many banks into making bad loans in the first place, which opened the legal floodgates for all these predatory lenders -- but those who sign contracts for massive debt without reading or understanding the contract are people who never should have entered into these contracts in the first place. That's what the foreclosure process is for.
Some of my relatives are in the lumber business, and they're hurting, but that's part of the risks you take in any industry. My own industry is in trouble. I could use my job and my apartment -- and the government won't nor should bail me out.
And what's this obsession with maintaining SoCal home prices at unrealistic levels? I'll never be able to buy!
And if you're underwater on your loan, so what? Everyone who takes a car loan is underwater from day one. If you sucked all your equity out and spent it, tough. Either continue to make your mortgage payments, and if you can't, sell and take a loss or foreclose.
Why should I pay tax money I can't afford to keep you in a home that neither you or I can afford?
Time for a serious reality check. Bravo for Santelli. Count me in for the tea party.
The worse part of all this, is these people who claim to not have known what they were signing usually are represented by an attorney at the time of closing.
As one commentator stated, they knew it was a loan and had to be repaid regardless of whether it had low interest rates up front or whatever. I think every one who has ever purchased a home in the past 20 years is aware of the balloon payments on up front low interest rates for home purchases. That is why I always chose the fixed interest option, so I knew what my payment would be monthly, and knew my payment would not change monthly with the rise and fall of interest rates.
These people saw a good deal at the time and took advantage of it, without considering how it would play out over the 30 year term of the loan, and for that they should be held responsible and not the tax payers.
And to try to blame the loan agencies pushing these loans is ridicules as well. You and your attorney had the time to read the documents and refuse this type of financing and go for a traditional loan instead, and as it appears there was no illegal activity by the lending agencies involved, so they hould not be accountable.
Whats next, those who did not read their car loan closely will get bailouts from the government so their transportation isn't repoed, so that they can continue to go to work to pay the home loan?
Relax, people. Your tax money is not going into the rescue fund. Your tax money goes into paying interests for ridiculously large amount of loans the US government has taken over from other countries like China. The rescue fund comes from more loans your government is taking out on your behalf.
Surprise,Surprise,So Santelli, another Hedge Fund and Derivatives Pimp is trying
to keep his criminal,gravy train chugging!Bernie Madoff is a piker,
the greatest Ponzi Scheme of all is Wallstreet and their
bought,lackey shills in the press!
is he a reporter or an actor like rush limbough? if he is a reporter what he did was wrong and he should be removed. if he is an actor, then who cares?
I'd take whatever plan Santelli comes up with over the one Obama has sold out for. At least it would give us a chance to avoid a certain massive waste.
Why should I have to pay?
Why should I spent MY tax money on others?
Why bail out people who made bad decisions?
I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo. When did Obama raise our taxes?
Oh ok, he didnt. And any increase would only affect next year..
So why is everyone upset that the government is spending the money we already knew we were giving it at the beginning of last year?
Why does everyone suddenly have a problem with the government spending money on those people who made bad decisions? Welfare wasn't 'invented' last year.
This comes down to greed. pure(impure?) and simple.
Let me ask you this. How many of you 5 years ago would have said you were secure in your job? Today, after all the layoffs and cut backs.. are you still secure?
Or how about this? We've all heard the stories of the workers 10, 15, 20+ years on the job, laid off after all that time. Should we throw them out on the street for 'living above their means'?
Mr President, I don't make 250k a year, or 100k, or even 50k. I don't own a home. I don't even own a credit card, I pay my bills with money I earn. If you want to raise my taxes to prevent double digit unemployment, to keep families in their homes instead of out on the street, you go right ahead. I support you 100% because I understand that helping those in the community that need help benifits everyone.
Greed got us into this mess, only the opposite will get us out.
It doesn't take a degree in economics to understand that regardless of the cause, any foreclosure in one's neighborhood affects the value of all of the properties in that neighborhood. It doesn't matter whether the foreclosure was due to unfortunate circumstances, such as a job loss, or intentional bad decisions. Fixing the problem will require cleaning up all of the foreclosures.
I can only conclude that Mr. Santelli knows that, and that his rant was meant to be a publicity stunt. If that was his goal, he certainly succeeded, even if it was at the expense of making a fool of himself.
I and every one I have talked to agree with Rick Santelli. I feel Robert Gibbs was talking down to Rick and every one who don't agree with him on this issue. Most Americans are fed up with this garbage and are ready for a TEA PARTY. I for one will be there should one take place in July.If our schools/parents teach so poorly a person can't understand basic home buying we need to address that problem. Common sense is not so common.
The only ones who are for Obama's huge spending are dirty dems and people looking for hand outs. It's not rocket science, it's about stealing from your neighbor.
I think this country is terrified by the 'F' word- Failure. Why are we constantly running to protect everyone that might fail. This bailout is just another attempt to cushion people from reality. If you took out a mortage that you can't pay back that is your failure- own it and LEARN from it. There are already bankrupcy laws in place to deal with the issue- most of the time they still keep their home but, they are still held to account for THEIR actions. The federal government shouldn't be taking on the debt!! This country has a long history of companies and individuals who have failed, learned from it and then succeeded. We aren't helping anyone by bailing them out.
What a bunch of whiners. Are we all back in first grade?
it is about people are speaking out and getting coverage on the liberal media. These programs are a joke and and a insult to working people in at all levels of incomme. . Just say no to Obama.
I read the comments here. I find it interesting to note that a group of readers are once again using the term 'speculator' in a blame game. The rationalization of the current economic situation is to be blamed on people who are trying to make outsized profits,,,the unquestioned greed motive again.
The people who should be applauded are not the ones who are wallowing in self pity and asking their neighbors to force the courts to void their debt contracts, give them a reduction in mortgage payments and mitigate the effects of their bad behavior. The people who are to be applauded are the ones, even despite the bad things that have happened to them are assessing their situation and working a plan to move on.
In the end the market is the unbiased arbiter of all economic arguments. This problem was created by government regulation and support that 'gamed' the market into actions that created an imbalance in it. The government plan whatever you want to call the many political activities that are now in spending mode will only lengthen the time it takes the market to flush the bad actors out and allow the innovators to find new opportunities. I can hear the nay sayers talking now about the market will hold those people back or that opportunist are bad.
Remember that any dollar the government spends that it does not have removes 3 dollars of available credit from the private sector (read your economics)
He is not a reporter he is a commentator and he has the right to his own oponion or is that right now gone under Obama administration. So much for the new Washington very thin skin.Us government should only increase the taxes of people who are supporting the Obama's new deal they will be glade to pay any extra amount to help the others volunterly.
This guy Gibbs looks and talks like an overweight Mr. Peepers and will not last as the spokesman for a troubled regime led by an immature campus commie who's MAD if he is criticised in the least( and that is what 53% of you put up there to handle some tough times.) Good luck and may GOD help us all. ( Even you 53% )
Imagine....he asked Rick who he voted for. He (Rick) was being 'hard' on his man-crush, Obama. Can you believe it ?? If you are too hard on B. Hussein Obama , then that means you must be a Republican, because no self-respecting reporter would dare do it, because they are all liberal Democrats. You can see Chris is visibly upset that someone would actually criticize the chosen one. The guy is a reporter for NBC (CNBC)for God's sake, and he asks who he voted for. I cannot get my head around that one. If this isn't proof that there is a 'slobbering' love affair with the 'messiah', by MSNBC and Chris Matthews in particular...nothing does..............unbelievable that the American MSM has come to this.
Dave,
Very good points. We should have let the market take care of itself. But no one wants to go through any pain to get their. The problem is going to resurface in the near future to an even greater extent. The government is printing money like never ever before in the history of the nation. It does not have the backing is should. Hyper-Inflation is on the horizon. The dollar is getting cheaper by the hour people and the more they print the cheaper it gets. Ron Paul whom I do not agree with on every issue is dead on right about this and has beencrying in the widlerness for a long time. He has predicted exactly what is happening yet people turned a deaf ear to him and made him out to be a kook or something. He is not, he is dead on right. The CRA spawned by the Jimmie Carter was the original weak link in the whole mess we see today then everyone got on the bandwagon.
Santelli's absolutely right. We cannot spend our way into prosperity. No one ever has. To portray the majority of the people that went belly up on their mortgages as victims of predatory lenders is erroneous. They are victims of their own impulsiveness and it is unreasonable to expect the American People to pay for their indiscretion and ignorance at the expense of the rest of our savings, investments and even our own homes that we have diligently been paying for. They are not entitled. They are their own victims.
Thank you Rick Santelli---You said everything I wanted to say. God bless you for speaking up. You are so right...
It think that Santelli not only made a statement that many people agree with, he's one of the few sane voices in this whole mess. Take the 'stimulus package' - Please!
Obama CLAIMED it would create 3 million jobs. Then he claimed it would SAVE or create, 3.5 million jobs.
Let's say he's right about the latter - no way of telling, but let's just suppose it is. Is that a good thing?
The bill cost (roughly) $800 billion, not costing substantial interest - since we are borrowing the money to pay for it. $800 billion is $800 thousand million. Divide that by 3.5 million, and the cost per job created (or saved) is a mere $800 thousand divided by 3.5 ... call it $229,000. Now I hate to break the bad news here, but the median family income in the US is only $48,000. Since even bad recessions tend to be over in two to three years, we could just GIVE these 3.5 million people the median family income for three years, and it would only cost 60% of what this boondoggle is going to cost.
The mortgage plan is no better. Let's be honest, it was the GOVERNMENT (through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that caused the implosion in the banks through their poor quality control on collateralized mortgage obligations, and the government that triggered this recession.
We should give them LESS money, not more. We need to stop distorting the market through government intervention, or the real estate market never will find the market bottom it needs to find to straighten out this mess, and we will put our children deeper and deeper in debt.
brew >> And to try to blame the loan agencies pushing these loans is ridicules as well. You and your attorney had the time to read the documents and refuse this type of financing and go for a traditional loan instead, and as it appears there was no illegal activity by the lending agencies involved, so they hould not be accountable.
But we should give banks tax/tarp money with no strings because they didn't know these evil people would default?
Again why should we be bailing out banks and auto manufactures or any company for that matter that made bad decisions?
Cait>> and dismantle the government agencies that forced many banks into making bad loans in the first place,
Could you please post a link to back this up?
No agency ever 'forced' any company to loan. You should research it for yourself. Again 'no one forced these companys to loan'. I know it goes against what you choose to hear, but it is a fact.
More gov't crap put out by the White House crappers. Gibb's and company need to move to Russia where they would be right a home. Just like Obama, never had a real job and still doesn't. Get rid of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters; When all the people that voted these clowns in are paying the price they will realize they have been had.
Clinton White House, Chicago Politics and Socialism all in one place. What more could we want
If your neighbor's house gets foreclosed on it will drive your property value down especially if there are several foreclosures in your neighborhood and especially if the houses sit vacant for any period of time. By pitching in to help your irresponsible neighbor, you're actually helping yourself. Maybe we were all a little irresponsible when we
decided to drink the tax-cut/deregulation koolaid. With adequate funding our watchdog agencies could have been properly staffed and could have sounded alarm bells when they noticed that banks had drastically lowered their lending standards. Santelli's just trying to divide the working-class because he's scared we'll rise up and knock him and his ruling-class ilk off of their privileged pedestals. The fact that our corporate media has
lavished such attention on Santelli and his dangerous campaign of misinformation should prove once and for all that they are in the business of defending Right-wing interests at the expense of the People.
WOW.....You are wrong. The government is not giving the banks money, they are receiving stock in exchange for the bail out funds. When the economy turns around that stock will still be worth something, and the government has said they will sell the stock and put that money back in the coffers.
With home mortgages, they are not getting anything in return as best I can tell.
And fore the poster who commented on this only being spending of last years taxes, wrong as well. This is borrowed money, that will have to be repaid either through new taxes or huge government cuts to programs, and i do not see the cutting programs coming anytime soon. To suggest that this is tax money already paid in is just plain false.
BTW, these recessions are very common every ten years and we grow out of them just to hit a new one ten years later. It is a natural occurrance the economy needs to correct itself.
Anyone remember the gas shortage crisis of the seventies with long lines at the pumps, and how that put our economy in a recession, which we did not come out of until Reagan was elected in 1980 and incresed government spending.
Then there was the recession of the late 80's which included the over priced housing market and massive lay offs by huge corporations causing the housing market to slump even more, which we didnt start coming out of until 1991 and 1992 when Clinton took office.
Then there was the late 90's recession started in 1999 which resulted in the dot com bust and again massive lay offs for restructuring to lower costs etc., which we finally pulled out of.
Guess what? Its 2009, 10 years later and time for yet another recession this time involving the over priced housing markets again, which is causing loan defaults that put the financial institutions in stress. Yet another 10 year correction to the over priced market. This one is worse then past ones because of the global effect now that we are a global market with computers and all, but other then that, its a natural occurance needed when our market gets out of hand.
Here we are, bailing out bankrupt auto manufactures, bailing out homeowners that bought houses they couldn't afford, bailing out insolvent banks and soon increasing taxes on small business to partly pay for it all. Of course the other payor will the fed's printing press. America's done, done like toast! Too bad.
The response that Santelli has generated is a great example of what John Tantillo just called 'the power of brand people' on his last brand winner/loser post.
I voted for Obama, was an early Obama supporter, and think that the stimulus is the best of the bad options we have before us. And I think that 20 years from now, we'll still be debating whether or not the stimulus was effective, and whether or not it was the right thing to do.
I do see this movement as a very positive thing, though, because inflation is a major concern, and a sharp line should be/should have been drawn between 'stimulating' those sectors of the economy which could, a la Keynes, in turn stimulate other part of the economy, and propping up failing companies (auto industries) and subsidizing people's poor choice to overextend themselves on mortgages they couldn't afford. I think that some help for the housing market is in order, because the weight of these negative decisions has affected everyone. But I think that allowing the prices to continue to fall is the best way to fight inflation and is fair to would-be home buyers who might yet buy if the prices drop low enough (which ultimately is also good for the economy).
There are idiots and thoughtful people on both side of this issue. The interests of 'big business' and the far right are Not inconsistent with middle class and blue collars workers' interests across the board.
More conversation will at least help clear up some misconceptions as to how the money is being spent and who is benefiting, And this opposition should put always-needed pressure on Congress (to counteract some of the pressure from lobbyists) to be accountable for where the money goes. I take it for granted that some of this money will be wasted and that some will go to those who shouldn't be getting it, special interests, etc. That's just the way politics worse. With 'brand people' - nerdy as it sounds, I hope this will be closer to...say, 15% rather than 40% (numbers randomly chosen..).
Some good can come out of these times. As John Tantillo said in his post (referenced above): 'Fact is, we’re going to see more of this as politicians recognize that they will have to be ever more accountable to a well-informed and motivated brand that will demand results instead of ideology.'
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story