MSNBC twice aired Santelli's criticism of administration foreclosure plan without substantive response
SUMMARY: Twice on February 20, MSNBC promoted Rick Santelli's rant the previous day over President Obama's proposed foreclosure reduction plan, which Santelli said "promot[es] bad behavior" and "subsidiz[es] the losers' mortgages." In neither case did MSNBC provide any substantive response to those criticisms.
Without providing any substantive response, on February 20, MSNBC twice promoted CNBC on-air editor Rick Santelli's February 19 rant over what Santelli said was the government's "promoting bad behavior" and "subsidiz[ing] the losers' mortgages" through President Obama's proposed foreclosure reduction plan.
When CNBC anchor Trish Regan reported on Santelli's comments during the February 19 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, she included Moody's Economy.com co-founder Mark Zandi's response that the administration's plan "is a bitter pill to swallow, but it's one we need to swallow, so that the financial system, the economy, don't slide away" and that "you have a choice, either you can help your neighbor and help them so they can stay in their home, or don't help them, and they'll lose their home, and it'll cost you money because you'll be worth less because your home will have just dropped in value." However, when Santelli was interviewed about his comments on the February 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, no one provided or aired any substantative reply to Santelli, either from Zandi or anyone else. Later that morning on MSNBC Live, anchor Tamron Hall replayed and discussed Santelli's comments; again, no substantive response was provided.
In addition, Scarborough and co-host Mike Barnicle falsely suggested during their interview of Santelli that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has only recently advocated a government focus on rental housing. Scarborough said, "[W]e had Barney Frank on a couple of weeks ago, who had been a big proponent, along with a lot of Republicans, of homeownership. When he was on our show, he said, you know, some people should just rent their properties." Barnicle later replied, "[W]hen the history of this period -- this financial period -- is written, there is a language of catastrophe that was introduced into the equation -- I don't know -- 10 or 12 years ago, in the sense that with the best of intentions, we had numerous politicians, mostly on the Democratic side of the aisle, saying everybody ought to be able to own a home in America." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Frank has long advocated that the government focus on expanding affordable rental housing.
From the February 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Let's bring in right now CNBC's Rick Santelli. Rick, I had asked at -- during the 6 o'clock hour whether you had been just as critical of the Wall Street bailout. We were informed by millions of your fans -- and I always say a million Rick Santelli fans can't be wrong -- that, in fact, you did. Why were you so angry yesterday? What do you think the root cause of this problem is?
SANTELLI: Well, I think the root cause is that there has been overleverage -- you know, many people in media like to blame the market. The market is just a representation, a mechanism to deliver people's messages and trades. I think what we need to do here is be cognizant that the world looks to us for things like consistency of contract law. Why does the U.S. always snap back? Rural investors seem comfortable. Let's not give that away to judges in bankruptcy court.
If you want to help the 8 to 10 percent that are behind on their mortgages or going into foreclosure, it's hard to pick those that are deserving and those that game the system. It's also not necessarily fair to the 92 percent who are making sacrifices even though they're paying their bills, their 401(k)s or 201(k)s. What they need to do is come up with something where all Americans feel that they're part of this help and not feel as though they're taking from one group and giving to another.
ANDREW SORKIN (New York Times reporter): Rick, but here's the question. The question is, if you don't bail out the guys who are in trouble, how are you going to -- how are you going to -- I mean, if you don't bail out the guys who don't need the money, rather, how are you going to help the guys who do need it badly?
SANTELLI: Well, I'm not so sure that the people that say they need it badly are going to pass the litmus test of those 92 percent. Listen, Americans are charitable. It's just that it seems as though the government right now is kind of legislating away their charity. We need to be more inclusive in this, and as far as -- we need to do something. A lot of these government programs haven't really worked well. Some of them have worked fine. At the end of the day, I don't know that throwing trillions of dollars at a problem nobody is sure how to solve, or even how we got here, is the way to go because in a couple of years, this is going to correct.
SORKIN: And you do nothing, then? Or what do you do? What's the answer, then, if -- do nothing?
SANTELLI: I personally -- I personally would say, give more job assistance, give people more unemployment benefits, help them find places to rent. But yes, I think spending trillions of dollars on policies that we're not sure are going to work is too expensive.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Mike Barnicle -- we had Barney Frank on a couple of weeks ago, who had been a big proponent, along with a lot of Republicans, of homeownership. When he was on our show, he said, you know, some people should just rent their properties. I want to give you these numbers that Pat's given us over the past couple days. Fascinating that, over the past 30 years, 64 percent of Americans have owned homes. Over the past four or five years, that number shot up to 72 percent.
Now I'm listening to Rick telling us about the 92 percent of people that owned those mortgages being able to pay them off, but now they're paying -- it sounds like they're paying for all these people that were artificially allowed into homeownership through government intervention. It's like they're bailing them out. Aren't we just extending the problem?
BARNICLE: Joe, when the history -- when the history of this period -- this financial period -- is written, there is a language of catastrophe that was introduced into the equation -- I don't know -- 10 or 12 years ago, in the sense that with the best of intentions, we had numerous politicians, mostly on the Democratic side of the aisle, saying everybody ought to be able to own a home in America. Well, guess what?
That's never been the case. It's never going to be the case. There are many people in this country -- no shame involved in this -- who should rent. They should rent. I mean, I grew up in a rented apartment.
SANTELLI: Exactly.
BARNICLE: I mean, there's nothing wrong with renting. There's nothing wrong with working with your hands in this country.
SCARBOROUGH: Rick.
BARNICLE: Not everybody goes to an Ivy League school. Not everybody can afford to own a home. And we got away from that in the mid-1990s, and here we are today with people losing their homes who shouldn't have been able -- shouldn't have managed the threshold level to buy the home in the first place: the language of catastrophe.
SCARBOROUGH: Rick, respond.
SANTELLI: I couldn't have said it better myself. Listen, this isn't about looking at your neighbor and saying, "Listen, I don't want to help him." A) It's maybe I don't want to be forced to help him. I don't know if his circumstances really warrant our help. I think -- give America a tax holiday. There's a number of solutions that are more inclusive. At the end of the day, when we get past these programs a couple years down the road, the 90 or 92 percent are going to be key to the future of making America greater than it's ever been. We need to be equitable and fair and be American. We need to make the notion that working hard and getting something and accumulating wealth is not a crime.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, and we also need to make sure that our government doesn't continue to pervert the market as they have over the past decade.
SANTELLI: Yes. I agree. I agree. But you know, it's not about left and right --
SCARBOROUGH: Putting people in homes that --
SANTELLI: -- and looking back.
SCARBOROUGH: No, it's not.
SANTELLI: There's been guilt on both sides. There really has.
SCARBOROUGH: The Republicans talked -- you know, everybody knows --
SANTELLI: Absolutely.
SCARBOROUGH: -- that Republicans and Democrats alike both promoted the ownership society. "Let's get them in their houses and then, you know, America's prosperity will grow."
SANTELLI: That's right.
SCARBOROUGH: Again, and we did things that were unnatural, that did violence to the free market, and we're paying for it.
SANTELLI: In the early '80s --
SCARBOROUGH" We just don't want to continue --
SANTELLI: -- I put 20 percent down -- in the early '80s, I put 20 percent down. I had a 15 percent mortgage. We had double-digit inflation, and we had double-digit unemployment, and nobody was bailing anybody out, and the country got through it under Ronald Reagan.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Rick, thank you so much.
From the February 20 edition of MSNBC Live:
HALL: Talk about an interesting moment on television. Rick's rant -- CNBC's Rick Santelli is fueling a big debate on the government's $275 billion plan to stop the flood of foreclosures. Here's the big moment.
[begin video clip]
SANTELLI: This is America. How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand.
TRADER: How about we all --
SANTELLI: President Obama, are you listening?
TRADER: How about we all stop paying our mortgage? It's a moral hazard.
[end video clip]
HALL: It's a moral hazard. CNBC's Rick Santelli, there with us live now. Rick, 140,000 hits on YouTube, countless other websites talking about you. Did you have any idea that what you did in that moment would spark this kind of debate?
SANTELLI: I absolutely did not, and anybody who watches CNBC knows I'm impassioned almost every morning I am on. I am shocked. But I'll tell you what: whether you agree with me or disagree with me, I'm pretty proud that it's opened up the discussion. Listen, if we're going to saddle our kids and grandkids with lots of zeroes of deficit, let's talk about it. Let's debate it. Let every voice be heard.
HALL: Right. What did they say to you today? What did the traders say? What kind of reaction? Were you getting high fives or thumbs down when you walked in?
SANTELLI: I will tell you that in terms of my email, or the clerks, support staffs or traders here, or the people I bump into, all around the city, it's been running on my side about 98 percent-plus.
HALL: Really? It's interesting -- on my Twitter page, a lot of people were saying to ask you, where you this outraged when Wall Street got the bailout --
SANTELLI: Yes.
HALL: -- when the banks got the help?
SANTELLI: Yes. Yes, yes, and yes.
HALL: Why didn't that make YouTube? Why didn't that make YouTube, then?
SANTELLI: I can't tell you that, but I will tell you this: This credit crisis, for all practical purposes, started out in the summer of '07, and I haven't changed. I said you can't fix toxic derivatives. Every Halloween since then I've said you can't resuscitate Frankenstein derivatives that we've overleveraged. Sometimes you can help, but there is no immediate gratification cure. There's going to be pain.
HALL: Yes or no, will the auto industry be bailed out? Yes or no?
SANTELLI: I think they should go into bankruptcy. No. But I think that we ought to help them try to survive. But I would say no.
HALL: OK. Well, you can weigh in on Rick's rant. Check out CNBC.com where you can vote if you want to Rick's Chicago tea party. We're going to talk much more with him a little later and also find out what some of the traders are saying about him on the floor.















Santelli's position in the GOPL is? Head slap! Oh thats right he's in the Exmanagement Media Division! Always out of touch with middle america and glad of it. Happy to blame it for all the world's ills. Got anything to drink arround here?
How he could ever be considered a populist, outside the media, is an unasked question.
Exactly. The "tea party" motif is ridiculous. The investment class doesn't like the idea that someone in the wrong part of town might get a break.
They had the Center for American Progress representative on. I guess Media Matters conveniently chose to ignore that.
What did he say about it? Was he asked to coment on it? MMfa says MSNBC didn't offer any substansive response. If you say different, offer some proof.
It was a silly emotional classist racist-lite response for ratings. CNBC is unprofessional and is going down the tubes. Bloomberg outshines them by miles.
Santelli should be exiled to FOX Business where he belongs with the rest of the real “losers”.
====
agreed... There are a few real reporters left but they are easily outnumbered by partisan hacks like Santelli. Oddly he's usually more market focused. Add to that... partisan opinions coming from Cabrera, Francis, Neal, Kudlow, Bartiromo.... Most market practitioners have a low opinion of CNBC. I'm one of them.
I LOVE WATCHING MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC AND CBS TRYING TO BE REPOTERS NOW AND ASKING THE TOUGH QUESTION. BUT FOR 7 YEARS THEY SAID NOTHING WHY WALL STREET, BUSH AND REPUBLICANS PUT US IN THIS MESS. AND FOR SANTELLI'S WHERE WAS HIS RANT WHEN HIS BUDDYS ON WALL STREET AND BUSH WAS MESSING UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Santelli has gone on previous rants about frankenstein derivatives and the need for regulation and putting them on an exchange. He is a regular on CNBC and if you watched you would know that.
Right winger... you call what Santelli was saying a "rant." He (and Joe) explained the true reason -- crappy policies from Clinton that mandated government intervention to let anyone buy a home. It was far from a rant. They stated problems, causes, and offered alternatives to the 'stimulus plan' that ever Obama and Congress say they don't know if it will work. You state the reason(s) as ".. WALL STREET, BUSH AND REPUBLICANS PUT US IN THIS MESS. ..... .. WHERE WAS HIS RANT WHEN HIS BUDDYS [sic] ON WALL STREET AND BUSH WAS MESSING UP" Exactly, and I mean exactly how did Bush and his buddies put us here, and what exactly is "messing up"? If it wasn't giving risky adjustable-rate and 'creative' loans to people, then the banks bundling those and "borrowing" against them as AAA securities... if it wasn't that, then exactly and precisely how did we get here? (By the way.. just as he was going to state where the support for him was the audio/video got disrupted so we didn't get to hear that.)
I think you're too selective in your hate horsing around. But share your disgust with Lauer & the other millionares who don't have a clue what people are going through.
I am disgusted with many media types including this moron Santelli.
I pay my mortgage, but I know people are hurting, and I don't believe many of them were irresponsible. I think they got screwed by the banks with the variable rate mortgages, my fellow Americans need help and I don't care if it might not be fair. I think its not fair that little children will not grow up in homes because of greedy Wall Street.
F You Santelli, and F You NBC for polarizing this issue.
The debate with Laur and Williams and some other shill was great TV. Santelli destroyed them.
Actually. Santelli was debating Steve Liesman with Lauer and Williams moderating. And I thought Liesman made good points when Santelli let him get a few words in.
Also I noticed that Santelli said that it wasn't subprime loans that caused the financial crisis, but the derivatives based on them, which is exactly what people here have been trying to tell you.
Williams: It was the mortgage crisis that tick -- started this off and got us all into this.
Santelli: It was the leverage based on some of those subprime loans. Let's not lose sight of this world of derivatives and leverage that is now going in reverse.
Liesman is okay for a eunuch. If he was a man he should tender his resignation. CNBC is nothing but a whorehouse for GE (war profteers).
I'm surprised Santelli didn't make them an offer they couldn't refuse...
Of course you believe everyone was screwed by the banks. That way, nobody is accountable for their own actions. In fact, last year I read this article about loan officers driving around and rounding up people against their will and they would bring them into their office at which time they would show them a house online then fill out the paperwork and force them to sign on the dotted line. Sadly, it seems most of the bankers/loan officers put them in more house than they could afford.
...got screwed by the banks with the variable rate mortgages...? What, are these children taking out 300k loans and not understanding the contract? I guess liberals are ok with subsidizing stupidity! Buyer beware used to be a pretty strong reminder but in this liberal p/c climate we have to have the government protect the stupid from themselves. Now, my wife and I, who pay our mortgage on time, have to pay for the stupid among us thanks to Obamamania and his magic bag of handouts(for the stupid, that is).
In a mortgage transaction, who's the professional?
That's right - it's NOT the borrower/homeowner.
And yes, you have to pay for the stupid. Must suck to be as smart as you.
Handling your personal finances does not require being a professional, only a high school education and an I.Q. above 100. And yes, it does suck to be as smart as me. I have to pay for liberal goof ups!
You are ignoring the fraudulent bait and switch tactics which many lenders used during this greed-fest. Yes, I also think homeowners were to blame, but those mortage lenders talked many honest but gullible people into thinking that they could afford homes. And then the exploding interest rates on top of that finished the job.
I'm not ignoring anything. Don't buy something you can't afford! If you do, you're stupid.
YOu are already paying for it. Your home has probably gone down 20% in value because of these unscrupulous subprime loans. You have pizza delivery boy truned laon officer selling a stated income loan with an adjustable rate and interest only for 100% financing. Let me give you a sample of what the conversation goes like.
Mr. Homebuyer: I like to buy this 300K house and your add says the payment will only be $1500.
Loan Occifer: Yes its a great deal. You need to buy because house prices can only go up. How much money do you make?
Mr. Homebuyer: I make 40K.
Loan Officer: That is OK we have a loan called stated inome. I will get you qualified. Don't worry about your payment going up, this is a short term loan and you will be able to refinance in 2 years.
The problem is the loan office does not know how the RAM adjusts and never factors in that prices could stop appreciating and not to mention could go down. You need all these series 6 to sell stocks, license to sell insurance and any Joe off the street can walk in and sell mortgages. There is definately some blame to go to hoembuyers, but buyers would not have to be so cautious if there were more regulations and they did not allow the criminal predatory loans.
"If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't." Mr. Homebuyer entered into a contract that was ripe for fraud and it is obvious. If you, as a homebuyer, want to risk your future on ventures, go ahead, just don't ask me to pay for your stupidity, which is what Obamanocchio is asking me to do. And don't use the excuse that this homebuying venture is for domocile purposes and now me and my family are out on the streests, boo-hoo. The kind of "deal" you're talking about is called "investment" or "house flipping" which carries risk and I shouldn't have to pay for that risk. Remember, Mr. homebuyer isn't going to send me a check if his "venture" pays off, is he?
Well, Keith Olbermann did indeed have Santelli as part of his "Worst Persons" list. So any chance you admit you were wrong there?
Wonder no more. He was one of last night's WPITW.
Time to dismount.
Olbermann DID take him to task. You must be terribly disappointed.
Olbermann has never taken anyone to task. He has never had a guest on his show with an opposing viewpoint for a one-on-one confrontation. His chickencrap style is to stand behind the MSNBC "skirt" and fling insults and tirades.
He has never had a guest on his show with an opposing viewpoint
That's because those types of people are usually LIARS. And why waste valuable air time with lies.
Wow. Read that back to yourself and say, "hmmmmm, maybe I oughta thought that one through before I clicked on post."
You and MMFA insist on substantive response from the republicans but in the same breath, insist Kieth Olbermann should be able to express his point of view unabated. This is the kind of liberal thinking that challenges honosty on the democrat side. You've exposed yourself for what you really are.
Do you honestly think and repub would go on Olberman. Rachel Maddow begs for Republicans but they will not come on her show because she is an intelligent, prepared level headed host.
Mr. Olbermann has never offered the opportunity so it's a moot point. He's afraid of honost debate. He makes a nice living from following other pundits around with a still action camera, waiting for mistakes or simply offering a still shot as a substitute for live action and then fills in the gaps with his own version of reality. As for Rachel, being Air America alumni muddies her resume but I think she has a great deal more integrity than Olbermann, so maybe she can improve her standing, but it takes some time. Being K.O.'s underling doesn't help much, either. She's only been prominent for a few months.
Worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?
You seem to have forgotten about the Carter years, which Hugo Fidel CarterBama has decided we need to revisit.
KO did have a response to this lunatic although I can't remember exactly what it consisted of. I watched him last night and he was not very complimentary to this loon and he even made mention that although he rarely mentions anyone at MSNBC this had to be mentioned. KO was not happy about any of it and he did go against the powers that be at MSNBC.
Yeah, it's called "good cop, bad cop."
Hmm. The new media darling guru Santelli, got asked a Q about the automakers, & said two different things. Let 'em go bankrupt...oops, well, we should help 'em out, but no money. Maybe invite them to eat cake?
Like the all caps person says, where was this guy when wall street bankers & investment firms were getting their bail out help? But we can't help the "unwashed masses".
The longer view is even if irresponsible people are given the chance to renegotiag their mortgage, it will help responsible homeowners. How do property values stabilize for everyone if your neighborhood is full of empty homes?
Santelli having his tea party:
If MSNBC was smart, they'd counter this rant with the one by the mayor of Lansing on Fox. Now that was quality television.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-nLS6FJtSM
It does look him. Where's Larry Kudlow but under his dress...?
Mary,
I do believe, (and correct me if I am wrong,) Santelli stated that 95% percent of homeowners pay their mortgages on time. I doubt they will abandon their homes.
Now, there's an interesting statistic. If 5% or less of mortgages are in default, how are they bringing down the whole world's economic system? Could it be that Wall Street's house of cards has magnified the problem a thousand times?
Bingo! Maybe AA will finally understand. (Not holding my breath)
He said 92%. One out of every 12 or 13 homeowners who can't pay their mortgage sounds like a lot to me.
Yeah they did. The derivatives were based on what Barney Frank and Acorn did.
No they weren't. The worst of the banks and lenders involved in the collapse, such as WaMu and Countrywide, falsified appraisals of properties and bond ratings of the derivatives and engaged in extremely fraudulent loan practices in order to continue creating more derivatives. They were not forced to make bad loans, they rushed to do it thinking they would make huge profits.
I live in Canada and my ex wife works for a major banking institution. A couple of years ago they had two loan officers who were inflating loan applicants yearly earnings. These people were very niave and ended up not being able to pay their mortgage. The two people working at the bank are now facing jail time.How anyone is allowed to lie on any application is beyond stoopid. Just look what is happening to your housing industry.When I go to talk to the bank I have to trust their assesment. If they tell me I can afford a house then I am going to believe them. They are the professionals. To just flat out blame the homeowners is as dishonest as the loans themselves
You are as wrong as wrong can be. No intelligent person will allow a salesman, and that's what realtors and lending institutions are, to tell them what they can or cannot afford. Any homeowner that enters into forclosure, aside from extrordinary circumstances such as longterm job loss or devastating illness, is responsible for that proceeding. This bailout for the stupid will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders by an administration that anyone will be able to recall.
Obama's gonna fix the economy with or without your support, so you'd better get used to it or it's going to be a long, long 8 years for you.
It's gonna be a looooooong 8 years for everybody!
BTW, I thought he already fixed it. Freudian slip?
Have you ever seen loan papers? They can confuse the msot intelligent person. There are a number of people out there who are very trsuting and a number of people out there who think that it doesn;t matter what you do as long as you can make a buck. it is a very dangerous situation whem they meet. You don;t think a loan officer has ever said that your payment is going to be fixed @ X and buyer shows up at the closing table and payment is adjustable @ Y. Buyer has 10K in an earnest money deposit(all the money bhe has saved) that can be gone if he does not settle.
You conservatives want to make it so easy, lets blame the poor and or uneducated. Regardless of who'sfault this is, we need to take drastic measurs because this housing crisis is effecting a majority of the country. You may not think that helping that foreclosed homeowner will help you but it certainly will. If foreclosures stop then inventory will reduce and prices will stabilize and eventually begin to rise again. Banks will get healthy, money will become more available, business will be able to prosper and we will be out of this recession. Every major economic analyst says that we need to fix the housing if the economy is going to recover. We can't fix the housing marlket as long as foreclosures stya at record levels. Your home will continue to lose value.
I've bought and sold several houses here in Las Vegas and So. Nevada. I sold a house in 2004, which I bought in 2000, and made 100k. My wife and I recognized the market shift at that time, and instead of buying another house, we rented for 4 years until the market went in our favor. We bought a house for 225K and it went down about 4% in the last year but we intend to live here until we die. We aren't geniuses but we understood the pitfalls of buying at the wrong time and buying with the wrong terms. People here in Vegas were greedy and they are the ones who are in a pickle and expect the government to bail them out.
Even for you Leather, that comment was weak.
Unless you were kidding about Acorn screwing up the economy with their get out the vote drives.
I don't give a rat's ass about Santelli's opinion. I don't agree with him but I think a lot of people feel somewhat frustrated. My problem is this guy coming unglued like that on the air and not only is he not reprimanded by CNBC, he's made in to a folk hero for it. Can you imagine a weatherman going on a 5 minute frothing at the mouth tirade about global warming and not getting canned?
Yeah,
The corporate media got what they were looking for. Some elitist knucklehead to create a wingnut "talk radio" moment.
I agree with the posters above: WHERE WAS THIS GUY WHEN THE CORPORATIONS GOT THE FIRST $350 BILLION? WHERE WAS HIS OUTRAGE THEN?
Santelli goes on a rant for 5 minutes and is more popular than Limbaugh and Hannity. Watch yourself Santelli, Bill-o is going to get the Fox police after you. Mr. Santelli, you have taken a path on which you cannot turn back. My advice start lying and Fox will be your next stop. But watch your back with that Limbaugh guy, he is a drug addict. And Seannie, no worry about him...just ask him a question and he'll run away.
I make ok money and pay my mortgage on time every month (part of that 92%). However, had I taken the sub prime loan that Countrywide wanted me and consistently harassed me to take, I am not sure I could be making those new payments today. I do not want to see foreclosure signs in my neighborhood, so anything Obama wants to try is fine by me. Heck, I would rather have my tax money help my neighbor than fight an uncalled for war in Iraq. People need to wake up that lenders are just a bit a part of this problem as anyone else.
People who bought more than they could afford or failed to read their mortgage contracts and who now can't make those mortgage payments don't deserve a dime of taxpayer money. It's not about what side of town on which you live. It's about taking responsibility for your bad decisions. Santelli is absolutely right.
Finally, a handle that is correct. Libertarianism is a joke..
Oh. I didn't know. I'll have to reconsider.
So how where these people able to purchase these homes they obviously couldn't afford in the first place? What about those real estate folks who were fabricating/inflating people's actual incomes on those loan applications? Most of those home buyers were obviously manipulated and most likely didn't fully understand what they were getting into. I don't think they have backgrounds in real estate and contract law. Does anyone actually think that people in a hurting real estate market are going to pass up an opportunity to sell a house? The blame should go towards unethical real estate practices and the lending/mortgaging institutions who knew these people couldn't pay their loans/mortgages: their actions were fiscally irresponsible.
Like those CEO's of financial institutions now on the public dole. I'm still waiting for any of them to step up to the responsibilities of their actions.
I live in Canada and my ex wife works for a major banking institution. A couple of years ago they had two loan officers who were inflating loan applicants yearly earnings. These people were very niave and ended up not being able to pay their mortgage. The two people working at the bank are now facing jail time.How anyone is allowed to lie on any application is beyond stoopid. Just look what is happening to your housing industry.When I go to talk to the bank I have to trust their assesment. If they tell me I can afford a house then I am going to believe them. They are the professionals. To just flat out blame the homeowners is as dishonest as the loans themselves
Dishonest you say? I enjoy hearing liberals use that word out of context.
How is "dishonest" out of context? When Bush lied and people believed him they were exempt from criticism.When your mortgage broker lies to you it is your fault?Encouraging people to buy something they can't afford is dishonest.These loans were made because the bank was not going to hold on to the loan so if it defaulted it was not their problem because they sold the loan.Their risk was low so that is a good loan to them.Free market at it's best.Look where that has gotten us.
Sorry for the "Bush" non seqitor.
Libertarian is a great philosophy. For White male small-town Americsa circa 1845...!!!
How is Libertarianism in any way a white male small-town ideology?
What's the greater crime? Robbing a bank? Or opening one...?
Don't worry about easytorefute, libertarian. He's a kitten with a whip.
There's a novel approach do nothing and let the housing market continue in a free fall. Atleast that way every one loses because we are all stripped of our equity. Laisez Faire oui oui
This idiot just wanted his 15 minutes of fame! He did not make any substantive retort to the plan...He totally missed the point of the plan!
He should've had a dancing girl/boyl next to him. Would've made a much better impression. One of the CNBC media concubines and/or eunuchs.
Thanks Media Matters for posting this, I was trying to find it!
This was the best, most lucid argument anyone has made. We Americans are TIRED OF PAYING FOR OTHER PEOPLES MISTAKES. I don't want to bailout Chrysler, I don't want to bail out mortgage owners who can't pay and I don't want to bail out Wall Street.
To those of you who don't know, Rick Santelli doesn't want to bail any of them out. You would know if you watched CNBC. He was against every single bail out. And so are most Americans. He's just saying what everyone else around here is thinking
Back on subject for a minute, MMFA jumped the gun a little here. Besides who watches morning joe? (small letters) Too predictable. He, Santelli, made Worst on Obermann and Mathews got em' pretty good too. Off subject, Gibbs gave it to him pretty good.
Stripped to its essentials, Santelli's rant was simply a classic case of the haves sneering at the "loser" have-nots in self-congratulation of their own supposed but actually mythical superiority.
Yeah. Kinda like the elites (Obama and Biden) who say we should be good neighbors and share the wealth but when it comes to getting out their own checkbooks to contribute to charity, well, that's a different story. Libs are all about using tax dollars to help the less fortunate but when asked to contribute to private sector charities all too often their response is "I gave at the office.".Let's cap both their salaries at $50,000 and redistribute the difference to the folks who were waterboarded into signing those mortgage documents.
Why do all these rightards behave like lunatics? I mean, did you hear the crap about that loser Alan Keyes? I think the Secret Service needs to visit Alan. He is talking treason.
Keyes is certifiable. And maybe the only Black member of the KKK...
You forget about Michael Steele and Clarence" I used affirmative action and no one else should be able to use it" Thomas.
Santelli is another one of the bastard children of Reaganism-Thatcherism. Let him rant. Watch him run when the Revolution wheels out a tumbrel with his name on it.
I'm a conservative against the bailout for homeowners in foreclosure, and let me tell you why. My sister-in-law has squandered thousands at casinos, and has so far lost her car and now possibly her home. After years of being bailed out by her her parents, who have finally now cut her off, instead of learning any lessons in life by being foreclosed on and suffering some consequences, we see now Obama will interrupt that process. We WANT HER TO LOSE HER HOME, FOR GOD's SAKE!!! She will just go right back to gambling it away again. I'm sick of the bull about how conservatives don't care about their neighbors. I'm going to live in my house til I die. I don't care how many losers lose their homes and possibly decreasing the value of my home. My sister-in-law is just one example of what is going on in this country.
Don't Rachel Maddow and Olberman have a show every night, where they support ALL of Obama's plans for the economy? It seems like one rant is a drop in the bucket when you compare it to 10 hours a week of sheer left-wing propaganda. Don't bite the MSNBC hand that feeds your propaganda, MM!
After Robert Gibbs responded, Santelli fired back at Gibbs on the Kudlow report. You can watch the video here:
http://gotchamedia.blogspot.com/2009/02/crazy-rick-santelli-fires-back-at-gibbs.html