CNBC's Rick Santelli and random angry banker people are not pleased that their tax dollars are being used to bailout "the losers' mortgages"
You know, I suppose that I could easily launch into some venomous diatribe here about how a group of bankers on a trading floor in Feb. of 2009 in the United States of America bitching and moaning about how the government should help those who "carry the water instead of drink the water" is the absolute height of "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME" hypocrisy, and I suppose that I could rant on and on and on about I don't want my tax money being used to fund cocaine parties and handjobs from Asian hookers and bottle service at douchey fucking clubs for dudes who live their lives based on the "Ask Shyla" advice column in the latest issue of Maxim, but that'd be almost too fucking easy wouldn't it?
13 comments:
Not one fucking person on CNBC pointed out his hipocracy. They should all be fired immediately. Does he not realize it was his banking brethren's insatiable lust for more mortgaged backed securites that drew many of these "water drinkers" into the bad loans they couldn't pay off in the first place? And remind him the banks are getting about 20 or 30 times the amount of bailout funds compared to what's being set aside for troubled mortgages. Give this man a pet chimp!
The problem is that a dangerous precedent was set a long time ago. The government became very intertwined into the financial markets and it created this current mess. CNBC is a government cheerleader, they wanted to root on the bubble and they wanted to prolong the bubble. The problem is that the bubble was created in the first place. The bubble was created by artificial manipulation of interest rates by the Federal Reserve, excess money supply, excessive government spending, selective (based on politics) regulation, excessive taxation, and fiat (phony money) currency. Debasements of currency have been employed for generations in this country whenever a problem has taken place, but now the monetary system is based off debt-based currency. Debasing a currency would create a bubble that would put off problems and this practice has been in place for a long time. It was less painful to the nation to debase fixed gold/silver exchanges, but now we have a currency that is based essentially an IOU. There's nowhere to go but down and it is tragic.
umm hate to burst the bubble but all those guys are traders. i.e., they're not being backed by the big bulge bracket banks on wall street, they're mostly taking their own risk with their own money and paying the consequences. these guys are as far from bankers as you'll get.
CNBC and the Corporate media continue to be the downfall of our American society. CEOs and greedy traders who lost trillions in one big ponzi scheme are winners and are bailed out by the govt but people duped into terrible housing loans with exploding interest rates and want to change those terms are losers. Awesome Logic. Dick.
If you take a look at Bloomberg news this am the wealthy are defaulting on their "jumbo" loans at a pretty high rate....those "jumbo" loans were used to purchase homes they couldn't afford and investment condos that those "responsible" wealthy people are now defaulting on. So Santelli, do your homework and stop being another Rush Limbaugh. You need to be fired.
On another note, the only people I know who are defaulting on their loans on 2nd, 3rd and 4th homes are people who make over $200,000 and just lived way above their means.
My idea of a stimulus package:
Becky Quick.
As for Santelli I hope he falls face first in a gravy boat and drowns.
RJ
Fucking Federal Reserve. Anyone ever watch "America: From Freedom to Facism"?
Santelli is a jackass for sure, but that doesn't mean his views, while improperly stated, are not that different from many of us. Like, uh... mine. Listen, I get that the banks were greedy, and they manipulated people into mortgages they probably shouldn't have had. But at some level, the homeowner has to take some responsibility. When I was in the process of pre-qualifying for my 2nd (not extra, but 2nd one I bought in my life) house in 2003, my mortgage guy told me I could buy "way more" than I was looking at. I told him that I was the best judge of what I could afford, not him.
We like to talk about the banks being greedy... they are an easy target. But John Q. Main Street was pretty greedy too. The only reason to take out a 5yr ARM is because you think you can flip out of the house, or there will be a ton of equity in 5 years. That is a GAMBLE. Well, the music stopped, and people don't have chairs. Do I feel bad? Absolutely. However, as a psychologist, I just want to say... "stupid has to hurt". It just has to. We cannot keep bailing out every frigging industry, homeowner, etc. At some point there has to be a reckoning. And frankly, I'm tired of it coming out of my family's tax dollars... you know, the family that has not accumulated ridiculous debt for riduculous items, did not spend more money on a house than they can afford, did put 20% down on the mortgage, etc.
Cajun is off base on this one. Santelli was right on. Why are we subsidizing idiots. Also, the traders on the Chicago floor (as already pointed out) are not investment bankers. You should back off of this one because you're showing your ignorance.
@anon...actually, no. i'm not wrong here and i'm 100 % convinced of it. it's santelli and the like who are showing their ignorance, because if they had half a brain in their fucking head they'd realize that helping people pay their mortgages is a sly way of giving aid to the banks who desperately need it. in case you haven't noticed, shoveling over money to the banks isn't very popular right now, so by giving it to the people to pay off their loans, they're indirectly giving more support to the banks while cloaking it in helping out average americans, which is an easier PR sell. granted, it also helps the average american. everything is connected.
and I KNOW that the guys on the floor are traders and not investment bankers, but don't you think that they'd be in looking for new jobs if the federal government didn't step in with a bailout to prevent the meltdown of wall street?
anyway, i'm drunk and i'm rambling, but even the new york post, THE NEW YORK FUCKING POST, thinks that the obama administration played this about as perfectly as it could be played, as evidenced by their editorial on Friday titled "a serious plan." i'll paste it here...
Make no mistake: President Obama's $275 billion foreclosure-prevention package is expensive, risky and unfair to homeowners who played by the rules all along.
But does anyone have a better idea?
Whatever else can be said of it, the Obama plan marks the first serious attempt to strike at the root of America's economic crisis - the sharp decline in home values that has sparked waves of mortgage foreclosures and crippled the country's financial institutions.
First, he'd commit fully $200 billion to government-backed lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - permitting them to refinance mortgages, at current rock-bottom rates, for certain homeowners whose reduced home values mean they otherwise wouldn't qualify.
He'd also pressure banks getting bailout money to cut interest rates for struggling homeowners - and front another $75 billion to help them do it.
The purpose here is as clear as it is urgent: Stop, or at least slow, the downward spiral of home values by preventing as many foreclosures as possible - thus shoring up Wall Street's mortgage-backed assets and saving neighborhoods from the general decay that accompanies abandoned properties.
The plan, of course, comes with risks:
* Most basically, it rewards irresponsible behavior. Many people in line for help had no business buying a home in the first place - and were often plain dishonest in procuring a loan.
* It's also unclear how much reworking mortgages actually helps. It turns out that more than half of the loans modified last year by large banks defaulted again within six months.
If that pattern holds, Obama's relief plan may only add to Wall Street's uncertainty regarding the value of their mortgage assets.
* The administration also plans to push for a law allowing bankruptcy judges to unilaterally rewrite distressed mortgages. If that happens, look for loans to become much harder to get as banks hedge their bets against court-imposed losses.
Clearly, the country is headed into uncharted waters. But, given the urgency of the moment, Obama's plan seems prudent and reasonable.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02202009/postopinion/editorials/a_serious_plan_156034.htm
He sounds like Billy Mays crossed with Rush Limppaw...I can't stand it when people yell to state their point (myself included.)
He sounds like Billy Mays crossed with Rush Limppaw...I can't stand it when people yell to state their point (myself included.)
New Texan: I'm in agreement with you and did some freelance design work for a RE investment mgmt firm here in a large TX metropolis.
While they leased a home to them, they claimed to be able to take unqualified buyers and put them through credit repair & a budget so they could work themselves up toward qualifying (with the mgmt co's buddy mortgage company). The credit repair challenged the WAY information had been put on a credit report (whether or not all rules had been followed to a T), NOT whether or not it was a reliable indicator of their ability to pay. The budget and mortgage amortization spreadsheets everyone got excited about don't seem to have been representative of anything real that I saw.
Not surprisingly, more than half the time those people didn't stick to the budget, stopped paying and a lot of those homes went into foreclosure. Because the sub-prime buyers had mostly come from apt. situations, they didn't treat the homes as their own (read: pretty much trashed the place) and being evicted wasn't a big deal. Even those who ARE paying are losing their homes because the mgmt company isn't making payments on those homes, trying to save the others for investors stupid enough to keep working with them. I live in one of them (I won't work for them anymore but we do rent out of convenience.) I'm looking at having to move a second time because they aren't making the payment on the actual home I'm living in with the rent that I give them each month. That's a consequence of this crisis that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet. I don't own a home, my home isn't losing value from the foreclosures, but I still may lose my place to live with little to zero notice and I don't have the ability to just up and move on the fly.
A judge asked one former business partner why he kept seeing him in court for foreclosures and urged him to stop doing business with the company. No one who works there, as far as I know, has a financial education or background running an investment company. The only experience they have is in RE. However, they do have a lawyer who makes sure everything they do is legal and they bill themselves as a RE mgmt firm rather than an investment company. But be advised, they will still tell you investing in RE is the best way to go and have a presentation at the ready to show you.
When you have the blind leading the blind down a dark alley, someone is bound to step in a huge pile of horse apples.
Post a Comment