Thursday, February 19, 2009

Rick Santelli's Offensive Rant Against the Housing Bailout

Rick Santelli's Rant about President Obama's Housing Plan on CNBC

I wonder if this mofo was this outraged when WALL STREET went begging for 700 BILLION DOLLARS.

President Obama's housing plan is ONE-TENTH of the money that went to WALL STREET, and I bet his ass didn't say JACK about THAT money.

And you wonder why folks like me didn't want to give Wall Street ANYTHING?

Give it to Wall Street with no provisions...

But, the Auto Industry - which affects MILLIONS of jobs - it can only be a LOAN..
and, we must talk about the EARNING potential of UAW workers.

And now, that we're trying to help people on the ground - sure, some of them took out loans that they couldn't afford. But, how about those who were straight up DEFRAUDED. How about the ones who SHOULD have qualified for CONVENTIONAL mortgages, but because of INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN THE BANKING INDUSTRY, were herded into SUBPRIME mortgages.

How entire communities of this country - on MAIN STREET - are being wiped out because of this foreclosure crisis. And, foreclosures just don't devastate those who lost their homes. Their neighbors see their property values plummet with every foreclosure in their neighborhoods. This is the reality on MAIN STREET.

Oh, to drop his ass off on Main Street, give him a megaphone, and see if he'd be that big and bad THEN.


airdriesg said...

I felt the same way myself. But I went digging on the internet and just basically googled "santelli" "bailout" "wallstreet" and it turns out he WAS pissed about it. There is a google video where he says that no one is even confident the bailout would work at all. This is back in Sept. So I would say, yes, he did care.

T3FLON said...

My problem is that if we are for free market, then we shouldn't have bailed out the banks in the first place! They chose their fate when they backed bad mortgages (subprime loans). If anyone should've been bailed out it is the people of our nation. Give us cash and we can restart the economy (if I could support any bailout). This is the problem with the system.

Liberal Arts Dude said...

Basically his point is that Big Government/The Obama administration is promoting bad behavior via its policies that involve bailing out homeowners. He's frothing with anger at how unfair it is that homeowners who took on mortgages they can't afford are being rewarded while those who have been responsible and played by the rules are getting the shaft as taxpayers. Fair enough argument to make.

I am just concerned that this outburst of right-wing populism is anger that is misdirected. This guy is angry at Obama and what he perceives as irresponsible freeloaders on the rest of society. But his anger ends at that. He says nothing about the past 30 years of deregulation that contributed to making the collapse of the economy possible. He says nothing about the effects of NAFTA and other globalist free trade policies that have resulted in the US losing its manufacturing base.

I'm just concerned that popular anger stoked by his rant will be channeled against the Obama administration and by proxy towards liberals in general. Rather than directed in a productive way against what and who really are to blame for the economy's collapse -- economic policies we have been following for the past 30 years -- it will be directed towards convenient scapegoats. And once the anger subsides and the anger has died down we will still be in the same boat we were in to begin with.

Anonymous said...

I run a small business on "Main Street" in central Ohio, and I can promise you, Santelli offended no one around liberals cry about the ills of deregulation and free if the stranglehold of tight regulation and protectionism would make for a better America in the unstoppable global economy. The auto industry? You all know that deep down inside it's the fat union contracts and pensions and healthcare benefits that have brought down the big 3. As for the banks and subprime, for God's sake, have you ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? The banks have been FORCED to make bad loans to people with BAD credit...that transends racism. Now Obama wants the banks to start lending again? Give me a break. Why don't you liberal wimps move to Canada, where their infrastructure ought to suit you fine.

Liberal Arts Dude said...

Hello there Anonymous

Let me ask you a question -- if there was a way so that the auto industry did not have to subsidize healthcare benefits do you think they can become competitive again? Let's say if universal healthcare were instituted in the US? Would you be in favor of that?

You rile against liberals. Do you favor Republicans and free market conservatives? What do you think of the job that these guys did when they were in charge? Is more "free trade" and more globalization the answer for you? Isn't it time we tried something different if this strategy has failed resoundingly in practice?

Hey I understand that you are angry. I just think that your anger is misdirected and ultimately it only serves to empower and give credibility to those who led us in this mess in the first place. Who do you think stands to benefit most when popular anger is directed towards the Obama administration and liberals? Last time I checked there were only two major political parties in the US.

Patrick said...

This video is the reason why I don't watch CNBC...


Case in point:

Santelli claims that a bunch of silver spoon, Ivy league frat boys trading stocks/bonds in Chicago are a "statistical cross section of America"

Are you f**king kidding me?

I don't like bailouts BUT.....the moral hazard debate died after Bear Stearns. Context is everything in this new world of bailouts

Another example:

1000> Wall Street execs pay themselves $18 billion in bonuses from TARP - CNBC tolerates it (some try to justify it)

Consumers (aka 66% of GDP) get a $75 billion MODIFICATION (not a bonus) and CNBC goes ballistic

FUBAR!!! Hence the TV is turned off

Here's my feelings about the mortgage modification plan: I think its a necessary approach to stabilizing housing, then the credit markets, and then the banks from the bottom up...not from Wall Street/top down).

This is the right first step...its not the only step needed...but we are finally going the right direction.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that you assume that everybody who can't pay their mortgage is automatically an "innocent victim"??? Did none of these people READ their mortgage before they signed it? Did none of them bother to take said mortgage paper to an attorney or an accountant and have it checked over? As Richard Bach once said, "There are no victims, only volunteers." If you sign a piece of paper that is going to put you 6 figures in debt, you better damn well READ it first.

Cuchulain said...

The CRA had very little to do with this disaster. It's just one more attempt by the right wing to blame poor people for the sins of the wealthy.

Credit default swaps were the key, and poor folks weren't doing that. It was the Masters of the Universe, gambling like sailors on holiday. And tax payers bailed them out.

The real hypocrisy of that video, however is this. It's very likely that a large majority of the people on that floor still have jobs because tax payers bailed them out. And they have the nerve to be upset when the working poor ask for some help to keep their homes? And what about the 18 billion in bonuses? Why didn't Santelli at least ask the frat boys on the floor if they had accepted bonus money?

Another big issue: Financial houses make a fortune on Refis. It's in their best interest to do them and tweak the numbers if needbe. It doesn't matter if they're bad or good. The finance guys still make their money. Up front. 60 Minutes did an expose recently on that. How at least one firm was fudging the numbers to get these through. Their management team put pressure on them to do that. Eventually, the whole firm went under.

This is a problem that started at the top, not the bottom.

And you're gonna blame the working poor? Sheeesh. Wingnuts have a lump of coal where their hearts should be.

Bipartisan & Proud said...

"You all know that deep down inside it's the fat union contracts and pensions and healthcare benefits that have brought down the big 3."

Tell me then mind reader, why is a Toyota more expensive than a Chevy?
Foreign auto makers are in the same boat, you just don't hear about it on American news channels. Turn off Fox and try watching BBC America to get a better idea of whats happening in the world.

"The banks have been FORCED to make bad loans to people with BAD credit...that transends racism."

I seriously doubt that. Sounds like you watching Fox news again.

"Why don't you liberal wimps move to Canada, where their infrastructure ought to suit you fine."

I've got a better idea, why don't you move your a** out of here? You don't sound like you care for it around here Pinhead. Yea I got that off of Fox.

TiredOfTheSameOld said...

I have to agree that the Banks were Forced to make loans to people that they normally would nto have loaned to. That being said, the bad mortgages only account for 10% of the problem we have. The Other 90% is what all the banks, Stock Brokers and Hedge fund managers did with those loans. So basically they took a problem that would have been about 6 Trillion Dollars and made it into a 65 Trillion dollar problem.

So who really is at fault? We could have easily bailed out all of the bad lonas if the greedy people in the investment world hadn't manipulated all those "Bad Assets" in a big "wall street Gambling scheme" !!!

Theyn are the true villians in this and yet they go on TV and blame people who took out bad loans...

daxe said...

As far as I can tell the crisis is an outcome of many people making unwise choices. To say that it is all the banks fault for lending money unwisely, ignores the homeowners responsibility for taking on debt they could not handle. To say it is the people "volunteered" for mortgages they couldn't handle, ignores the banks responsibilities (yes there may be community reinvestment, that doesn't mean giving a mortgage for a mcmansion to someone making $40k a year... it means making a mortgage for something they can afford). It is going to be difficult to make real progress if we only blame the other person, and avoid recognizing we also are part of the problem.

The deeper issue is that we had deluded ourselves into believing we were wealthier then we were. We spent too much, and took on too much debt. Now we are beginning to deal with reality. Each side wants the other to pay the bill, and is attempting to develop a strong emotional rationalization for why.
Ultimately we are just going to pass the bill on to future generations, and possibly throw in a hyperinflation at some point to eliminate the real value of our debts.

If the banks dont want to deal with more foreclosures, it is in there best interest to modify the mortgages ( better to get 80% of something then to get only 50% of it). Moreover, if the financial industry can't self-regulate, and the appeal of huge profits overrides the importance of honest evaluation (let's not forget another part of the crisis were the rating agencies' giving the highest, safest ratings to subprime backed LDOs, which lead to way too large investment in those now toxic assets), the government will end up having to regulate - and will of course have their own corruption and incompetency issues.

Anonymous said...

The other issue is solvency. Most big financial firms were leveraged more than 30 to 1. No one forced them to take that gamble. There is no law or program on the books that forces big financial firms to gamble that much. They gambled because they were making trillions.

Those firms never should have lent enough money to sink them. That's just common sense. They should have factored in the possibility of a downturn and failure to pay back at least a certain percentage of those loans.

They were not prepared.

If they had used a bit of common sense, they wouldn't have collapsed. This is 99.9% on them.

Powkat said...

Santelli has to know what he is saying is wrong. The truth is that we will all pay for the bad economy one way or another. I never voted for George Bush, but I'm stuck with the lousy wars and economy he left behind. My house is okay for now, but if all my neighbors are foreclosed, there goes the neighborhood and my house's value drops.

More importantly, we ARE our brothers and sisters keepers; we operate as a community with all that implies, or we each go down separately, crying in vain

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to see his rant when GE Capital comes crying for a bailout (oh gee, is the stock under 10 bucks now). I hope they ask Obama personally.

And since this snivelling little bond trader is bemoaning having to pay for things we don't personally need, coud he please tell me how I keep my cable and not have to pay for CNBC anymore?

The Angry Independent said...

I hate when Wall Street tries to lecture Main Street. Please!!! Spare Me!

These are the same jackasses who helped to create these risky financial instruments like mortgage backed securities, and who were more than happy to trade them when the housing market was booming. They loved it then. Especially these credit default swaps...

And they loved it because it was damn near under the table activity, with little or no regulation. They exacerbated the problems to say the least.

But when things turn sour they want to blame people who work for a living. Not understanding that what was once now spreading because the increase in foreclosures is bringing down home values in entire neighborhoods.

marvin said...

To find out whether you qualify for the Obama Housing Bailoutt, check your financial statements and do the math. You’ll only qualify if your monthly payments are at least 38% of your income.