In the annals of CNBC cluelessness, this morning’s outburst by the channel’s Rick Santelli is up there with the worst.
This is an example of what’s wrong with a certain kind of financial journalism, the kind where people of like backgrounds spend all day staring at tickers and interviewing each other.
The segment couldn’t more clearly illustrate the disconnect between the financial-services sector, certain financial journalists, and, you know, “reality.”
This was CNBC’s worst performance in an entire week—since Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, Dennis Kneale, Roben Farzad & Co. made horses’ rear-ends of themselves trying to squeeze investment tips out of two of the leading thinkers on the global financial crisis, Nouriel Roubini and Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
What sent Santelli, CNBC’s hot-air, oops, “On-Air Editor,” over the edge? The homeowner bailout. Of course, he didn’t get himself into nearly this much of a lather over the trillions of dollars we’ve given to Wall Street welfare cases and the busted banks. Oh no. He’s mad that non-financial-service-professionals, otherwise known as homeowners, or, according to Santelli “losers,” are up now for help—to the tune of $275 billion, much of which would go to the banks anyway (emphasis mine):
Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the loser’s mortgages or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road and reward people that can carry the water instead of drink the water?
Which reminds me of the French Revolution scene from Mel Brooks’s History of the World: Part I:
Count de Monet: “The People Are Revolting!”
Louis XVI: “You said it—they stink on ice!”
Look, we have no problem with robust commentary. And the hothead thing is part of Santelli’s schtick. The man has to make a living, we suppose. He’s gone off on bailouts before (he actually walked out on a segment a few months ago after a heated discussion).
He’s also been wrong. The segment he walked out on was in the midst of the mid-September meltdown when he was calling for a delay in a bailout of the crippled financial system, which nearly everyone now agrees kept us from a catastrophic meltdown and depression. But even then, he didn’t question the need for something to be done to bail the financiers out.
And he’s not been afraid to take on the powerful, like his own network’s carnival barker, Jim Cramer (see this entertaining YouTube mash-up), over Cramer forgetting his own bullishness at the top of the market.
But watching CNBC lately is like stumbling onto Easter Island just after the natives chopped down their last tree. It’s like a lost world over there. Somebody send up a chopper.
But then, this may be a sympton of a wider disease.
We at The Audit have written repeatedly about the blame-the-homeowners meme that’s been so popular in misdirecting people away from the real culprits in the crisis: the financial-services boiler rooms that created all those junk mortgages and bundled them into crap securities for sale to all-too-trusting rubes (aka “clients”) around the world.
I understand there’s a powerful undercurrent of outrage from some people who are paying their mortgages (or renting) who disdain those who aren’t or can’t.
But let’s understand what’s going on here. This homeowner bailout isn’t really even aimed at easing people’s suffering. It’s aimed at the banks, whose downward spiral will not stop until the housing market stabilizes.
The question is do we step in and try to engineer the softest landing we can—or do we let it feed on itself until we all go down?
But what I’m really interested in isn’t the pros or cons about the homeowner bailout. Reasonable people can and do disagree about that. What’s really fascinating is the peek it offers into how CNBC—or at least part of it—thinks.
At this point, the financial network is channeling the culture it covers. The barrier between reporter and subject has nearly dissolved.

No rant - just reasoned commentary. Santelli is possibly the only person on CNBC that has a clue! Just so happens that he does not agree with Columbia's politics so you don't like what you are hearing. Believe it or not there is huge opposition in America to the blatant socialist/populist agenda that is being pushed forward - an agenda that disdains the productive and responsible in this society - those of us who make it all possible!!!22 SCHEDULE
#1 Posted by Mil, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 07:28 PM
So if you hate Wall Street money manipulators that makes you a socialist/populist? I guess most of the American public are socialists, then.
#2 Posted by lcs, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 07:46 PM
Mil? What exactly is it that "those of us" make possible anyway? Our current situation? The War in Iraq (up to $1 trillion)? Our incredibly productive financial system that produces NOTHING but bonuses for punks who couldn't make breakfast if their miserable lives depended on it?
And what's your solution to this mess? Tax cuts?!
You and your enablers have destroyed capitalism. What's next is your fault, not some devious "socialist" agenda.
#3 Posted by tracker, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 07:46 PM
Thank you Rick for saying the disgust most of use feel!
Love you man!
#4 Posted by My-oh-my, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 07:54 PM
Santelli is right. Many of us are busting our humps to make our lives work and it is dispiriting, no, maddening to see that the reward for our prudence is to pay for our neighbors' profligacy. For renters, it serves to delay their ability to purchase a home... a further penalty that is a byproduct of house prices that are still too high.
When will we learn that nothing goood comes from high house prices? When will we realize that high prices (not falling prices) and the enormous payments that go along with them strangle the country and siphon off tremendous amounts of consumer spending power? A subsidy won't arrest the decline, but it is a wrongheaded attempt to preserve a poisonous status quo.
#5 Posted by eternitus, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 07:56 PM
Actually, for the first time I heard some real clarity by someone that actually learned something about capitalism, freedom, and the American Constitution in school. If we had more people challenging both sides of the government we would be in so much better shape than we are today. Tracker, the problems were caused by democrats forcing lenders to loan to people that could not afford it. Remember fanny and freddie. The same people responsible for that mess are now trying to tell us all how to solve our economy problems and reward their political backers. Any different than republicans, no. But its democrats in charge doing it right now and for the last two years. Remember that for the last two years the democrats could block anything they wanted, and they did not want to. Just the facts.
#6 Posted by Neil, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 07:56 PM
The banking problems are so convoluted most cannot understand what happened or how; and reasonable people cannot agree on the best course of action to resolve those problems. The mortgage mess is, to a good degree, simpler. People bought property for the wrong reason--they viewed it as an investment--when it is really a place to live. They over paid-- more than they could afford. Like any poorly thought out investment, sometimes you lose. They should not be bailed out.
#7 Posted by normk1, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:06 PM
Columbia J-School: This is where people go who are too stupid to get into the Education program.
#8 Posted by Steve in Greensboro, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:07 PM
Santelli was correct in his rant. There are too many bloggers out there who want "old school, sideline reporters. We had one clear voice in the '50s and that was Edward R. Murrow, and not a shred of conscience since, or at least until Howard Beale or Keith Olbermann.
Santelli is an off-the-cuff, live pit reporter, hardly an on-air editor. Where did you get that title? He reports from one of the market pits in Chicago surrrounded by screaming agents bidding madly in a tough market.
#9 Posted by Tripton, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:08 PM
The author of this article clearly hasn't seen Santelli, save for a few youtube clips he was probably sent.
If you can't afford the house your in, you need to RENT. Foreclose on um, and bring the prices down, that is the only way to clear inventory out. They are going to turn a recession into a depression if they aren't careful. :-S
#10 Posted by Alex Jarvis, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:13 PM
You've got to be kidding me. What is "up there with the worst" is the intellectual dishonesty, immaturity and ignorance of CJR and the rest of the Ivory Tower crowd.
Santelli finally had enough of the blathering of Liesman and all the other Keynesian liberals on CNBC and called a spade a spade.
Now to call another spade a spade, it's funny how the CJR never noted that Santelli has had an ongoing intellectual feud with Liesmand, on almost a daily basis, so much so it's become part of the CNBC AM schitkc....
Why would this matter? ... Maybe because Liesman holds a Masters of Science from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism...
What's truly sad is how the elites stumble around like senile old Kings who think they have their robe on...
Pathetic. But I didnt expect much out of Columbia.
AMDG
HCSKnight
#11 Posted by HCSKnight, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:13 PM
While the solutions to the present economy is quite the complex issue, the causes are not.
A bubble was formed pure and simple. Everybody was in on it. The government facilitated it, mortage companies pushed it and consumers / average citizens were complicit in it as well, since they signed the mortgages. When the bubble burst, everybody involved should feel pain.
I am a very successful investor for many years now at a hedge fund and I am of the opinion that the banks should be allowed to fail. I think homeowners who cant afford homes, should be evicted. I think the politicians (read Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Obama and even Bush) should be interviewed in the same manner they are grilling the banks. These people are incompetents and they were all along for the ride as well.
America needs to experience pain, well, because we are not above it. Bad decisions yield bad pain and we cant spend more $$ to get out of it. In fact, that is the worst idea of all. The way bankruptcy has always SUCCESSFULLY worked is by taking the assets from the incompetent, restructuring and giving it to the competent, thus, rewarding citizens who have saved, spent wisely and waited to make big decisions like home ownership. To take that opportunity away from them is worse than moral hazard, it is just outright socialist and serves as collective punishment. It may be politically too inconsiderate or appear ruthless, but it is the right thing to do.
#12 Posted by hassan, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:20 PM
Rick is right on. We've had enough though it's too late now to turn away from a wefare state.
You need to retract this now!
#13 Posted by Max, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:21 PM
I have to say, I love that the other commentors here agreed with Santelli as much as I did.
Homeownership is already highly subsidized through the deductibility of mortgage interest. With no valid moral justification whatsoever - just a straight-up transfer of wealth from one class (renters) to another (owners).
How much more are renters like myself expected to pay to homeowners? Where does it end?
I'm not asking for anything that I haven't earned. Why can't these homedebters do the same?
Let me tell you, there are fates far worse than being a renter. Example: a grown adult with zero self-respect attempting to coercively use his neighbour's savings and income for his own material benefit. To me, that is an ignoble fate indeed.
#14 Posted by D. McHattie, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:27 PM
Actually, normk1 you don't go quite far enough. Yes the people did what you say. However, why did they? 1. The government mandated it (everyone deserves a house, giving rise to failing Freddie and Fanny Mac). 2. The market made it seem low risk (#4). 3. The public schools do not teach real economics so people did not know better. 4. The government (SEC and Banking Committees) were asleep and ignored the risk. The problems that made this crisis are the direct result of political voodoo and journalism malpractice and not with homeowners. The people that should know better were more interested in attacking the other political side, rather than reporting on the real issues.
#15 Posted by Neil, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:27 PM
I'm with Rick.
#16 Posted by RCD, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:29 PM
I'm not from Merced, CA but Sacramento - close enough and I DO NOT CARE IF MY NEIGHBOR’S HOUSE IS FORECLOSED ON AND MY HOUSE PRICE DROPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want the FREE MARKET to continue to work……
It is completely futile to try and artificially prop up house prices. Primary home buyers, investors and government were basing their decisions on overly inflated, bubble prices for housing (and the next shoe to drop – commercial property).
It overshot on the upside and it will overshoot on the downside. Until it is allowed to happen, many will not buy homes. They will wait until they feel prices have stopped declining. With government interference, this process will be drawn out for years (see Japan).
People are delaying decision making to see if they can get a better deal from the government. As usual, we will spend trillions and it will only make matters worse! There are willing buyers out there. Many children of my friends are now able to purchase homes. A few years ago, they thought they would never be able to afford a home. Instead, we try to keep a bunch of people in their homes who could never afford them in the first place instead of allowing the market to work and “qualified” buyers are able to buy! How crazy is that???
If you think people out in the “country” aren’t furious about stupid neighbors getting bailed out when most of us were responsible – you are wrong. Rick Santelli has it right – we need another tea party!
#17 Posted by Mad in Sacramento, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:32 PM
I,m with you rick.....tell it like it is an everybody gets upset...we all need to be responsible for our own problems. does any body even know that this stimulas bill needs to be paid by you and me. it does not cost the clowns in dc anything
#18 Posted by jeff, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:47 PM
Hes spot on. America has degenerated into a nation of spend now, pampered, reality TV junkies. No-one want to work anymore. This is not a free market. This is communism!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#19 Posted by CHEGUVERA, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:51 PM
Another utterly predictable post by CJR. Anything remotely connected with personal responsibility must be destroyed. You could train a monkey to write this stuff.
Oh wait. Monkey… Obama… racist… right? I’m sure the thought police will be at my door any minute.
#20 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 08:52 PM
wow!! columbia university wrote this piece....you got too much time on yer hands to be commenting on a stupid 5 minute blurb on CNBS.....plus he does have a great rant, good on him.......he's absolutly right... the slime ball credit complex preying on a populace addicted to getting things they don't need with money they don't have
#21 Posted by mike, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 09:09 PM
Santelli is merely expressing the outrage that many of us who have lived our lives responsibly share. I saved every nickel I could to pay off my mortgage in 8 years. What the f#@& do I get for doing that, instead of refinancing to buy BMW's. a pool, a new kitchen, etc. If I acted like a moron, I'd be in a position to have my sorry ass bailed out?!?! Is that the kind of behavior we want to promote?
This is a slippery slope we are on, and we are heading towards being a banana republic with this kind of thinking.
Santelli is 100% correct. Let the losers who mde the bad decisions suffer the fate they deserve. I sure don't deserve to have to pay for their mistakes!
#22 Posted by Jim, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 09:14 PM
Santelli is a very objective CNBC reporter if not the most objective. He was expressing the frustration that us 90% of current on our mortgage folks feel. go read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
#23 Posted by john, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 09:19 PM
Milton Freidman would spit on an inbreed snot nose NYC spoiled brat like you.
#24 Posted by Fuck You, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 09:20 PM
Milton Freidman would spit on an inbreed snot nose NYC spoiled brat like you.
#25 Posted by Fuck You, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 09:21 PM
As we said in the sixties and seventies-Right On! Rick S. is spot on the money. I suppose we will bail out people that bought too much car or put too much on the credit card. If you lived beyond your means and you cannot afford it today then you need to give it back including the house, the car and the credit card. We learn from pain and suffering. If we bail out homeowners they will never learn the lesson of thrift and will commit fiscal suicide over and over again. My tax dollars should not be used to bail out any homeowner for any reason. In two years when it is obvious this program has failed miserably we will see a change in the balance of government in Washington.
#26 Posted by Donnie McGean, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 09:22 PM
Its good we have places like Columbia.It helps us identify where the crazy nuts and communist are.
#27 Posted by Aron Rezko, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 09:26 PM
Santelli was great! We need more people like him to stand up for us! Media used to be a guardian of freedom now it is a tool of oppression. BRAVO SANTELLI! I hope we hear more of you!
#28 Posted by uber, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:06 PM
@Fuck You
Look your opinion is what it is for better or worse, but are you really adding to the conversation with a name like FU and pot shots like "NYC spoiled brat like you."?
Do you really know this to be true or are you just being a jack ass?
#29 Posted by Reasonable people can disagree, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:10 PM
I'm with Ryan. 100%
Santelli and the right wants an easy scapegoat because complex causes are, well, complex.
Nobody "mandated" risky loans: credit institutions discovered a very lucrative market. Other financial institutions saw their profits and wanted a piece of the pie and government deregulated the market for them.
Back then, when those "losers" were taking these risks with these subprime mortgages and treated their houses as ATM's, the markets and Bush were jubilant and ecstatic. They had turned the US in an "Ownership" society, remember that? The same people who are now blaming the "losers" are the same people who called them "losers" back then when they didn't take these risks. You were a thief of your own wallet if you did NOT follow their advice and take on those risks.
Now it's coming back to haunt them. And who do they blame? The people who were least responsible for this mess.
It's sick. It's especially sick when these "masters of the universe" are the same people who think they are "too big to fail" and therefore need a bailout for their banks and businesses. Well, gues what? You have created such a big mess with these "losers" that their sheer numbers are now "too big to fail" too. And if I need to choose? Then my sympathy goes out to the people who are the least to blame: the homeowners, my neighbors, my colleagues, my fellow citizens.
Not some punk on Wall Street
#30 Posted by Willem van Oranje, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:10 PM
The article is right. CNBC, with jerks like Santelli and Kudlow, are now part of Limbaugh Land. I've been a newspaper TV critic for years, and I'm finding CNBC acting more and more like a cheap, Ann Coulter-like fellatrix of Wall Street.
#31 Posted by the newsie, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:34 PM
We ostensibly get money back from the bank bailout, not from the mortgage bailout. And CNBC has been highly critical of bankers; I'm somehow doubtful that the Columbia Journalism Review has been highly critical of irresponsible borrowers.
It's pointless for one emotional op-ed writer to criticize an emotional TV journalist who is actually experienced in finance and economics. It's the same as if Rick Santelli criticised the Columbia Journalism Review for their biased journalism. Except that he has better things to do.
Honestly, Ryan Chittum, this is a terrible opinion piece. You need to understand economics better before you criticize Rick; instead, to those of us who do understand these things, you come across as a journalist from Columbia with a liberal bias. Which is about as unusual as a finance journalist with a bias towards Wall Street.
#32 Posted by Just some dude, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:38 PM
History proven solution!
The markets would go up 3000 point, credit markets, consumer confidence would return, GDP would start to grow and happy days would be here again if the Administration made the following pronouncements tomorrow
In principal
1. The Administration believes in free markets and that free market solutions will get us out of this recession if we let the markets work. Profit is a good thing and makes our markets and system work. Profits provide jobs and tax revenue, the administration starting today supports profitable companies’ efforts to increase profits by providing tax incentives to invest and increase more efficient plant and equipment capital.
2. The administration will utilize a proven plan used during the 1980’s (RTC) to acquire and dispose of insolvent banks quickly. Stripping out the problem loans and then auctioning off the resulting good bank to other more profitable regional banks that never got into this trouble. (like Northern Rock) As with the RTC, the bad assets will be consolidated and then auctioned off to the highest bidders, freeing up capital and putting these assets to work again. This will create incentives for winners and losers and get the system functioning again.
3. For capitalism and free markets to work investors must be allowed to fail as well as succeed. In accordance with true free markets bond holders and equity holders of insolvent banks and failed companies will unfortunately not be compensated for losses and the risk they knowingly took on when they made these investments. This serves as a reward as well as a stick for prudent investment practices.
4. The Administration announces a proposal; for a 15% across the board permanent tax cut on all income taxes and capital gains. The admisntration believes in the power of free markets and seeks to reward investment and accelerated economic activity that this tax cut will incentivize. Permanent tax cuts have a clear history of jumpstarting sustained economic growth, 1960, 1980, 2000.
5. Recognizing that necessary economic adjustments will cause dislocation of workers jobs in the process known as ‘creative destruction’ the administration will extend unemployment insurance and other safety net programs to all unemployed workers for an additional 18 months.
6. The Administration will double the size of the SEC and strictly enforce antitrust and consumer protection laws The Administration will not interfere with management decisions of the private enterprise system. Nor will the administration support the implementation of regulations that force or incentivize business to make poor decisions such as the offering of subprime loans.
The American free market system has produced the world’s largest most productive economy the world has ever known. The administration will endeavor to restore free market principles, thrift and traditional American free enterprise in its economic policy. Although adjustments are sometimes painful they are necessary if markets are allowed to work. Minimum interference will produce the greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest number of people.
President Obama
The market would skyrocket and set the stage for a vigorous recovery!
#33 Posted by libertyandjustice, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:39 PM
Go Santelli! We are the silent majority
#34 Posted by Joe Dow, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:43 PM
Good for Rick Santelli. Why should my hard-earned money go to paying for people's upside-down mortgages? I'm working hard to pay off my own. I hope he speaks out for us more often.
#35 Posted by Benson, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:50 PM
Nice puerile article. Perhaps if you were more educated in economics and finance you could provide a more substantive rebuttal.
Rick Santelli was against TARP I. He was against TARP II. He was against the stimulus and he is against this assinine homeowner plan.
Free market economics will fix this problem significantly faster, easier, and cheaper than propping up housing values with a totalitarian price floor mandate from Uncle Sugar ... but then you understand these fundamental principles at Columbia, would you?
#36 Posted by DJ, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:51 PM
Like the rest of the CNBC crowd, Santelli is about entertainment. Those who want business information will tune to Bloomberg. CNBC's anchors -- one stupider than the next, ill-informed and over-opinionated -- should be accepted for what they are. The women are pretty faces, the men are blowhards.
#37 Posted by Laura, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:58 PM
Apparently, this Santelli person and even a lot of Chicago Board of Trade traders thinks money consists of little pieces of paper with pictures of Presidents on them. You'd a thought they would know by now that the little electronic blips they stare at all day long and yell and scream about is the real money and they are probably closer to having created the porblem than the poor schlubs in Lehigh Acres who bought a Florida real estate saleman's line. it's always easier to see the mote in your neighbor's eye than the beam in your own.
#38 Posted by jonerik, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 10:58 PM
I agree with first commenter "mil" -- Santelli is absolutely right. You Columbia J-school types don't like his politics, and you are incapable of understanding where he (and millions like him) are coming from, so you mock him. Typical.
You people have no idea how to do unbiased reporting. You package your largely lefty views and try to palm them off on the unwashed masses as facts.
I realize that what you are writing in this piece is editorial opinion, but what you unwittingly offer us from the website of the Columbia Journalism Review is a look at the world view of the typical reporter -- and the problem you folks have is one of diversity. Diversity of opinion. You folks may be all the colors of the pc rainbow, but almost all of you think alike. There's no one around to point out when the emperor has no clothes.
I expect that you're shocked that Santelli's views resonate with people. Welcome to, you know, reality.
#39 Posted by wadikitty, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 11:03 PM
Terrible article. Like many people, Santelli is upset that the government is bailing out people who weren't qualified to buy a home in the first place. They took a risk and they lost, like the stock market. Yes, blame the financial institutions, but those millions of homebuyers who were speculating are to blame too. It's called personal responsibility. Should I be bailed out because my stock market portfolio has dropped 50%? I have no sympathy for people who are losing their homes because they couldn't afford the terms in the first place. Many knew it too but thought they could flip the house and get rich. I do, however, have sympathy for those who were qualified home buyers when they bought their houses but are losing their homes because they lost their jobs. I can understand helping those people and, in fact, I think Santelli was focusing on the former group rather than this group.
Santelli shouldn't have used the word "losers" but his point is well taken. Why are we bailing out people who bought McMansions, for example, they had no business buying? The author's comparison to Depression era people like Okies is wrong because we are talking about two different things. Creating jobs for people in a bad economy and trying to help people stay in homes they couldn't afford in the first place.
#40 Posted by Pelican, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 11:07 PM
Middle class mortgage payers love Santelli!
#41 Posted by darlene, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 11:08 PM
I worked in Chicago for 30 years. I know - very well - the mentality of Chicago traders. . . It is similar to gun-fighters of the Old West or simply professional gamblers. . . They are willing to gamble and lose- or hopefully win. . . They do not care or worry about anything other than themselves that day. . . If they go broke, so what? There is always tomorrow and if not, they accept it. . . The problem is that their mentality now pervades Wall Street and the financial industry generally. . . So, the "losers" (the taxpayers) now have to bail out the self-called "tough guys" like Santelli. . . They are all really punks and the tough guys are people who keep going to work every day hoping for the best. . . But, the traders call them fools, losers and worse. . .
When the shit finally comes down, those "losers" will punk out those Wall Street and Chicago traders and they will be crying for their mommies!
#42 Posted by Wisconsin Readers, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 11:11 PM
"the real culprits in the crisis: the financial-services boiler rooms that created all those junk mortgages and bundled them into crap securities for sale to all-too-trusting rubes (aka “clients”) around the world"
You sir are an ass clown!
Why not place the blame on the "Real Culprits" Congress, George Bush, and anyone who bought a house they couldn't afford.
#43 Posted by Robert Jackson, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 11:11 PM
"Columbia J-School: This is where people go who are too stupid to get into the Education program."
Are you serious? How is putting someone down going to help out anything? And if you truly believe this, then why are you reading the Columbia Journal Review?
Socialism stands for compassion. Socialism is the hope that we can learn to share resources and goods while the state eventually withers away, and it seems we'd all be in better shape if the state hadn't facilitated this mild depression. To be angry because you have to help out your neighbors that were screwed over by the higher powers that be is selfish,sad, and truly un-American. And to paint this as a fight between Republicans and Democrats is to polarize something that can't be polarized. We're all involved and it's not just the fault of one group. But it's safe to say that Santelli showed his true colors by referring to hard-working citizen as "losers." One person commented that Santelli is the most objective reporter on CNBC. How? How is labeling a citizen that he's never met or interviewed, and can only speculate on, being objective?
Furthermore, someone posted "..Santelli has had an ongoing intellectual feud with Liesmand, on almost a daily basis, so much so it's become part of the CNBC AM schitkc...." as if to justify why this makes it okay to be a pissed off on-air journalist on a regular basis. Just because something happens on a regular basis doesn't make that thing alright. That is very poor and immature logic, especially when we're talking journalist, not entertainer. Murder happens. I think we'd all agree that though murder does happen, we shouldn't let it happen just because it does. Just because Bill O'Reily cuts off his guests when they start to say something that he disagrees with, on a regular basis, doesn't mean that he can and should continue to treat people with a lack a respect.
Sincerely,
"an inbreed snot nose NYC spoiled brat", who like Ryan, isn't from New York, paid to go to college, and can't claim that my mom/dad had sex with a family member to produce me
#44 Posted by Tyler, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 11:12 PM
"...he didn’t get himself into nearly this much of a lather over the trillions of dollars we’ve given to Wall Street welfare cases and the busted banks. "
Ryan Chittum obviously hasn't seen much of Rick Santelli, because Santelli has been calling out the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government for catering to Big Bank & Brokerage ("BB&B"). He's been doing it ever since Summer 2007, maybe earlier.
I agree that CNBC is hopelessly in the pocket of BB&B, but if there is one guy on their team who isn't, it's Santelli.
"The segment he walked out on was in the midst of the mid-September meltdown when he was calling for a delay in a bailout of the crippled financial system, which nearly everyone now agrees kept us from a catastrophic meltdown and depression."
Everyone agrees? No, not nearly everyone agrees. It's one of the more controversial issues of our time. Oh, and by the way, the catastrophic meltdown and depression have happened.
But what's the author's real point here anyway? He says that (1) Santelli didn't complain about trillions thrown to Wall Street (which is wrong, but let's humor him); then he says that (2) Santelli objected to the bailout (which the author thinks Santelli was wrong to do); then he says that (3) Santelli didn't object to the need for a bailout of Wall St.
I actually think the author is wrong on point (1), correct on point (2) (though not in his criticism) and not really right pon point (3) (Santelli has at times caved in and said "OK we need something" just to move the conversation along), but even if the author were right on all three points, isn't this a "uh so what?"
The most important point here, though, is that anybody who is unortunate to waste even five minutes each morning pn CNBC would know that Ryan Chittum has barely watched it at all.
Jon
#45 Posted by Jon, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 11:15 PM
heh - poll at CNBC: Would you join Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party"? Currently running 91% "yes" with 73000 responses.
#46 Posted by wadikitty, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 11:18 PM
Appropo to Santelli`s outburst: On Sunday Feb 15, 60 Minutes did a segment on a "victimized" elderly lady who, after refinancing 4 times was unable to pay her mortgage. And the lender acquiesed to the false documentation of her deceased husbands income as a qualifying consideration. This poor lady had an attorney at her side during the interview but nothing was said about the $20,000 she extracted with each refinance. So what happened to the 80 grand? The missing ingredient: Accoutability!!!
#47 Posted by Peter Lipari, CJR on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 11:47 PM
Wow. Your assumption is that the vast majority of the folks out there are just plain old swept up in this storm. Some how, they just bought too much house, or cashed out refinanced just a bit too much and now are being foreclosed on. Yes, this is really all about the poor folks who somehow inadvertently got in over their head?
The truth is that the overwhelming majority of people who screwed up in this bubble dug their own grave.
This is not an "out" for the stupid lenders. They deserve to pay the price for their stupid decisions.
Bottom line is this: Rick Santoli is right. It is time for America to stop the bailouts, on EVERY level.
#48 Posted by Mike M, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:00 AM
OK, I've read through all the comments and I think many are missing an important point: Santelli is not a champion of cold-hearted capitalism; rather, he is a fierce critic of Wall Street and its government and media lackeys.
In this particular case, I could see why one would thikn he's all about "they bought too much house, they deserve what they get," especially since he used the unfortunate term "losers."
But of all the people on CNBC -- which, again, I hate and I think deserves Ryan Chittum's criticism -- Santelli is the one most on the side of the "average Joe."
#49 Posted by Jon, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:08 AM
Pot? Meet Kettle. Your little diatribe here is as rant-like as the CNBC commentator. This is a perfect illustration of why journalists are looked at as parasites, liars, and elitists
#50 Posted by Chase, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:09 AM
I've yet to have anyone explain to me how keeping home prices artificially high helps anyone. First time home buyers especially. If the prices are kept inflated all these new home buyers are going to be buying overpriced and when the invisible hand of the market makes it's correction, which WILL happen we will have a whole new set of mortgages underwater. The only thing we will have accomplished is the theft of money from our children to pass the crisis on to the next generation.
Whatever happened to leaving the world a better place then you got it? This certainly doesn't seem to be happening with the runaway pointless spending. Bravo Rick, too bad the author of this op ed apparently never saw your reaction to TARP before trying to criticize you.
#51 Posted by David, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:19 AM
They don't call it j-school for nothing. Lay off the joints and see that your future has been mortgaged to the losers of the present.
#52 Posted by Joe, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:33 AM
Only a liberal loser would attack this man. He spoke the truth. The people are fed up with stealing from the smart and disciplined, and given to losers and thieves.
#53 Posted by Scott S., CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:50 AM
The Santelli rant went too far but if you back out the hyperbole I think he's just venting an increasing level of frustration with what he (and many others) perceive as a mistaken approach by the Obama Administration. I have not read the consumer mortgage plan but, from what I've heard (in particular the LTV requirement of 105% or better), it sounds like the most desperate Americans are SOL. I suspect the Santelli rant was less about the mortgage plan than it was a complaint to the hat-trick of plans (and quasi-plans) so far announced by the Obama Administration: the mortgage plan, the stimulus plan and the banking plan. I try to accentuate the positive but there just isn't much here to get juiced about.
On a separate note, you neglect to include in your list of culprits, the consiglieres of the asset backed crime syndicate: the rating agencies. These guys should be sent to sleep with the fishes.
#54 Posted by TomOfTheNorth, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:17 AM
While you attribute the financial failure to "boiler-rooms", I attribute it to the democrats in the US congress. They set the tone that created this mess. If you don't believe me, believe them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
Also, while everyone is chastising Wall Street, no one seems to care that the Congress is busy paying off their friends with the largest deficit spending package in history.
I’m so tired of hearing Barney Frank talk about how he’s fixing things thru his committee, when the true facts of the matter are that he was instrumental in creating the financial fiasco we are in. PLEASE, I CHALLENGE YOU, go do the research on who promoted the creation of subprime lending. It was the democrats, starting with Carter, expanded by Clinton and was fully blown out by Barney Frank, Greg Meeks and Maxine Waters. Check out the youtube videos where these ones RIDICULE the regulators for daring to propose additional regulation over Fannie Mae and Freddie Max.
The simple truth is subprime borrowers being Democrats, were helped by their benefactors, also Democrats.
The first newspaper that reports this accurately, will have the respect of all Americans. Until the creators of the mess are identified and called out, you will have 2 America’s, and they will continue to be as vicious as the last 2 years with Nancy and Harry. Except, now Nancy and Harry will be the recipients of the rotten tomatoes, rather than the throwers.
Santelli is doing us all a favor, it's just you, in your desire to portray the new president in a particular light, disagree. That's fine, just know in the end, Santelli will be proven right.
#55 Posted by Brock, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:25 AM
Ryan:
You say:
Of course, he didn’t get himself into nearly this much of a lather over the trillions of dollars we’ve given to Wall Street welfare cases and the busted banks.
Sorry, you provide no evidence for this statement. I think the youtube clip shows that he was pretty unhappy with the whole thing. The other guy was the supporter of the bailout.
He's pretty consitent in my book.
#56 Posted by rk, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:35 AM
wow, cjr just got uber trolled by a bunch of supposed free market nitwits. yes, I love it when idiots start talking about the invisible hand of capitalism, as if that ever existed.
#57 Posted by gb, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:36 AM
The CJR has its own political agenda just like we do. Wish it didn't, but it does.
I leave just wondering where is the responsiblity of the consumer/borrower in this whole mess. The banks and brokers, left unprotected by the Republicans in charge between 2000 and 2008, just exploited the ignorant. That's the American way and remember "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." That quote is 100 years old this year, I think.
#58 Posted by Tripton, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:38 AM
I agree with the writer, that a smug contempt for the weak and unfortunate forms part of this most recent ugly snarl of righteous rage from the threatened Right. But journalists, both by negligence and also by design are doing a great disservice to the quality of a very important debate by failing to explain the real mechanics of the credit problem. The consumer class and the small investor classes can no longer afford to remain ignorant of how the game really works and the consequences of their decisions. While everyone is busy blaming or defending people who cant make their mortgage payments, the most important part of the equation has been utterly absent from much of the discussion, and those who perpetrated the whole mess will get away with the real cash they made by exploiting the obscenely distorted market in credit derivatives. A 62 trillion dollar market in derivatives will probably have attracted every single big player on the planet, and our only consolation is that at least TARP money is roughly aimed into our "own" banks, who, representing huge chunks of capital and not actual people, continue to evade responsiblity and judgement for THEIR complicity in the whole scheme. Its obscene to imagine what will probably happen over the next few years, when certain private equity and foreign sovereign wealth funds, (flush with gains from overheated commodities and derivatives trading) begin to buy up American junk real estate again at auction rates, and the whole cycle will start over, as there is dancing in the streets that the "recovery" is happening, and that the "American Dream" is rescued!
#59 Posted by Mad-Eye Moody, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:43 AM
Way to Rick, where do I find out more info on the tea party!!!
#60 Posted by Free American, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 02:10 AM
You people have no idea what your talking about. Rick Santelli is an awesome reporter and is the smartest one of them on CNBC. Guess what,? he' right! The guys with the mortgages are losers....hey dont get loan on a house youcan't afford and than ask the taxpayers(everybody else) to bail you out. Guess what? Traders aren't getting bailed out. We have to deal with the "losers" trying to steal taxpayer money to pay for there bullsh&&$ F**ups. So please, make sense in the next article you send out. And I went to Columbia...the most overated school in America.
#61 Posted by Joshua, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 02:22 AM
This article fails to prove its point. Look at the feedback on this blog and others... there's nothing wrong with Santelli or CNBC; in fact, his perspective does indeed appeal and make sense to a broad cross-section of Americans.
Are there unfortunate sob stories amongst those being foreclosed upon? Absolutely, there are. But, so what? The right solution for the 90 year old who committed suicide isn't wholesale destruction of the foreclosure/bankrupcy process, funded by taxpayer money. At best, you should argue that other social services (funded by taxpayer money) should have stepped up and offered another option. She deserved basic housing, she deserved food stamps, she deserved basic health care... but I firmly believe she did not "deserve" to stay in a home financed by a mortgage that she no longer could afford. Period.
Was Santelli a hypocrit when it came to Wall Street bailouts? I don't know, I don't recall what his exact perspective on TARP was. But I for one also believe, and I know many CNBC anchors also believe, that government bailouts of financial institutions have been poorly targeted. We need to keep them from destroying the system, but equity/debt holders should have been wiped out in the process.
#62 Posted by John, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 02:33 AM
Americans are struggling and this buffoon calls us losers.
The only loser is Mr. Santelli and the heartless buffoons that cheer him on.
#63 Posted by samir, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 02:39 AM
Oh and for the greedy fat cats reading (and those who do their shilling wittingly or unwittingly), I am a beneficiary of the stimulus and housing reinvestment plan due to falling behind on my mortgage payments.
We are not bad people, losers, or slackers. We work hard and come from all walks of life.
I think the fat cats -- the ones that have no empathy for struggling Americans -- must be punished for their thinly-veiled racial and social animosity for people like me. Whether that's a tax hike or a redistribution of resources from Wall Street to Main Street, either would work for me.
Lots of Americans are struggling. I think there is a large disconnect between conservatives and the reality of my situation. I believe if you stop listening to talk radio and start interviewing real Americans like myself you will understand that we are not what the propagandists say we are.
We are Americans.
#64 Posted by samir, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:06 AM
Big thanks to you, Ricky.
I've always appreciated your good sense.
#65 Posted by trevor, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:08 AM
A very biased article. A waste of time to read it.
#66 Posted by DEY, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:14 AM
I'm a night shift train mechanic, and have never missed my mortgage payment, and Santelli nailed how me and my fellow workers in our shop feel! You don't have to be a wall street trader or any other trader to be disgusted by the housing market, all you have to be is someone who bought a modest house that was affordable to your income like me and the wife did.
All the houses built in the area we live in used to be ranch stle 2-3 bedrooms for 70-90k, but the last 7-8 years it is all mcmansions that cost 400-500k. There is no such thing as an affordable starter home anymore. This doesn't mean we want to bail out all the dopes that fell into the mcmansion trap while working as a check-out clerk at a grocery store.
There is plenty of greed that fueled this market, from builders that stopped building small,affordable homes and built them with immigrant labor from Mexico, to realtors who pushed couples into larger and larger homes for larger and larger commissions, to the banks that made easy-term loans and then pawned the risk off in the form of securities.
Most of us that did the right thing and pay our damned bills on time are pissed! We play by the rules and fight our fight with no assistance, while the stupid and ignorant get free crap all the time, this is just one more match thrown at the tinder box!
#67 Posted by Dave, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:38 AM
Columbia University IS the problem. Rick Santelli is a Genius. It's all about where VALUES come from - every single one of them originates from within an individual. Individuals are therefore the world's original and smallest interest group; therefore, by NATURE, we must have the right to our own lives or we are slaves. By further reasoning, Government should have a very small role in the affairs of mankind, because it ability to force people against their values amounts to slavery in every case save one: The enforcement of the fact that each person's rights must stop at the end of every other persons nose. Redistributing wealth by force is not charity . . . It is in fact slavery! GOD BLESS RICK!!!
#68 Posted by Your Friend, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:39 AM
an agenda that disdains the productive and responsible in this society
That's Wall Street's agenda.
#69 Posted by Steve J., CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:41 AM
Internet users are not a cross section of America, either. They're far more likely to be white and well-off. I think that is reflected in the comments here.
I share a lot of the readers' anger, but I think much of it is misdirected. The bubble was essentially a con -- Krugman called it a legal version of the Madoff scheme -- and in any con the mark bears some responsibility. But clearly the con men are much more culpable. I don't understand why the people here seem more enraged at the marks than the thieves.
#70 Posted by Carl, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:43 AM
Tracker, the problems were caused by democrats forcing lenders to loan to people that could not afford it.
THIS IS A WINGNUT LIE
#71 Posted by Steve J., CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:45 AM
Well it is one thing that people have been irresponsible in overbuying a house. But that is just 1 bet gone wrong.
Its nothing compared to what the Wall Streeters have done, levered 50:1 on derivatives of derivatives based on those mortgages which total tens of trillions of dollars at the least, that is down right criminal. The Stan O'Neals , John Thains and other Wall Street guys are the cause the world economy is on the brink of collapse, yet they are the ones who are now filthy rich while billions of people worldwide are suffering. That is a crime, and I wish they would be punished.
#72 Posted by stanO, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 04:30 AM
Santelli did't go far enough we need a "new" gov't. We need mandatory term limits.Talk about spending what about Pelosi's trip to Italy?
#73 Posted by R J, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 04:35 AM
Santelli is one of the few whose opinions I respect on the entire CNBC crew; obviously you don't understand the implications of the hole we are being forced into, with a bleak possibility of climbing out.
#74 Posted by JCSOK, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 05:18 AM
Santelli is one of the few whose opinions I respect on the entire CNBC crew; obviously you don't understand the implications of the hole we are being forced into, with a bleak possibility of climbing out.
#75 Posted by JCSOK, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 05:19 AM
How the hell did we get to the point where we have to endure a televised, faux-populist rant from a hedgefund manager, speaking from a damn trading floor, about fiscal responsibility? According to this jackass and his braindead defenders, all americans who face foreclosure are 'losers." I'd like to drop his punk ass off in a couple devastated neighborhoods I know of, with his big, brave speech and a megaphone and see how long he stayed alive..
#76 Posted by Mickey Finn, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 06:05 AM
Wow. Looks like everyone lunatic from Mr. Santelli's "Fan Club" found out about the article and decided to come over and comment. Believe me, I'm a regular hard working American and Mr. Santelli insulted just about everyone I know yesterday. It's disturbing that he's what passes for a journalist in this country.
#77 Posted by hoosierville, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 06:34 AM
Wow. Who could have guessed that so many political Neanderthals read CJR? All of you CNBC addicts should watch to see if Santelli or anyone else on staff there has anything bad to say about this, from the New York Times Feb. 20:"The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve plan to spend as much as $1 trillion to provide low-cost loans and guarantees to hedge funds and private equity firms that buy securities backed by consumer and business loans."
$275 billion in home owner mortgage subsidies, which Chittum correctly observes will go straight into the pockes of the banks. And now $1 trillion in subsidies for hedge funds and private investors.
Whose the bigger "loser"? The gamblers at hedge funds or working stiff homeowners who got snookered by Wall Street con artists?
#78 Posted by John B., CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 06:40 AM
Mr Santelli's fan club is mighty big. They aren't the ones looking for a nipple to suck on and go about their day in a hazy sort of non-reality. CRA caused this entire mess and it is awfully interesting to me that this storm happened right before a close election.
Now, where is the CJR in investigating the synchronicity of these events?
Speaking of non-reality, when the CJR and other journalism schools advocate that their students become advocates, how in the world are we supposed to believe that they are telling the truth in their reporting? What are they actually doing?
Do the professors say "advocate, but don't lie?" I do not think this is the case at all. Isn't persuasion comprised of a bit of salesmanship? What is the compeititive structure in a newsroom? To be a bigger, better advocate?
I guess these questions in the world of mass media are not allowed, verboten.
It's obvious from reading too many college newspapers that they aren't teaching form, grammar and logic, quite honestly.
Santelli is right, anybody with a few econ classes would know what Moral hazard is, and how it has absolutely destroyed economies in the past.
#79 Posted by Rev. Dr. E. Buzz Miller, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 07:17 AM
We at The Audit have written repeatedly about the blame-the-homeowners meme that’s been so popular in misdirecting people away from the real culprits in the crisis: the financial-services boiler rooms that created all those junk mortgages and bundled them into crap securities for sale to all-too-trusting rubes (aka “clients”) around the world.
Wow. It sounds like the only ones doing any misleading around here is your website. The culprit is the government forcing banks to make those loans, and the people who can't afford them signing on for the loan.
#80 Posted by Kevin, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 07:21 AM
loan that money or we'll shoot this dog. these conservatives are way past delusional. how about they sit down and tell us all where out money went? which offshore bank or vault are they hiding what they stole from us with their phony securitizations and scams.
as for the silent majority revolting, go back and re-read your history on the french revolution. i don't think it was the poor getting the a little trimmed off the top.
its time to rollback the reagan taxcuts.
#81 Posted by dan, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 07:34 AM
Santelli is right. The bailout (omnibus spending bill) is as pork-filled as it is fraudulent. Your linking to homeowners who are losing their houses doesn't change a single thing, nor does it more closely resemble anything closer to "public opinion" than the cocoon of the Columbia faculty you've wrapped yourself up in. Do you know anyone who didn't vote for Obama? Exactly.
#82 Posted by Lionel Hardcastle, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 07:37 AM
Its no wonder we are in this situation. CEO,s ,banks,investment mgrs, and the like have to show a profit every qtr to keep their job and they, like politicians, will lie, cheat,steal, cook the books, or whatever it takes to keep their job and to heck with whoever it hurts, as long as they get theirs.
#83 Posted by Mike, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 08:01 AM
This article demonstrates exactly why journalism is a dying profession. Mr Chittum presents opinions as fact ("probably predatory Countrywide second mortgage") and appeals to emotion over reason (heartless capitalists vs. widders-n-orphans). Pathetic.
Legal adults signed contracts. If the terms of the contracts are unfavorable, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Americans who work hard and live within their means have little sympathy for fools who made poor decisions and now seek to avoid paying the price.
I can think of nothing that will tighten up credit markets faster than to give the government the power to modify mortgage contracts. Any such plan increases the risks lenders face dramatically, and their immediate reaction will be to raise the bar for lending.
Santelli speaks for working Americans. Chittum speaks for parasites on the body politic. I know which side I prefer.
#84 Posted by mwl, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 08:06 AM
Sounds like someone is getting a little bail out money on their mortgage (and I don't mean Santelli).
#85 Posted by JAMNT, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 08:40 AM
I'm with Rick and so is most of America! Chicago Tea Party - It's on!
#86 Posted by tnmama, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 08:41 AM
I rent, JAMNT. Have you seen the prices in Washington, DC?
Thanks to all for commenting/fisking. I'll respond to the major themes here:
First, the bailouts suck--all of them. We can all agree on that. Whether they're necessary to keep the system afloat is another thing. I regret to say I think most of them have been—because of the huge hole Wall Street's dug for all of us.
Second, I watch CNBC a lot and well know that Santelli has opposed other bailouts, as well. That's why in my post I said, you know, he's opposed other bailouts. The difference in vehemence is striking, though, if you go back and watch Santelli talking about TARP, say.
Third, I know lots of irresponsible people bought houses they couldn't afford and knew what they were doing. I said in the piece, if you read it, that I have no sympathy for them. There's no good solution to this problem. There are millions of people getting sucked into the black hole by the collapsed economies in their hometowns or by resetting interest rates or by junk loans they were put into unknowingly by mortgage brokers. This did happen. It was an epidemic. You can say "buyer beware" all you want, but would you say that if a car dealer sold you a car knowing it might blow up in a year or two? There's a huge asymmetry of information between those pushing the mortgages and those on the buy side.
Fourth, where was all this righteous outrage when Wall Street was (I use "was" loosely—the bailout are still coming fast and furious) getting its trillions in bailouts, as I said in my post? Let's be equal-opportunity pitchfork-wielders, and I'll be with you.
Fifth, quit trotting out the discredited talking points about Fannie and Freddie causing the housing crisis. They were and are terrible institutions, but they had relatively minor roles to play in creating the bubble. Read this and this.
Even worse is the canard about the CRA or Community Reinvestment Act. It's just foolish. Most mortgages in the bubble were made by firms that weren't even subject to the CRA. Read this and this to clear your head on CRA.
Finally, there are very legitimate reasons to oppose this mortgage bailout, as well as the much bigger Wall Street ones. I get it, believe me. But let's not forget where the majority of the blame lies. Follow the money. It leads all the way to Wall Street.
#87 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 09:14 AM
Santelli and CNBC led the band for TARP. Their mantra on bail-outs is reverse nimbyism: only in my back yard.
#88 Posted by dwinds, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 09:23 AM
Nice job. Written like a true elitist. Plenty of condescension and ridicule aimed at the opposing viewpoint. A little short on substance.
#89 Posted by Not Surprised, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 09:42 AM
You want to fix this problem? Make people pay their bills. Period. Too much credit is what got us in this mess in the first place.
#90 Posted by Stacy, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 09:56 AM
Obviously the author doesn't get it. There is an overwhelming majority that rejects the bleeding heart (and economically unsound) attempts to reengineer capitalism in our representative republic. Putting more money from strong hands into weak hands just doesn't work. What about those who worked hard and were prudent and frugal and planned for a rainy day? Are we just fools? I don't think so!
#91 Posted by Dave, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 10:05 AM
You should be giving thanks to Mr. Santelli for calling this theft what it is. No one should be getting bailouts in America, and no this "stimulus" is actually a depressant. We could be out of this in a year if they let the bloated companies fail and the small grow. Stop pretending that giving taxpayer money to dying companies somehow benefits the taxpayer. It is LIES and FRAUD! This government run economy (The Fed monetary manipulation, The Community Reinvestment Act, the Red tape, the stifling regulation) is collapsing this overstretched empire as always throughout history and some of us who work hard and don't look for handouts are watching the stupid and the gutless run this ship into the ground. This article is just for shilling for socialism. You can take Krugman's Keynesian ideas and shove them where the sun never shines. It's a sad sad day when the same Nobel prize that was given to Hayek is given to a worm like Krugman. Some of us are not going to cooperate in this god forsaken destruction of our founding documents and our true American Ideals. Santelli had the guts to tell it like it is, you should go home and take a good long look in the mirror, then hang your head in sorrowful shame.
#92 Posted by silentboom, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 10:06 AM
Right you are Rick! We absoulutely need a website where the American Public can weigh in on these matters...esp. when it concerns our tax dollars.
Note to Washington politicians: Most Americans are sick and tired of the tax waste going and the irresponsible behavior by our politicians.
You work for us, you are PUBLIC SERVANTS. How dare you rush any bill through congress WITHOUT READING IT! And this bipartisan talk is always insincere. You should be soliciting everyone's help on Bills like this. Grow up, learn to play nice and fair or go home. TERM LIMITS NEED TO BECOME A REALITY. And the American Public needs to vote on that one in an election.
This is one item I don't want Congress voting on for themselves.
#93 Posted by jpercher, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 10:23 AM
"Fourth, where was all this righteous outrage when Wall Street was (I use "was" loosely—the bailout are still coming fast and furious) getting its trillions in bailouts, as I said in my post? Let's be equal-opportunity pitchfork-wielders, and I'll be with you."
Ryan, you have hit the nail on the head here when it comes to CNBC, NOT SANTELLI. Personally, I am against all the bailouts for a lot of reasons. But I am more opposed to the bailouts for Wall Street than I am for the bailouts of the auto manufacturers and, especially homeowners.
I, too, am DISGUSTED by how CNBC cries socialism with respect to the auto and homeowner bailouts, but not with respect to TARP.
I watch CNBC 5-10 minutes every morning -- sometime a little more for Fed policy announcements, jobs reports, etc -- and then shut it off because it disgusts me so much.
Rick Santelli has been the ONLY regular contributor that has spoken on behalf of the rest of us, in my opinion.
So I'm with you, Ryan, on CNBC, for some of the reasons you mention. But then you call out Rick Santelli -- my and many others' champion in that Den of Thieves -- well then you lose me.
Jon
#94 Posted by Jon, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 10:25 AM
Hi, Jon.
I understand your point, and I too have appreciated his contrarian takes on CNBC. I was directing that bit you quoted there at the wave of commenters here.
But I also wrote in the original piece and in my above comment that Santelli has opposed other bailouts. I think the difference in tone and forcefulness with this one is apparent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall him ever calling bankers "losers" for getting their trillions in government handouts.
#95 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 10:32 AM
ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK! SNIVEL, SNIVEL, SNIVEL! You are both wrong! Stop with the hidden agenda and address the problem.
Definition by extremes leads only to divisiveness. Be better Americans and proffer real solutions.
Time to stop the rancor and hand wringing!
#96 Posted by Tom Morris, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 10:49 AM
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall him ever calling bankers "losers" for getting their trillions in government handouts."
Thanks for the reply, Ryan. Santelli's use of the term "losers" is unfortunate. I'll stick my neck out and say, however, that I don't think he looks down his nose at the "unwashed masses."
Now, I will say that he HAS expressed rage at the bankers getting trillions in government handouts. Way back in 2007 when the Fed started cutting rates, Santelli pointed out that they were trashing the dollar, that oil and grains would skyrocket as a result and that the average person would suffer greatly because Wall Street was looking for easy money.
When Wall St.'s most egregious shill -- Steve Liesman -- started poo pooing the inflationary threat, Santelli really laid into him, as much as he could considering that he and Liesman worked for the same company. This became routine.
Of course, Santelli was right about what would happen vis-a-vis inflation up until Summer 2008, and since then we've seen a bout of debt deflation and nearly-declining consumer prices.
But regardless of whether Santelli was right on this point, he showed his complete disgust with Wall Street, the Wall St.-beholden Fed, and their shills in media and academia on a daily basis.
On this particluar issue -- the so-called homeowner bailout -- Santelli might have just reached another breaking point.
Jon
#97 Posted by Jon, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 10:53 AM
It's not a pretty picture--and he wasn't diplomatic about it-- but Rick Santelli *is* right. The bankrupt banks should be bailed out only to the limited extent necessary to dismantle them in an orderly fashion.
Many people criticized the massive financial supermarket when Citigroup was being formed, saying that business plan would never work. On Charlie Rose, Larry Summers himself said that no institution should be "too big to fail," and that any such financial institution must be broken up.
That's trust busting, and it's the solution that makes sense for the nation as such. Otherwise, we have a financial class that does business effectively *above the law* that can hold the entire economy hostage any time it pleases.
The only people fighting it are special interests that are parasitic on the government and who must be sacrificed for the good of the public as a whole. It would be far better if someone in the White House would get up out of bed and roll them sooner rather than later.
The housing bubble also has to deflate. People can't pay their mortgages because their earning power is not proportionate to the inflated cost of housing. Our collective earning power is going to take another substantial hit in this recession, and no one is going to be able to buy into a still inflated market.
Rather than eternally prop up the bubble, it would be more productive to revise the personal bankruptcy rules to enable people to escape from mortgage contracts that they will either default on down the road *anyway* or that will keep them in veritable *debt bondage* for the rest of their lives.
Housing is a basic necessity. It's hard to see who benefits from propping up a bubble that, apparently, no one can actually afford. People who didn't buy the bubble knew darn well they couldn't afford it--what makes anyone think they're going to be stupid enough to give it a try, now?
So, again, special interests are going to have to turn over for the good of the whole. We need a domestic economy that's actually functional.
For being associated with an "ivy league" institution, this piece is remarkably lazy. I am plenty sick and tired of having pea brained little pundits criticizing the bootstrapping perspective (what alternative do they have?) of a middle class whose earning power has been consistently under attack since Reagan.
The punditocracy just loves taking aim at a class of people that is only marginally better off (until they lose their job, anyway) than these distressed *would-be* homeowners, without ever in all these years having had anything at all productive to say about how all these people, collectively, arrive at the place where they're unable to pay their basic living expenses.
Absent some large scale initiative to address our new predatory labor market, what we're going to see is more and more asset deflation and lifestyle adjustment.
Increasing earning power is the only real alternative to the Rick Santelli plan. Otherwise, allowing the would-be "home owners" to declare bankruptcy, repair their credit-- and thereby throw the toxic derivatives in Lake Michigan-- *is* the populist solution. Anything else--that is, everything we're doing so far-- is just spitting in the wind.
So, if you're going to take Rick Santelli down, you're going to have to offer some commentary on that. That means actually having to learn about something as unglamorous as labor markets.
But, if we wanted to know anything about that--rather than lazily crap on the heads of the (real, actual) "silent majority"-- we wouldn't be in a useless spin doctor school, now, would we?
Seriously, a school that teaches nothing more than how to string words together and get them in print, simply should not exist.
You make Rick Santelli look *good.*
#98 Posted by JTFaraday, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 11:20 AM
You Santelli sycophants deserve each other. All that time sitting on your brains at the Pelham coffee shop and you still have not figured out what got us in to this mess. One day you might catch up.
#99 Posted by sy, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 11:36 AM
where was the rant when $800 billion was squandered on Iraq war that benefited just several thousand American taxpayers -- now they are ranting over $75 billion that is being spent on million American taxpayers with tangential benefits for most American taxpayer.
#100 Posted by mehdi, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 11:36 AM
JT, Ricky took himself down by referring to a bunch of jackass traders as a "silent majority" and people losing their jobs and homes as "losers." A man can be right about almost everything, but, when he's demonstrably wrong and morally disgusting with his opinion, he deserves approbation.
Here's mine: Santelli, bring your pumped up checking account and thousand dollar suit to any foreclosure sale in America and peddle your drivel. Your head would look just as pretty on the ned of the proverbial pike.
Oh, and look up the "unconscionable" in the dictionary and you may see why entire communities are going under.
#101 Posted by timb, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 11:40 AM
After reading through the troll-ridden comments above, it is clear that few, if any, actually read what you have written on the subject, and the Santelli defenders are exactly the type whic rely on propaganda channels like CNBC & Fox for their "information" on politics and the economy.
Their reliance on right-wing canards about the government "forcing' banks to loan to "people who could not afford it," (i.e. minorities) and their willful ignorance of the facts shows precisely where their sentiments lie.
The only shining light is that should things devolve economically into a second Great Depression, most of the commentators here will be the first relegated to the bread lines.
Unfortunately, their hero Rick Santelli won't be among them.
#102 Posted by Motorod, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 11:52 AM
Are you Santelli apologists for real? You're throwing around words like "productivity"? What the hell do you actually do? Manipulate a bunch of numbers that don't actually mean anything, in order to make the numbers bigger, and then give yourselves million-dollar bonuses? Do you actually believe you contribute something of value to the human race?
Meanwhile, those people who actually build houses, assemble cars, write software, repair roads, take out the trash, grow the food... THEY all get shafted, thanks to you and your "credit default swaps".
Retract the bank bailouts, and void every mortgage, car loan, and credit card loan in America. Let the bankers learn what it means to actually work for their money instead of figuring out the best way to manipulate numbers and screw the country for their own benefit.
#103 Posted by SickOfBankers, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 11:59 AM
The CNBC "personal responsibility" types here are truly hilarious. Our highest paid workers make their money by buying, selling and packaging securities nobody understands, and you're surprised when it all collapses, and money turns out not to grow on trees after all?
Ever heard of "fiduciary responsibility"? What do we call a bank or mortgage company which lends to someone who is too stupid or irresponsible to realize he can't service the loan? Or which buys a security made up of such loans? Would it be "stupid" or "irresponsible"? Or is "criminal" the better term? And what do we say of a derivative market which is anywhere from 10 to 100 times larger than the underlying assets?
And how about some consistency and intellectual honesty here? You want to "question" Maxine Waters, who had as little to do with this collapse of derivatives as Santa Clause. But just to prove how virtuous you are, "even" want to question Bush, as if the Great Decider couldn't possibly be to blame. Hilarious!
You guys are a textbook case of what's wrong this country. And you'll never learn. Ever.
#104 Posted by jamesd, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 11:59 AM
How come it took Sanitelli 8 years to find his voice?? This crap has been around for 2 years now and the big banks have been dead in the water and he and his boys have just been pumpmonkey's. Now he's grown a pair??
#105 Posted by Don Lowell, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:03 PM
Shorter commenters: "Let them eat cake."
#106 Posted by A Giant Slor, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:18 PM
Probably shouldn't be too hard on these uninformed morons who dote on CNBC. Most of them have to be w-a-a-a-a-y under water if they buy what CNBC hypes. Anyway, a number of them will be losing their jobs soon; the rest will have to emerge from retirement and just hope they can catch on flipping burgers under the golden arches.
#107 Posted by John B., CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:23 PM
You do have a point about real culprits. But let's got back another step: the banks made these liar loans because the Congress of the United States through Fannie/Freddie encouraged, DEMANDED, that they do so, and promised to guarantee any and all of them.
Let's condemn the public robber barons along with the bankers while we're at it, Raines, Johnson and Gorelik.
#108 Posted by Patricia, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:30 PM
Santelli DOES speak for many of us...and many of us, like my family, that have a home in Ft. Myers, Florida that has been on the market for over a year. In that year we have been relocated out of state and unable to sell our home, because its been easier for people to walk away than take refi packages banks have been offering. Our home has plummeted in value over 200k in this year alone and its getting worse...Most of these individuals don't want help,they want out and those that do,like us,...can't get it....WHY??? Well, we actually pay our bills each and every month. I personally find it very hard to swallow a bailout thats going to help people who don't want help while the banks won't even talk to the rest of us because we still don't look "bad enough" on paper. So now we wrestle with the notion of just not paying anymore...who cares about our credit, our reputation, everything we've been taught and teach our children every single day about responsibility...How long are we expected to watch our property value go further down the toilet, while we go further into debt and at the same time be expected to help foot the bill to "bailout" someone else? I'm sorry, I donate to charitable causes with both money and time, but there are instances when charity begins at home.....and this is one of those times. This package needs to help EVERYONE and not penalize those of us who DO act responsibly, pay their bills, have jobs and are accruing massive debt due to other peoples misfortunes and/or bad choices.
#109 Posted by Jennifer Graham, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:39 PM
The CJR doesn't like the Market driven Economics as espoused by Santelli? The Economics that have made this the greatest nation in the world. The CJR prefers the shared misery, democide and utter historical failure of all nations under Socialism. And Columbia University claims to be agreat center of learning? Columbia is nothing more than nest of marxist frauds living on their academic welfare, FIRE THEM ALL...we need to march on Columbia U. like those hippies in the 1960's but this time we demand to open up the files & transcript of the great pretender, Obama, let us see what he did during those 2 years he slunk around Columbia U. and NYC!
#110 Posted by WestWright, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:42 PM
rick santelli is the ONLY sensible journalist on CNBC and has been for years. he is exceedingly smart, and your suggestion that his housing outburst was an example of cluelessness reflect, truly, and i really, really mean this, just how little you understand. i would stop writing articles immediately, you have embarrassed the columbia review.
#111 Posted by john cassimatis, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:50 PM
I sense too much naivete in your commentary. This has always been a "Caveat Emptor" world. Those who ignore that creed should not be absolved of their mistakes even if other parties could be ascribed greater fault. Would YOU have purchased a home tempted by the ridiculous terms offered? Would you have rolled the dice that "home prices will continue to increase"? If you decided to take that bet then be prepared to take the gamblers loss.
Even worse is that you would believe that this program is being offered out of altruistic notions. The real goal is to stop the downward spiral of home prices and foreclosures so that the economy can form a base.
But, please, stare reality in the face. How can you truly reconcile the excesses of the past without painful destruction of the corrupt constructs that were built up over many years? By constructing new illusive programs that merely obfusticate, prolong and delay that which will happen and must happen, inevitably, in order to clear out the detrius? By attempting to breathe life in the deservedly dead and dying? This does not reflect good economics. This does not even reflect a desire to accept the basic concepts of life and nature. This is like going to the dentist and asking him not to pull out the rotten tooth at once but, slowly, and over many future appointments.
I am not opposed to safety nets, but exploitation and manipulation of human emotions will rule the day and our leaders, good intentions or not, will instead force feed us some of the fetid 'hair of the dog' that got us here. So few have the guts to prescribe pulling the tooth at once that I fear recovery a distant hope.
#112 Posted by t. sarian, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:55 PM
Santelli doesn't like financial mismanagement and doesn't think the government should get involved. Some of you who disagree with him should stop assuming he's somehow on the side of the banks. He doesn't like ANY "bailouts", but doesn't object as strongly to them if people/organizations can't make money off of them. His main problem with the first proposal of this bailout is that the government essentially gives money to some people that they don't need to pay back, which isn't the same as the money given to the banks.
#113 Posted by Just some dude, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 12:58 PM
Westright writes: "The CJR doesn't like the Market driven Economics as espoused by Santelli? The Economics that have made this the greatest nation in the world."
Well, bro, the "Economics" you love so much have led to the greatest income disparities in the industrial world, given us a worse infant mortality rate than some third-world nations, left us with less economic mobility than a class-ridden country like Britain, and failed to provide the social services taken for granted in most democracies, and which apparently don't spell the end of civilization, since Western Europe is still a going concern, more so than we are at present.
But dream on. It's all the fault of liberals, who forced banks at gunpoint to lead to undeserving minorities who couldn't afford their houses, then forced investment banks to securitize those loans and credit agencies to give those worthless securities AAA ratings (with the CEOs involved giving themselves $100 million bonuses, for their great good work), then forced the creation of derivatives based on those securities, then forced big banks and traders to buy and sell those derivatives, and ensuring the market remained deregulated.
Jeez, if we could only kill all the liberals, none of this would have happened!
#114 Posted by jamesd, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:13 PM
I agree with Rick. Today he made an analogy with 401K's, we are all down. Is there a difference? While I feel for this people, the lesson is don't buy more than you can afford and save money for a rainy days.
P.S. Your home is not an ATM machine.
#115 Posted by stacey, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:34 PM
Santelli speaks for a lot of us current and former ink-stained wretches who had no hope of buying a home at bubble prices ... heck, lots of us were darn near priced out of the rental market.
I'm a former print CJR subscriber. How much effort did you put into analyzing mainstream media coverage of the housing and equities bubble? Did you explore in a timely manner the MSM's uncritical cheerleading of "housing wealth" and the "ownership society" and in particular the newspaper industry's toxic addiction to real estate advertising? If so, then you may have moral standing for this semi-coherent anti-Santelli rant. If not, go sit in the corner and think about things for a while.
#116 Posted by AK, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:38 PM
First, it is wholly dishonest to blame sub prime and/or consumer banking for the crisis we are in today.
Second, it amazes me that providing a fraction of the amount of money to "regular persons" is the down fall of capitalism when true unimaginable amounts are basically being given to banks.
Finally, for a journalist to be inciting a riot is truly a ridiculous sight.
#117 Posted by Eddie, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 01:57 PM
Thank you Rick Santelli. Truth came from your lips.
#118 Posted by jeff, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 02:00 PM
I am centrist Democrat -- fiscal conservative, social liberal - who voted for Obama. I also am inside the financial industry, writing a newsletter service for individuals. The CNBC people have morphed from being reporters to pundits -- btu as long as are tuned in and watching, we know we, as an audience, are fair game. And to the extent I expect Santelli did rant, his rant was dead on. Not only will the mortgage bailout fail to solve most problems in housing,it has created a levekl of moral hazard I have yet seen in this country. Most, I repeat, most people I read about or see on TV or who now personally who have problems with their mortgage brought it on themselves. A criticism of Santelli cannot overlook this reality even is his style and role were wrong. And it is probably just the beginning. We are headed for 12%-14% unemployment, 1% GDP growth for 5-10 years and the eventual nationalization of the banks. We need to accelerate foreclosures to clear the market and eliminate the overhang on the financial sector and the economy.
#119 Posted by Michael Shulman, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 02:28 PM
See you in Chicago for a 'spot a Tea in July!
#120 Posted by Tom P, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 02:33 PM
Finally someone speaking out for middle America, honest, responsible bill paying, hard working, do the right thing, take responsibility on our own action folks....
If I make 'too good to be true' decisions, or over extend myself and can't pay my bills....WHO IS GOING TO BUY ME OUT? I am really sick of having done the right thing all my life. Living by the rules and now, who is getting punished? ME. It is so wrong and I am so tired listening to how people, who now can not afford their house, continue to live in it for over a year, pay no mortgage (sock away that money or buy new toys) and now, we are going to bail them out. It just isn't right to us playing by the rules.
If there was a revolt I would join
#121 Posted by Sirphsup, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 02:33 PM
When you are CNBC folks going to wake up?
LOW INCOME PERSONS WHO TOOK OUT MORTGAGES DID NOT BRING DOWN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
Does anyone in his right mind seriously believe Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are on the ropes because they lent to minorities after the government told them to? Or that irresponsible home borrowers drove Lehman Bros. into bankruptcy? This may be reality according to the overpaid pundits of cable TV, but how sad and depressing to see you folks repeating this nonsense here.
Do I really need to tell you what happened? All right, then. Mortgage securitization, derivatives, suborned credit ratings and leverage, along with grossly irresponsible lending practices and typical CEO self-dealing, are what did it. Simple enough? Or don't these facts suit your ideology, so you'll blame poor people till your dying breath?
Wake up!
#122 Posted by jamesd, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 02:49 PM
Are there actual morons in this country who think homeowners took their mortgages and leveraged them dozens and even hundreds of times in the securities market?
If you believe that, you're either an idiot or willfully stupid.
As for the "revolt" dolts, you poor, poor little short-sighted whiny babies. You cry and beat your breasts about how nobody but you works and let 'em eat cake, blah, blah, blah. Guess you think the country can run without a working economy. Disgusting idiots showing typical rich-people entitlement.
Show some goddamn noblesse oblige idiots.
#123 Posted by Al Swearengen, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:03 PM
Bastille Day at the Brokerage Firms
by John Cole
The most amusing thing to me about this Rick Santelli faux populist broker revolt is not his invocation of the Nixonian silent majority, but the utter lack of perspective it displays. Yes, there is a simmering discontent and anger out there, and clearly the Republicans are going to try to tap into it, but the problem for Santelli and his crowd is that the anger is not directed at the people who are losing their homes, but at the people Santelli spends every day rubbing shoulders with at the trendy Chicago restaurants the brokers go to these days.
The audacity of Santelli’s “revolt” is that a mere 75 billion is being spent to help struggling families repackage loans- a pittance in the terms of the gargantuan amount of money being thrown at the banks, the Wall Street wizards, and the rest of the rocket scientists who are the root of this problem. ...
Santelli, who is kind of the CNBC version of a right-wing Cafferty, better be careful where he leads his mob with their chants of “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité,” because before he knows it, he could be looking down on the mob not as a leader but from his new position mounted at the end of a pike. Joe The Plumber isn’t big on nuance, and a broker wearing a thousand dollar suit is on the wrong end of the equation.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=17519
#124 Posted by sy, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:35 PM
Wow,
Each and every one of you frat boys agreeing with Saint Rick (who in the hell sent you over here to spout your ignorance?) should now:
1. Pay us the $50,000 that XXXX State subsidized your college education at State U over four years.;
2. Renounce, here and now, the Social Security and Medicare you will be entitled to (or are already collecting); and
3. Immediately have your parents move in with you and start supporting them.
If you are against a rational government providing key management measures to ensure the success of a free market system, you should immediately stop collecting from that government.
Or just admit your shameless hypocrisy.
#125 Posted by Dollared, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:47 PM
I detest CNBC generally, but Rick's commentary in this instance I support. Enough bull. Why keep rewarding people who did bad things, this includes home-buyers who got in way over their heads. Let them lose their homes and move in with relatives. Why should fiscally conservative citizens pay for their mistakes. I am paying twice for their mistakes. First, I overpaid for my house because those as*h*les bid everything up with easy credit and fake mortgage docs. Now, I'm paying again to bail them out! And what about all those who did the right thing and waited to buy a house. The USSA wants to artifically inflate housing prices so they continue to be left out of the market, and using THIER taxpayer money to do so against them. I do agree that there are many culprits, least of which are wall st and the lenders, but these underwater and over-their-heads homeowners are just as guilty. LET THEM LOSE THEM HOMES. I'VE ALREADY PAID WAY TO MUCH FOR THEIR STUPIDITY.
#126 Posted by adsf, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 03:50 PM
samir writes:
"I am a beneficiary of the stimulus and housing reinvestment plan due to falling behind on my mortgage payments ... I think the fat cats ... must be punished for their thinly-veiled racial and social animosity for people like me. Whether that's a tax hike or a redistribution of resources from Wall Street to Main Street, either would work for me."
The sooner this unapologetic teet sucker is abandoned, the sooner the quality of life in the U.S. improves for everyone. This brown-diapered weasel has the nerve to grab his laptop and jump on the Internet at 3:00am to shake his fist at conservatives and workers in the financial services industry (which in aggregate must approach half the nation or at least tens of millions of people). We live in a free country, the land of opportunity, wealthiest nation, and longest-standing democracy. Get off your ass and do something about it instead of getting spoon-fed by the CRJ on how you are a victim and owed by others. To the CRJ and unambitious samir who is on life support from taxpayers and wouldn't survive in a state without welfare (pathetic), you are all that is wrong with this country which appears to be a terminal illness for the U.S.
I couldn't comment on all of the poisons injected into this message board, but I had to single out this comment as one of the most pitiful collections of words I have ever read. Check your pants and do something about it instead of reading your late night liberal rags and whining about how unfortunate you are you spoiled sack.
#127 Posted by Kevin, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 04:35 PM
So the problem was the bubble, and inflated housing prices. And the solution?
To use increasing trillions in Government debt to keep housing prices artificially high... until the buyers for debt run out and we damage the currency as well as the economy.
This looks like a "If I'm going down, I'm taking everyone with me" more than a solution to a problem.
#128 Posted by Gekkobear, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 04:43 PM
Enough of the "I pay my bills on time" crap. There are only two kinds of people in this economy: people who are hurting, and liars.
#129 Posted by dr sardonicus, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 05:08 PM
"dr sardonicus
Enough of the "I pay my bills on time" crap. There are only two kinds of people in this economy: people who are hurting, and liars."
WTF, are you on crack?
#130 Posted by fad asdf, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 05:19 PM
I have lived in a small three bedroom home for the last 17 years, and I will have my house paid off next year (sometimes working an extra job to make this happen). I have three wonderful (future tax paying) children, and it would have been really nice to have a bigger house. I saw friends move to huge houses and knew that they got paid about the same as me, and I wondered how they could afford those homes. We did look at the possibility of buying a bigger, newer house, and was told by the bank that we would qualify for a HUGE mortgage. I went to a public high school and actually was able to figure out that if we had that kind of mortgage, we would not be able to buy another car or anything else for the next thirty years. I have made sacrifices to live within my means, so why should I now pay for those who have not?
#131 Posted by Melissia, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 05:55 PM
So, the Columbia Journalism Review is slamming Santelli... Well, I agree with what Michael Lewis of the New Republic wrote in 1993 about the Columbia School of Journalism, and it can apply to any "school" of "journalism." For that article, see http://www.uvm.edu/~tstreete/MediaCultureUVM/jschool_critique.html
#132 Posted by willy, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 06:07 PM
Well Melissia, because if we don't do something about the havoc the mortgage-securitization idiots have wreaked, we're ALL going down.
Your comment is perfectly representative of the childish "I got mine, screw the country" mindset too many people have today.
#133 Posted by Al Swearengen, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 06:11 PM
And Mr Al Swearengen
Your comments are the same old prop up the old failing economy and policies rhetoric. The US economy needs to re-adjust to pre bubble sustainable levels. That means housing values declining further. That means people who can't afford homes don't actually own one. That means many of the top 15 banks going bust. If you want to keep pumping taxpayer month to support failed policies and economic regimes, you can go do it in Japan. They've been trying to superficially prop up their economy for the last 20 years.
#134 Posted by ted, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 06:18 PM
Kudos to Melissa. If the US had more people like her, we wouldn't be in the mess.
#135 Posted by ted, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 06:20 PM
Al Swearengen,
Why shouldn't she be pissed at having to foot the bill for others' misdeeds. Think about what you're saying. You're criticizing Melissa for being financially conservative and smart, and doing the right thing. Your thinking is really what's wrong with society today. Lord help America!
#136 Posted by joe, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 07:22 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, Willy and others who've lambasted the Columbia School of Journalism, but I've never taken a single class there.
You can blame the University of Oklahoma's journalism school, if you'd like!
http://hub.ou.edu/articles/article.php?article_id=1943176866&search_id=587177129
#137 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 07:28 PM
Mr Chitum, you really are a piece of work aren’t you? You honestly believe that all these people in trouble with their mortgages are blameless in this situation. The banks and those evil republicans must be behind all of it and take 100% of the blame right? People bit of more than they could chew: THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT A HOUSE THEY COULDN’T AFFORD, WITH MONEU THEY DIDN’T HAVE.
A card laid is a card played.
#138 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 08:31 PM
Mr. Santelli has the same mentality that got us in this mess. All for one and one for ME!Typical wall street thinking the last 20yrs. Glad I'm not Mr. Santelli's neighbor and I'm even happier that I get switch stations whenever he's on. I can't believe that someone could be that outrageous of an idiot to not comprehend that the more people that lose thier homes the less the value of our homes.Mr. Santelli needs to go back to kindergarden and learn to share and work with others in a group for the good of the group!Mr. Santelli it's so simple maybe even you can understand that the more people that lose thier homes the less $ for all of us, the less $ for all of us the less jobs for all of us. Just think Mr. Santilli, one day there may not be "any investors" left then, no more job for you!
#139 Posted by elise moore, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 08:45 PM
Peter Schiff is the best predictor of events so far. That said I have to agree with Santelli. We cannot continue debasing our currency. We are trying to solve the problem by printing money which is the source of the problem. The US is a country of drunks that instead of going through the hangover, just drinks more to delay the hangover. The longer we wait the more painful it will be. We should not bail anybody out, let the free markets work and people will step in and buy cheap assets. Unfortunately some people will lose but that's better than everyone losing. I suggest everyone buy some gold, silver, foreign currency, etc to get ready for inflation.
#140 Posted by Kyle C, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 09:40 PM
Santelli was 100% on-target with his remarks. Why should the financial contributors to our country support stupid people who are too dumb to have the financial acumen to own a home. Individuals like Franklin Raines, James Johnson, Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer are primarily responsible for the housing mess today as these individuals all legislatively opposed any and all financial controls on Fannie Mae that would have precluded the crisis.
#141 Posted by Bill Dollar, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 09:55 PM
Kevin,
Your personal attack has no substance and thus I have won the argument.
I take no great joy in receiving government assistance, but I do take joy in the fact that it horrifies you that the government is reaching out its hand to lift up the struggling American patriots like myself.
I believe in the saying "give me your tired, your hungry and your poor." That is why I came to USA in the first place.
Take your whining elsewhere.
#142 Posted by samir, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 10:16 PM
jamesd,
Europe and its welfare economies are in the same trouble we are. They spend too much and are going broke. Move to Italy--60% income tax and free medical care!
And why did banks suddenly start securitizing crappy loans? Because the US government guaranteed them! So, once we go back to rational loan standards unmediated by political fiat, we will recover.
Since Fannie/Freddie are now reducing standards on refis, though, perpetuating the problem, it looks like we will have to wait until pigs fly for that.
#143 Posted by Patricia, CJR on Fri 20 Feb 2009 at 11:04 PM
Well, Patricia, I currently spend more on health insurance than on federal taxes, so paying more in taxes to get free health insurance would likely be a bargain. And 60% income tax isn't entirely inappropriate --- if you're taking home a $100 million in "bonuses" from failed companies receiving billions in taxpayer subsidies.
While Italy does have some very particular problems -- political corruption and organized crime are bleeding the place dry -- citizens of (say) Scandinavia and France and Germany are going to weather this crisis far better than most Americans. We're talking about countries with higher taxes than the U.S., but free health care, free higher education, free day-care, etc. Imagine graduating college with zero debt and no worries about health insurance for the rest of our life. For most folks, that's worth a higher marginal tax rate, particularly when we have untaped revenues in the form of scandalously low marginals rates for billionaires like Warren Buffett and hedge fund managers.
I don't know where you get the idea that the U.S. government guaranteed sub-prime loans; and Freddie and Fannie securities never had a government guarantee. Indeed, it's not clear even now whether the Treasury stands behind these trillions in mortgage securities.
But of course, it's all the fault of liberals, and liberal government, and nothing anyone says is going to persuade you otherwise. I just wish I wasn't on the same sinking ship with you CNBNC folks.
#144 Posted by jamesd, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 12:27 AM
The real source of the problem was that forwe tried to extend home ownership to too many people for were better off renting. Cong. Barney Frank said it best when he said : "Some people are not culturally suited for homeownership" (Bloomberg TV interview , 9/19/08) The President's housing bailout plan only perpetuates this mistaken policy at a high cost to the taxpayers. Clean this mess with foreclosures, not tax dollars.
#145 Posted by ejhickey, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 02:43 AM
Columbia University Journalism defined: a self imposed center of the universe listening to its own big bang.
Maybe running this article past the Economics Department before publication might have been a good idea. At least get an opinion form a non-Economist like Jared Bernstein.
#146 Posted by Dollar Wise, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 02:44 AM
so I must confess that I'm a regular CNBC watcher, but as a regular viewer its obvious to me that the author of this piece isn't. I find it particularly hypocritcal since the main thrust of this article is about how journalist's are passing off rhetoric as fact, which ironically enough, is what the author of this piece is doing.
#147 Posted by kevin, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 03:02 AM
When my house tripled in value (according to my bank) in 3 years that was
a leftist plot? When 3 different companies traded my mortgage in the same time frame, like a bet at the track, that wasn't because of the "markets modernization act" ? When AIG sold insurance on the same bad debt over and over and over Xs 100 ....that's was us losers (working stiffs) manipulating the market??? Not traders on a floor somewhere in that alter universe of Porche and Mercedes driving uber successful grifters called traders?
Yea we're losers Rick. In the same way someone that hands over his wallet when he has a knife in his ribs. A knife wielded by someone he was a loser to trust. Like Bear Stearns, AIG, Phil Grahm and the republicans.
Yup. I'm a loser even though I bailed @ the high. I saw it was a ponzi scheme
when I went in for a loan for my addition. I put my house on the market instead.
I walked with cash but I'm still a loser and so are all of you, because our country's been crippled.
I could read the writing on the wall...and your telling me these high end MBAs couldn't? Pulllleazze!!
I worked construction all my life for God sakes.
I saw it for what it was.
They saw it, they promoted it, they profited on it.
I hope Rick Santelli and every one of his ilk that didn't speak out end up in a homeless shelter. It would be the only justice.
#148 Posted by Yossarian, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 03:37 AM
It started with the US government rewarding walls streets thugs, pampering inept auto companies and now placating hopeless home owners. Santelli is the scream from the heartland of America that asks “Why do we reward those who trash America while ripping to last penny those who are the backbone of this country who act prudent and responsible?”
In the annals of writing Columbia’s Journalism Review has become trash. They are the horse rear ends that run a self serving publication have no clue what Americans really think. While America sinks toward the abyss of a third world economic power they rant about a single hero who said what we are all thinking.
Government will, for decades to come, snap the tax whip across our backs because of this travesty. Future unborn Americans will shoulder for decades this burden the waste and corruption of our present government. And yet you would smother a tiny voice like Santelli who dares to expose the truth of this debacle for what it is.
Shame on you….. Shame on you……..
#149 Posted by Rich Haass, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 05:52 AM
I honestly could care less if the guy next door goes into foreclosure.
Maybe the next owner will be a little more conservative in how he deals with his money.
He couldn't pay for his house if it were 0% interest. He'll get a few thousand to prolong the time he's there but that's all. He'll still be out of his house anyway but in the mean time, what do I get for sticking to my guns and paying on time? Nothing!
Am I wrong is this attitude? Perhaps, but look at the polls. I'm in great company.
Bob
#150 Posted by Bob Bradley, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 06:34 AM
You are completely out of touch! Santelli is dead on!!!!!!
#151 Posted by Chris, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 07:16 AM
This commentary tries to bring into the discussion the topics of the bank crisis and atypical unfortunate homeowner cases. However, that is not what caused people to feel passionate about Santelli's speech.
Many people believe in "do unto others as you would have done to yourself". On that note, if I could no longer afford my home for whatever reason, I would deal with it. I would move in with family, rent, downsize, whatever. I would learn from my mistake and try to make better decisions going forward. If people bought an adjustable rate mortgage and are surprised that it could adjust, then shame on them.
The bottom line is accountability. Why do I worry about honoring my contracts and commitments if I am being legislated to bail out others in not honoring theirs? It is very demoralizing.
I am sure there are valid arguments about the same topic with regard to Wall Street and bank bailouts. However, this article is about Santelli and the Housing bailout. It would be refreshing to focus on that topic rather than digression about evil republicans and the wealthy (of which I am neither).
#152 Posted by JW in Phoenix, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 07:21 AM
For some of you, the day is coming when you will discover you have more in common with the foreclosed homeowner than people like Santelli. I hope the same compassion and American spirit of community is extended your way. Cheers.
#153 Posted by jackiebinaz, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 11:04 AM
Long and short of situation is this.
We, the "Complacent American", (my quotes) have let ourselves be placated by soothing words and transparently false promises. Now the piper must be paid.
I propose these steps: 1.) Do away with multi-term office holders- 2.) Set all monetary pointers and bases to gold, and gold only- 3.) Outlaw on penalty of death the invention/construction/implemetation of any sort of investment instruments other than direct voting stock-set rate bonds-promissory notes with single due dates, and allow no hedges-speculation on futures-etc- 4.)Immediately default on any and all foreign "obligations" (i.e. China) and require that any trading partners agree prior to business that it is to be a two-way street- 5.) Inform any nation-country-etc that if they want us to bail their asses out of a jam militarily that there is an upfront fee for that service and that we will feel quite free to confiscate their whole damned country if they try to renege on terms- 6.) Call forth the ghosts of John Locke, Markus Aurelieus Antoninus, Hammurabi, and Winston Churchill to advise. 7.)Find and shoot any person that wants/wishes to be "The Leader" of the nation. Instead, conscript and elect the most sensible and able to govern the country. Primary qualification should be that they desperately desire to have nothing to do with the job. 8.) Conscript representatives the same way. Send them to live in public housing in D.C, and tell them they have to stay there for three (3) months of the years before they can go home. 9.) Require them to talk to their electorate four (4) hours each day and be in their seats in congress four (4) hours a day. Committee meetings to be held by getting their heads together in a cricle for ten (10) minutes to confer on bills, and then report to body of congress. Eat cafeteria food in their workplace- refuse to see anyone that resembles a lobbyist. Shoot lobbyists and outside attorneys on sight if they approach or attempt to communicate in any way.
Just a thought, you know?
#154 Posted by Harold E. Vincent, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 12:18 PM
Bod Bradley,
You should care if your neighbor is in foreclosure, for two reasons. 1) it brings down your own home's value, and 2) we are our brother keeper
#155 Posted by Jerome, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 01:58 PM
I have a question for everyone. My credit card bills are $40,000 and my minimum payment is $800 per month. The generous credit card company just lowered my minimum payment to $200 and raised my limit another $10,000. This seems like a great deal, I can now go buy more stuff and live like a king. Should I spend, spend, spend or should I figure out a way that leads to less debt? Now replace me with the US government and add a bunch of zeros. The US is broke, every tax cut, stimulus package, etc is a scam by our credit card company, the US government, to keep us happy but in the long run we will have to pay up or declare bankrptcy.
#156 Posted by Kyle C, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 03:14 PM
Santelli , 1000 , Columbia , 1 , judging by the responses.
This article unquestionably is not versed in what Santelli has been about for the long term.
He was among those warning BEFORE things got bad ,and was not in favor of indiscriminate bailouts of any sort.
Unfortunately , Columbia concurs with the Obama argument that only government can save us -
Please remember that Obama voted as a Senator A-G-A-I-N-S-T oversight of Fannie Mae when Bush repeatedly pushed for it ,
And the same litany of Barney Frank , Dodd , and their cronies that started this mess are the ones we are now looking to get us out.
They will only make things worse , and Columbia will support them to the Rules For Radicals end.
#157 Posted by waldipup, CJR on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 10:32 PM
How exactly did liberal democrats force bankers to buy worthless securities and leveraged derivatives based on loans which no responsible fiduciary institution would have ever issued in the first place and which were designed to deceive buyers, but which were promoted on TV by none other than Alan Greenspan as a great deal, and by Bush as a miracle of the "ownership society"?
However, I'm glad to learn this is all the fault of foolish home buyers, Democrats and CJR.
If the Russians had only known this dark secret, they could have brought us down years ago during the Cold War. Just make poor real estate investments, and watch us collapse.
#158 Posted by jamesd, CJR on Sun 22 Feb 2009 at 09:06 AM
Rick is the real America. Everyone is sick and tired of supporting everything and everyone. What ever happened to getting a life, a job and supporting yourself and your family? Journalist better wake up, instead of the la la land they learn in school. Even they have to quit living off of Mommy and Daddy.
#159 Posted by Sharon, CJR on Sun 22 Feb 2009 at 10:05 AM
Thank you, Sharon, for finally making everything clear.
Now we know what the "real America" is, according to fans of CNBC: a former hedge fund and derivatives trader who draws a 7-figure salary delivering sermons about personal responsibility on CNBC, just a few weeks after his industry demanded and received trillions in tax-payer subsidies, hand-outs and guarantees (and, of course, we're not done yet, we've just begun). And an industry whose executives continue to collect 8 and 9 figure salaries, and who in turn offer the "American people" lectures on personal responsibility, just as Jamie Diment of Chase did last week.
Now that we know what the "real America" is, how can we get rid of it? Because we sure as hell can't afford it any l longer.
#160 Posted by jamesd, CJR on Sun 22 Feb 2009 at 02:19 PM
Let the banks collapse. Let all the Republiclown morons see what happens then. It was the greedy Santelli's of the world that caused this mess. Where have all you loudmouths been for the last eight years while the Bush mob (Sentelli voted for him twice) was giving mutts like Santelli huge tax cuts and then spending us into the poor house. Your going to get your tea party Ricky. When it all collapses people like you will be hanging from lamposts coast to coast.
#161 Posted by Larry., CJR on Sun 22 Feb 2009 at 04:56 PM
Santelli is an IRL troll.
A pox on his million dollar house(s).
#162 Posted by subi, CJR on Sun 22 Feb 2009 at 05:14 PM
Thank you Rick, your stance is heroic. Dont forget the boiler rooms and military and salmon counters that have destroyed our way of life.
#163 Posted by xbusman, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 12:37 AM
Hey doods
Do you have any idea how out of touch you guys are with reality? Get out some and visit the peasants out in the hinterlands and you will see just how much anger there is out there. Just wait if you think its bad now. Some of the peasants may even remember you after the socialist collapse. Glad Im not you comrade mussolini. You will get every thing you want, but please don't cry when you are held accountable for the result.
#164 Posted by sylvanus woods, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 12:52 AM
No loan modifications ! Let them move to a smaller home or rent !!
They should walk away from their homes and let the banks take the loss. I can't understand why they want to have a white elephant tied around their neck for several years.
#165 Posted by Frugal Sam, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 05:41 AM
Willy, thanks for the Columbia Journalism school article and kudos to Ryan Chittum for creating this post that has catalyzed this discussion. This discussion is a hopeful sign that there are many passionate and engaged Citizens who demand to be recognized and have their voices heard. This gives me hope that the Great Experiment will survive!
#166 Posted by WestWright, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 06:55 AM
The column couldn’t more clearly illustrate the disconnect between the leftist mainstream media, certain liberal journalists, and, you know, “reality.”
#167 Posted by Danno, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 10:21 AM
Ah, Marie Antoinette lives! Kevin, I admire your toughness in calling "help" and "rescue" "poison". I hope I sit next to you next week in church, so I can hear you call jesus a "bleeding heart whiny commie." Didn't Jesus know if you forgive people, it's just a moral hazard.
LEAD THE REVOLUTION, KEVIN. The Chablis drinkers will follow to the gates of hell
#168 Posted by timb, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 11:36 AM
"Of course, he didn’t get himself into nearly this much of a lather over the trillions of dollars we’ve given to Wall Street welfare cases and the busted banks. Oh no. He’s mad that non-financial-service-professionals, otherwise known as homeowners, or, according to Santelli “losers,” are up now for help—to the tune of $275 billion, much of which would go to the banks anyway"
You have just demonstrated that you don't have the slightest synapsial connection in your cerebral cortex. He was speaking out on how people who do the right things in life are punished and people who are irresponsible are rewarded. Seriously call Sherlock Holmes and ask him to borrow Watson.
#169 Posted by Brian Padgett, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 03:32 PM
I would care what you said except this statement
"when he was calling for a delay in a bailout of the crippled financial system, which nearly everyone now agrees kept us from a catastrophic meltdown and depression. But even then, he didn’t question the need for something to be done to bail the financiers out"
means you are an idiot!
This "crisis" was engineered. The numbers have been crunched and the whole thing was a scam. There was no crisis --except an engineered one--with the movement of $500billion in an hour. This was a set up and all the idiots bought it hook line and sinker. You are still too stupid to see you were scammed. keep pushing the party line!
The "financiers" are scamming your last dollars. They are holding you upside down to shake the coins from your pockets.
And you idiots in the comments argue about whether to actually include "we the people" in the bailouts? You begrudge your neighbor benefit from all the money that is being stolen from you? Because the homeowner bailout money goes straight to the banksters anyway.
This is pathetic. I see you have mentioned Roubini in your article--now take some time and READ something he wrote.
#170 Posted by Dawn MA, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 04:53 PM
Harold E Vincent is a genius--but you forgot "ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE" who causes the US to OWE MORE MONEY THAN EXISTS from the moment the money is printed and LOANED back to the country at interest!!!
Long and short of situation is this.
We, the "Complacent American", (my quotes) have let ourselves be placated by soothing words and transparently false promises. Now the piper must be paid.
I propose these steps: 1.) Do away with multi-term office holders- 2.) Set all monetary pointers and bases to gold, and gold only- 3.) Outlaw on penalty of death the invention/construction/implemetation of any sort of investment instruments other than direct voting stock-set rate bonds-promissory notes with single due dates, and allow no hedges-speculation on futures-etc- 4.)Immediately default on any and all foreign "obligations" (i.e. China) and require that any trading partners agree prior to business that it is to be a two-way street- 5.) Inform any nation-country-etc that if they want us to bail their asses out of a jam militarily that there is an upfront fee for that service and that we will feel quite free to confiscate their whole damned country if they try to renege on terms- 6.) Call forth the ghosts of John Locke, Markus Aurelieus Antoninus, Hammurabi, and Winston Churchill to advise. 7.)Find and shoot any person that wants/wishes to be "The Leader" of the nation. Instead, conscript and elect the most sensible and able to govern the country. Primary qualification should be that they desperately desire to have nothing to do with the job. 8.) Conscript representatives the same way. Send them to live in public housing in D.C, and tell them they have to stay there for three (3) months of the years before they can go home. 9.) Require them to talk to their electorate four (4) hours each day and be in their seats in congress four (4) hours a day. Committee meetings to be held by getting their heads together in a cricle for ten (10) minutes to confer on bills, and then report to body of congress. Eat cafeteria food in their workplace- refuse to see anyone that resembles a lobbyist. Shoot lobbyists and outside attorneys on sight if they approach or attempt to communicate in any way.
Just a thought, you know?
Posted by Harold E. Vincent on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 12:18 PM
#171 Posted by Dawn MA, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 04:59 PM
I thought Santlli's commentary was spot on! Good thing CMBC has at least one reported who knows WTF is going on!
#172 Posted by dondu, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 05:22 PM
The BANKSTERS is another Rant saved for Another Time
|
Santelli was right, we are All now subsidizing those that cant afford their mortgage, are upside down in their homes OR Lost their Jobs due to the economy,
In Addition to the Banks, whose Poor investment decisions ie Derivatives & CDOs, deregulated, Caused The Problem, Housing was the excuse given but it is only the symptom.
Banksters & Fractional Reserve banking & the Illegal Federal Reserve is/ are the Disease
The bankers & Fed are the Problem.
Rick will touch on that next.
This was a Hack Report by Ryan. Very poor job.
#173 Posted by Bill White, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 05:28 PM
I believe in personal responsibility. Personal responsibility for the individuals and personal responsibility for the banks.
If you can't afford your mortgage, stop paying it and move to a place that you can afford. Find a cheaper place to rent.
If a bank or business fails, it should fail. Nobody should be subsidized by our politicians.
Failure to manage your business and failure to pay your bills is an important indicator in our society. Failure tells us that we're doing something wrong.
#174 Posted by Sean, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 06:10 PM
Rick Santelli needs to go to Washington, followed by an angry mob armed with pitchforks and shovels (and count me as part of that mob).
#175 Posted by Santelli for President, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 06:14 PM
Santelli's rant was hilarious. Reminded me of all my "paisans" back in Buffalo who were closet racists and wannabe WASPs blaming everything on "dem blacks" who were ,of course "lazy, shiftless and on welfare." Meanwhile, "da boys" were working hard at doing as little as possible to make as much as possible, legal or not.
#176 Posted by Bobby McGee, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 06:23 PM
Ryan, you suck, you pathetic little sycophantic Obama Kool-Aid drinker. Everyone on this blog disagrees with you and sides with Santelli. Don't forget buddy - you are one of the people too. Are you not a taxpayer yourself?
Your article is revolting!
#177 Posted by Bwahahahahahaha, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 06:52 PM
If the comments here are any indication of the intelligence level of the citizenry as a whole, it's no wonder the republic is crumbling. Demented rantings about "the liberal media," (the mark of a true right-wing ideologue), the Republican credo of envy and hate your neighbor, and then there's the guy who blames people for buying houses that they couldn't afford, and who also blames his decision to buy an overpriced house...on those same people for inflating the market. It wasn't his fault, no.
Fact is there is enough blame to go around -- greedy buyers, careless lenders, investment bankers who didn't even know what the hell products they were trading.
So then let's let the banks fail, the foreclosures pile up, the debt grow. Then when our own property values tank and we're all eating dirt and speaking Chinese for the next 100 years, at least we can say, Hey, this may suck, but at least $500 of my taxes didn't go toward helping some middle class family of four refinance their loan and stay in their house. In fact, they're right here next to me, drinking from that puddle.
We've been putting up with your right-wing shit ideas for nearly 30 years, and what's it gotten us? Wage stagnation, a healthcare crisis, an energy crisis, crapped out education, higher povery levels, a 6 year war, a housing market crash (twice!), massive debt (whatever happened to that Clinton surplus?), record unemployment...but hey, you did get to name an airport after Ronnie. Guess it was worth it after all. You are the real failures. Stop projecting.
Also: "visit the peasants out in the hinterlands" -- What century are you writing from?
#178 Posted by KdNicewanger, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 07:05 PM
Clearly, and understandably, a lot of outrage ... making the failure of many TV/cable "news" programs to dig in and find the real guilty parties even more reprehensible. Thanks for writing this--and trying to explain some necessary truths to CNBC's audience.
#179 Posted by SuzanneB, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 07:13 PM
Just what does Rick Santelli acutally do for a living? He nicks people on their stock trades. He is a parasite on the back of investors. He does pump and dump. He needs to be fired and get a real job. We need to do away with this overpaid baggage and go to a fully electronic exchange with equal information for everybody. Santelli and the most of Wall Street serve no useful purpose. I remember Jack Grubman, the analyst, who pitched Enron stock. Jack made $27MM that year giving out bad advice. We need to get rid of these stock jobbers.
#180 Posted by Captain Dan, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 07:40 PM
FROM AN UNEMPLOYED CIVIL ENGINEER IN OHIO - who tried to play by the rules by putting 20% down on a house (i waited until i was 30 to do it) because it was the ONLY sane thing to do despite what the lenders said, desperately try to pay the credit card balance off EVERY month or don't use it because it obviously won't pay itself off, drive an eleven year old vehicle because car payments SUCK, vote my conscience even though my conscience doesn't seem to matter in this day and age (a huge sense of ENTITLEMENT seems to be prevalent), served my country humbly and proudly although most of the mass media dismisses or down-plays many of the accomplishments of the military, lament the bailout (yes i said bailout) of the banks, auto-makers and whoever else's business cannot make it in a capitalistic environment because of poor managerial decisions, union demands, greed, deceit, governmental tinkering and a generally weak business model, poliicians who would spend us into this economic mess and then attempt to spend and tax us out of this economic mess, the system of govermental discrimination that says you get points and advantage for the color of your skin or gender you are, and finally for today, those who would try to silence honest and genuine discourse against any of the above for political or self gain. If there is a chicago tea party, PUT ME IN COACH.
#181 Posted by SCOTT FROM MENTOR, CJR on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 09:45 PM
All you people in the comments gallery are watching too much TV.
THE HOUSING MARKET IS NOT THE REAL PROBLEM.
The housing market is a distraction. The derivatives market is the problem - it is a whole larger than the entire world economy. (Margin bets on derivatives of funny money.. suddenly not so funny)
So, every dollar we pour into the banks, and every dollar we borrow from the banks to pour into the banks (which is what our government is doing), ultimately just makes everything worse.
We need these banks to fail, and we need to hold the execs PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE so that nobody ever wrecks the world economy like this again.
I don't care if a few people get a free house out of the deal and I don't. I'd rather not see a full economic stop. Because where we are a week from then, my friends, is a very ugly place.
#182 Posted by hatetasayitbut, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 12:36 AM
Right on Rick, in my opinion the government politicians are the loosers, created this mess, keep it going in order to maintain their power bass and use hard working peoples outrageous taxes to bail out the ones who should have never had a home of their own, can't pay for it don't buy it. period.
#183 Posted by enough is enough, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 01:20 AM
I laugh at people who are getting worked up all of a sudden at so-called "fiscal irresponsibility."
Just where were you losers the last 8 years? LOLOL.
#184 Posted by Sayitloud, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 02:23 AM
Author says
"The segment [Santanelli] walked out on was in the midst of the mid-September meltdown when he was calling for a delay in a bailout of the crippled financial system, which nearly everyone now agrees kept us from a catastrophic meltdown and depression."
Is that so? Numerous critics have called the TARP program a hasty cash-giveaway without constraints and lucid purpose. Barry Ritholtz is among them. To argue that it prevented catastrophe is something that only the Congress would say right now. Its effects have yet to be proven.
#185 Posted by Fred, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 04:57 AM
Dear timb,
I'd like to respond to your response of my response on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 11:36 AM.
How slanted you must be to read samir's whimpering and finger-pointing charade as a mere plea for "help" or a "rescue." Neither word was used in his pitiful diatribe, nor could an objective reader reasonably consider either word to remotely describe the intent and tone of samir's post. Allow me to translate his post for you since you passed over the contents as you so gleefully found a friend who, just like you, lost his ass in the game of risk and reward and can't abide by the rules to which you agreed and we all shared. And as a result, responsible, cash-strapped people themselves have to unwillingly forgive your debt just as they’re struggling to pay off their own and give to the truly less fortunate (i.e., those who do not have the luxury to log onto the CRJ at 3:00 a.m. on someone else’s dollar). Losing a bet does not grant you moral ground to criticize others and demand their assets. You are in the wrong country. I think Venezuela might be a better fit for you.
Ready – here goes. Pay attention this time, and see if you notice any bitterness toward those who can handle their finances and act responsibly. I’ll dumb it down for you in parentheses:
“Americans are struggling” (yes, most of us are struggling – not many are doing better – but the strugglers referenced here are the people who spent money unwisely, whether or not they had any to begin with is up for grabs)
“and this buffoon calls us losers” (samir knows nothing about this person, and “losers” in the original context means throwing good money after bad, to those who bought something that they knew was at risk of loss (hence “lose”), but in good times they put the chips down and gambled on the chance that everything would work out)
Now after that prelude, it gets better.
“heartless buffoons that cheer him on” (responsible people)
“Oh and for the greedy fat cats” (read: I know nothing about financial professionals and am generalizing the millions of Americans who work in the financial industry in some fashion based on what I saw some liberal say on CNN on a 2:00am replay of Larry King on my flat screen TV that I bought with the money I saved on my teaser rate)
“I think the fat cats -- the ones that have no empathy for struggling Americans” (Everyone has empathy for struggling Americans – why can’t we segregate those who acted irresponsibly with those who got a bad break? Is it so difficult to make losing one’s job a prerequisite for garnering taxpayer money? We can come up with every conceivable solution imaginable but we can’t require people to simply prove they’ve been laid off? That’s the issue at hand here – not many people budget the event of unemployment and prolonged unemployment at that in their plans to make a series of payments on time – and why are we blaming people with money – or as MSNBC might tell you, “fat cats”? If you don’t like having less money than other people, then go out and get it)
“must be punished” (…..wtf? punished? Now I need to be reprimanded? Or is it whipped? Jailed? Sent to renamed Gitmo formerly known as Gitmo? I’m now perplexed by this reasonable man’s meager and humble request for assistance)
“for their thinly-veiled racial and social animosity for people like me” (Wow! Now I’m a racist! Awesome transition. I didn’t realize that I was judging him by the unknown, irrelevant color of his skin - rather than the content of his pitiful rant)
“redistribution of resources” (go to Cuba – they’ll take care of you. We are a capitalist society. Take it up with the founders of our country who fought for your right to pollute us with your sniffles of unfairness – what was unfair? Take responsibility of your actions and stop blaming others)
“from Wall Street to Main Street” (2 things here: first, anyone who uses that phrase is an idiot for reas
#186 Posted by Kevin, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 05:32 AM
Come on Americans, you are in such globally speaking miserable shape and have been for such a long time, you remind me of those snobby Brits and their lost Empire syndrome. You finance junkies have zero clue of the world around you. Nr. 1 get off the heroine of speculation. Nr. 2 Start working for a living like the rest of the planet. Nr. 3 Lose weight Nr. 4 Accept your fate as "collapased and failed state" Nr. 5 Move over and get the hell out of the way so the rest of the planet can "evolve" without your militaristic destruction blowing everything up that´s non jewish, or is that anti-semitic? Nr 6 Realize that you have been lead to the slaughter by your New York Jewish finance sector and now it´s so obvious that you are eating the flesh off of each other to stay alive.
#187 Posted by Non American, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 06:02 AM
Socialism doesn't stand for compassion, it stands for state control; compassion is just the marketing gimmick used to sell idiots their own enslavement. And for any pinheads who would try to pin the current malaise on the 'free market' I have news for you: this never was a free market. It's always been a monopoly-statist market where the biggest players pay off politicians to write laws favorable to the old boys and harmful to their honest competition. Witness Ronald Reagan's enshrining Marx's planks of communism with his creating of the 'Working Group on Financial Markets' back in 1987. All markets today have government intervention designed to enrich insiders and lure the gullible into giving away more of their money to the establishment.
It all boils down to the state and the corporations that own it versus the slaves-I mean citizens. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either part of the problem or severely disassociated from reality.
#188 Posted by A. Magnus, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 10:08 AM
Kevin wrote: "I urge everyone on this board to read the WSJ opinion pages – great content from the best financial minds in the world."
Great minds like Alan "Inflate away the peasant's wealth" Greenspan or Tim "I don't need no stinkin' payroll taxes because I'm a Wall Street made man" Geithner? Great minds like Milton "Preach free markets while practicing state monopoly capitalism" Friedman or Gordon "Sell half your country's gold reserves at the bottom" Brown? THAT's the economic powerhouse of opinion we're supposed to read - the same crooks and inbred, cronyist drivel that got us into this mess? Are you out of your freaking mind?
Don't even try coming back about 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' because anyone with half a brain knows that's a busted flush; both parties are owned outright by Wall Street, just like J.P. Morgan owned Trotsky's Red Army and John D. Rockefeller owned Hitler's Wermacht by financing it. Read a little history and you might find yourself somewhat educated.
#189 Posted by A. Magnus, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 10:19 AM
I agree with the words of Christ. "It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven". Not that Christ despised rich people, but He knew, rich people were going to put money before neighbor, country, friend etc. Their 'self-preservation' attitude would eventually become cannibalistic, and lead to the downfall of society as a whole. The very thing they (the wealthy) fear will come upon them, and the hell they create for others will become their own. Rick Santelli and the wall street crowd are afraid. They are scared that the same misfortune that is engulfing their neighbors, is about to drown them. Yes, it was people biting off more they could chew with mortgages, but it was greedy, powerful, rich money changers who wrapped that false hope up in worthless derivatives, and credit default swaps, and sold them to other greedy money lenders. Now its time to reap what has been sown. Religious or nonreligious, Christ's words ring true once again.
#190 Posted by RobertOrr, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 11:42 AM
The Santelli rant was pure theater! Meant to kip the fools that still get their financial, and other, news from the corporate Establishment media.
If that money was meant to help home "owners" ( you don't own it until the mortgage is paid in full, you are just renting from a lender ) then the government would put your mane and address on a check and send that to the bank to be applied to outstanding debt. Instead the "bailout" money went to bonuses and dividends then off-shore to disappear.
The most any of these troubled mortgage payers can hope for is that the bank will use a penny out of every Dollar they extorted from the Government to loan them more of the citizen's own tax money at interest. That won't help much if at all, even if it was meant to.
So, instead of blaming the fraudulent banking and currency system, the television zombie public will blame people that bought a house.
On a low income, and especially with a family, it's almost always less expensive per month to buy a cheap home than to rent an apartment - at least around here and a couple other places where I've lived. Are their any other viable living options?
Do any of the phony conservatives have any family members at all or know anyone that isn't a milliionare? Do they know that you don't have to be a Bum, and usually are not one to find yourself in a adversely changed financial condition?
Meanwhile they still support Globalist "free trade" that exports jobs that could support home ownership or monthly rent. Not only are at least two incomes absolutely needed to pay living expenses now, I guess anything better than living in a factory dormitory like id communist China will be considered excessive for "common" folks - or Bums are they are called.
Maybe he's just bitter that his knees are so sore from what he has to do to keep his salary being an Establishment shill.
The older, more successful people that the system has worked well for, and are intellectually and emotionally very tied into supporting will finally find themselves unemployed, with their IRA / pension / investments looted and gone, and homeless. Now "Bums" themselves because no one is left to afford whatever office cubicle paper pushing selling or service they had a self-important business title to do, and can't retrain, move, or get re-hired in non-existent other opportunities, will they finally wake up and look at the reality of the situation instead of what they prefer to feel and think? Or will they just join in a new rant on another straw man to blame?
#191 Posted by Brian, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 12:03 PM
It's very interesting to check this endless stream of posts for someone to respond to one of my posts with exceedingly idiotic statements disguised and intelligent thought. The latest such example goes to master of conspiracy, A. Magnus, who writes the following worthlessness:
"Kevin wrote: 'I urge everyone on this board to read the WSJ opinion pages – great content from the best financial minds in the world.'
Great minds like ... Tim "I don't need no stinkin' payroll taxes because I'm a Wall Street made man" Geithner? ... Are you out of your freaking mind?"
I don't see the purpose of writing something when you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Pretending to know things doesn't get you anywhere. Anyone who has skimmed the WSJ pages knows that they have criticized T. Geithner relentlessly.
I'll stop by in a few hours to refute the next dose of nonsense contributed by someone who likes to make himself feel important. Seems to be an epidemic here.
#192 Posted by Kevin, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 02:56 PM
I would just as soon watch the banks being bailed out for 100's of billions of my tax dollars to just go bankrupt. I suppoort the Economic Stimulus bill however, because it's just what we should have been spending MY tax dollars on all along. Makes me wonder how they do such a good job of not spending MY MONEY on these things, but instead seem to just flush tax dollars down a toilet as fast as they can. At least my children will be able to look at what the money was spent on with the Stimulus bill as they begin to pay for it all.
#193 Posted by Davol, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 05:26 PM
I am saddened by the hatred against those like myself who will benefit from the stimulus bill.
But I am happy to report that you angry fat cats who are living large are a tiny minority and my fellow Americans will support me and start looking at you, the real culprits, with righteous anger.
It is time to soak the rich, not the hardworking patriots of the middle class like myself who have fallen through the cracks and welcome a hand from the government to lift us up.
You can mock us but you cannot break our spirit!
#194 Posted by samir, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 08:51 PM
Dear samir and those who might feel likewise,
Although we all have our own personal financial histories, most of us would honestly confess to having some hand in our own current status, be it good or bad. As a currently unemployed person myself, I find it hard to imagine anyone who would so willingly suplicate themselves to the whim of government solution so completely and without serious consideration and contemplation of the ramifications of social program dependency. I am certainly grateful, after contributing to unemployment insurance for many years, that there is a temporary bridge to what I believe is another chance to pursue gainful employment and economic fruition. But please sir do not suggest for a second that anyone (ESPECIALLY ANY GOVERNMENT) owes us anything except life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. To do so cheapens all prior and future efforts and suggests we as Americans are not up to the task of self-sufficiency and reliance. Please do not blame or expect anyone else to subsidize financial short-comings. Only the individual can make a real difference in his or her lives going forward.
Respectfully,
A fellow American.
#195 Posted by scott from mentor (definitely not a fat cat, although that wouldn't be bad), CJR on Wed 25 Feb 2009 at 12:19 AM
I think we just differ on philosophies.
I will absolutely blame the fat cats when they are to blame, and I will absolutely expect others to chip in when my chips are down.
While accepting assistance from the government has a stigma that most of us shouldn't be proud of, it is nonetheless necessary in times when the poor and hardworking patriots like myself are struggling to make ends meet.
We are grateful to our nation and our countrymen who stand in solidarity with us; we will never take your sacrifices for granted.
-Samir
#196 Posted by samir, CJR on Wed 25 Feb 2009 at 12:38 PM
This Columbia Alum loves Rick Santelli -
I cannot believe the writer of this article as the audacity to state that Santelli is the one that is out of touch with "reality" this writer is so obviously an egghead cliche and an embarrassment to Columbia university.
The housing plan has absolutely no safeguards in place to prevent everyone from crying poverty. The fact is that most mortgages these days are undwerwater and despite this most people continue to pay monthly - put if you start writing off principal and interest rates you are ENCOURAGING more people to miss payments. WHICH IS exactly what happens. FORECLOSURES are what is going to clear the market, I feel for those that were huckstered into buying a home but the reality is that if they walk away they will NOT BE HOMELESS, THEY CAN RENT ANOTHER HOME - likely the same quality of home. Simply put I can give you 10,000 dollars to live in the WALDORF ASTORIA for 10 days but after that what are you going to do? Save tax dollars for Universal healthcare or some other use but trying to save the market from adjusting to true equilibrium is a waste - the result will be the same in the end, lets not waste tax dollars.
#197 Posted by Me, First, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 12:10 AM
I am ready for that tea party!!! I am very angry, when this government was complicit in why we are in this fix today! This is not rich against poor, this is about government sticking its nose in every aspect of our lives! Enough! Sign me up for that party, I want to revolt!
#198 Posted by Debbie, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 11:06 AM
Okay, we are all angry about bailing people out. We don't want to put $75B (or $275B depending upon where you look) into helping losers stay in their home. But where was all the indignation about spending $700B to bailout banks? Aren't they losers too? And weren't they ultimately responsible for the whole mess? Why did they give loans to people they should have known couldn't afford them? Because they could get a bigger bonus because for a brief moment it looked like the company was making great profits.
I for one am more angry at bailing out the banks. And Mr. Santelli is apparently happy to bail out an institution from which he makes money, but not for individuals who may have been suckered into buying more house than they could afford. (Not all people understood what they were getting into.)
#199 Posted by Noon Eclipse, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 06:30 PM
Debbie,
You have a right to be angry, just don't take that anger out on me, the recipient of the bailout. I am by no means rich nor do I do banking for a living. In fact I am a struggling patriot working 10 hour day and still am behind on my mortgages.
Do not fall for the lies about "irresponsible buyers," these are lies put out by the banks to take the heat off of them and put the blame on homeowners like myself.
I detect racism in this smear campaign, considering it is the Republicans who are pushing it, and they do not like minorities or are at least hostile to us.
Don't fall for it; fight the real enemy the banks and fat cats!
#200 Posted by samir, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 11:49 PM
Oh look. The Communist Journalism Review spouting their diseased garbage they call "journalism."
We The People do not want some Martin Luther King/Nelson Mandela-wannabe communist filth like Obama and his comrades in Congress printing ever more gobs of soon-to-be-worthless fiat paper to "save us" from capitalism.
Screw Obama, screw his communist comrades and screw the Communist Journalism Review.
Paul/Santelli '12
#201 Posted by Joe Sixpack, CJR on Sun 1 Mar 2009 at 05:04 AM
Ryan Chittum = Liar Rick Santelli = American Patriot Deal with it Ryan, you stink at your job, and your a poor excuse for an American!Slimers like you create lies to discredit the truth,what a slug!
#202 Posted by Lynne, CJR on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 12:38 AM
Hey, Lynne--you again!
I think this is the first time I've ever been called a "slug" or a "slimer" and certainly the first time in combination!
Mind if I borrow those? And be careful with the salt shaker if you would.
#203 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 10:08 AM