The right is going to need a new cult hero. This guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

Since when has that been an impediment for success as a right wing cult hero?

Shorter Santelli: Billions for Wall Street, not one dime for homeowners.

It's Joe the Plumber 2.0 (Beta).

Pigs like this sure didn't complain when their Shit Stain Hero, Bush, revised the tax code so that the poor and middle class ended up subsidizing the already rich did he ? and all the other evil pigs like him didn't either. And now that Obama wants to reverse that this zarathustra pigs scream 'class warfare' ... for the good of what is left of our country these pigs , all of them, should be rounded up and simply destroyed.

Uh, see Nate Silver for a different take on Sirota's bleating "surrounded by multimillionaire traders".

No wonder some of the less sensible among us fell in love with Santelli's faux-populism.
If you are in fact implying that,you are sensible,I see no evidence to support that conclusion.

Actually a very Republican attitude: “Let’s not solve the problem, let’s find someone poor to blame and punish them. That way the rich people that made the bad loans can keep their bonuses�

The right is going to need a new cult hero. This guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

Feature, not bug.

Little Lord Santelli's cartoon capitalism will triumph over the dreaded cartoon marxists.

CNBC is a fuckin ADD puppet show for crypto-feudalists.

That guy's rant was very typical of suburban wingnuts I've known. Arrogant, ill informed and contemptful of the lower life forms not of his caste. Now in most cases, these financial Darwinists have had the good sense to go and hide under a rock after the debacle of the Bush regime. It would seem that for Santelli, 4 weeks is more than enough time to forget about Bush and the disasters he's left behind. So, it's back to the attack against the dirty serfs.

Sigh, we're back to 'lucky duckys'.

Calling Madame Defarge ...

Actually a very Republican attitude: “Let’s not solve the problem, let’s find someone poor to blame and punish them. That way the rich people that made the bad loans can keep their bonuses�

Posted by: J. Frank Parnell on February 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Then why is the One and the Dems, the supposed lookouts for the "little guy" are so determined to give the rich people who made the bad loans taxpayer money instead of letting them die, in the economic sense of the word, by letting the companies they work for go out of business and close up shop?

Santelli makes perfect sense. How dare the government rescue the victims of predatory mortgage schemes! Those people were screwed fair and square! They made the bad choice to want to own their homes during a speculative real estate bubble while wages were depressed!

Seriously, to the extent that Santelli becomes an emblem of the Wall in Wall-v-Main Streets, this video should have the Main reaching for our pitchforks. (Even if the floor traders are actually just regular joes, per Mr. Silver.)

I work at a financial institution and have to walk by monitors with his shrill voice bleating at top volume - honestly, why do financial reporters feel the need to yell all the time??

I always just assumed he was trying to cash in on some Kramer-style Mad Money.

Also, nobody even listens to these guys...the t.v is only on for the ticker.

one other thing I noticed - only on business television does one find that the bow tie is still an acceptable fashion choice :)

Rick Santelli

Now you guys know what Sarah Palin looks like without the lipstick!

Then why is the One and the Dems, the supposed lookouts for the "little guy" are so determined to give the rich people who made the bad loans taxpayer money instead of letting them die.

Shorter Question: Why can't I eat pant chips mommy?

Santelli is spouting the same 'eff 'em' attitude that many selfish people were in the comment thread on the housing plan the other day.

With class acts like Santelli on their side, how can they be wrong?

Now you guys know what Sarah Palin looks like without the lipstick!

But can he squeal like a pig?

I love when assholes rant and rave based entirely on bullshit.

The rich white guy can't catch a break in this country!

A bunch of traders at the Merc. Exchange are pissed about the volatility in the market and are bummed that they now have to work for a change to make a buck rather than just watching the money roll in. Gee Rick, welcome to the life the rest of us have to lead. It's a bitch, ain't it.

I can't believe someone in Santelli's position thinks that allowing more foreclosures and having more financial institutions eat more losses is going to help his business out in any way.

I'm reminded of the final scene of the movie "Trading Places".

Today, one of the traders said "Where's my bailout?", yesterday he said "Why don't we all stop paying our mortgages."

Very strange stuff.

Sentelli- Let's let the rich (people carrying the water) buy back the houses that the poor (people drinking the water)bought at ridiculously over inflated investment banking bubble caused prices. Let the enterprising rich benefit, a second time.

Yep, sounds like a Repugnican to me. Screw the poor both ways. It's just more efficient.

Chicounsel.............shit i forgot .. forgot to remember that i am simply a repiglican hemmoroid on the asshole of my hero, shit stain bush ... and that i actually work for a Depends factory .. fucking a ..time to get back to work

But can he squeal like a pig?

Didn't you watch the video?

Even though Santelli is an inappropriate spokesman for the cause, there is a certain amount of injustice for those who bought just what they could afford and were able to make the right sacrifices, including understanding their mortgage deals, risk of a bad economy, etc.

That said, the bigger picture is that most of us do make or have made incomes by exploiting an economic system that encourages debt. We didn't plan it that way and therefore don't feel morally culpable. In fact, few think about it when they take a job at a bank or a car dealer or a gift shop. On the other hand, the majority has elected government officials who created, allowed and even encouraged the system we have.

When people do lose jobs, or their businesses fail because of lost sales, it is seldom a direct result of which ones most deserve it.

So now, the dilemna for Obama is whether to go for the cheapest solution or one that is most equal in its fairness. Whether you agree with him or not, I do think he is trying to find a balance here. And we should all remember, there but for fortune...

Chicouncil: Then why is the One and the Dems, the supposed lookouts for the "little guy" are so determined to give the rich people who made the bad loans taxpayer money instead of letting them die, in the economic sense of the word, by letting the companies they work for go out of business and close up shop?

Because you painfully obviously don't know what a false choice is?

Of course, that's answering the question brought up by your post instead of the one you "asked".

Pull your head out of Hannity's ass and give it a rest with this "the One" crap, Chicounsel. Seriously. Grow up. How easily you forget that humble ol' W said he was chosen by God to be president.

I watched Mike Barnicle make an ass of himself patting Santelli on the back last evening. I never though I would say this but Barnicle makes me pray for the early return of Chris Matthews.

By the way, for all of you who haven't been paying attention, since Barack Obama was elected the right wingers have been arming themselves to the teeth. They have just about emptied the sporting goods stores of ammunition. I think Santelli reflecting an evil that is beginning to build in the society. We need for broadcasters to return to sanity or this economic downturn could get really ugly.

I love when assholes rant and rave based entirely on bullshit.

Yeah, just check out Chicouncil's post for a perfect example. I challenge anyone, Chicouncil included, to figure out what the hell he's trying to say in his post.

I got the "helping the little guy is the opposite of helping the rich folks" falsehood, but what possible point is he trying to make? That Obama supporters should be upset with him because he isn't obeying the rules of Chicouncil's cartoonish false dichotomy? I mean, that's just moronic, so that can't be it...

I do not agree with Santelli most of the time, but he was spot on in that rant. I will not bore with you my virtue, but I sure know a lot of the folks facing foreclosure and they were not the victims of predatory lending. Some are the victims of a bad economy, but most are the victims of their own greed, irresponsibility and stupidity. I make enough to pay income taxes, but not enough to ever feel comfortable moving up from the "starter" house I bought 26 years ago and you are darned right I do not want my tax dollars going to pay for my neighbor's mortgage. All of that being said, I am not like Santelli willing to cut off my nose to sp;ite my face, but most of the commentators and Steve are way off base IMHO in characterizing this as a GOP or right wing thing. Santelli to his credit has opposed the bailouts of the banks too.

@ neilt 3:10
Bowties are the fashion choice of assholes
(see Carlson, Tucker et al) And while we're att it why are all assholes named Tucker (see Gibbs et al)

So, who is going to empty Santelli's trash? Trim his hedges? Paint his house? Fix his plumbing? Pick his vegetables? Slaughter his beef?

I don't get how these people think they can survive without the "losers" doing all the "work" which makes their survival possible. Who prepares the meals for the cafeteria or restaurants where these "traiters" eat? You better look at where your survival comes from before trashing those who make your life possible.

peace,
st john

A $700 billion bailout for a financial industry on the verge of collapse? No problem. A $75 billion housing policy to stem the foreclosure crisis? Grab the pitchforks [...] -- Steve Benen

I think that might be exactly the problem. I may be wrong but I think I read somewhere that the 75Big for the housing help is coming out of that original 700Big, which the financial industry was counting on (there's retreats to be organised and paid for, y'know). And now they feel like the dog who'd been shown a treat and then had that treat yanked out -- resentful. The fact that the money is going to be applied directly to where it's needed the most, without them getting a broker's bite isn't making it any more palatable. If middlemen aren't necessary, how on earth are they going to make a nice living?

Big difference. Most people are disgusted at the Wall St. bank bailouts, but have to defer to the experts like Paulson and Geithner because of lack of expertise in high finance, and are going on trust that these bailouts are necessary to save the financial system.

Buying a home is something all of us can understand, however, and the idea of responsible homebuyers and renters bailing out spendthrifts, illegal aliens (half of the foreclosures are in "M" states: Mexifornia, Mexizona, Mexvada, and Mexida), and unemployed just to save them from living in a rental unit is abhorrent to right thinking Americans. It's pure partisanship: Dems trying to bribe votes with spending. Dems always seem to put partisanship over the economic health of the country.

...I sure know a lot of the folks facing foreclosure and they were not the victims of predatory lending. -terry

...most are the victims of their own greed, irresponsibility and stupidity. -terry

I would like you to tell me how you rationalize those two statements.

How does a 'greedy' borrower overextend themselves on a home loan you believe they could never afford without a predatory lender to sate their demand?

I find it all to convenient that when the bailout finally starts to get to the little guys, the struggling families, our neighbors, that, all of sudden, 'good progressive liberals' are appalled and ready to tighten the purse strings and join the likes of Santelli and Hannity in opposing aid of this kind.

To those among us who worked hard, didn't buy houses bigger than we could afford, made sure we kept up on our payments and either never got an ARM mrotgage or switched to a fixed the moment we could, I say to you: This will be one of your sacrifices.

Our leaders often talk about making sacrifices, hard choices, for the good of all of us. Well, not Dubya all that much, the a-hole who spent months telling us we were all gonna die in an imminent terrorist attack if we didn't give tax cuts to the wealthy, and then tried to chase away the national ennui by telling us to go shopping and to Disney World. But even he, in passing, would often use "sacrifice" as a buzz word along with "honor" and "'Murka." But Obama certainly has warned us that sacrifices will be coming. And this is one of them. Our friends and neighbors who either got duped by predatory lenders, or allowed themselves to gamble in this bubble market, many of them will get assistance. relief. Bailed out. Resposnible Americans, as usual, will get screwed.

And you need to learn to be OK with it. The value of your house counts on it. The fragile economy depends on it. Hopefully karma will do right by you later, but don't think about that now. Be happy you were able to keep your head about you while others were losing theirs. Don't be one of those rabid dogs Santelli's barking at, whipping up hatred of po' folk into a frenzy for no damned good by his own profile. We will continue to do the right thing, because our country needs us to. We will hope our stoicism sets an example, because someone else besides Obama needs to be exemplary. I know it sucks, but I'd rather quietly be unhappy about this situation and not need a handout, personally. I'll sleep better. Hope you will, too.

Luther, please cite the source for you racist and jingoist assertion that half of the foreclosures are illegal aliens, because I don't believe you.

We've heard it all before during the campaign, that black and brown people were to blame. And what do you know, most of the people foreclosed on are white.

And, please, all of you 'responsible' and upstanding homeowners, would any of you care to tell me what the current foreclosure rate is and what it potentially could be without assistance, and then possibly take a stab at what the economy would look like in that situation?

In other words, try to think more the 30 seconds ahead for once.

Santelli just lit the match. Pontificate all you want, this is going to be a range fire. He articulated what non-pundits all over the internet are saying, from Facebook to Classmates to Youtube.
Those who stand for irresponsible lending and borrowing, look out, you're gonna get burned.

I get it now; so it's "class warfare" when one guy says "why should i have to pay for the bad/uninformed decisions and misfortunes of others, but it's NOT class warfare when our government makes policy to the direct benefit of one "class" which happens to be simultaneously detrimental to another "class," and as a cute ancillary benefit, also manages to effectively buys votes in elections to come with the "relief" being offered to those being kept in their homes. Great. I'm glad I understand it now-if it's tax breaks for those who contribute to our economy, then it's class warfare, and if it's criticizing those biting off more than they can (or could ever in the near future) afford to chew, than it's class warfare, but for our President to completely absolve those in foreclosure of all responsibility for what lead them to be in foreclosure, this is just called Democracy, or rather Democratic governance. No, we haven't seen class warfare yet, but just wait for the day when those "qualifying" for this hand-out are confronted by their neighbors who did not "qualify." Then we'll have resentment, spite and strife, not between classes, but between neighbors. How's that for hope?

Wow, that Luther is a real despicable piece of shit ain't he?

but for our President to completely absolve those in foreclosure of all responsibility for what lead them to be in foreclosure - Matt

What are you talking about? Are you talking about bankruptcy?

Wow, that Luther is a real despicable piece of shit ain't he?

Oh, you're just saying that because he's a sleazy racist.

to second terry -- i despise CNBC but have seen enough of santelli to know that he is not opposed to bailouts for little people, he is opposed to bailouts. he is also the frequent opponent of larry kudlow, which should give him some credibility.

I can't believe someone in Santelli's position thinks that allowing more foreclosures and having more financial institutions eat more losses is going to help his business out in any way.

i think in righteous populist indignation an important part of santelli's point is being entirely missed here. i assure you he and likeminded people understand that loss mitigation is helpful. but, even putting the very meaningful questions of moral hazard aside, we are talking about real money and a lot of it. there are limits to what can be done.

the solution being put forward by government (both parties, btw) is to transfer incredible amounts of systemic leverage from the private balance sheet to the public. convert homeowner debt or bank debt or corporate paper into government debt and paper in an effort to avoid a debt deflation.

like it or not, the united states government is facing an increasing probability of default in the not-so-distant future as a result of all our bailouts and stimuli. these problems are likely bigger than the ability of the united states government to borrow. long-end treasury bond yields are already stubbornly refusing to fall in spite of falling equities as treasury sells incredible supply into widespread fear. this is deeply troubling, as it implies that marginal buyers are increasingly discounting the possibility that the government will be forced to devalue the dollar (and therefore the bonds) and are demanding compensation for that risk.

now maybe santelli is just playing to an audience, but to my way of thinking this is part of a broader worry he has evinced of the long-term fiscal position of the united states. if the government manages to spark a run on the dollar and treasury debt by overpromising without a credible debt financing threat -- that is, if the fed is forced to come in and monetize excess treasury issuance in size -- we could very quickly find out exactly why governments once universally feared the kinds of policies we now call keynesian. a deflationary depression is not the worst thing that can befall an economy, and keynes himself worried terribly at the fiscal position of large debtor nations (as the united states and UK are today) in the 1930s. today, even left-leaning voices such as willem buiter (who critically has terrific experience with currency failures) have called on the united states to go easy on stimulus and bailouts and concentrate on resolving broken banks.

it's less about not wanting to help your neighbor than understanding that in so doing we might be tying the government and currency to a sinking ship which could impoverish everyone.

I get it now; ...

Has anyone else noticed that the more the right is marginalized by their lack of either power or credibility, as their leadership (like Limbaugh) slides further away into straightjacket/thorazine territory, the less coherent their blog postings are?

I can't for the life of me figure out what Matt is trying to say (and that's above and beyond the misspellings and bad grammar that is the baseline for such things). It's just babble, just like Chicouncil's earlier post. There isn't even anything to argue with, since they aren't saying anything that makes any damned sense.

I've stopped watching CNBC in the morning due to the horrible naivete about economic policy they displayed during the election. Joe Kernan only knows taxes=bad.

That said Santelli has consistently, since 2007, been against bailing out anyone. Not just homeowners, he thinks all these bailouts are putting us on the road to a Japanese style lost decade.

The rant probably went overboard, there was no need for name calling, but Santelli's not for Lemon Capitalism. He's for libertarian capitalism. Which is wrong for different reasons.

Santelli is right on. It is time for the irresponsible to take responsibility instead of wiating for a government (i.e., other taxpayers) bailout

Let's agree to dispense with all arguments about fact and who's to blame, shall we?
Okay, now that we're done with that: WTF does this Santelli not understand about class warfare??? Hint: it doesn't work out well for multi-millionaire stock traders.
Shorter me: "Bring it on."

DH Walker,

I completely agree, and I think the right is only going to become more unhinged as time goes on.

What troubles and disheartens me are the people who claim to be liberals or progressives using the same conservative arguments against welfare to denounce any kind of housing assistance.

CNBC guy on Tweety's show last week, forget his name, actually had a brain unlike Santelli-know-nothing-poster boy, he stated that the majority of the underwater types being served by the $75B are people who did big cash-out re-fi's in the last decade, and now the vig and the devaluation are killin' 'em. Not illegals, not Mr. Repsonsible 26-yrs in same ranchburger, not young folks on first mortgage and divorced, not first-time buyers. Mostly, gotta get big truck, gotta add porch, gotta pay down CitiCard, gotta pay college tuition, gotta use my house's grand value and milk it. That's who they are in great measure, and it will keep them in their houses and their neighborhoods intact, so they can have Santelli and the wife over for drinks....

gaius marius - Just so I understand, are you suggesting that it would have been better to have just ignored Bear Stearns, let it die, and let a post-Lehmanlike collapse happen back then? Do you disagree with the CW that world economies would have collapsed?

Over the past 38 years I've had mortgages wholly mine or shared on 6 different properties (2 of them current). I've never been late on a payment and have an excellent credit score (although it would be a bit better if I didn't pay off my balances every month). So I could complain about a bailout. But I won't, any more than I would about paying property taxes for schools when my own are long gone from them. And for the same reason --- and it isn't altruism --- I don't want to live in a society that is falling apart.

I've been in Latin America and seen what it is like when there are a few very rich and a lot of very poor. (Actually parts of W. Palm Beach, where the servant class lives, look more than a little like Juarez). No thanks. Assuming I can remain middle class, I would spend more time and money than I want to protecting myself from hordes of desperate people.

Sure, a housing bailout will benefit some no-goods. So does the welfare system. I don't care about that...the benefits to society as a whole (and to my little part of it) in terms of stability, safety, and general welfare (that's in the Constitution BTW) far outweigh what is lost to cheating. It can't be more objectionable than the way half of my federal tax dollars go to unnecessary, obscenely expensive weapons (e. g. F-22, Star Wars, Osprey, and several redundant aircraft carriers) that are really welfare for some very rich contractors, and farm subsidies to the agribusinesses that load everything on the shelves with sugar.

It's ironic that some of the people who decry "Darwinism" loudest support a system that is economically the equivalent nature "red in tooth and claw" that Darwin's world is (wrongly) supposed to be. It is really Hobbes' state of nature, the war of all against all, touted as the height of human achievement. If this be freedom, I could do with a little more constraint.

JRosen: I don't want to live in a society that is falling apart.

Exactly. Why people think that "punishing" people is worth decreasing the property values of their own neighborhoods is simply beyond me. Too many people simply don't understand that one alternative to "sucks" is "sucks worse".

Doubtful: I've heard the same thing, and I hope it's just them blowing off steam. If/when pressed, they (for the most part) understand that a big spike in the population of homeless unemployed isn't in anyone's interest.

danp -- i'm saying they are now trying to thread a needle that may have no eye. i'm frankly not at all sure that global economic collapse has been avoidable for some time now. in resolving problems of leverage when they get so far out of hand, there are simply no good alternatives. we have lived in a false prosperity -- and have been since the 1980s i would suggest, which is when the global deregulation of the banks made the modern "financial services industry" possible.

everyone wants there to be a relatively painless solution. there isn't one. the danger i see now is that, in trying to avoid or even simply stretch out the resolution of our unprecedented social debt problem, we may forget to firewall the government.

the depression meant 25% unemployment and real output collapsing by a third as debts were resolved and savings grew. but the government did put itself behind a firewall, and as a result could pick up the pieces beginning in 1933.

not doing so again could mean an entirely different sort of resolution -- one that could look a lot more like the collapse of the soviet empire in the early 1990s. such problems are vastly worse than any standard-issue depression, at least three of which this country has already negotiated three (1837, 1873 and 1929).

jrosen -- I don't want to live in a society that is falling apart.

i think this is what we all want. there is simply a dispersion of opinions on what would cause a collapse and how.

gaius marius - I'm not an economist, so all I can say is I hope you're wrong. But thank you for the 4:52 post. At least I understand your argument.

doubtful - I went over and looked at the housing thread you referred to, and I couldn't find anybody there who defended the bank bailout at the same time they criticized the homeowner bailout. That's what Santelli has done. So no, those people do not share his worldview, at least in terms of what they posted.

Also, you use the illogical argument that if someone, on one issue and in part only, agrees with an asshole, then he or she is an asshole. I think most of us who read this website agree with Pat Robertson that Limbaugh hoping Obama fails is disgusting, and we probably agree with Lindsay Graham that governors who consider refusing bailout money are crazy. That doesn't mean that we agree with them on anything else or share their worldview.

I think Obama's homeowner rescue plan looks pretty reasonable, but I'm not going to launch into childish, ad hominem attacks against those who take exception to it, or assume that those people are on a level with Santelli. That's not only juvenile, but illogical.

Who cares if he makes sense or not. I like the rage he'll stimulate. It can easily be channeled back at the bankers.

The worse, the better.

But can he squeal like a pig?
Posted by: a

Like the main course at a luau. Pass the poi, if you please....

I have to disagree with those who say Santelli has also opposed the bank bailout; CNBC is on all day long in my office, and I have heard just about every gasbag there including Santelli wring their hands about how it's a "necessary evil," usually accompanied by the usual "too big to fail" narrative. If he's ever criticized the bank bailout, he's certainly done it in a much less low-key fashion than his call to riot against the homeowner bailout.

danp -- I hope you're wrong

me too, at least about capital flight from the united states. as the eastern european economies collapse and quite possibly bankrupt some of the EU nations and switzerland over the next couple of months, hopefully treasuries will continue to benefit from risk aversion flows to soak up supply.

but even that is a double-edged sword -- the stronger the dollar, the greater the current account deficit, the greater the pressure on american excess manufacturing capacity to be shuttered, the higher the unemployment rate. SOME dollar weakness is desirable; indeed currency weakness is what everyone seems to want in an effort to shunt off manufacturing contraction onto their neighbor. the problem will be if dollar weakness is the result of wholesale capital flight.

(half of the foreclosures are in 'M' states: Mexifornia, Mexizona, Mexvada, and Mexida"

Just out of curiosity, concering the actual names of those states, which language are they from?

Also, who gave them those names?

Wouldn't it make as much sense to call those states by their actual name, considering their origin?

Finally, which one is "Mexida"?

mauro -- usual "too big to fail" narrative

lol -- then amend my "defense" of santelli accordingly; TBTF has become the canard du jour. the big banks must be resolved and their bondholders made to take at least most the pain. the political questions may be weighty but they are also secondary.

My first time to this website, and probably my last. "The One" is in over his head aka Jimmy Carter! But what were those that voted for him to expect, no experience or success at anything but campaigning. The mainstream media put this guy in The White House and Rick Santelli hit the nail on the head! We in America are thinking the same thing! One more thing, class war this was begun ages ago by the Dems... Please...

Matt, the mortgage bailout isn't intended to help deadbeats at your expense, it is intended to help you. If some deadbeat is helped, that is incidental.

That's what Santelli has done. -mauro

No, what he's done is act like a spoiled brat who thinks that people upsidedown or struggling to pay their mortgages are "losers." I don't care if he's consistent about being a arse; He's still a arse. And yeah, a lot of the people in that thread were equally offensive in an eerily similar and selfish way.

Also, you use the illogical argument that if someone, on one issue and in part only, agrees with an asshole, then he or she is an asshole. -mauro

I never said that; I never accused anyone of sharing his worldview. I was specifically talking about this one single issue and stated quite clearly they used some of the same baseless arguments as Santelli.

And frankly, if you oppose housing assistance based on the absurd and baseless argument that those struggling are greedy and irresponsible while touting your own superior financial stability, you are an asshole not via agreement with another asshole, but by virtue of being your own pucker.

My first time to this website, and probably my last. -MK

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, troll.

Now you guys know what Sarah Palin looks like without the lipstick! -- Steve W.

But can he squeal like a pig?
Posted by: a on February 20, 2009

Like the main course at a luau. Pass the poi, if you please....
Posted by: Steve W. on February 20, 2009

LOL

Consider this, if someone had conspired to create a bunch of shell corporations, pawn off stock as grade AAA Dow quality 'buy' grade and then walk off with all the cash while Wall St. had to write it off as a loss, then you'd see them all squealing about fraud.

But, what's the difference between bad stock fraud and bad mortgage fraud? It's all toxic paper.

All the criminals who conspired to defraud ought to end up in jail, after returning the dough.

I havn't read the plan, but most of the proposals to date have included triage, no aid to those that can make their payments, and no aid to those without a prayer of ever making their payments. It makes sense to concentrate the aid on those who can get back on their feet with a little help. Those who made truly bad decisions and are seriously underwater will still be facing foreclosure.

It's scum bags like Santelli that are the cause of this mortgage meltdown, supporting the other scum bags that were writing all those predatory mortgage-backed securities. Why do you think as soon as homeowner's loans closed, mortgage companies repackaged their loans and sold their loans off and then went out of business. Also, Santelli suppports the Wall Street Thugs like Bernie Madoff and Allen Standford. Santelli is just mad because all the Financial Institutions and Wall St are being revealed for what they really are and Bush is no longer in the White House to protect and cover up their stealing from the American people.

I saw Santelli on MSNBC commenting about his "rant". He said that the people sourrounding him were not all tradeers. I am sure support people work on the trading floor as well.

I haven't seen the stats on exactly who has been affected by this crisis, but I live in a relatively affluent community and we have lots of foreclosures here and in even more affluent suburbs around us.

The know only two foreclosure stories. One was my brother and his wife. Both got a loan on a home they could not afford and did not have the discipline to maintain. Everyone on both sides of their family tried to talk them out of it. We hoped that some how they would not be able to get a loan. Of course they did. They had problems making payments within months.

The second was a neighbor. She had been married to a doctor but was divorced an on alimony or child support. For whatever reason she did not work, even though she had an advanced degree and some formal education as a sommelier. She worked breifly for a wine distributor and she worked as a retail cleark for a wine store. She borrowed $150,0000 from her equity to give to a boyfriend.

I don't know if these stories are represenative, but a lot of people think they are. The taxpayers should not be paying for these kinds of problems, but because the impact on society on the whole is so dramatic, we probably have to. I don't see class warfare in these two stories, or the other people in my community that got foreclosed on. There were cheaper places to live. A lot of people borrowed against their equity to buy cars, a new kitchen, etc. It probably didn't have to be done.

The

The economic disaster we are now facing, could have been avoided, had the stubborn politicians took action while Bush was in office. When you have a problem to solve, you have to look at the “root� cause of the problem. Instead, politicians chose to play the blame game, point fingers, make excuses, tell lies, i.e., people bought homes they could not afford, people bought homes with no money down, people bought homes with no documentation, speculators bought homes. Why should people who are not in trouble help bail out those who are in trouble? These were the types of comments coming from politicians in Bush’s administration. Come on America; look at what is really going on:
The root cause of this housing problem was as follows;
1. Greedy Wall Street investors, who came up with the idea to bundle home sub-prime mortgages into securities backed by bonds. Wonder who came up with that idea?
2. Banks, other financial institutions created incentatives for mortgage brokers to offer low interest rates on these products, and take less fees up front; encouraging borrowers to want these products. They used “teaser rates� to lure homeowners into taking these products. Homeowners with good credit, substantial down payments, got caught up into these predatory loans.
3. As an incentive for Brokers to push and convince homeowners to take these loans; brokers would tell homeowners they would charge less broker fees to the homeowner. Banks would then pay rebates to the mortgage brokers on the back end of these loans, once the loan closed; giving them the fees they gave up to the homeowners on the front end.
4. The real perpetrators of this mortgage mess was in fact the BofAs, Wells Fargo, Citi Group CitiBank, IndyMac, Washington Mutual, World Savings, Countrywide, EMCs, GreenPoints, Bear Stearns, Chase Morgan Stanleys, and others.
5. This whole mortgage mess is really another “Enron�, just in the housing market. This was perpetrated upon innocent hardworking Americans, who were only trying to have the American Dream.
6. Many people, I’d say probably 80-90% put down payments, had good credit and were able to afford the loans they received. The problem is that when the loan product itself was predatory, and was set up for failure to the homeowners, what else could be done?
7. The Board Members and Investors on Wall Street who invested in these banks are the ones who call the shots for these financial and mortgage institutions. They approved and condoned these “mortgage backed securities� and knew they would be the ones who would benefit from these types of loans.
8. These Wall Street Investors, Financial & Mortgage Institutions, and Mortgage Brokers knew exactly what the outcome would be over time. Why do you think as soon as many homeowners loans closed with one lender, before they could make two to three payments, their loans were packaged and resold to other lenders.
9. These same institutions that created this mess, after robbing the American people had the nerve to go to Washington and ask the government for more of the American’s money to bail them out of the mess “they� created; and had the nerve to pay themselves and their select partners in crime billions for making the mess.
10. They took as much money as they could and used that money to pay by yachts, diamonds, lavish parties, cars and million dollar homes.
11. The money that was initially given to the financial institutions could have been used to stop the mortgage mess, in other words it would have put a floor under the mortgage mess. The banks did not need the money; look at how they used it once they received it.
12. These institutions were able to “scare� the government, by telling them, if they did not receive bailout money, the entire economy would “crash�. Yes, it would have crashed on them, not the economy…….it would have taken money out of the pockets of crooked Wall Street investors, Bankers, and Mortgage Brokers.
13. The Bush Administration spent billions each month on a War that we should never have been involved, therefore stripping the government of much needed money to run the country, leaving greedy institutions less money to invest or play with on Wall Street. So, they had to come up with a plan to pour large amounts of money into the economy.
14. The Republicans for the past eight years, twelve years if you count Bush #1 raped this country’s economy to the point of where we are now.
15. They tried it with our gas, and that did not work, when Americans curved their driving and not as much gas was being purchased, the price came down.
16. The Republicans are the cause of the mortgage mess, as had they stepped up with solutions rather than blame, some of this could have been stopped.
17. About a year or so ago, Bank of America was the very bank that was offering immigrants credit cards with no documentation. These are people who had no social security number but because BofA knew these immigrants were going to check cashers sending money back to their home, they wanted to get in on that money. Below is the Article from the Wall St. Journal and USA Today said February 2007.

Bank of America launches credit card for illegal immigrants:
Bank of America, the country's second-largest bank, "has quietly begun offering credit cards to customers without Social Security numbers -- typically illegal immigrants," according to the Wall Street Journal.
Customers can qualify for a credit card if they have had a checking account at the bank for at least three months. They are required to leave a deposit and pay a relatively high interest rate, according to the paper.
The program is controversial. Bank of America says it will help undocumented workers build good credit. But critics say one of the USA's largest financial institutions should not be helping people who violate the country's immigration laws.
"They are clearly crossing the line; they are actually aiding and abetting people who broke the law," says the spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Make no mistake about it: millions of dollars are at stake.
"If we don't disproportionately grow in the Hispanic [market]...we aren't going to grow" as a bank, a company official told the Journal.
USA TODAY reported last year about the buying power of immigrant customers, including undocumented workers. Bank of America says nearly half of the nation's Hispanic households have one of its credit cards.
Posted February 13, 2007 in Money | Permalink

Now after reading the article above, do you think BofA should have received TARP Money? Now who do you think bought homes they could not afford? Do the math.

26. I was told by several people who were in the mortgage industry, that many of the mortgages in California went to Hispanic immigrants, who were able to purchase homes with 100% financing and little to no money down. These immigrants worked day jobs, seasonal and jobs that normally would not qualify for a loan, but they still got the loan. Hispanic Gardeners, in my city, who are not legal citizens, but own new houses and go back and forth to Mexico each weekend. How could that be?
27. As to the job situation, immigrants non-speaking American citizens, hold the majority of jobs in State, City, Retail, Fast Foods, and Hospitals. I no longer buy the statement they will work on the jobs no one else will take. The majority of workers that work for the State of California are immigrants and the same is true for most of the hospitals, i.e. Kaiser Permanente, and they are not working in housekeeping. They are nurses, doctors, administrative staff. These are NOT low paying jobs that Americans do not want.
28. The majority of the recipients on Aid to Dependent Families are immigrants, who are not US citizens. Go to the Welfare and Social Security offices in California, 90% of everyone there is an immigrant. How or what are they doing in the Social Security office applying for SS or SSI when they are not legal citizens, yet Americans who have worked and paid into the system are denied social security benefits. That is the real reason we will not have any SS when we are ready to retire. It's been given away to immigrants.
29. The cost of the war, the increase over the years of the immigrant population, scams from the Banks, and Wall Street (Bernie Madoffs and Allen Standfords) are the cause of this problem.
30. The Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford Financial scams are just the ones we have found out about. How many more are out there that have not yet or may never be discovered exist? In the case of the Mortgage companies, they got away with their theft, because they all started going out of business before the mess hit the fan. They sold loans from one company to the other, went out of business leaving a tangled mess, so that the homeowner, the government or anyone else could not find anyone to hold accountable.
31. As of today, February 20, 2009, BofA’s stock is $2.72 a share, I am glad to see they now can get a dose of what the homeowner feels to lose their home.
32. These Banks, would rather go out of business rather than to step up and do the right thing by helping the American people. They would rather take the bailout money and buy up other struggling banks, pay big bonuses to their CEOs, give out credit and loans to immigrants. They said they did not want the government in their business, they want to take money from the government (taxpayers) but want to do as they please with the money. So I am glad they are going down the drain. I hope Senator Dodd encourages the government take over and Nationalize of these crooked banks. They are now reaping what they have sown on the American people. The chickens have finally come home to roost with crooked Wall St, and Corporate America. Now the American working class will see exactly how the rich have gotten rich.....FRAUD.

terry,

"...but most are the victims of their own greed, irresponsibility and stupidity"

Nope.

According to the data from the Federal Reserve, the vast overwhelming majority of the loans that went bad were written by UNREGULATED private-sector predatory lenders.

~~~

BTW, Santelli's problem is he keeps rewatching Wall Street & Read Dawn, and listening to Mush Limbaugh.

Matt,

"I'm glad I understand it now-if it's tax breaks for those who contribute to our economy, then it's class warfare"

Since when have failed tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate contributed to our economy ?

doubtful, you said "With class acts like Santelli on their side, how can they be wrong?" That's a classic guilt-by-association argument, and a very general one at that.

gaius maurius: The best argument against "too big to fail" that I've heard was made by Bernie Sanders: If a company is too big to fail, it's too big to exist.

oh, and doubtful, you completely misunderstood or misread my post. When I said "That's what Santelli has done," I clearly was referring to his INconsistency -- being sanguine about bank bailouts but not homeowner bailouts, while the people on the other post you cited seemed to oppose both bailouts.

Your response to me was "I don't care if he's consistent about being a arse; He's still a arse. And yeah, a lot of the people in that thread were equally offensive in an eerily similar and selfish way."

My whole point was the precise opposite. Santelli is inconsistent, thereby differentiating him from the people on the thread.

I'll do you one better.

Can any of you who are whining about "right wing" this and that explain to me why I - a middle class working person, who pays his taxes and his mortgage, who faced job loss, bankruptcy, and hard times a-plenty - has to have my taxes go to pay for people who can't afford to pay their own mortgages? Who's going to give ME bailout money? No one. Oh, but I'm white, so I'm the problem and therefore I should pay, right? Wrong.

Save your "rich guy/corporate" ravings; I don't even own a Playstation, nor do I own a flat screen TV, I don't own a big house, and my wife and I have to live check to check just to make ends meet - to pay our bills ontime. We haven't been able to put a dime in our savings account since 2002, and yet we get taxed at 37% (that's .37 cents per every dollar we earn, for those of you who don't get it). There's NO BAILOUT or stimulus for us. WE are the ones who have to pay it. Current estimates say my 9 month old son may be taxed at a 60% rate in the future to pay for this criminal "stimulus" rip off.

Can someone here please explain to me WHY I should support this? Can someone justify to me why I get penalized for playing by the rules? Can someone take a second to tell me why I shouldn't be angry about this?

Spare me your vitriol and right-wing hatred. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. I just want someone to give me a logical explanation, that's all.

On second thought, forget it. There is no logical explanation because one doesn't exist. Asking you morons for an explanation with any logic is simply a lesson in futility.

It's all right wing this and right wing that. When are you people going to wake up to the fact that Washington is full of criminals, no matter what their party affiliation is?

The only "change" in Washington right now is that the Corleone Family is no longer in power. The Tattaglia Family just took over the rackets.

Same crime syndicate, different Family running it. Wake up you fools.

Sorry Joe,but at least 50% of those loans written are 2nd and 3rd mortages,from mostly white families who in many cases had 10+ yrs of equity in the home. IT was thier STUPIDITY and GREED to have it all now,with new kitchens,pools,cars and vacations. I do not want to pay for thier excess'. Give me a pitchfork!

The fannie/freddie loans to buyers who had no biz getting a loan are only about 6% of the toxic garbage. I will agree Limbaugh/Hannity seem to make to big a deal out of those. They are a factor,not the cause.

Luther, please cite the source for you racist and jingoist assertion that half of the foreclosures are illegal aliens,[...] -- doubtful, @16:06

Luther can't cite a source, because Luther sucks his "facts" out of his thumb. Which is a problem, since Luther doesn't wash his hands too often.

Just Curious: I don't know if you're really looking for an answer or just blowing off steam, but I'll take a crack at responding.

Everybody is angry. Most of us are living paycheck to paycheck. Most of us have watched our 401ks turn into pocket change. Most of us have never been through a Depression before, and I think that is what this is.

The root of the financial crisis is the rampant deregulation of the financial industry and a toothless SEC, which led to blatantly irresponsible behavior by banks that got so out of control that the mortgage derivatives market was at one point worth more than the GNP of the entire globe, which led to their collapse, which led to trillions of dollars in bailouts, if you count both TARP and direct Fed assistance. These clowns have destroyed more than $4 trillion in wealth worldwide.

On the other side of the equation, these reckless lenders found a lot of irresponsible borrowers who either bought too much house or shouldn't have even been buying a house at all. Some of them were duped, some were just plain stupid, some just wanted a house and didn't give a rat's ass if they could afford it or not, as long as someone was willing to float them the financing.

But they are not the only ones hurting right now, and by and large, they will not be helped by this plan. I urge you to go to www.whitehouse.gov and read the proposal. It aids only those who are barely able to afford their mortgages and are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, in many cases because of job losses, which are at their highest level in memory. Also, to qualify for help, the value of their homes cannot be more than 105% of their equity.

If the bulk of your anger is directed at people who were flat-out reckless, then you can rest assured they are not covered by this plan.

Another part of the plan is aimed at easing the mortgage credit markets, because right now, a lot of perfectly responsible people with good credit can't even get mortgages.

My attitude toward this whole financial crisis is to be thankful for what I have, hold tight to the people I love, and help those I can. It is much better to be in a position to help, however little, than to be the one who needs it.

It frightens me to see people being whipped into frenzies by charlatans like Santelli. He adds only heat, no light. And certainly no warmth, which we all need right now.

There's NO BAILOUT or stimulus for us

Not true. On the one hand, you may qualify for the mortgage relief package to get a lower interest rate on your loan.

Secondly, the stimulus package contains money for both jobs programs and other social assistance that you may qualify for either now or in the future.

Thirdly, even if you don't end up directly benefiting from a stimulus program you will ultimately benefit from it indirectly through the creation of a more favorable economic landscape, as will we all.

Our taxes every day go to rescue officials who "bail people out" of sinking boats, pull them from crashed vehicles and out of plane wrecks -- all without any kind of test of whether they deserve it nor not -- even though many may have placed themselves foolishly in danger. No one says, "I didn't go out on fishing on the lake, why should they rescue THOSE guys?"

Police and fire and rescue provide a social benefit even when we are not directly benefiting from them as do the various stimulus and rescue packages. They aim to create a rising tide that will lift all boats.

Yo, 'Just Curious'...ever stop to think about how your pwecious little one (and his/her little darlings) are going to pay for the cost of the never-ending Iraq/Afghan wars, and the DoD/'defense' contractor welfare (currently running in excess of $1 Trillion/year)?

The 'stimulus' bill is chump change by comparison. Spare us your new-found 'concern' for non-Bush government spending (which you, wetting the bed over 'terror' threats doubtless approved of) and beat it, whelp.

Dear Just Curious the Plumber,

My 93-year-old grandfather is a retired NYC firefighter who put in 80-hour weeks before the advent of overtime, and then worked as a longshoreman after he retired. He is a renter, always has been, and he lives on a small pension and Social Security.

And he is subsidizing the 37% tax break you get on your mortgage interest and property taxes.

You're welcome. Now please call a whaaaaaaaaaaambulance and stop whining.

mauro,

When I said that they had Santelli on their side, it was related only to the specific issue of people blaming the victims in need of housing assistance, and I honestly don't know why you're trying to read anything beyond that.

oh, and doubtful, you completely misunderstood or misread my post. -mauro

I think it's just a semantics thing. I consider arguing for the regulation free bank bailout and arguing against the homeowner bailout consistently being an arse.

And further, many of the people I was specifically referring to were pro-bank bailout last year and anti-homeowner assistance, so I ultimately fail to see the difference. It's their consistent hypocrisy the really irks me.

My whole point was the precise opposite. Santelli is inconsistent, thereby differentiating him from the people on the thread. -mauro

Without asking me to whom I was referring to, how could you honestly know, anyway? I don't understand why you care enough to continuously harp on this vague semantics piffle, especially since we seem to be of a similar mind concerning the assistance program (your comment at 8:26 PM was great).

Regardless, I will apologize for the unintended vagueness in my initial post. I certainly hope we can move beyond the irrelevant comparison I made and continue the more substantive discussion.

And just to clear up the notion that the housing crisis is a race-based issue:

Orange County, California is the second-wealthiest county in the nation. Currently 46% of real estate sales there are foreclosed homes. Home values have dropped 43% in a year and a half.

Orange County is almost 80% white, with Asians and Latinos making up the lion's share of the difference. The wealthy, white OC'ers are just as eligible for relief from the Obama program as anyone else.

The problem with the program is that it simply won't help enough people. Relatively few will be able to meet the qualification of no more than 105% loan-to-value given how far values have dropped so quickly across the country.

doubtful: no prob.

Jackd,

"Sorry Joe,but at least 50% of those loans written are 2nd and 3rd mortages,from mostly white families who in many cases had 10+ yrs of equity in the home."

What the hell does skin color and the number of years of equity have to do with ANYTHING ?

More than 80%+ of the mortgages that went South were written by UNREGULATED private-sector predatory lenders. It was a SCAM. It was all about the Benjamins.

"The fannie/freddie loans to buyers who had no biz getting a loan are only about 6% of the toxic garbage."

Fannie & Freddie do not write mortgage loans to ANYONE. Never have.

Funny how everyone wants to blame the immigrant/Mexican types when if you look at the data, they are the only ones not foreclosing. If I went to buy a car and the bank okay'd my car loan that I could not afford, whose fault would it be? There is a reason why there are almost 4000 cases in the federal system right now looking at lenders, brokers and real estate agents. Obama is trying to stop the bleeding--and why doesn't anyone mention the fact that the Bush tax cuts cost the country more than a trillion dollars?

As a mortgage loan officer, I was directed by the bank to make home loans to many of whom I knew would never repay their mortgage contract obligation. Their credit reports showed a history of delinquency and a bad credit risk. However since the federal government had a paid watchdog at the bank being paid by congress under CRA (ironically she was from the chicago acorn chapter) the banks were made to give these loans to these poor credit risks or face penalties by the federal government. The loans were approved by fannie mae and freddie mac, if the loan officers did not give the loan to the poor credit risk then they could have been charged with discrimination. The banks were made to give these loans by the democrat leaders that forced the banks into these bad credit risk loans. I am tired of the illiterate, the racist, and the losers who always want something for nothing saying it was the banks who created this mess. They don’t have a clue as to what they are talking about. It was the democrat party that caused this mortgage and banking mess. For all who voted for this inept fraud called obama you have no one but yourself to blame. This crisis is a planned crisis to wreck our economy. White America had better wake up and start forming community resistance to the taking of our way of life before it is to late. It can begin in the churches, in the streets, wherever, just do it. The blacks and naacp have used their churches for decades for political gain, let the white churches begin now. Stop buying or purchasing anything Hollywood as they are also part of the problem, not the fix. If you care about your childrens future you better start paying attention to what obamas plan for America will do before it is to late.

Note to our friends on Wall Street.

Until further notice: STFU

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Ronald Reagan40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

"Free government pic-a-nic basket, Boo-boo."
Barack Obama 44th president US (1961- )
Read more at, http://stopthepresses2.blogspot.com/search/label/Yogi%20Bear

I used to work on the floor of the CME and Rick and I worked for the same bank for a while. I have two points to make: Rick and the people around him are not multimillionaires, and Rick also came out forcefully against the bank bailout. While I didn't agree with Rick's speech, he cannot be accused of hypocrisy.

multi-millionaire traders? just showing your complete ignorance. Do you think anyone that has a job related to the securities industry is a millionaire? you are a stooge.

You Stupid Jackass, Santeli was talking about speculators, not the poor.
Your the pot stirer

To mauro and trex:

Thanks for your honest opinions. I don't necessarily agree, but your answers give one hope that RATIONAL discussion and debate isn't completely dead.

To don and sullijan:

Why don't you mental midgets keep your mouths shut? YOU are by and large part of the problem with this country today. You make no sense but like children, you just make noise so you can get some attention. You probably refer to yourselves as "activists" too. Insulting people and calling posters here "the plumber" only exposes you for the pea-brains you are. Shut your holes if you can't contribute anything.

A) Housing prices are still too high, relative to the income required to sustain it.

B) A lot of people are in houses they have no business inhabiting.

So, how are you going to address those two issues other than through foreclosures? I am not a stock-trader, but I am a self-employed contractor who makes fairly decent money. I have been calling a housing bubble for 4 years and have been ridiculed in some social situations for doing so.

I want my cheap house and it pisses me off that the government is forcing me to subsidize people in houses they have no business owning.

No, I'm not particularly right-wing, either. Just level-headed and frugal.

In other words, both foreclosures and recessions are good things, if they re-direct capital and assets to more productive uses and ownership.

More foreclosures, please.

And bring on that big, fat, nasty recession.

The "New Era of Responsibility" has been reduced to a button.
Put it next to your Gerry Ford "Whip Inflation Now" button.

Community Reinvestment Act -- affirmative action for mortgages.

Now pres. B.O. wants to steal money from those who earned it and give it to those who have no right to live in a house at other people's expense.

When you reward bad behavior and stupid decisions, you get more of it. Only liberals are too arrogant or too stupid to recognize that fact.

Most of the remarks in this post are so vile as not worthy of a considered response. They clearly exhibit terror of the future and hatred of financial types. Rick Santelli is not an average reporter; he is an expert in complex financial matters. I watch him regularly and he often just walks away from my MBA basis of knowledge. I do not know him but am certain that he is honest. His bedrock belief is the discipline of the market. He lives in a world of wealthy people that most would consider insane, speculators who live on the edge. Many made fortunes in a corrupt real estate financial market. The corruption was an unholy incest of Congress, Fanni and Freddi, and Wall Street. Those paid to protect us, stole, at the highest levels.
The fury is just, but not at Santelli. He just despises moral hazard, letting the same crooks do it again. He reports from a place where screaming is required. Betting your life savings every day is intense; it is not of the brain, but from the gut. They call it the pit.
I think he is wrong, but I value his thoughts.

I absolutely love this guy! I'm hoping that they let him rant on about everything! There's nothing like a rich Repub willing to tell the truth - he'll manage to offend the whole Middle Class talking about moral hazard and defending a finance and banking system that's sucked up trillions in government bucks and is still crashing the world's economy.

Good luck selling that load of horse shit, but I'm hoping you keep trying for a long, long time.

Just Curious: You didn't dispute a single fact that don made, ie that Bush's wars cost multiple times over what the housing bailout costs, or that I made, which is that your mortgage and everybody else's are subsidized by tax deductions.

As for what trex and mauro said, they also presented facts. You can "disagree" with opinions, but sorry, you can"t "disagree" with facts.

But thanks for saying "rational debate" and "shut your hole" in the same post. Hilarious! I overestimated your intellect by comparing you to Joe the Plumber. You're more an O'Reilly type.

You may resume your fact-free whining now... oh, and if I remmember my episodes of "All in the Famiy" correctly, the expression is "Shut your pie hole."

First off, I opposed the Iraq War. That being said, I'd rather have our government off-shore killing foreigners than creating economic crises at home. Yes, the Iraq War is expensive, but, then, war is the first principle of the State. Moral hazard has potentially limitless cost, and is far more disastrous than war.

I want my cheap house and it pisses me off that the government is forcing me to subsidize people in houses they have no business owning.

How much lower are you willing to let the value of your home go down before you're willing to try and stop the slide?

Because that's what this entire program is meant to do: stabilize home prices so even more people don't end up owing more on their mortgages than their house is worth.

Again, the government isn't doing this because they feel sorry for people who got in over their heads. They're doing it because those people are a drag on the economy, and if we do nothing, they're going to drag us right down to the bottom.

Does it suck? Yes. Is doing nothing a better idea? Only if you don't mind losing another $20,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 of value from your home.

How much can the value of your home go down before it reaches the current balance of your mortgage? Is that when you'd start saying we need to do something?

How much lower are you willing to let the value of your home go down before you're willing to try and stop the slide?

For starters, I don't have a home, since I have been waiting 4 years for the bubble to pop. Secondly, I want to see home levels fall until they reach parity with incomes.

Again, the government isn't doing this because they feel sorry for people who got in over their heads. They're doing it because those people are a drag on the economy, and if we do nothing, they're going to drag us right down to the bottom.

"drag us right down to the bottom"??? What the hell does this even mean??? No, what will happen is that a whole bunch of people are going to be very miserable fora very long time and will have to scrap and slave to dig themselves out of their own hole. Misery is the appropriate reward for bad behavior, and no one living in America truly knows what misery really means.

How much can the value of your home go down before it reaches the current balance of your mortgage? Is that when you'd start saying we need to do something?

Whatever we do has nothing to do with home values.

Okay, but let's say that I had bought a house 15 years ago with 20 percent down for 200k. Even with the current decline it's still probably somewhere between 250 and 300 k. Let's say I still have 75k left on the mortgage, so I owe 75k on a house that is worth 250, at least. We have a long way to go before I'm underwater, and there is going to be a base economic value for a house relative to income in the region.

Housing prices NEED to fall, and it's pure insanity for a government to try and prop up asset prices.

Wow who is uniformed. Do you really think those guys in the background are millionairs? they work the floor there not millionaires.You might want to make sure they dont make less than union auto workers

As a mortgage loan officer, I was directed by the bank to make home loans to many of whom I knew would never repay their mortgage contract obligation....blah, blah, blah, blah blah... Rush told me so it's all TRUE!

What a COMPLETE LOAD of HORSESHIT! This particular lie's been debunked over and over:

But here's the real kicker. The Community Reinvestment Act only applies to banks and thrifts:

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as redlining. The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses.

The vast majority of the subprime loans over the last 8 years did not originate from banks or thrifts:

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

In other words, the CRA isn't even an issue. But that won't stop the the likes of Rush and his progeny from saying it over and over again until all sorts of people believe it.

While we're on the topic -- the CRA had nothing to do with the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac either:

Note, too, that Fannie and Freddie have nonpareil lobbying operations and formidable political strength, owing to their hefty donations and penchant for hiring former political operatives. Besides, the agencies claim they've landed in their current predicament through no fault of their own. As Freddie Mac Chairman and CEO Richard Syron recently put it, the GSEs have been hit by a 100-year storm in the housing market, accentuated by some higher-risk mortgages that they were forced to buy to meet government affordable-housing targets.

The latter contention is more than disingenuous. A substantial portion of Fannie's and Freddie's credit losses comes from $337 billion and $237 billion, respectively, of Alt-A mortgages that the agencies imprudently bought or guaranteed in recent years to boost their market share. These are mortgages for which little or no attempt was made to verify the borrowers' income or net worth. The principal balances were much higher than those of mortgages typically made to low-income borrowers. In short, Alt-A mortgages were a hallmark of real-estate speculation in the ex-urbs of Las Vegas or Los Angeles, not predatory lending to low-income folks in the inner cities.

A simple Google search with help from Wikipedia would have revealed how clueless the CRA caused this mess claim is. But that's not the point. The entire financial system is under tremendous stress on the Republican's watch. It's their policies that are under the microscope right now. And they just don't look that good. So now the political game is to shift the blame to Democrats. And who better then to blame then ... Jimmy Carter.

Poor people crashed the WORLD'S economy. Oh please...

Good luck selling your wagon load of horse shit.

To answer Just Curious's main question: The reason the government has decided to help some of the people who made bad real estate decisions is that our financial institutions are on the brink of collapse, having lent too much money to people who always were going to have trouble paying it back. Why the lenders did this is a long and complicated story that I certainly don't fully understand, but I do know the loans were mostly made to nice middle class and upper middle class people.

If the government does nothing, the consequences will be devastating to everyone with a stake in the economy, even those who made prudent real estate decisions like you and me. At the end of the Bush term, the government tried just giving money directly to financial institutions, but the huge sums allocated for that purpose are apparently not enough to do the trick. More funding is needed, but where is it going to come from?

Well, the current government has decided to take advantage of the fact that homeowners are sentimental fools. The people who made the bad real estate decisions in the first place are willing to throw good money after bad -- that is, to continue to pay on loans for properties that are under water when they could rent similar properties for less -- for as long as they can afford to. Keep in mind, the law does not require borrowers who take out imprudent loans for the purpose of buying homes to pay the money back. They have the option of walking away and leaving the entire economic fallout to the lenders. However, with a little incentive from the government, these borrowers might be "tricked" into staying in those overpriced properties they never should have bought and continue paying on loans they never should have gotten. In other words, don't look at the president's plan as an unfair boon to those idiots, but a way to keep them all from walking away and leaving the entire mess for the taxpayers to clean up.

Currently, takers of TARP money have to surrender bonds to the federal government, in effect giving partial ownership to the federal government of their business.

Will those who receive help with their mortgages be surrendering any part of the ownership of their homes to the federal government ?

Currently, takers of TARP money have to surrender bonds to the federal government, in effect giving partial ownership to the federal government of their business.

The partial ownership means virtually nothing, as the government does not have a controlling interest in the banks. This has been a problem in trying to rectify the credit crisis, as banks have been happily taking TARP money and using it to pay their executives bonuses, go on junkets, and in general just sit on it.

TARP money has no real strings attached. It is a gift that has been abused.

Will those who receive help with their mortgages be surrendering any part of the ownership of their homes to the federal government ?

Under HASP, the federal government is NOT giving money directly to homeowners. Rather, it is giving money to banks to allow homeowners whose loans happen to be held in the Fannie and Freddie portfolio to refinance those loans at lower rates. This program helps both banks and homeowners: the banks get a chance at preventing the financial losses arising from those loan assets slipping into foreclosure, while a very, very few homeowners will benefit from interest rate reductions on their notes (that the banks could have given them on their own) -- but not principal reduction.

Also: the government does not have a part of an ownership of a home but it does "own" a citizen's ability to purchase a home, in a sense. Under the current Fannie and Freddie rules, anyone who undergoes foreclosure on their home IS NOT ELIGIBLE for another home loan for five years, and even after that time any loan they take out is subject to interest rate penalties.

The penalties for homeowners defaulting on their mortgages are draconian. The penalties for banks defaulting on their debts are...nothing - unless you count free money and gazillion-dollar employee bonuses in in the midst of a recession as penalties.

And just let me add: you whiny dipshit.

The terrible victimization felt by the wingers on this issue is enough to break your heart.