Rick Santelli Leads A Revolt At The CBOT

By Doug Mataconis | Related entries in Barack, Economy, Housing, Politics

If you missed CNBC this morning, here’s Rick Santelli going off about Obama’s mortgage bailout plan and the strongly positive reception it got from the traders on the floor:

Frankly, I think this is a sign that the criticism of Obama’s mortgage “relief” plan — especially the argument that it is rewarding irresponsible practices by lenders and homeowners — might just hit a nerve.

Cross-posted from Below The Beltway


This entry was posted on Thursday, February 19th, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Economy, Housing, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

13 Responses to “Rick Santelli Leads A Revolt At The CBOT”

  1. mw Says:

    Regardless of how you feel about what Santelli is saying here, you have to wonder whether this was a serious political miscalculation on the part of Axelrod and the Obama brain trust. With the national default rate on mortgages at 9%, how do they think the other 91% feel about being told they have to help pay for their neighbors mortgage in addition to their own? It is not like the 91% who pay their mortgage on time are not struggling in this economy also.

  2. mike mcEachran Says:

    We’ve got the victims, the greedy, and the stupid all in the same giant mortgage meltdown bucket. Now Obama has to find a way to sort them all out so we’re not rewarding the last two, and oh, yeah, he needs to do it before the wheels of the economy come off – which could happen…oh…any day now… Well, he did seem to want the job.

  3. Erik Sickinger Says:

    MW:
    But that figure doesn’t include those near default, or using near to all of their savings to make their monthly payments – right?

  4. mw Says:

    @Erick
    Actually, I don’t know – I got the 9% number in this link. I am also not sure to what percentage the byzantine qualification rules for the mortgage bailout covers homeowners in either category. I doubt it changes the percentage that much. As the qualifications are fairly restrictive, I expect it is significantly less than 9% of mortgage holders that qualify for the bailout.

  5. John Burke Says:

    It certainly hits a nerve with me. The idea that, as a taxpayer, I am going to be on the hook to bail out a dope who bought a house he couldn’t afford (like the moron featured in today’s NYT story who bought a nearly $300,000 house a few years ago with what appeared to be a near-zero downpayment and no regard for the possibility that his property taxes might go up or someone in his family might get sick) makes me sick. My wife and I have saved diligently, taken mortgages we could handily afford, and have almost no debt of any kind. We make a nice income — hardly lavish but enough to pay a lot of taxes. And we’re losing value in our 401-Ks like everyone else. And did I mention that the market value of our house has dropped a lot too — but since we’re not stupid enough to have a mortgage putting us under water, we’re not “in danger of losing our home.”

    Nonetheless, as a policy matter, I do support the mortage bailout. It’s necessary to boost te housing sector and help revive the economy. But please, don’t tell me I have to do this to save the “American Dream” for people who were simply stupid, greedy or both.

  6. michael reynolds Says:

    I bet it polls about 60%.

    Believe it or not just because I’m doing okay it doesn’t mean I want to see my neighbors thrown onto the street.

    Yes, some stupid, greedy people are going to get bailed out. (Add them to the bankers, insurance companies and car manufacturers.) But how does it help me if my block is full of bank repo’d homes going unsold? You figure that helps my property value? You think maybe boarded up homes are a bit of a crime and security problem? You think maybe helping these people keep their shit together for the next year or so and provide a soft landing might be good for me, too?

    The traders don’t like it? Waaah. And some CNBC mouthpiece — the network that told us everything was gloriously fine until the whole world went bankrupt — doesn’t like it? Boo hoo. Did he lead a loud-mouthed revolt when we pumped billions into banks that then paid themselves tax money as bonuses? No? More concerned that teachers and car mechanics who can’t pay their mortgages might get a helping hand, is he?

    Yeah, that’s where we should draw the line: trillions for bankers, and nothing for Wal-Mart clerks and waitresses. I mean, those people need to learn how to stretch their nine dollars an hour, just like the bank CEO’s have to learn to get by on a million times more.

    Pure, distilled essence of Republicanism.

  7. mw Says:

    You are right Michael. There is no reason to ever draw a line anywhere. After all, we have an unlimited amount of paper and ink and we can print all the money we want. Since there are never any consequences for anything, and since there is a multiplier effect on government spending, we can guarantee prosperity for all if we just spend enough money we don’t have and let the best and brightest in Washington DC decide where it should be spent – bacause they know best.

    Pure distilled essence of Democratism.

    Now that we are past that…

    FWIW – Rick Santelli is far from a CNBC mouthpiece. He is actually quite the outlier and usually disagreeing with other reporters and commentators on the network. Probably the closest to a free market voice on that network – maybe the only one. The rest of them are split pretty much between the Republican corporate statists and the Democratic corporate statists. A couple more Santelli examples:

    Santelli argues against the wall street bailout last September during the panic [LINK]

    After -Santelli argues the wall street bailout primarily benefited “Harry in the Hamptons”[LINK]

    He is a loose cannon, but probably the most entertaining guy on the network. He should run for Burris senate seat.

  8. michael reynolds Says:

    MW:

    Right now the best and brightest in Washington look infinitely superior to the best and brightest in big business. It’s government bailing out business, not the other way around. It’s business holding the begging bowl.

    As for us having to pay for all this, no, we won’t, unless you’re a lot younger than I am. Our kids get most of the bill. We’ll spend our lives paying off the trillion dollar “off budget” Iraq war and the tax cuts that brought us such wonderful prosperity over the last 8 years. You and I would have to live a very, very long time before we could work our way through the debt accumulated in the last 8 years of Republican fiscal prudence. Only then could we get an opportunity to start paying for this disaster.

    The same old bash Washington, laud business thing is over. A relic of the age when we thought these idiots paying themselves million dollar bonuses actually knew what the hell they were doing.

  9. gerryf Says:

    I was surprised to hear my wife just seething about this very topic today. We, too, lived within our means, bought a house with a mortgage we could afford and diligently paid it off. My sister, however, is one of those idiots who bought a house she could not, refinanced 3 or 4 times with an ARM, and is now in a semi-desperate position. I have neighbors who are just barely on the brink. Probably 10 percent of the neighborhood down the road from me is empty from people who lost their homes.

    There is simply no good solution here. I met one elderly woman not too long ago who was simply flim-flamed by mortgage refinancers. She had no clue what she was doing, the people who approached her lied to her. She had no one to tell her she was getting snowed and now she might lose her home. She is not very bright and let her husband (who passed away several years ago) handle all the money stuff. Now she is alone and scared out of her wits.

    Meanwhile, a lot of unscroupulous people made a killing on people like her. People who say we don’t need government oversight and government regulation to protect people like that just don’t have a clue.

    What we need is a way to extract the money from the evil people who orchestrated this whole debacle instead of hitting up the taxpapers to get us out of this jam.

  10. mw Says:

    Gerry,
    There is a very large leap from here:

    “She had no clue what she was doing, the people who approached her lied to her. She had no one to tell her she was getting snowed and now she might lose her home.. Meanwhile, a lot of unscroupulous people made a killing on people like her.

    To here:

    People who say we don’t need government oversight and government regulation to protect people like that just don’t have a clue.

    What you are describing is illegal fraudulent activity. I don’t know of anyone who thinks that it is not a proper role of government to enforce the law, prosecute and jail criminals. Maybe you can find an anarchist who will argue that, but I don’t know of any and your statement looks like a straw man to me.

    I think the people who defrauded that woman should go to jail. I also think the people on wall street who created and sold Credit Default swaps that offered insurance for Mortgage Backed Securities that they did not have the resources to cover, were guilty of perpetrating a fraud that is no dfferent than Bernie Madoffs ponzi scheme. They should go to jail. I think the rating agencies that gave these instruments AAA ratings, while they were engaged in a conflict of interest business relationships with the issuers of the instruments, should be investigated and prosecuted. And I expect there are more people in the chain between the broker and Wall Street Investment bankers that also broke the law.

    Now, if you want to argue that the Bush administration big government, big spending, big deficit, big business statists were incompetent or – even worse – deliberately chose to not enforce the law (like Cox at the SEC) you won’t get an argument from me there either.

    The worst of all worlds is where you have a regulated market, and the rules are not enforced. It creates an illusion of protection from fraud, making it easier fro criminals to defraud victims and since there are no consequences for illegal activity, actually encourages illegal activity. I think the Bush administration was complicit in creating exactly that environment. The fact that they used a free market fig leaf to justify the cronyism and incompetence – just makes it worse.

  11. Chris Says:

    I have a huge problem with you whining about this. When were you whining about the 700 billion spent on an unjustified war? A war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. No, you were all marching to the same tune then. Those people weren’t guilty of anything except being born in the wrong country. I find your mock outrage disgusting, stand up for something besides your pockets. yes some people shouldn’t be bailed out, but many should be helped out. They were taken advantage of, purposefully, because they didn’t understand how the financial world works, and nor were they told the truth about what they were getting into. I had several mortgage companies try to do this to me, including country wide, luckily I had my mother in law as Realtor, who knew the game.

    So please, save your crying for something a little more serious than your 401k.

  12. ExiledIndependent Says:

    Seriously, Chris? By your logic, we now have carte blanche to spend the cost of the Iraq war on any bad idea. Surely you don’t mean that.

  13. Lynn Jana Says:

    Rick Santelli is my hero and I am anxious to find out about the protest. I think it should be done in major cities because many of us are so broke after the irresponsible buyers took mortages they could not afford or re-financed homes they are now ready to lose. The Fed’s have lowered interest rates to accomodate the irresponsible who downright committed fraud–lying on mortgages applications–to get loans they could not pay; now the Feds are keeping interest rates low to help these deadbeats refinance while anyone with savings get 0%. Rick Santelli is the voice of the people. HOw could Obama let voters down so badly by rewarding irresponsible behavior and making hard working Americans pay for deadbeats who refinanced and spent money on vacations and flat screen TVs? Beware when you hear: Don’t look back; it doesn’t help to place blame. These are words that signal we are being hood-winked!

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: