Because your mortgage is heavily subsidized. What do you think house prices would be like without the artificially created "guaranteed" 30 year mortgage and FDIC insurance that does not carry premiums reflective of the actual risk?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rick Santelli is a CLOWN
- Thread starter walter4
- Start date
Because your mortgage is heavily subsidized. What do you think house prices would be like without the artificially created "guaranteed" 30 year mortgage and FDIC insurance that does not carry premiums reflective of the actual risk?
I ignore your rant and skip straight to the facts:
Risking, someone has already made the point, here is my question to you (and this has already been asked by Rick S. and I think that was a VERY GOOD POINT of his):
So what if the value of a house is currently lower than its mortgage? What difference does it make? You own the house, the house is all you wanted, your dream came true, so.....pay for what you afforded yourself no matter what its current value may be. What many bailout supporters blatantly ignore is that making monthly mortgage payments HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what the value of the purchased asset is. Nobody cries about the current value of their 401k or other stock investments. Just because you borrowed money in the past (for example) to purchase stocks does not mean you are off the hook just because you timed your purchases badly and they lost value since you bought them. Disagree?
An entirely DIFFERENT issue is what can be done to let mortgage borrowers refinance. I believe the government should force the banks (especially those they now invested in and have become part-owner) to let people refinance at lower rates, meaning to cap the mortgage rate for each credit rating class in order to not allow banks to earn the spread between the mortgage rates they offer and the rate they finance themselves. Furthermore the government should force banks to IGNORE certain clauses that prevent an otherwise solvent borrower from refinancing JUST BECAUSE his house value has plunged below a certain threshold. Those are the actions the government should take not what they have done.
Risking, someone has already made the point, here is my question to you (and this has already been asked by Rick S. and I think that was a VERY GOOD POINT of his):
So what if the value of a house is currently lower than its mortgage? What difference does it make? You own the house, the house is all you wanted, your dream came true, so.....pay for what you afforded yourself no matter what its current value may be. What many bailout supporters blatantly ignore is that making monthly mortgage payments HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what the value of the purchased asset is. Nobody cries about the current value of their 401k or other stock investments. Just because you borrowed money in the past (for example) to purchase stocks does not mean you are off the hook just because you timed your purchases badly and they lost value since you bought them. Disagree?
An entirely DIFFERENT issue is what can be done to let mortgage borrowers refinance. I believe the government should force the banks (especially those they now invested in and have become part-owner) to let people refinance at lower rates, meaning to cap the mortgage rate for each credit rating class in order to not allow banks to earn the spread between the mortgage rates they offer and the rate they finance themselves. Furthermore the government should force banks to IGNORE certain clauses that prevent an otherwise solvent borrower from refinancing JUST BECAUSE his house value has plunged below a certain threshold. Those are the actions the government should take not what they have done.
Quote from walter4:
"Rick Santelli more or less told me everything that I needed to know when he said that he thought that a bunch of traders on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange were a "good representation of America". My favorite part was how one of them screamed "moral hazard" "moral hazard" when Santelli talked about how the money would go to bailing out people who bought more house than they could afford.
Now I'm an economics major and I know full well what a moral hazard is and why it is a problem. But because I don't have my head completely up my ass like these people, I also know that it's a lame excuse not to act. GOD FORBID a dime of their hard earned dollars goes to a person who bought more house than they could afford. Just because we shouldn't reward bad behavior we definitely need to simultaneously punish those who lost their jobs, saw the value of their house decline below the value of their mortgage, fell into debt because of medical bills. Furthermore it's definitely great for the economy when banks are sitting on a bunch of foreclosed homes that they can't sell because nobody can afford to buy them.
These people just absolutely have no perspective. A few undeserving people getting a government handout or government bailout is a problem but a minor one compared to the other garbage we waste taxpayer money on. The Iraq War has been a costlier to the taxpayers thus far than this entire stimulus bill and unlike the stimulus bill, the war was based on the fraud. Yet this clown Santelli voted for 100 more years McCain so that we could spend trillions and trillions more on an investment that will yield zero return. Rewarding the neocons with more taxpayer money to keep fighting wars based on a fraud is an exponentially more costly moral hazard than helping people stay in their houses. But again these people have their heads so far up their asses that they don't get that."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8214075
Only in America would we reward fraudsters and the irresponsible in the name of the "greater good" by bailing them out with money our children and grandchildren will have to repay.
Used to be a time when people sacrificed so future generations could lead better lives. Now we steal from future generations to underwrite our mistakes, hoping it will make our lives undeservedly easier.
How incredibly selfish and wrong.
Used to be a time when people sacrificed so future generations could lead better lives. Now we steal from future generations to underwrite our mistakes, hoping it will make our lives undeservedly easier.
How incredibly selfish and wrong.
from jamis359
Walter4 is correct. Santelli is not just a clown, he's a hypocritical clown of the first order. The man worked in the derivatives industry, the same damn industry that got us into this mess. It was Santelli's colleagues that encouraged a lot of this bad mortgage debt by exploiting the Bush administration's lack of oversight in banking and securities to overleverage bad mortgage paper in CDO's, SIV's, etc. Santelli's got a lot of nerve to stand there on the trading floor and moan about Obama's plan when it was the financial industry that screwed up in the first place.
With regards to Obama's mortgage aid plan, people need to shut up and quit being so selfish. All you hear is "me, me, me." Waaah, he got help and I didn't. If my neighbor gets help under the Obama plan and I don't, do I whine? No. The mortgage assistance keeps my neighbor from defaulting, which helps keep up property values. He wins, I win. Instead of asking, "what's in it for me" how about "what can I do to help the country?"
You are probably the most selfish self-absorbed SOB in this thread. How do I know? People like that always start with this "selfish" crap about others.
Walter4 is correct. Santelli is not just a clown, he's a hypocritical clown of the first order. The man worked in the derivatives industry, the same damn industry that got us into this mess. It was Santelli's colleagues that encouraged a lot of this bad mortgage debt by exploiting the Bush administration's lack of oversight in banking and securities to overleverage bad mortgage paper in CDO's, SIV's, etc. Santelli's got a lot of nerve to stand there on the trading floor and moan about Obama's plan when it was the financial industry that screwed up in the first place.
With regards to Obama's mortgage aid plan, people need to shut up and quit being so selfish. All you hear is "me, me, me." Waaah, he got help and I didn't. If my neighbor gets help under the Obama plan and I don't, do I whine? No. The mortgage assistance keeps my neighbor from defaulting, which helps keep up property values. He wins, I win. Instead of asking, "what's in it for me" how about "what can I do to help the country?"
You are probably the most selfish self-absorbed SOB in this thread. How do I know? People like that always start with this "selfish" crap about others.
I'll just ignore the personal attacks posted here against me and let the President speak instead:
====
Wall Street Journal, Feb. 18:
President Barack Obama told an audience in Phoenix that his plan to try to help struggling homeowners âwill not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans. It will not help speculators.â
That turned out to be one of the bigger applause lines in a speech describing his multi-pronged plan.
Obama continued, assuring his audience â⦠it will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell. It will not help dishonest lenders who acted irresponsibility, distorting the facts and dismissing the fine print at the expense of buyers who didnât know better. And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford.â
But the president appeared to acknowledge that the plan wonât seem fair to everyone. He said that by preventing foreclosures âwe will save ourselves the costs of foreclosure tomorrow, costs that are borne not just by families with troubled loans but by their neighbors and communities and by our economy as a whole.â
====
No help for speculators.
No help for the irresponsible.
What are you going to yell about now, Santelli? Take the advice of the White House and go have some decaf.
====
Wall Street Journal, Feb. 18:
President Barack Obama told an audience in Phoenix that his plan to try to help struggling homeowners âwill not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans. It will not help speculators.â
That turned out to be one of the bigger applause lines in a speech describing his multi-pronged plan.
Obama continued, assuring his audience â⦠it will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell. It will not help dishonest lenders who acted irresponsibility, distorting the facts and dismissing the fine print at the expense of buyers who didnât know better. And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford.â
But the president appeared to acknowledge that the plan wonât seem fair to everyone. He said that by preventing foreclosures âwe will save ourselves the costs of foreclosure tomorrow, costs that are borne not just by families with troubled loans but by their neighbors and communities and by our economy as a whole.â
====
No help for speculators.
No help for the irresponsible.
What are you going to yell about now, Santelli? Take the advice of the White House and go have some decaf.
Quote from jamis359:
I'll just ignore the personal attacks posted here against me and let the President speak instead:
====
Wall Street Journal, Feb. 18:
President Barack Obama told an audience in Phoenix that his plan to try to help struggling homeowners âwill not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans. It will not help speculators.â
That turned out to be one of the bigger applause lines in a speech describing his multi-pronged plan.
Obama continued, assuring his audience â⦠it will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell. It will not help dishonest lenders who acted irresponsibility, distorting the facts and dismissing the fine print at the expense of buyers who didnât know better. And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford.â
But the president appeared to acknowledge that the plan wonât seem fair to everyone. He said that by preventing foreclosures âwe will save ourselves the costs of foreclosure tomorrow, costs that are borne not just by families with troubled loans but by their neighbors and communities and by our economy as a whole.â
====
No help for speculators.
No help for the irresponsible.
What are you going to yell about now, Santelli? Take the advice of the White House and go have some decaf.
You'll sing a different tune when a Treasury Market Auction fails to find any buyers.
Either side of the argument is becoming pointless, our country is beyond FUBARed. An overabundance of debt cause and continue to cause our problems. Adding DEBT to the equation is opposite direction we need and will ultimately be the straw that crushed the camel's back.
Bailout 1: Most of the money lent shall be returned.
Bailout 2: Democratic pork belling, and special agenda assignments fill this "stimulus" and will NOT create "4 million new jobs" Good Luck servicing the debt in 2010 toolbasket!
Quote from truehawk:
The innocent victim act of Santelli and like ilk, if that is truly what he is truly saying, is predictable, not pretty, useless, infantile, craven and disgusting, but unfortunately entirely predictable from a certain number who feel endlessly entitled to socialize risk of the elite and privatize the pain so that it falls disproportionately on those who have the least.
I wish I knew what Santelli actually advocates other than doing nothing.
He seems to conveniently not notice that Wall Street wrote the CDSs that took them down and because a Market Maker with an underwater balance sheet is supposed to liquidate, there would be no clearing firms left without TARP.
Also there is some denial of the privlaged position of the rich here.
The fact that people with money get laws passed that favor them is not a conspiracy theory.it is history. Lobbyists have been a deductible business investment. Why do you think billions were spent on K street lobbying congress if the ROI was not fabulously positive. See Phil Graham's career.
And yes it was done in plain sight while CNBC cheered.
Excellent post!
Now I'm an economics major
__________________________________________
Says it all in just that line. Sorry Walter4, you should have studied finance. Economics is a dismal science at best and unless your at University Of Chicago, I would'nt give much salt to your theories.
And yes, your post sounds much like the 60% of the "wana' be 'Market Players", Financial Power house players" who favor The collective good and cohercive powers to force markets and pricing.
You will get your wish however. Just remember that when you'r eating tuna out of a can and ramin noodles because you don't have a pot to piss in, because your low paying corporate job believes in helping the Collective.
Welcome to OBAMA NATION AND ENJOY THE SHOW!@
__________________________________________
Says it all in just that line. Sorry Walter4, you should have studied finance. Economics is a dismal science at best and unless your at University Of Chicago, I would'nt give much salt to your theories.
And yes, your post sounds much like the 60% of the "wana' be 'Market Players", Financial Power house players" who favor The collective good and cohercive powers to force markets and pricing.
You will get your wish however. Just remember that when you'r eating tuna out of a can and ramin noodles because you don't have a pot to piss in, because your low paying corporate job believes in helping the Collective.
Welcome to OBAMA NATION AND ENJOY THE SHOW!@
Also there is some denial of the privlaged position of the rich here.
The fact that people with money get laws passed that favor them is not a conspiracy theory.it is history. Lobbyists have been a deductible business investment. Why do you think billions were spent on K street lobbying congress if the ROI was not fabulously positive. See Phil Graham's career.
___________________________________________________
Ahh another Comrade. While yes, the PUBLIC CORPORATIONS do have Privalges that "Private Companies" do not have, and while PUBLIC TRADED COMPANIES on the whole are part of Corporate Socialism, all Rich are not from that industry. So while I do see the lack of true Capitalism in almost every Company who's stock is traded on the exchange, the true capitalism lies with in the "Back Yard" risk taker who creates a 100 million dollar company with in Private Industry. Two diffrent animals.
Many rich started from nothing and built something, having the balls to put it all on the line. Why should they be punished for success? Why should I be punish with AMT TAX because I am successful at what I do?
To pay a 'Tax" is fine. 15, 20,% of 1million is more than 15,20% of 500k and that is more than 15/20 on 60K , so on and so on.
But that is ok. Because the Fact of the matter is, the only ones punshied by "Socalism" are the middle class. They will and are suffering the most. The destruction will come in the name of the COLLECTIVE. RICH will continue to live well, and create more wealth.
OBAMA will hurt the very "clowns" that put him into office.
So, bring the new taxes, bring socalism or a quasi-idea of Socalism. The market will not move, nobody will start companies other than the "STATE". Many will live off their wealth and possibly "throw in the towel", close their companies, factories, and just enjoy life.
The majority will suffer.
The fact that people with money get laws passed that favor them is not a conspiracy theory.it is history. Lobbyists have been a deductible business investment. Why do you think billions were spent on K street lobbying congress if the ROI was not fabulously positive. See Phil Graham's career.
___________________________________________________
Ahh another Comrade. While yes, the PUBLIC CORPORATIONS do have Privalges that "Private Companies" do not have, and while PUBLIC TRADED COMPANIES on the whole are part of Corporate Socialism, all Rich are not from that industry. So while I do see the lack of true Capitalism in almost every Company who's stock is traded on the exchange, the true capitalism lies with in the "Back Yard" risk taker who creates a 100 million dollar company with in Private Industry. Two diffrent animals.
Many rich started from nothing and built something, having the balls to put it all on the line. Why should they be punished for success? Why should I be punish with AMT TAX because I am successful at what I do?
To pay a 'Tax" is fine. 15, 20,% of 1million is more than 15,20% of 500k and that is more than 15/20 on 60K , so on and so on.
But that is ok. Because the Fact of the matter is, the only ones punshied by "Socalism" are the middle class. They will and are suffering the most. The destruction will come in the name of the COLLECTIVE. RICH will continue to live well, and create more wealth.
OBAMA will hurt the very "clowns" that put him into office.
So, bring the new taxes, bring socalism or a quasi-idea of Socalism. The market will not move, nobody will start companies other than the "STATE". Many will live off their wealth and possibly "throw in the towel", close their companies, factories, and just enjoy life.
The majority will suffer.
If we agree that my house price would now be lower without benefit of subsidies, then we must also agree it would have been lower when I bought it. In such case, any increase in payment due to higher interest rates would be at least be partially offset by a decrease due to lower principal. It's also possible my property taxes and homeowner's insurance would be lower, but maybe not significantly so.Quote from Random.Capital:
Because your mortgage is heavily subsidized. What do you think house prices would be like without the artificially created "guaranteed" 30 year mortgage and FDIC insurance that does not carry premiums reflective of the actual risk?
By the by, your earlier point (in response to my post) about deficits being a source of funding is, of course, correct. I tend to lump many things into the "excess liquidity" category (including deficits), which is intellectually lazy on my part.