I love Rick Santelli

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: senseamp
Maybe if Wall Street hated selling mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Wall Street needs to STFU.

This. IMO.

Ah yes, the "a person is no longer responsible for their personal responsibility" crew.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Topic Summary: Obama, Wall Street hates your plan

Fuck Wall Street and their golden parachutes. They're the crooks who dug us into this mess. They're the ones who should pay for the damage they've done.

Originally posted by: dphantom

Something fundamentally wrong with a person who does everything right having to pay for someone else's mistake.

Those who did "everything right" were screwed by the EX Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang who did everything wrong. They squandered trillions on a war of lies and cost us trillions more when they abandoned all oversight and regulation of their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors.

Yes, because Bush clearly caused the housing bubble and forced idiots at gunpoint to get mortgages they could not afford.

Damn him!

Damn him to Hell!!!

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: senseamp
Maybe if Wall Street hated selling mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Wall Street needs to STFU.

This. IMO.

I agree the CRA was a load of crap.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: senseamp
Maybe if Wall Street hated selling mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Wall Street needs to STFU.

This. IMO.

I agree the CRA was a load of crap.

Only to somebody who is full of it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: dphantom
Can't say I disagree either. Something fundamentally wrong with a person who does everything right having to pay for someone else's mistake.

its fundamentally wrong only if we are pure capitalism, which we are not.

we are a mixed system, we maximize good and aim for least bad. if paying for their housing is what it takes to keep this economy flowing, then thats what we have to do.

if alot of people stop paying for their houses, banks will go down, stocks will go down, housing prices will go down, the whole economy will be brought down with it. notice how the bill only applies to people who still have income... by keeping them in their houses, they keep paying, keep banks, stocks, house prices up, reduce further foreclosure... keep economy flowing.

Then this is my plan for how the stimulus should work. It would reward the responsible parties and "punish" the irresponsible while also allowing them to have a government subsidized place to live.

Person A = Responsible
Person A bought a house he/she could afford and is not going to get a bailout.

Person B = Irresponisble
Person B bought a house he/she could not afford and is going to get a bailout.

Well, this situation sucks for Person A. How could we make it fair to all involved? Well, there is a good chance that A bought more of a meager house while B bought a large house. So, put A in Bs house at the same rate they are currently paying and put B in As house at the reduced rate they would be paying thanks to the bailout.

Win/win!

 

[StageLeft]

LOL< the trader who perks up with "That's a novel idea, who thought of that?"

This is a point some of us have made earlier, that to watch the bums get kicked out of their houses those who otherwise can indeed pay for them will buy up the house and be able to make payments like a real home owner.

but I was under the impression that to qualify for funds you had to take an affordability test.

By its very definition, if you are having to qualify for these you fail the affordability test as given to you by the economy. FACT.

What if they lost their jobs? Yes, you shouldn't have to pay their mortgage for them, but it wasn't a string of poor decisions and greed that got them into this situation.

Don't buy a home if losing your job starts immediately putting you on the path to default. This isn't heart surgery. Nobody needs a house, it's a luxury many will never have. If a young guy barely squeezed into it on a shaky employment future with no savings and is worried about losing his house if he gets unemployed well, yeah, that's life, learn next time.

 

[ayabe]

Yeah well whether you feel repsonsible or not, when 1/3 of your neighbors are foreclosed on then your property value gets dragged down with it.

So it does affect responsible homeowners and you'll be paying regardless.

 

[Drako]

Bravo!

Stop rewarding idiocy!

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah well whether you feel repsonsible or not, when 1/3 of your neighbors are foreclosed on then your property value gets dragged down with it.

So it does affect responsible homeowners and you'll be paying regardless.

I think most people wouldn't be pissed if the upside went back to the taxpayers (halts foreclosures without giving people money for being stupid).

That's basically how they fixed the thrifts crisis in the 80s - it was a shared equity model where you get the house as discount, but govt gets the upside until the difference is paid off.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

What if they lost their jobs? Yes, you shouldn't have to pay their mortgage for them, but it wasn't a string of poor decisions and greed that got them into this situation.

Don't buy a home if losing your job starts immediately putting you on the path to default. This isn't heart surgery. Nobody needs a house, it's a luxury many will never have.

QFT. Unfortunately we have lost sight of this fact. I do think certain people should never have been given loans but let's face it, the reality is that the person receiving the loan still has to hold up their end of the bargain. Anyone attempting to shift blame primarily to the lender is admitting that people are too stupid to know what they can afford without a lender telling them what they can afford.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: dphantom
Can't say I disagree either. Something fundamentally wrong with a person who does everything right having to pay for someone else's mistake.

its fundamentally wrong only if we are pure capitalism, which we are not.

we are a mixed system, we maximize good and aim for least bad. if paying for their housing is what it takes to keep this economy flowing, then thats what we have to do.

if alot of people stop paying for their houses, banks will go down, stocks will go down, housing prices will go down, the whole economy will be brought down with it. notice how the bill only applies to people who still have income... by keeping them in their houses, they keep paying, keep banks, stocks, house prices up, reduce further foreclosure... keep economy flowing.

Then this is my plan for how the stimulus should work. It would reward the responsible parties and "punish" the irresponsible while also allowing them to have a government subsidized place to live.

Person A = Responsible
Person A bought a house he/she could afford and is not going to get a bailout.

Person B = Irresponisble
Person B bought a house he/she could not afford and is going to get a bailout.

Well, this situation sucks for Person A. How could we make it fair to all involved? Well, there is a good chance that A bought more of a meager house while B bought a large house. So, put A in Bs house at the same rate they are currently paying and put B in As house at the reduced rate they would be paying thanks to the bailout.

Win/win!

lol I like this idea!

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Thump553
Rick Santelli was elected head of all Wall Street? When?

And as Wall Streeters have no way of making any money out of the home mortgage plan it's not surprising at all that they would grumble about it. They want to preserve the bailout funds for their bonuses (whoops, I meant "retention pay").

So if a moron makes a $100000K mistake, my kids should pay burdensome taxes for the rest of their life to make up for it?

Seems to the answer of the government.

 

[GeezerMan]

I"m sure this is not a popular web site here, but I found the article very interesting on the CRA and banks desire to grow bigger. Just a cost of doing business for them

Part One

Part Two

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah well whether you feel repsonsible or not, when 1/3 of your neighbors are foreclosed on then your property value gets dragged down with it.

So it does affect responsible homeowners and you'll be paying regardless.

Most people in the country will never see 1/3rd of their homes foreclosed on. Why would a bank even bother doing that if it cannot in turn sell the house? There is no rule in the universe that says when you default you lose the house. It's the loan-holder's decision. If 1/3rd of people are in default, they wouldn't even be all kicked out.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Skoorb

What if they lost their jobs? Yes, you shouldn't have to pay their mortgage for them, but it wasn't a string of poor decisions and greed that got them into this situation.

Don't buy a home if losing your job starts immediately putting you on the path to default. This isn't heart surgery. Nobody needs a house, it's a luxury many will never have.

QFT. Unfortunately we have lost sight of this fact. I do think certain people should never have been given loans but let's face it, the reality is that the person receiving the loan still has to hold up their end of the bargain. Anyone attempting to shift blame primarily to the lender is admitting that people are too stupid to know what they can afford without a lender telling them what they can afford.

is known as an Obama voter.

 

[xenolith]

In the last four years, Bush and McCain tried 110 times to pass legislation that would have resulted in a more closely regulated FHA, ECOA, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Democratic dominated congress blocked them... every single time.

Barney "there's nothing wrong here" Frank, Chris "I got a sweet morgage" Dodd, Maxine "no need to regulate us" Waters all get a pass on their catastrophic oversight of the FHA, ECOA, Fanny, and Freddie and their overwhelming failure.

Instead the Dems want us all to continue to drink our Kool-aid and to continue to believe wall-street failed us, the banks failed us, capitalism failed us.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
If 1/3rd of people are in default, they wouldn't even be all kicked out.

banks lose money everyday for every house people default on. So the more people default, more quickly banks will have to kick them out to recoup their loss. When a massive amount of people default, and housing price go down and bank fail to recoup their loss, banks go down.

the bailout is to step in to keep people paying to keep banks up. it actually divides responsibility amount bank, home-owners, government... while all of them lose money, each of them lose less and stay alive.

the only winner here is the prevous owner who already got the money ...

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah well whether you feel repsonsible or not, when 1/3 of your neighbors are foreclosed on then your property value gets dragged down with it.

So it does affect responsible homeowners and you'll be paying regardless.

Most people in the country will never see 1/3rd of their homes foreclosed on. Why would a bank even bother doing that if it cannot in turn sell the house? There is no rule in the universe that says when you default you lose the house. It's the loan-holder's decision. If 1/3rd of people are in default, they wouldn't even be all kicked out.

Sorry but this is already happening all over, been to FL? Home values are crashing, there are gigantic subdivisions that are all but empty.

I'm glad that some of you might feel immune, but the scenario I've outlined is in fact happening all over the country and even responsible homeowners who put a lot of money down are now upsidedown on their mortgages.

So we can just sit here and watch more homes get foreclosed on and further shocks to housing values that are sure to follow, which will drag even more people down. Or we can try to stem the tide.

You know two weeks ago, all the R's in Congress were against the stimulus because they said it did nothing to curb the real cause of our troubles which is the housing market.

Well, well how the tide turns, here's a plan to directly address what they were complaining about it, it's TEHSOCIALISMOMGSAUZEZZBBQ!!REDMENACE. When in fact it's a plan loaded with incentives for private companies and consumers to make smart decisions that will make things viable for everyone.


So which is it people?

 

[CPA]

I busted out laughing when I saw him ask that this morning.

Rick is one smart mfer. He knows what he's talking about and doesn't mince words. I love the guy.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
You have to remember where this guy is - on the floor of the CME is NOT on Wallstreet!! Its why he has continually had a better perspective and gets so riled up.
He has these rants every so often that make you wonder why people ever listen to Kramer.

And let's correct everyone about the bailouts and stimulus. Rick has been on record in saying that he was not a fan of any of it. He wants the markets to work it out themselves.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I have 0 sympathy for someone too stupid to do grade school math, those dumb enough to buy into the housing bubble are cut from the same cloth as the idiots who buy stuff off infomercials.

Fuck them, if they're that stupid, they need to learn a lesson, and life teaches some hard ass lessons.



Viva the revolution!!!

Responsible people are certainly stuck in a frustrating situation for the time being, but this view is not only short-sighted, it misses the point entirely. I wish that we could split off into two realities so in one the bailout-haters can get their way and I don't have to suffer the fallout and in the other, rational people can carry on and reap the benefits down the road.

 

[xenolith]

The problem is the cure. Economic downturns are economic medication.

History shows government interventions and Keynesian economics do nothing but prolong the pain while compounding long-term public debt.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I have 0 sympathy for someone too stupid to do grade school math, those dumb enough to buy into the housing bubble are cut from the same cloth as the idiots who buy stuff off infomercials.

Fuck them, if they're that stupid, they need to learn a lesson, and life teaches some hard ass lessons.



Viva the revolution!!!

Responsible people are certainly stuck in a frustrating situation for the time being, but this view is not only short-sighted, it misses the point entirely. I wish that we could split off into two realities so in one the bailout-haters can get their way and I don't have to suffer the fallout and in the other, rational people can carry on and reap the benefits down the road.

yes, I'm irrational because I don't want to pay for someone else's mortgage. You assume that the bailout and surplus will have an effect. That's not guaranteed.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: xenolith
The problem is the cure. Economic downturns are economic medication.

History shows government interventions and Keynesian economics do nothing but prolong the pain while compounding long-term public debt.

I wouldn't call the last 20 years the result of Keynesian economics. I would hardly say that supply-side economics meant lower public debts.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: senseamp
Maybe if Wall Street hated selling mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Wall Street needs to STFU.

Which ibank was originating retail debt? Because you went to your local Goldman Sachs office to get a mortgage :roll:

How about rolling them up into CDO's, slapping a AAA on the winkwink on them, and selling them to investors, banks and foreigners? Don't kid yourself - without the ibanks, and their rep power and mechanizations, this scam could not have been perpetrated.