Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I googled it, according to the internet, that's true. And the internet surely wouldn't lie to us. I also discovered that, according to his wikipedia page, he's the executive producer of Important Things with Demetri Martin. I thought that was interesting.
mortgage holders are not victims! all of them were speculators.
also if you know anything about santelli you'll know that through all of the other bailouts he was ranting. on some occassions i thought he was going to jump through the screen and eat steve liesmann (co-presenter and pro all the wall street bailouts)
the reason people are becoming homeless is 99.999999999% a problem created by the governments of dubya and obama!
Republicons were in charge 02-06 when most of the subprime loans and "investment securities" were produced. Beginning with Reagan the Republicons systematically dismantled the regulations that were put in place in response to the Great Depression 1.0. Republicons have been in charge for 22 of the last 30 years peddling their corporate friendly "What's Good for GM is Good For America" agenda. On the other hand Dems did refuse stronger regulation for Fanny & Freddie and pushed to make homes "affordable" for everyone so a fairer analysis would but the blame game at about 60/40 in favor of the Reps. They win; we lose.
Republicons were in charge 02-06 when most of the subprime loans and "investment securities" were produced. Beginning with Reagan the Republicons systematically dismantled the regulations that were put in place in response to the Great Depression 1.0. Republicons have been in charge for 22 of the last 30 years peddling their corporate friendly "What's Good for GM is Good For America" agenda. On the other hand Dems did refuse stronger regulation for Fanny & Freddie and pushed to make homes "affordable" for everyone so a fairer analysis would but the blame game at about 60/40 in favor of the Reps. They win; we lose.
Are you spelling "Republicans" like "Republicons" on purpose or are you just misspelling? If you're not misspelling, that's kind of funny. Not that I'm anti-republiCON, but it is kind of funny.
Republicons were in charge 02-06 when most of the subprime loans and "investment securities" were produced. Beginning with Reagan the Republicons systematically dismantled the regulations that were put in place in response to the Great Depression 1.0. Republicons have been in charge for 22 of the last 30 years peddling their corporate friendly "What's Good for GM is Good For America" agenda. On the other hand Dems did refuse stronger regulation for Fanny & Freddie and pushed to make homes "affordable" for everyone so a fairer analysis would but the blame game at about 60/40 in favor of the Reps. They win; we lose.
this is not a matter of regulation because the govt encouraged this boom every step of the way. how could they encourage banks to lend irresponsibly and then regulate against it? this would defeat the whole purpose. the real problem now is that they will regulate the market into oblivion. once again, only the big guys will be able to comply.
i'm of the opinion that economies should not be stimulated artificially by govt and central banks. if however we go that way we must understand that with booms come busts, after highs come lows etc.
Republicons have been... ...peddling their corporate friendly "What's Good for GM is Good For America" agenda.
On several occasions in the last year W was asked if he would support a GM bailout because of troubling trends in the industry. The response may come as a surprise. It was something on the order of 'if these businesses were supposed to be successful they wouldn't need to be bailed out'...and then added something to the effect of 'If they want to turn the tide they will start building better cars'. I saw/heard him say that. I won't say that it was so unbelievable though....because that is what I would expect a conservative to say about giving hand-outs.
Stewart's got it right--Santelli blames the victims--the mortgage holders--not the financial institutions and brokers who sold them these bogus loans--then turned around and re-packaged the sketchy loans and sold them all over the world, causing our international melt-down.
It's all the fault of that homeowner in Peoria who just got foreclosed on...he caused our new Greater Depression...
Except it wasn't Peoria that was driving this meltdown. It was California, Florida, and Chicago. It was Las Vegas. It was Phoenix. Yes, I blame the loan companies. But I also blame the individuals who bought into this hype, who began flipping houses, who rather intentionally drove the price of homes beyond what any reasonable person could expect to afford. I also blame the fools who stepped out and paid more for a home that they ever could afford. The 3x your annual income rule has been around for ages. Even allowing the 4x rule or 5x rule, there were massively irresponsible boobs out there who willingly signed into contract for these Alt-A and Option ARMs for way more than they could ever afford.
Sorry, Santelli's comments were dead on. A home is the single biggest investment you will ever make. You'd think you'd take the time to read the contract associated with it, wouldn't you? Right? Bueller?
And let's not leave Washington out of this. Bills like the Community Reinvestment Act allowed this to happen by forcing banks to lend to those who couldn't afford to pay their mortages. And yes, later the banks tapped into that access and massively exploited it. Then there's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to thank. And over 20-years of Alan Greenspan at the wheel of the Fed.
Blame these irresponsible banks. But don't stop there. The morons who signed these mortgages are equally at fault; that's just part of a contract. And Washington deserves its fair share of the blame, as well. I can name a dozen moves and bills from Capital Hill that are responsible for what happened over the past few years.
On several occasions in the last year W was asked if he would support a GM bailout because of troubling trends in the industry. The response may come as a surprise. It was something on the order of 'if these businesses were supposed to be successful they wouldn't need to be bailed out'...and then added something to the effect of 'If they want to turn the tide they will start building better cars'.
Bush was the same way with the banks. He wanted to just let the cards fall with them, as well. In the end, the bail out money he gave out went against his principles, and he said as much. I think if Bush ha=d his way, the only stimulus that would have went to the corporations would have gone to the banks. Not because they deserved but because of the unknown of allowing the banking sector to topple and potentially strangling all businesses by making loans impossible to come by.
Who knows by how long we've extended this recession by propping up inefficient companies.
Wow I don't have a TV, so this is the first time I'm seeing this. Jon Stewart looks kind of cute. And he's also so funny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
