Comments on: CNBC vs. CNBC

By: Chicago Joe

Chicago Joe — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:50:42 +0000

No, Barnicle was just as bad as the rest of them. Expecially on Morning Joe. I can’t watch him.

By: jane gutowski

jane gutowski — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:14:16 +0000

my parents worked in a factory every day saved for years and finally bought their house and put 4 kids thru college and there are many americans like them. they dont need the government to help . obama is not happy with these people. he wants needy people who are too lazy to help themselves so he can expand government.there are some legitimate concerns out there but for the most part people took out loans they couldnt pay back because they felt entitled.the concept of working for the american dream is dead.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:57:14 +0000

And here’s the really important point Santelli made: 90% of Americans are paying their mortgages right along. All the hysteria is for about 10% of the country.

Friend of mine laughed and said Obama’s stimulus plan is to bail out California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada (where most of the subprime shysters went), because Obama needs those 4 states to get re-elected.

By: Patience

Patience — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:37:52 +0000

Are any others here reminded of the young woman who said before the election that Obama was going to pay her bills for her? Is this coming true? Seems the structure of the proposed mortgage bailout is designed for people like her. in spite of the feature that says each case will be decided in part by credit worthiness, the provision about qualifying for help if faced with a crisis beyond one’s control sounds vague enough to include something like perceived racism, non-citizenship, single-parent status, etc. The fact that Fannie and Freddie are being given a major role in all of this isn’t reassuring. I can anticipate an expanding bureaucracy will be required to oversee the process. To add insult to injury, it’s expected that most of the adjusted-mortgage rate holders will eventually default anyway.

Like the “stimulus” bill, this bailout seems designed to pay off political patrons.

By: Sassy

Sassy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:16:04 +0000

I saw a replay of the outburst this morning, and wow, would I have loved to be in the room!
Probably would have landed me in jail! LOL!
There is no valid excuse for the majority of people in this mess!
I do have some concerns for those responsible people who lost jobs, thus leading to their situation. However, they are the very ones who will pull themselves through their difficulties.
It is not my responsibility to pay for the greed of others, and I deeply resent it, regardless of the consequences!

By: Morgan

Morgan — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:02:57 +0000

The ‘banksters’ have zero power over me until DC extracts my money to pay them back. It’s not the banks, the bankers, or anyone else with the power. It is the state. Period.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:48:33 +0000

Well for us, we get totally tooled for living within our means. And it gets glossed over with “we’ve got to do something.” Yeah, we do have to do something: learn from mistakes, take responsibility, and move on. Unfortunately not this time.

Don’t have home insurance? Someone else’s problem. Cable instead of health insurance? Someone else should pay. House too expensive? What? What’s an ARM?

The responsible, and the producers won’t take this crap indefinitely.

By: Docelder

Docelder — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:25:38 +0000

That is pretty much right, by taking the ARM you were betting that the rate would not go up, and if it did you could just take profit from the house and refinance later. It stung a lot of people, but it was a gamble, a calculated gamble but a gamble nonetheless. The loans were misused in many ways. First, people used the lower ARM payment to buy more house then they could have bought with a higher fixed rate loan. Second, many people who had bad credit to begin with… they could not get a good rate in a 30 year fixed loan. ARM’s were sold as a way for people to repair their credit and they could refinance in 2-3 years into a fixed loan. Third, many people used piggyback loans 80-20 to finance 100% of the home with nothing down. The piggyback financed the 20% that was the traditional down payment to finance into the longer good rate fixed loans. So, a lot of people bought homes with no sacrifice of savings. In my Florida neighborhood, these folks who now have negative equity because prices have fallen 40% in the past two years… they have mostly walked away from them. They had nothing in the homes, and often the payments were the same or lower than rent. To me, rewarding folks who took out 100% financing is wrong. Help the people who put at least 5% down to stay in the homes sure, provided they don’t turn around and sell the homes within a reasonable period.

By: Peggy Sue

Peggy Sue — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:08:07 +0000

I saw this article, AGI, the other day and frankly thought those comments were appalling. Clyburn accused the Clintons of racism, so as far as I’m concerned his voice has been made irrelevant. If the administration’s shills pull out the race card everytime their policies are pushed against, they’ll kill whatever chance they/we have to move forward.

I’m so weary of this canned victimizaton nonsense.

I did laugh at Santelli’s comment: my 401k is now a 201k. Most of us know exactly what he means. And I think he’s expressing the anger and frustration the majority of the population is feeling. Plus, I do think this class warfare meme is being manufactured deliberately. And that’s something I deeply resent.

By: RobWarrior

RobWarrior — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:05:43 +0000

This is a hard one to sort out. I hate seeing people lose their homes. And there are some people who got taken by sales pitches.

At the same time, there are a lot of people who took the ARMS fully expecting to refinance or sell depending on the market. They gambled, they lost and I am not interested in paying off gambling debts.

By: beebop

beebop — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:04:27 +0000

Yep. I forgot.

I forgot when it was more important to sign legislation by the calendar rather than to make sure that it was the best legislation for the nation.

You don’t get a redo. This was the chance to make it right. He’s a poser. I have no patience for him, his supporters and the millions of irresponsible who will benefit — whether they are large wealthy banks or small impoverished families. My empathy is plum tapped out.

By: CentralMass

CentralMass — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:59:04 +0000

The “One” is charge. You Obots can’t blame it on HC.

By: beebop

beebop — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:58:08 +0000

You know whether you can afford it or not. You know what the ins and outs are. Sorry. I am tired of living in the “not my fault” world. I want to hear “yeah, I should have known better” responsibility. What a nice change that would be. The banker made me do it is about as honest as the dog ate my homework. Not buying it if you signed it.

Oh, and not the kind of it was a “knuckleheaded,” insincere BS Obomba spouts, real, meaningful confession.

By: beebop

beebop — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:54:56 +0000

I read a comment at a one of the news(sic) blogs that went a little like this:

Why should I bail out a guy in California who saw his $300K house go to $650K in “value,” took $350K out, spent it and now when the house is only valued at $150K wants me to help him out? What about the $350K?

That’s where I am. Anyone want to help me with the $500 gone from my IRA? And. If I try to use any of it to cover my current expenses, I get a 5% penalty on early withdrawl. Anyone going to help me with that?

By: Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:45:24 +0000

Many first time homeowners were ridiculed into buying a home.

“you want to rent for 1,200 a month when you could own for 1,500 hundred a month. are you nuts!” Throw in your interest payments on your home as being a tax deduction and your going to be paying the same either way.”

“In five years time your home will go up 100,000 dollars and you can just sell the home if you like, but you’ll score almost a hundred thousand in profits.”

It was that kind of brow beating that got people into homes and kept the economy artificially strong. When the five year mark happened, those payments jumped a ton, doubling and even tripling overnight.

If the payments had started to slowly rise, people would have had time to sell their homes and more importantly, they would have kept making their payments until they did sell their home.

I don’t think it is fair to call someone greedy for being in a home when the banker is showing them that the cost is almost identical to renting, plus they supposed to get five years worth of property increases in the value of the home.

Cramer made the comment that the 4% mortgage should be made available to everybody, at which point there is no favoritism being shown to anybody.