Skip Nav
Relationships
9 Signs of a Man Who Will Never Stop Loving You
Sex
40 Sexy GIFs So NSFW They'll Get You Fired
Wedding Decor
47 Ways to Add Literary Charm to Your Wedding

CNBC Reporter Treated to White House's Wrath

CNBC Reporter Treated to White House's Wrath

Yesterday fired-up CNBC reporter Rick Santelli laid into the president. He implored Obama to ask Americans whether they really want to "subsidize the losers' mortgages." The traders on the Chicago trading floor cheered for Santelli and booed at the mention of Obama's plan.

Today the White House officially addressed the rant, and Santelli by name. Press Secretary Gibbs asserted:

I think we left a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader than it was good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that. Mr. Santelli has argued, I think quite wrongly, that this plan won’t help everyone. . . . This plan helps people who have been playing by the rules. . . . I would encourage him to read the president’s plan . . . I’d be more than happy to have him come here to read it. I’d be happy to buy him a cup of coffee — decaf.

I guess Gibbs thinks Santelli has had enough caffeine. Gibbs also pointed out that when a home is foreclosed on, the homes surrounding lose about 9 percent in value.

Did Santelli's rant strike a chord with you, or do you agree with Gibbs?

Around The Web
9-Year-Old Syrian Refugee at State of the Union 2016
Obama's Speech on Gun Control Executive Action
Presidents' Pets
Aretha Franklin Performance Brings President Obama to Tears

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
valancyjane valancyjane 6 years
Man, y'all are angry. First "the problem" is that people are getting help who don't "deserve" it. Then it's that people who did things "the right way" aren't getting help. Now it's that the stimulus wasn't mulled over carefully enough. I have no idea if the stimulus package will work or not; I'm no economist. But if you sit there and get all mad about how it wasn't done right (for whatever your reason happens to be that day), then it's definitely not going to work.
UnDave35 UnDave35 6 years
The problem is we are throwing money into the problem and hoping that it gets to the deserving people, and it isn't. Businesses that are going under now have been on that track for more than a couple months. Obama should've given this bill a little more time to be analyzed.
Carrie-Sue Carrie-Sue 6 years
Steph- Long enough to make sure we're not taking hammers to our children's piggy banks for little reason other than to satisfy a group of senator's agendas.
Carrie-Sue Carrie-Sue 6 years
Steph- Long enough to make sure we're not taking hammers to our children's piggy banks for little reason other than to satisfy a group of senator's agendas.
stephley stephley 6 years
Hainan, how many people have lost their jobs since election day? how many business have gone under? How bad should we be willing to let things get while we wait for a thorough analysis of how to help the most deserving?
StolzeMama StolzeMama 6 years
Valancy, the problem is that Obama is not giving anybody the time to research help that encompasses the people that deserve it, his fear mongering is rushing stupid ideas through.
valancyjane valancyjane 6 years
I didn't say greedy, I said selfish and sad. And it is selfish to be all "WHAT ABOUT ME?!" when you're getting just what you signed up for. (Though I will agree, if you lose a job, obviously that's not what you signed up for; I'm sorry about your SIL and I hope she makes it.) Plenty of people get breaks they don't really "deserve," or they get help when there are other people who could use a break too. But if that's all you can focus on, you're going to lead a very sad and angry life. I think in the U.S. lately we seem to be focused on taking help away from people, rather than thinking of more ways to help.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 6 years
"but if your main complaint about this plan is that it doesn’t help YOU, when you are paying your bills just fine, you are a sad, selfish individual. " The complaint is that this bill is rewarding irresponsible behavior. Where is the reward for responsible behavior? It's not greedy or selfish. There are many of responsible people who are still struggling. Like my sister in law who bought a house she could afford, lost 1 of their income, their mortgage is still less than 30% of their income, because they chose to purchase a house that they could truly afford(older and smaller than most foreclosed homes), saved for years to buy it, so they have a lower mortgage payment. They did things the right way and it is hard not to get angry when you saved every last penny to your name, never took vacations or did anything fun, just so you could buy a house (with a proper down payment) and these people didn't save a dime, didn't put anything down, got the house handed to them on a silver platter with low payments, and when the reality set in that 30 year of paying 800 a month does not add up to the 400,000 monstrosity that you purchased and your payments go up, now you need to get bailed out. It does not set a good example for the right way to go about purchasing a home and people who have done things the right way have every right to be upset about this, without being called greedy.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 6 years
"but if your main complaint about this plan is that it doesn’t help YOU, when you are paying your bills just fine, you are a sad, selfish individual. "The complaint is that this bill is rewarding irresponsible behavior. Where is the reward for responsible behavior? It's not greedy or selfish. There are many of responsible people who are still struggling. Like my sister in law who bought a house she could afford, lost 1 of their income, their mortgage is still less than 30% of their income, because they chose to purchase a house that they could truly afford(older and smaller than most foreclosed homes), saved for years to buy it, so they have a lower mortgage payment. They did things the right way and it is hard not to get angry when you saved every last penny to your name, never took vacations or did anything fun, just so you could buy a house (with a proper down payment) and these people didn't save a dime, didn't put anything down, got the house handed to them on a silver platter with low payments, and when the reality set in that 30 year of paying 800 a month does not add up to the 400,000 monstrosity that you purchased and your payments go up, now you need to get bailed out. It does not set a good example for the right way to go about purchasing a home and people who have done things the right way have every right to be upset about this, without being called greedy.
valancyjane valancyjane 6 years
That's not my question. Spork said the Obama plan doesn’t help people who can afford their houses, as if that’s a flaw in it. I’m not going to get into the issue of whether we should help people who may or may not “deserve” it – that battle’s been fought plenty already, it seems - but if your main complaint about this plan is that it doesn’t help YOU, when you are paying your bills just fine, you are a sad, selfish individual.
UnDave35 UnDave35 6 years
Why do we feel the need to help those people who purchased houses they couldn't afford?
valancyjane valancyjane 6 years
I'm coming late to this but ... splork said: "The Obama plan does virtually nothing for all you who bought and financed a house within your means." So, help me out here – if I bought a house that I could afford, at payments I could afford, why do I need help again?
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 6 years
Minorities were "targeted" due to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under President Carter. Both houses of the 95th Congress, which passed it, had a Democratic majority. If banks were to stay in business, they had to extend loans to everyone in their "community". Per PolicyLink: In the 1970s, activists in Chicago and across the country brought strong pressure on banks to lend equitably to all those in their communities." Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. There were additional changes in 1995 under Clinton. "During March 1995 congressional hearings William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized the proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit and micromanagement by regulators, and that there was no assurance that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss. He predicted they would be very costly to the economy and banking system, and that the primary long term effect would be to contract the banking system. He recommended Congress repeal the Act." (wikipedia) Also from Wikipedia: "In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices. CRA regulated banks may also inadvertently facilitate these lending practices by financing lenders. They also noted that CRA regulations as it was then administered and carried out by Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC, did not penalize banks that engaged in in these lending practices."
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 6 years
Minorities were "targeted" due to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under President Carter. Both houses of the 95th Congress, which passed it, had a Democratic majority. If banks were to stay in business, they had to extend loans to everyone in their "community". Per PolicyLink: In the 1970s, activists in Chicago and across the country brought strong pressure on banks to lend equitably to all those in their communities." Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.There were additional changes in 1995 under Clinton. "During March 1995 congressional hearings William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized the proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit and micromanagement by regulators, and that there was no assurance that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss. He predicted they would be very costly to the economy and banking system, and that the primary long term effect would be to contract the banking system. He recommended Congress repeal the Act." (wikipedia) Also from Wikipedia: "In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices. CRA regulated banks may also inadvertently facilitate these lending practices by financing lenders. They also noted that CRA regulations as it was then administered and carried out by Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC, did not penalize banks that engaged in in these lending practices."
babaloo babaloo 6 years
In total agreement with Santelli. The Obama plan does virtually nothing for all you who bought and financed a house within your means. Jim Cramer has come up with the best solution that I have heard on his Fri night show: "Have the government offer 40 year, 4% fixed rate mortgages or refinancing to everyone… not just the deadbeats or the numskulls… everybody… base the new mortgages on the new appraised value of the homes, so that no one is under water… and in return give the banks that own the mortgages equity participation certificates...equity participation certificates for the amount of the principal that gets shaved off of the mortgage… let the banks use these pieces of paper as money for regulatory capital… with no mark to market rules… so they can work out their problems themselves… then if the homeowner sells their home for more than the value of the mortgage… the balance first goes to pay off the bank… any profit beyond that goes to the seller" Something needs to be done for ALL Americans, not just to try to bail people out.
beavis667 beavis667 6 years
"Santelli seems like he wants to blame the housing crisis solely on home owners. He has conveniently left out the lenders and banks that approved for these individuals for loans."If you buy snake oil, you are stupid for buying it, and the salesman is a crook for selling it. So far, politicians on boths sides haven't had the balls to blame the buyer of loans they couldn't afford. It's much easier politically to blame the lender. Kudos for this message which balances things a bit.
beavis667 beavis667 6 years
"Santelli seems like he wants to blame the housing crisis solely on home owners. He has conveniently left out the lenders and banks that approved for these individuals for loans." If you buy snake oil, you are stupid for buying it, and the salesman is a crook for selling it. So far, politicians on boths sides haven't had the balls to blame the buyer of loans they couldn't afford. It's much easier politically to blame the lender. Kudos for this message which balances things a bit.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 6 years
My Dad use to lease had a new car every two years loved it. You do have to watch the milage though.
genesisrocks genesisrocks 6 years
That liberal media
genesisrocks genesisrocks 6 years
That liberal media
janneth janneth 6 years
Bye now. Gotta get to work!
janneth janneth 6 years
Bye now. Gotta get to work!
StolzeMama StolzeMama 6 years
crazy late night driving and the chance that I drove past an auto dealership... I'm not that good.
janneth janneth 6 years
Hainan, you're good!
janneth janneth 6 years
Hainan, you're good!
Latest Love
X