Skip Nav
Win Halloween With These 69 Movie-Inspired Couples Costume Ideas
76 Halloween Costumes For Women That Are Seriously GENIUS
Groom's Emotional Reaction to the Couple's Preceremony Love Letters Is the Sweetest

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?

Join The Conversation
valancyjane valancyjane 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 years
Why do we feel the need to help those people who purchased houses they couldn't afford?
valancyjane valancyjane 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 years
That liberal media
janneth janneth 8 years
Bye now. Gotta get to work!
StolzeMama StolzeMama 8 years
crazy late night driving and the chance that I drove past an auto dealership... I'm not that good.
janneth janneth 8 years
Hainan, you're good!
StolzeMama StolzeMama 8 years
If the house prices were up right now and the same dude that is being foreclosed on now, sold his house and profited $200,000, he wouldn't be complaining. People bet on the fact house prices would rise. They lost that bet. And it isn't like these people are just going to be on the streets. They haven't paid their mortgages in months, it takes nearly a year to completely foreclose on someone, they cannot save their money that entire year of not paying mortgage to pay a deposit on a rental, if not they are even more irresponsible then I thought.
StolzeMama StolzeMama 8 years
I just thought of something as I was driving home with myhusband yesterday, we drove past a car lot. And then I wondered what you all thought of auto leases. Because it is just another way to get a car. It works for some people, but a LOT of people have been burned by them. when I bought my car, they were trying to push me into a lease. The lure of a payment that was half of what I would pay if I bought was strong, let me tell you. But I know enough about it, and did my research, to find out it isn't best for me. In the contracts it will tell you how many miles you can drive. The sales person may not tell you every detail of the contract, it is your responsibility to read it. So you go to turn your car in and you are over miles, then they tell you that you can pay $5000 for the extra miles, or you can purchase the car for $10000. It is your responsibility to read the contract, and had you done your research, you wouldn't be in that situation. Is that the buyers fault or the dealership. Courts have ruled buyers because they signed the contract.
janneth janneth 8 years
"Lack of personal responsibility" on the part of the homebuyer. Criminal intent on the part of the lender.
7showgirl7 7showgirl7 8 years
The houses were over valued to begin with, then they gave loans to people who they knew already couldn't afford them. Whatever happened to saving a down payment for something.
hausfrau hausfrau 8 years
No Steph its just accepting reality and realizing that pretty much anyone could say anyone else is lying and then we have no business left and no jobs for anyone. Would that be better for you? For instance, I see commercials for high fructose corn syrup saying its not so bad. But sciense shows it is bad. That must meanthey are lying, so we better shake them down. While we're at it, we're going to have to shut down all the food companies that use that ingredient, esp the ones that say "low fat" or other claims which must be BLATANT lying and pretending its ok for you to eat. So thats like what? A few hundred companies? Once we're done there we'll move onto everyone that sells a warranty since as Hain mentioned, most of those are useless, so there goes the majority of appliances. Naturally then we'll move into the fasion and cosmetics region, nearly every one of those products says that I will be beautiful (makeup) or more sexy or comfortable (clothes) if I use their product, that's probably a lie, so we can wave byebye to all cosmetic companies and clothing companies. Then we could get into the auto companies, they say I'll be safe if I get into a wreck in their caars, well maybe I get injured, so thats a lie, so we'll have close every one of those companies. Needless to say all advertising and marketing companies would just shut down instantly. So we have no appliances, no food, no cars, no makeup, no fasion, no advertising or marketing.... And thats just the few I could think of in the last few minutes. So while it might help pave the way for self-satisfaction and make us feel better for how "above" it all we are, its BS. People lie. Companies try to sell. There are laws in place to make sure its not blatant and EVERYTING is in a contract. It is not rational to expect companies to be telling you the truth all the time. No rational person trusts someone who is trying to sell them something.
lilegwene lilegwene 8 years
Jeez, I get carried away! My posts are always super long ><
lilegwene lilegwene 8 years
Agree with haus... This is mostly a case of lack of personal responsibility in home buyers. The "loan people" generally weren't "pushing bad stuff". They were experimenting. Trying variations of loans that would lure people in. All sorts of mortgages emerged; low down payment mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages, piggyback mortgages, no documentation mortgages. Each crafted to fit the lifestyle of certain people, and they worked at drawing in borrowers. It wasn't a problem when the real-estate industry was booming because if the people borrowing couldn't continue paying the mortgage they signed up for they could sell their house at a profit, pay off the lender, move on... No worries. Wall Street seemed to think that subprime mortgages would be good all the time, because they were working so well in the rising housing market. That doesn't translate to today's market, where there aren't lots of buyers. If you can't pay your mortgage and then can't find a buyer for your house... your home goes into foreclosure. It doesn't help that the government under Democrats (Clinton's revised CRA) and Republicans has, in the past 16 years, pushed towards more risky loans being made. I'm not all for regulation, but there is the possibility it could have helped. Regulations may have protected investment bankers from themselves; ie they would realize when they were crafting a mortgage for a person who would not be able to pay it. Emphasis on may, because more regulation could also lead to a whole new set of problems. Some that we're already starting to see; people unable to get loans, less availability of low income housing... Bottom line; buyers need to make sure they're informed before signing anything. My heart goes out to most families caught in the middle of this fiasco; grandparents, parents, children getting forced out of their homes. I don't mind paying a little extra to get things sorted out for the naive people who didn't thoroughly understand their mortgage. Almost everyone deserves a second chance.
Personal Essay on Barack Obama Presidency
Barack and Michelle Obama Best Pictures 2017
Barack Obama Facebook Post on Trump Ending DACA
Joe Biden's Favorite Obama Bromance Meme
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds