Quotes of the day
posted at 10:35 pm on February 19, 2009 by Allahpundit
“I guess in the end, I believe in the founding fathers, and I believe that in America… the pursuit of happiness and to work hard and keep the fruits of your labor is something I believe in. And I’m not saying we should forget people who need help. But at the end of the day, Americans are strong and they’re charitable. I think what they have a problem with is that it’s force-fed via the government.”
*
“The segment couldn’t more clearly illustrate the disconnect between the financial-services sector, certain financial journalists, and, you know, ‘reality.’
This was CNBC’s worst performance in an entire week—since Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, Dennis Kneale, Roben Farzad & Co. made horses’ rear-ends of themselves trying to squeeze investment tips out of two of the leading thinkers on the global financial crisis, Nouriel Roubini and Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
What sent Santelli, CNBC’s hot-air, oops, “On-Air Editor,” over the edge? The homeowner bailout. Of course, he didn’t get himself into nearly this much of a lather over the trillions of dollars we’ve given to Wall Street welfare cases and the busted banks. Oh no.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Bite this Dude…
That’s the consistent theme of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress. All those issues that were so important when we were grasping for power? Forget about them! They’ve served their purpose.
You know it’s getting bad when even the Associated Press notices: “Democrats strike different tone on Katrina.”
The economic stimulus signed by President Barack Obama will spread billions of dollars across the country to spruce up aging roads and bridges. But there’s not a dime specifically dedicated to fixing leftover damage from Hurricane Katrina.
And there’s no outrage about it.
Democrats who routinely criticized President George W. Bush for not sending more money to the Gulf Coast appear to be giving Obama the benefit of the doubt in his first major spending initiative.
No surprise here: the Dems’ wailing about Hurricane Katrina has always been partisan politics, nothing more. As for the “stimulus,” that’s going to Democratic Party constituencies that can do Washington Democrats some good. So, to paraphrase an old New York Post headline, it’s “Dems to New Orleans: Drop Dead!” (powerline)
Keemo on February 20, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Next time I see any comment about hanging anyone from a lamppost, the ban hammer is out. With no warning. Don’t track your sick bravado in here.
Allahpundit on February 20, 2009 at 9:16 AM
It’s called arbitrage, you blithering idiot. If I were a borrower who actually warranted a 6% rate, but the government forced the lenders to give a 6% rate to people who should have gotten an 8% rate, by their actual numbers, then I have to get better than 6% since I warrant a better rate. As I said before, you cannot quarantine these effects – especially when Fannie and Freddie are supercharged to start taking the mispriced debt off the hands of lenders and force them to go out and lend more in the same way.
Like I said, get a brain.
progressoverpeace on February 20, 2009 at 9:18 AM
No, they weren’t done for minorities, but the underwriting standards had to be liberalized up and down the entire borrower food chain, again, in order to be in compliance with the regulations. That meant opening up subprime and Alt-A to whites as well.
See the problem with those regulations yet or are you still stuck up in the stratosphere?
venividivici on February 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Lest they have to appologize like The NY Post did for the cartoon, that BTW, was FUNNY and relevent…
The cartoon depicted that even a monkey could have written a better Bill then the Democrates did with the Porkulous…
Nothing more… nothing less…
But looks like the “racists calling” race baters, the race pimps and the Political Correctness Police got to em…
Weakness in not becomming…
Mark Garnett on February 20, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Yep Mark,
If the President is a Republican, it’s fine to call him a “chimp.” In fact, it’s morally superior. But if the President is a Democrat, you can’t call a chimpanzee a chimp lest someone think you might have been referring to the President.
It all makes perfect sense.
Keemo on February 20, 2009 at 9:24 AM
They called for the assination of Bush, death to Cheany and called our wonderful Military cowards and murderers…
Made horrific cartoons of Bush and Reagan…
But seems Allah is a tad worried about the retoric…
Does anyone remember him posting about the calls for Bush’s death???
Mark Garnett on February 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM
It must have been time for dude to go to school. I think Santelli knew just how far he could push his indignation before he would lose his job at G.E. What he did seemed righteous and made great television. It was an “I’m mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore” moment.
kingsjester on February 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Mark,
Hanging from a lamp post is over the top in my view. Personally, I’m not worried about my privileges here at HA as much as I worry about HA getting shut down due to such comments. The era of “1984″ is upon us. The KOS and Huffington sites can spew as much hatred as they choose to allow with no price to pay; but here on the right side of the sphere, the rules are much different.
Like the old saying goes “you can’t lock me up for my thoughts.”
Keemo on February 20, 2009 at 9:37 AM
The Post editors knew the connotations that the image touched on and made a decision to run the cartoon. They can make a case that people shouldn’t be offended but they knew it would create controversy.
dedalus on February 20, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Keemo on February 20, 2009 at 9:37 AM
You and Allah are correct… it IS over the top…
My simple point is that as long as we on the right ALLOW ourselves to be “cowered” into subbmission of the far left radicals at MMA and HuffAlot, they WIN! Once we grow a set, which we always complain our representatives DON’T do enough, then we will be on the offensive…
If we allow ourselves to be to afraid to offend and attack, then we have no hope… This IS a war, a real one for America… And the radicals, the Messiah and his cult are going to ATTACK us…
How will we respond?
Mark Garnett on February 20, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I’m offended that they are offended…
Can I get MY appology now?
Offended is SO overused, it’s an excuse…
I can NOT offend you, unless YOU allow me to…
Everyone could be offended EVERYDAY, if so inclined…
I’m offended that you even brought this up… ROFL j/k
(but I did make my point)
Mark Garnett on February 20, 2009 at 9:46 AM
venividivici, there was nothing preventing banks from doing their proper due diligence when lending out other people’s money. It’s not as if sound loan underwriting practices were somehow banned. I personally know a *former* real estate appraiser who got out of the business five years ago (back when the housing boom was booming) because he was being deliberately pressured to appraise homes at values above what the homes were worth in order to make the loans close. How did they pressure him? By telling him he’d only get paid if the loan went through! So much for “independent” appraisals.
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM
BTW, I should make it clear that I’m not in favor of bailing out liar loans at face value. The mortgage should be written down and both the lender and buyer should have to take a loss.
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Mark Garnett on February 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Could we please not forget that dunce Alec Baldwin calling not just for the murder of Henry Hyde, but for the murder of his entire family as well?
oldleprechaun on February 20, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Mark Garnett on February 20, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Agree with you 100% Mark… Our response will be loud, direct, and heard across the globe. The revolution has begun. The fight is on.
I stand with Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and the rest of the voices that represent my own personal principles and values. I recommend (if you haven’t already) joining Rush 24/7. Join forces to become as powerful as possible. Much hope is attached to Rush at this time in our history.
Keemo on February 20, 2009 at 9:56 AM
And now those same appraisers will be intentionally UNDER-APPRAISING homes so that people can get the principal on their loans adjusted much lower. Do you understand how government interference affects everything?
This is all just the medical marijuana scam in home finance – and I am one who supports legalizing pot.
progressoverpeace on February 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Excuse me, but how do existing mortgage-holders benefit financially from lower appraisals? Sure, it benefits new buyers, but those who have to short sell their homes are screwed. I should know, I’m seeing my next-door neighbor’s house short sell for $45% less than his asking price and %25 less than he originally paid for it. No government involved, other than the county who wants two years worth of back taxes paid in full, which does serve to drive the asking price that much further down of course.
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM
The Post runs a commercial business. If they offend you or me individually it might cost them 50 cents at the news stand. If they offend a large enough group then the cost could cause the managing editor to decide that an apology is the best thing for his bottom line.
dedalus on February 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM
The explanation is in the part of my post that you quoted. Try reading what you post.
There is really no such thing as “short selling” a house, outside of securitized properties. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? If you don’t know the definition of phrases you are using, then try and stop using them. You make yourself look like a moron.
progressoverpeace on February 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Really? You sure about that?
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctiverelief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Ann NY on February 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Man…you are on FIRE today. Keep it up.
genso on February 20, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I don’t know about house mortgages, but in ag we try & deliberately devalue our land so as not to borrow too much. When you have to bring up the value of your land to a value that is closer to the truth, you end up getting overextended.
When they value the land at too much bcs of development, you are screwed bcs land for ag purposes is never worth as much (trying to make a living off of it) as land for development purposes.
This is exactly why Big Agri-business is successful.
They got the $$ to buy land at crazy prices.
Regular folks don’t.
BTW- some people do not deserve to own homes-EVER.
It is not the govt’s job to put a chicken in every pot or provide a home for every family.
Badger40 on February 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Heh. I have to thank my straight-man, space_cadet, for his great help. There are times when liberals can really be accomodating, if unintentionally.
progressoverpeace on February 20, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Who’d a thunk that America could be destroyed so quickly..we’re only, what, 29 days into this?
Alden Pyle on February 20, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Yeah, I shouldn’t confuse matter by using “short selling” as that’s pretty well understood as referring to sales of stock or securities.
That said, my point about lower appraisals still stands, since an existing mortgage-holder doesn’t benefit from a sudden drop in home value relative to the amount owed on the loan.
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:23 AM
The belief has been that home ownership increases the stability of neighborhoods. My property is more likely to increase in value if the other people on the street care for their property and have a stake in the town. The mortgage interest deduction is one way the government has encouraged home ownership for decades.
Subsidizing interest payments probably isn’t the best way to subsidize home ownership, but it is the biggest tax deduction most people get and is based on the government’s belief that it is better to have owners than renters.
dedalus on February 20, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Yep. It wasn’t lending to minorities buying cheap homes that got the economy into a mess, it was lenders & investors who thought that housing values could only go up, up, up!
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:25 AM
dedalus, if someone buys a home they can’t really afford what happens is that they have to skimp on necessary upkeep. It would be better for the government to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction as it artificially props up home prices.
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM
When they start adjusting the principal of the loan he certainly will.
progressoverpeace on February 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM
You are assuming that buying a house is a guaranteed investment. Markets, including housing markets go up and down. If you’re caught on a down market and you haven’t been prudent in buying it and allocating your other assets, TOO DAMN BAD. Life it like that and the government has no right to guarantee against failure.
genso on February 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Subsidizing leverage with the deduction may have been a bad idea, but it did much to create personal wealth in the country for the past 60 years. Few people can pay cash for a house, so they borrow 80% of the price and then benefit 5-to-1 when the price goes up.
It worked great for generations, but as bank execs have recently “discovered” leverage is nice when prices go up but can kill you quickly when they fall.
dedalus on February 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM
genso, I agree! Housing shouldn’t be viewed as a guaranteed investment, and there’s really nothing wrong with renting. Unfortunately, as the relitter told me when I found what my neighbor’s home was selling for, my own home’s value took a hit thanks to the flood of foreclosure sales and people just desperate to sell. Thankfully I don’t have to sell myself, but…
progressoverpeace, as I said earlier, if any adjustment downwards of the original loan is made in hopes of keeping someone in a house (and to be frank, there are some cases where it’s not a bad thing) I’m in favor of both the borrower and lender taking a share of the pain and for giving back any future gain should home prices improve.
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Or in an environment where houses are seen as investment vehicles rather than places you want to live for 10+ years. If someone is getting an adjustable mortgage because they expect to flip the house in a year, it doesn’t do much for the community.
dedalus on February 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM
You know, I try and actually explain how things work to you, but you seem to be beyond help.
progressoverpeace on February 20, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Look, dude…if you don’t have to sell then you are in good shape and your property will revalue over time. But, you can’t panic and insist that home values should be artificially propped up so that you don’t have to worry. What you seem to be advocating is something that will have the same effect as if you threw water on an electrical fire. Be patient, be thankful, and don’t be an advocate for ruin by trying to do something that is more harmful than the original problem.
genso on February 20, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Well put, and a great analogy. It will be lost on space_cadet, but can do some real good with others perusing these comments.
progressoverpeace on February 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Ha…thanks. You’ve inspired me.
genso on February 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM
All I know genso is that in the long run we’re all dead. In the meantime, there are plenty of people who are being screwed big time as the housing market tanks. In financial panics markets can overshoot in the downward direction just as they overshot on the boom and it’s not a bad thing to try and moderate either. (Why Greenspan didn’t recognize this and raise interest rates like he did back in 1999 begs the question of how just much he was trying to support the Bush administration, IMO.)
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Realism is Surrealism according to socialism.
maverick muse on February 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Don’t PANIC (The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Universe…Douglas Adams)
genso on February 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM
And those of us who saw it coming and wisely chose to wait have to pay for everyone else, why? I don’t think I should subsidize your bad decision, the information was out there and if you chose not to pay attention that’s your problem not mine. No one held a gun to people’s heads and forced them to buy a house. And people buying low income houses DOES cause all housing prices to rise as the general supply goes down, just as lowering the interest rates as they have been doing drives investment towards real estate whether market forces where headed that way or not. The government has it’s fingerprints all over this crises.
Ann NY on February 20, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Greenspan was doing his job setting the stage for Globalism. That job is ongoing, regardless of party or president. We are all expendable pawns. Value is determined by the global elitist power mongers.
Our only defense is the preservation of our Constitution. Hence the pugilist who heeds the warning: be as wary as a fox, as wise as a serpent. Protect the lamb, our children.
maverick muse on February 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Pat? Pat Buchanan, is that you? I suppose Greenspan did this because he’s a.. well you know, I don’t have to say the word.
Ann NY on February 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM
201,174 poll respondents 93% yes….5% no
genso on February 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM
At least not until we’ve reached the Shoe Event Horizon anyway… ;-)
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 11:54 AM
In the meantime, there are plenty of people who are being screwed big time as the housing market tanks.
Yes, and if Obama has his way, we’ll all be screwed big time.
I rent. I don’t get a homestead exemption on property taxes. I don’t get to write of interest on mortgage. I pay full bill. And now The One wants me to help pay for someone else’s bill?
No. No. 1000 times no.
In a different post, you stated this:
No government involved, other than the county who wants two years worth of back taxes paid in full
That obviously not for a house under a mortgage. This is one of those things that escrow is for.
I R A Darth Aggie on February 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Not everyone escrows though. (I agree that they should however.)
In the meantime, here’s the subprime meltdown explained for those in the mood for some gallows humor:
The Subprime Primer
starfleet_dude on February 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3