Certainly, you could argue that the Fed rates contributed to the problem - but that's not a new regulation. If anything, if they left them low too long, that's a lack of regulation by not changing things. But more so, that's something that has been around for a long time. What really make the problem go from really bad to crisis is the proliferation of the creative financing like MBS's that allowed companies to offload and diffuse risk. That's great on a limited basis - but as we saw from that Canadian article, their conservative banking system has kept all their banks healthy while all the countries that deregulated banks are having widespread problems. I'm not saying regulations made it better or worse - but I am saying that we just went through one of our least regulated periods we've had, and the result of that period was this financial disaster. So saying that government is encouraging bad behavior is way out there. There was no regulation that required these people to take on this risk or load up on bad securities or whtanot. People engage in bad behavior on their own.
This is how it was explained to me. . . . .banking folx. . .is this accurate? I know this is on a simplistic level . . . . but please show me the flaws Rocket River
Santelli's absolutely right. There's a huge moral hazard issue here, with regard to rewarding homeowners who over-extended themselves. It doesn't matter if they refi at 2% or -2%, they're just as likely to default.
The white house responds. Here are clips of Gibbs first and Santelli responding on Hardball. Not surprisingly I agree with what Gibbs says: [rquoter]... Later, Gibbs acknowledged that "there will be people that made bad decisions that in some ways will get help," but that they are not the focus. "I also think it's tremendously important that for people who rant on cable television to be responsible and understand what it is they're talking about," he said. [/rquoter] I'm not really a fan of Matthews but it seems clear that Santelli doesn't really know anything about the plan and is just ranting for ranting's sake. What he doesn't seem to understand (and what many opponents of the plan here have not addressed) is the fact that this plan isn't here to help the individual homeowners that will get the direct benefits. The plan is intended to help the entire country by helping to fix the broken economy. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. For the people who think this plan is a bad idea because it helps people who don't deserve it, can you think of a better way to try to solve the problem?
i love everyone in this thread chiming in who thinks santelli is some ranting idiot. how many people here listen to him on a daily basis?
Are you saying that the clip in the OP (the one titled "Rant of the year") is not a clip of Santelli ranting? (To answer your question, I don't listen to him on a daily basis.)
I have CNBC on all day long (during the market day). He's not an idiot all the time, but he certainly goes on lunatic rants - this is one of them.
lol You're just as bad as the people who call the people who bought the overpriced mortgages deadbeats. If you put a slab of meat on the ground are you surprised when a dog runs up and eats it? the FED (in other words the GOVERNMENT) created this problem by lowering interest rates and creating the conditions that made this possible. The laws of economics, like the laws of gravity, don't go away just because you wish them to.
and when he actually goes one on one with people who cnbc brings on the show he usually rips them to shreds. yeah he does get overly emotional (and usually for good reason) sometimes but i didn't think this rant was one of those times.
