MyDD :: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark

Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark

by atdleft, Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:21:05 PM EST

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O Democrats)

Did y'all see this hot mess on CNBC this morning?

OK, so that's not exactly what happened... But it's not too far off.

I'm sure some of you have heard or seen the absolute RANT by one of CNBC's on air personalities, Rick Santellil. Rick, probably the biggest corporate and wealth whore next to Larry Kudlow and the "money honeys" went on about a five minute rant right in the middle of the Chicago trading floor about Pres Obama's housing proposal and how Obama's just giving hard earned tax money away to people who are essentially welfare kings and queens, you know, anyone make less than Santelli and all his rich buddies. He then turned to a group of traders and asked basically if they wanted their hard earned tax dollars to go to their neighbor who has one more bathroom than they do in their house and won't pay their mortgage. If you asked that question to 100 people, 99 would probably respond just like the guys actually did respond...boos and yelling. He then turned to the camera like Tony Montana, held up his hands and then yelled to the camera "President Obama are you listening". Obviously the way he phrased the question he knew the response that he was going to get.

Basically, this has confirmed a suspicion I've had for quite a long time. CNBC has become nothing more than "Faux News Lite" with occasional "business news". I used to appreciate their financial reporting, but now I hardly ever watch that network. Why? All they ever do these days is parrot GOP talking points!

At least "The Real Housewives" don't pretend to be anything more than socialites and socialite-wannabes. CNBC, on the other hand, pretends to be a legitimate "news network". So why has Rick Santelli been going all over the teevee channels today to trash President Obama's mortgage plan?

Now don't get me wrong, I certainly have no problem with questioning authority. Honestly I myself may agree with this New York Times editorial that President Obama's mortgage plan may not be enough, as it helps the homeowners fast approaching foreclosure but not the homeowners with "upside-down mortgages" who aren't that much farther. Nonetheless, I can't stomach any more of the lies from the CNBC talking heads! Obama's plan is not "welfare for lazy people", and it doesn't "redistribute wealth to people who can't afford it". Again, we need to be doing MORE to prevent further collapse of the housing market, not less!

So if you're as sick and tired of the right-wing hijack of CNBC as I am, please let them know.

900 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
United States
201-735-2622

CNBC Viewer Services:
1-877-251-5685

CNBC "Customer Support" Email Page

And as long as they keep pulling this crap, stick to Bloomberg for financial news. At least they report it instead of trying to make it.

Tags: CNBC, corporate media, mediaFail™, radical right, vast right-wing conspiracy, C4O Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 44 Comments :: Post a Comment

Got tips? (2.00 / 4)

Send 'em here...

https://register.cnbc.com/email/EmailSup port.jsp

Thanks.

Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!

by atdleft on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:22:01 PM EST

I wonder if Maddow or Olbermann (2.00 / 3)

will call this guy out. Sadly, I bet not.

by JJE on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:20:23 PM EST

Which is too bad... (2.00 / 3)

'Cuz he's no better than BillO or Mannity when it comes to wingnutia. Just b/c they all have GE as boss doesn't mean they shouldn't say something about the madness on their sister network.

Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!

by atdleft on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CNBC is much worse than FOX (none / 0)

Olberman and Maddow will not call the guy out because he is also from NBC network. The worst offenders on CNBC are Joe Kernan, Kudlow, Melissa Francis, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, Caharlie "GAS" Gasperino and most of their guests.

by Joshuagen on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 05:47:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder if Maddow or Olbermann (none / 0)

I don't usually watch Olbermann but Matthews did. And the few times I caught him being interviewed on MSNBC today, he continued to be an ass. He even said that Contessa Brewer was being rude to him. There seemed to be a consensus that this guy is a raving lunatic.

I thought that Matthews made a fool of him. Or rather Santelli made a fool of himself.

The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 03:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder if Maddow or Olbermann (none / 0)

Oh Matthews definitely helped. That was hilarious - Matthews kept insulting him and the Santelli had no idea.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (2.00 / 5)

The funny part is that when Murdoch launched the Fox Business Channel a while back (no clue how that turned out), Roger Ailes was like "yeah, we think CNBC is kinda soft and leftist, we want to have a more pro-American message." Ha ha.

The really fucked up part was where he tries to claim that these traders on the floor of the CBOE, or wherever it was, are representative of America. You have to be kidding me. Sarah Palin has a thousands times more credibility to speak for the "real America" than this clown.

Just to illustrate my point, I remember a time when Bush visited the NYSE, with his national approval rating at like 30%, and it was an absolute mob scene. Every last guy (and yeah, they're pretty much all guys) on that trading floor absolutely LOVED the President. They couldn't wait to get his autograph, tell him what a great job he was doing, and so on. These are the traders who supposedly represent the real America.

Every day I have to listen to people who have this Wall Street perspective ranting and raving about how Obama is the worst president ever. I just let it roll off cause these people don't have the slightest clue how far outside the mainstream they are, and they never will.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:00:24 PM EST

How very true. (2.00 / 2)

Every day I have to listen to people who have this Wall Street perspective ranting and raving about how Obama is the worst president ever. I just let it roll off cause these people don't have the slightest clue how far outside the mainstream they are, and they never will.

Too bad they can't ever hop over to Harlem or Brooklyn Or even Jersey to see how their favored policies have broken this nation. Have they ever thought of that? How all their deregulation and all their corporate welfare have ruined this economy?

Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!

by atdleft on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Traders (2.00 / 4)

It is funny that when people attack Wall Street, they are generally attacking the management and the professionals. What's funny is that the management and the professionals largely form part of the liberal establishment. I found Wall Street to be diverse politically to be honest but on average more liberal than one would have assumed on the outside looking in with one exception . . . the trading floor. The traders, largely white ethnics (Italian, Irish, Polish and very Catholic), were the most rabid conservatives. Rick Santelli is the patron saint. Thanks for this tip.

Follow me on Twitter.

by Charles Lemos on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:44:42 PM EST

Re: Traders (2.00 / 2)

Indeed. Since I started working in banking I've found the same thing. Talk to the management and executives and you get a pretty inclusive, politically moderate crowd. Get on the floors where the hard selling goes on and you find a lot of big-deficit "conservatives". I keep my head down and my powder dry. Sheesh.

by SuperCameron on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So folks like... (none / 0)

Robert Rubin & George Soros aren't as much of an anomaly as one would think? I guess it makes sense that Wall Street isn't as uniformly Republican as it once was, as we now have major Democratic figures like Bill Clinton & Barack Obama who've cultivated so many relationships in the financial world. Still, I find it odd how the traders on the floor are so rabidly radical right. I wonder why?

Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!

by atdleft on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 02:09:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So folks like... (2.00 / 1)

It's just part of the culture I think. Why are artists overwhelmingly leftist?

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 03:58:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So folks like... (none / 0)

It is weird isn't it you would think they would be more individualist anti-extabslishment types. We I guess the left has enjoyed the illusions that they are not the establishment for a century when it is clear they are.

"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"

by Classical Liberal on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:10:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So folks like... (none / 0)

Yeah that's why we have socialized medicine and a peaceful foreign policy.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So folks like... (none / 0)

It is an extremist view point to wish for the unrealistic and even though we trade freedoms to try to achieve these goals they will never be achieved.

Why do you want a plain vanilla world absent from creativity or imagination? Free from pain(or joy)?

"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"

by Classical Liberal on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 05:02:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good question... martha nussbaum: (none / 0)

"The arts cultivate capacities of judgment and sensitivity that can and should be expressed in the choices a citizen make. We must nurture a 'sympathetic imagination,'to understand the motives and choices of people different from ourselves, seeing them not as forbiddingly alien and other, but as sharing many problems and possibilities with us."

source

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So folks like... (none / 0)

I don't know. Good question. Many are Catholics and very religious. Also by and large they are not Ivy Leaguers but mostly from either the Catholic schools or the state schools. They come from middle class backgrounds and are suddenly earning six figures or more. Traders are also paid a modest salary and mostly by commission so that might have tax consequences that make them lean Republican.

Trading is of course the free market at work. They buy and sell all day. As an equity analyst, my job was far different. I was paid to know what effected a sector of the economy. So my view was much broader especially since the sector of the economy that I covered, Food & Drug Retail, was heavily unionized. So I spoke to union leaders often and to rank & file. You hear their concerns and it has an impact.

Follow me on Twitter.

by Charles Lemos on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 04:00:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (2.00 / 1)

I said yesterday that I think this mortgage idea of Obama's is doomed for failure. This guy on CNBC is right. If you asked 100 Americans if they like they idea a lot they will say no way.

The idea is just un-American.

Me, I support it, if it will end this crisis sooner. I think it sucks but at this point am willing to try anything. But I think the vast majority of Americans are going to boo this thing.

By the way, when we heap scorn on corporate America, save some for all your stupid, greedy, overpending friends and neighbors who bought waaaaaay more house then they needed or could afford, and then defaulted on their loans. They are 1/2 the reason we are in this mess.

by RichardFlatts on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:26:02 AM EST

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (1.66 / 3)

All right, you are just a tool.

I personally know people who make well over six figures who had to declare bankruptcy because they had built a house, and finished it right after the credit markets dried up, and couldn't get mortgage financing. Had nothing to do with getting in over their head, and everything to do with the credit markets.

I personally know people who did everything right, and then their mortgage got sold to a predatory lender, and they lost the house.

I personally know people who are not terribly educated, who just wanted a house in which to raise their children, who made the mistake of believing their mortgage broker who sold them an ARM and told them "you can just refinance in a couple of years." They are not working three jobs each to try to keep a roof over their children's heads.

You know what is the common thread amongst all these people? Stupidity? Maybe. Greed? Hardly. They are all unlucky.

You know who the stupid, greedy people are? The mortgage brokers who knew better than to grant these loans, but did so anyway, because they knew they were going to sell them. You are calling people who want a house for their kids greedy, but not these fucking assholes that got us in to this mess? THEY KNEW BETTER AND FAILED US.

Fuck you. I don't care if I get modded into oblivion, but I don't care. You are an asshole.

Yes. We. Did.

by pneuma on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:09:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (2.00 / 1)

Surely, you agree that many people were more than just unlucky? I don't know about your friends, but a lot of people engaged in risky behavior. They obtained mortgages that perhaps they could afford at their current salary, but did not factor in that they might lose their jobs, or the house may require major repairs in a few years. If they did not leave themselves enough room to breathe (under the assumption that everything will continue on course), they assumed a great deal of risk. Why should we as taxpayers cover that risk? I also don't think we should bail out the banks which is essentially the same thing- subsidizing the risk the banks assumed.

One question- if your friend built a house, why do they now need a mortgage? Presumably, they own the home they built and are only responsible for real estate taxes, no? Also, can you explain how your friend lost their house simply by virtue of their mortgage being sold to a predatory lender? I have not heard of this potential problem.

by orestes on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:54:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (none / 0)

When you build a house, you typically have a construction loan. If you mis-judged how much it would cost to build, then you have to put stuff on credit cards, etc. At the end of the process, you typically roll your construction costs into a standard mortgage. However, if you can't get a standard mortgage, then 75 grand in credit card debt will eat you alive.

When your mortgage is sold, the new company can modify the terms of your loan. That's what happened to the people I know. Should they have read the fine print to know that was possible? I suppose.

This Republican talking point of "we got into this mess because democrats forced banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them (i.e. black people)" really chaps my ass. When the majority of people take out a loan, the major question they ask is "can I make the monthly payment?", not "can I make the monthly payment three years from now?". I will grant that some people made stupid decisions.

However, the people who sold them the mortgages when they knew that these people couldn't pay it back, who then turned around and sold a junk loan to another company engaged in fraud. These are the people to be upset with. The knowingly sold a loan on the secondary market that had a high likelyhood of default, without disclosing this to the buyers. I can find some fault with people who bought more than they could afford, but I find far more fault in the people who let them. They should know better.

Yes. We. Did.

by pneuma on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (none / 0)

I agree wholeheartedly with your points regarding the lenders. There should be prosecutions in my view. That's a real deterrent for this kind of behavior. I also have sympathy for people who did not read the fine print (or could not understand the fine print- which I do not mean as a slight. I am a lawyer and sometimes have to read adhesion contracts more than once to make sure my understanding is correct). I just don't think bailing out the banks or the defaulters is the right step. I think nationalizing the banks and allowing the government to reset rates is a good idea, so long as any benefit that goes to the mortgagee is returned upon transfer of the property.

by orestes on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 03:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (none / 0)

These foreclosures started 2 years ago before the massive job loss. Before the stock market tanked and the housing bubble burst.

People over bought and then worse, they maxed their credit cards out buying furniture and tv to put in their big new homes.

Others thought they could use their house like an ATM and went the home equity route, maybe to pay off massive credit card debt ... dumb. Never attach any debt to your home that you are not forced to.

The ARM's really get me. Who in the world would would want an ARM when rates have been historically low for the years now. I bought in 2006 and got 5.25 fixed.

I have a lot of friends in the residential mortgage business and have told me all along, that you could explain to people until you were blue in the face the risks involved but if it allowed them to buy a bigger house, or pay a few hundred less a month for it, they were "I know, I know, where do I sign."

by RichardFlatts on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 03:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (none / 0)

He calls me a tool? The tool should look in the mirror.

Heck, he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

by RichardFlatts on Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 08:51:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lenders (2.00 / 3)

are supposed to correctly price risk. That's their entire job. It's irrelevant if failure rates are 1, 2 or 9% if risk is priced correctly.

The moment some lender approved a guy with a 500 FICA, they knew - or should have known - that they were rolling the dice. They accepted these risks because huge sums of money needed to be invested, and there are only so many truly credit-worthy borrowers.

This wasn't a failure of the borrowers, it was a failure of the models. The lenders went after high risk borrowers, and got...high risk borrowers. They went snake hunting, and got bitten.

Damn those snakes!

by Neef on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 01:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lenders (2.00 / 1)

Sure that too. I said homebuyers were only half to blame.

I live in a nice subdivision, nothing swank, but very nice. I can tell you I have seen a lot of neighbors lose their homes in the last 2 years. Some were out in less than a year of moving in.

These people all had decent professional jobs. But knowing what some of them did, I would ask my wife, how can they afford that house? How can they afford all that landscaping? How can they afford those two cars?

I knew that my wife and I made more than them. Heck, we weren't dropping 20k in landscaping, etc.

The answer was a lot of them couldn't afford it.

by RichardFlatts on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 03:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, home prices are crashing in many areas, (2.00 / 2)

which is enabling many people who could never afford to buy homes in the past, to finally realize the dream of home ownership. It's called the free market, and it's still the most efficient mechanism for allocating goods and services. In December, home sales in CA were up by more than 43%; the median home price was also down by double digits....just the simple laws of supply and demand.

We've all read how a "housing bubble" let to the economic misery which we're going through today, and that's part of the reason for sure. So it's hard to believe that many people in the administration are now saying that we need to "put a floor under housing prices", and prevent them from falling further. I mean...isn't that how we got into this mess--artificially inflating prices? Kind of like wage and price controls, only in reverse. They never work.

by BJJ Fighter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:42:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, home prices are crashing in many areas, (none / 0)

The home sales you're referring to are often real estate developers, not proud new homeowners who are somehow thriving in this depression.

At any rate, your post makes no sense: the housing bubble and crash I would think would be an argument against the free market, not for it.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:40:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, home prices are crashing in many areas, (none / 0)

I think there are good people coming down on both sides of the issue, with respect to the role of "free markets" vs. regulation, as they relate to the housing bubble. My own belief is that bad policy is the chief culprit, and has served to seriously distort the value of all asset classes.

I just finished "Greenspan's Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve", by Bill Fleckenstien; it's a great read, and I highly recommend it. His thesis is that excessive easing by the Fed under Greenspan was undertaken in the wake of the dot.com bubble, to prevent the kind of economic downturn we're experiencing now. His conclusion, which I support, is that artificially manipulating markets (a mistake Greenspan committed repeatedly during his career) is a temporary fix, but ultimately a destroyer of wealth.

by BJJ Fighter on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 05:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, home prices are crashing in many areas, (2.00 / 1)

Took the words right out of my mouth. Ever since the internet bubble burst, we've been fighting a recession. What did we do in 2001? Lowered taxes and increased spending.

We flooded the market with so much easy money that it had to go somewhere, and a lot ended up with uncreditworthy consumers.

What is happening now is what should have happened in 2001. Recessions are natural, they are a part of the business cycle. That's why it makes no sense that we are doing the exact same thing as before by increasing spending and lowering taxes.

It sucks, but home prices need to return to normal levels. One way or the other they will, so I'd prefer not flushing my money down the toilet to just prolong the inevitable.

by tpeichel on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, home prices are crashing in many areas, (none / 0)

"One way or the other they will..."

Exactly - the question is does it cause massive displacement and misery when it does, or not. There's a reason a crash is called, well, a crash.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 07:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As a nation (none / 0)

creation of wealth isn't our sole metric, or even our primary one. We have to consider the implications of national security, which may be completely at odds with the natural forces of the market.

I work in IT, and over the past two decades I've seen a huge flight of jobs to India. There is no question that this has created a massive amount of wealth, but it has not been American wealth. This is at least one area where we arguably want to cripple market forces.

Government must always seek to control and curtail the market, because the sole concern of government is those it represents. The market does not always align with the needs of a particular government's constituents, and in cases where it does not, a free market is detrimental to governance.

If some genius were to come up with a device that allowed combustion engines to run on sunlight, the OPEC governments, and Russia, would have every reason to want that device suppressed - despite whatever surge of wealth such a device would create.

The recent freeze of mortgage security markets is a perfect example. It's absolutely clear that the market could self-correct, i.e. a flight to quality. That this might result in the economic collapse of nations brings the market into conflict with governments involved.

by Neef on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so what you're saying is (none / 0)

America is still a conservative country?

Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat

by DTOzone on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 08:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the other side (2.00 / 1)

If you are happy that a news network had the balls to throw political correctness to the wind and tell the truth about how people are feeling, please write:

900 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
United States
201-735-2622
CNBC Viewer Services:
1-877-251-5685

The over stimulated economy is not going to be corrected by stimulating it more and rewarding bad decisions.

"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"

by Classical Liberal on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:06:08 AM EST

Re: On the other side (none / 0)

You don't need to encourage Santelli - his point-of-view is exactly what his advertisers pay for. And the network knows it - he wouldn't be in that position if he weren't so thoroughly PC.

How long do you think he would have that job if he started making arguments for increased oversight of the financial markets - despite the fact that the American people support those kinds of measures? Would you measure your answer in weeks or days?

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

umm no (2.00 / 1)

Last I checked big public companies like the bail outs, after all it is aimed at them, unions and the government itself. The President does not want people use the money to make their finances solvent - he want them to spend it. So much for change.

"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"

"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"

by Classical Liberal on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 09:31:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: umm no (none / 0)

I fundamentally disagree with you on well just about everything but I do admire your tenacity.

Follow me on Twitter.

by Charles Lemos on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you :) (none / 0)

I know I am different in that I do see that everything the government does for us takes a certain amount of freedom away. But, I really am not that different than most and I am tenacious because I truly think it is best for the people of this country. Good men(and women) can disagree on the amount of centralized government that serves us best.

My comments are not meant to offend anyone and I hope that at the very least what I have to say gets added to all of the other sources of information MYDD bloggers use to form there opinions. In the end we are all in this together. I just would prefer we all didn't march in formation. Sorry, I can't control my self sometimes.:)

"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"

by Classical Liberal on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 05:30:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: umm no (none / 0)

Okay, fine - have it your way: the brave Rick Santelli, telling truth to power, brought to you by AIG and our other proud sponsors.

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 07:21:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You prove my point (none / 0)

Do you not see it? Come on. AIG likes the bailouts - they took the money. They don't want smaller firms to prosper from there mistakes. Letting firms like AIG fail is what fixes the problem. Letting home owners that FAILED lose their house solves the problem.

I do not know what else to say.

I will say on thing. I had an interesting conversation with my brother-in-law last night. He is waiting to be saved. He two brand new cars, all of the toys in the world and a house twice as big as mine. How is it right that I should bail him out?

I didn't buy new cars and as many toys and a huge house. I lived within my means and I am who is targeted. Why let people like him(don't get me wrong I love the guy), continue to make the same mistakes?

"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"

by Classical Liberal on Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 04:58:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the other side (2.00 / 1)

Oh yeah, CNBC really had a lot of balls to air this segment. Really cut against the grain of their audience, no doubt about it. It takes a lot of guts to stand there amidst dozens of like-minded people on the trading floor and speak truth to power!!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (2.00 / 2)

A mccain voter complains about Obama's plans. Big deal.

Yes, he is up there with Limbaugh and Hannity.
It has been the same argument in different forms over the past 40 years. Krugman put it correctly.

Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.'s "Southern strategy," which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: "You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites." In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.

It's time these bozo's strap on a pair and directly say it - They don't like that someone is helping black people. BTW Obama's plan is not about helping only blacks, but thier criticism always has a racial subtext. We did not see any complaints from them when they spent 700 billion bailing out banks. But they are all up in arms when it is helping home owners.

by devil on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 01:20:27 PM EST

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (1.50 / 2)

Geez, it's like a reflexive tic, anytime the right disagrees with a position it's racism?

by tpeichel on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 08:23:59 PM EST

Re: Wherein CNBC Jumps the Shark (none / 0)

Hey, when you rise to power by using racism, expect people to get twitchy about whether (or if) you've mended your ways.

by Neef on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.