CNBC Host calls for revolution (tea party), mocks Obama plan

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by Erasurehead
This is how it all started. So who is to blame for this mess?
[edit on 2/19/2009 by Erasurehead]

Who was President for the last 8 years? Bush. When did millions of Americans start losing their homes? During Bush's 8 years. How did Bill Clinton get into this conversation? Beats me, you Republicans are so weird.

First of all I never claimed to be a Republican. I am not registered with any political party. I guess I would consider myself an independent.

You are so blinded by partisan politics to see that the problem started before Bush was in office. Did you even bother to read the article I posted?
The Clinton administration put pressure on Fannie Mae, the nations largest underwriter of home mortgages, to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. These are low and moderate income people.

The reason people started losing their homes and defaulting on loans during the Bush years is because of the policy that was put in place during the Clinton years. They could not afford their homes in the first place. Do you understand now ???

Once again people are blaming the subprime, Fannie Mae, CRA situation for the crisis. Although they are a part, they are a VERY small part. The problem orginated on Wall Street and the investment banks when they went hog wild selling severely over-leveraged, unregulated investment products based on mortgages. And no one was bothering to provide oversight. They were just letting Wall Street do whatever they wanted. And then, when Wall Street got over their heads the government came in and bailed them out. Over and over again.

Why didn't THEY live within their means? Johnny says consumers, on average, were over-spending by 25% (I find that dubious) but just the same, Wall Street was over-spending by hundreds-fold. They didn't have a fraction of what they needed to back the securities they were selling.

So this is the pot calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by jtma508
Once again people are blaming the subprime, Fannie Mae, CRA situation for the crisis. Although they are a part, they are a VERY small part. The problem orginated on Wall Street and the investment banks when they went hog wild selling severely over-leveraged, unregulated investment products based on mortgages. And no one was bothering to provide oversight. They were just letting Wall Street do whatever they wanted. And then, when Wall Street got over their heads the government came in and bailed them out. Over and over again.

Why didn't THEY live within their means? Johnny says consumers, on average, were over-spending by 25% (I find that dubious) but just the same, Wall Street was over-spending by hundreds-fold. They didn't have a fraction of what they needed to back the securities they were selling.

So this is the pot calling the kettle black.

You misunderstood me. I said that the average person was SAVING 25% of their income in the 60's. And over 10% even in the 80's. The average person in 2007 had negative savings, in other words spending more than they made. Why does that deserve a bailout?

Do you people get it? Debt problems cant be solved with more debt. You don't solve this my letting people borrow more money and resume irresponsible spending. If you do, all that will happen is a short term bump up in growth and then in a few years a crash that'll make this one seem tame.

Debt problems are not solved by more debt. They are solved by more saving and responsible spending.

Want to punish the banks? Fine, these people that cant afford the homes can give them back to the bank and go rent. People act like these people either stay in the house they cant afford or they live in the streets. Thats absurd

reply to post by jtma508


Oh and you are right that Wall Street has some blame. But not all of it. Basically it is multi-faceted. Govt regulation started by Carters CRA and strengthened under Cliinton FORCED banks to start making subprime loans. Then when the govt lowered rates too low and kept them there too long, Wall Street got drunk on low rates. This is where they lost objective analysis and started making bad business decisions.

But as you can see there is a cause and effect. Forced lending, govt intervention in rates, then Wall Street's absurd business decisions.

Hey, we may be poor and homeless soon, but at least we won't have any STD's!

reply to post by phushion


Absolutely wrong. There is no scheme to make people poor. There is simply a growing base of unproductive individuals, who have not dedicated their lives to worthwhile pursuits (those which ultimately feed people or improve their quality of lives) and instead commit their time to watching the latest movies, adorning the latest trends and consuming and purchasing everything they see. This is simply an effect of a large population. This same thing might have been apparent in ancient times, but the number of uneducated, unproductive individuals is much higher now. It has reached a numerical tipping point, where even though the proportion is the same, the population is large enough to vocalize their opinions without fear of persecution. They should be ashamed.

There are many places to put the blame. We have a culture of high expectations here in the U.S. We all feel we have a right to live in a nice house, without putting in the effort. People have mistaken the American dream, where our founding fathers were stoics who believed people could achieve their desired destinies through work, determination and willpower, we believe that such a destiny is an inherent expectation for all individuals. It's not the case. Not everyone deserves a nice home. How else would we allocate resources effectively? We have to make some concessions. Play the game. Do the work. Be passionate about life.

If every single individual in the country was passionate and had their own little field of research and study, just imagine the collective potential of all that information, regardless of how unique and particular their individual study topic might be. Unfortunately, the totality of any such collective innovation can be summed up in our contributions to celebrity gossip, video games strategies, pornography, etc. If all people were actively involved in communities such as ATS, I'm positive our productivity, and thus our quality of life would be much better off.

reply to post by cognoscente


A culture of entitlement has developed. Where people think they deserve things without doing the work. Its like a bunch of kids fighting over toys in a sandbox. Sense of entitlement and consumerism has spread like cancer.

If the government wasn't so busy trying to hold back the derivative market from a sell off while everyone else looses their wealth and livelihood we wouldn't be seeing this. Derivatives will destroy this country, and we are only preventing this from happening for precious short time.

If we had done this sooner.

reply to post by cognoscente

Absolutely wrong. There is no scheme to make people poor. There is simply a growing base of unproductive individuals, who have not dedicated their lives to worthwhile pursuits (those which ultimately feed people or improve their quality of lives) and instead commit their time to watching the latest movies, adorning the latest trends and consuming and purchasing everything they see. This is simply an effect of a large population.

You have it wrong. There is not enough productive jobs because of technology and outsourcing. Increased efficency should have resulted in people making more money working less hours. Instead it has meant less jobs and an economy where a good majority of people are suppose to make it by selling things to people that do not need them. Unfortunately no one can afford those things anymore, so people lose more jobs and it just continues to snowball from there.

The system has been set up to just make the rich richer. Sure they throw a lottery ticket in there every so often to give people hope, but at no time in our history has so much been concentrated in so few hands. That is the real problem and it will take bold steps to reverse it.

I don't get how the same people on this site blather on about the NWO order and such stuff and then get up in arms when decisons are made to benefit the common people instead of the elite. You all swear you won't drink the kool aid while it is obvious you already have.

This whole thing is absurd.
Of course those &*%$% lickers on Wall Street are against this. Why did they even shoot the spot from there? For dramatic effect?
Hell, they already GOT their money, why would they want any to go to main street?
"Maybe we should all stop paying our mortgages, it is a moral hazzard?" Hey smartass, it is easy to say that after YOUR sector got billions upon billions.
It is just like the "stimulus" package that we just got that will give me an extra 13 bucks a week.

And no, I don't think that homeowners should be bailed out. The system should do what it will on its own. It is the best hope we have. Although at this point, I'm afraid that the bottom will be ZERO!

And what is up with the whole idea of using THIS opportunity to pit Americans against one another vs. pitting them against the people that started this? Did anyone else notice that. From that link that StormDancer posted about the Chicago Tea Party poll. Read the comments section. People are foaming at the mouth over the irresponsibility of their fellow citizens!
Just another way to divide us instead of letting us be united against the real villian - the international banking cartels.

United We Stand - Divided We Fall.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Just one question, does anybody have any clips of where was CNBC While the Bush administration and congress were robbing the tax payer to pay for the wealthy elite banking system/

Were is the outrage on that one, it seems that We the people were also very upset about a bill that didn't do a darn thing for US the people but the media including CNBC had their heads so up the butts of corporate America to even care.

They need to shut up and go to hell.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even watch CNBC? Rick Santelli and those traders on the Chicago bond trading floor have been talking about spending for years and years. Rick even often cited Ron Paul and "hard money." The floor even erupted in applause during a Ron Paul grilling of Paulson and Bernanke. Go to hell? Shut up? Maybe you should be doing that because you don't even know what you're talking about.

By the way, I wouldn't advise anyone to vote on a poll that the MSM gives about whether you would support a revolution or not.

That is foolish.

reply to post by cognoscente


No... I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that there are less jobs, as the previous poster stated, and that the economy is in the crapper because of bad Wall Street choices and bad government oversight.

McDonalds and Call Centers exist for a reason, so that "the lazy individuals" can have jobs. However, because of the bad choices made by those in power, those "lazy individuals" can't get jobs now.

Don't blame the people, most people try even if they don't care when they know they won't be able to eat or sleep in doors if they don't work.

It's just when they can't find work that life gets hard for them. Think about it... our (American) culture REALLY hasn't changed all that much in the past 10 years and yet the economy, world, and marketplace has. So lets no blame the people. The only thing I've seen happen is Media going more right wing and more crappy Reality TV. And MySpace I guess...

Originally posted by jtma508
Like phushion said. This isn't about bailing out people who bought houses they can't afford. The ENTIRE subprime mess (that some neanderthals believe is the cause of this whole mess) totals around $75B. That's it. Nothing to sneeze at to be sure but not even a pimple on the butt of the Wall Street bailout.

Lots of people who have owned their homes for a long while have been laid-off, their investments have shrunk to nothing, their home equity credit lines have been frozen and they are at-risk of losing their homes. This CNBC bloated buffoon wants to cry 'moral hazzard' because now these folks can't sell and will lose their homes? They should have 'known' 10yrs ago when they bought it that the entire economy would melt down? What a crock of dog soft-serve.

How about the government did nothing and Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Lehman, AIG and all the others just defaulted and went belly-up? Hundreds-of-billions in credit default swaps are just allowed to default. That video would be a solid black square. None of those a'holes would even be there to make their 'let-them-eat-cake' comments.

They should become renters then. Why should I pay for someone's poor decision to take out a home equity loan? I pay my mortgages, why should I pay for those who are not responsible? What happens when they default again in 6 months?

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Source.

reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity

You have it wrong. There is not enough productive jobs because of technology and outsourcing. Increased efficency should have resulted in people making more money working less hours. Instead it has meant less jobs and an economy where a good majority of people are suppose to make it by selling things to people that do not need them. Unfortunately no one can afford those things anymore, so people lose more jobs and it just continues to snowball from there.

Sorry. But I'll have to play the "you're wrong" card once again. You're missing the bigger picture. Global economic inefficiency has increased, a direct result of outsourcing. Global income distribution has definitely shifted. There is a growing middle class in India, China and Southeast Asia in general that is thriving off the business provided by people in the United States. If you have yet to realize, the modern world economy goes wherever productivity presents itself. National containment is no longer a viable policy option for modern nations. Politicians can no longer secure the best wages for their own citizens. It's just not technically possible anymore. Market forces are too powerful. There are people around the world at this very instant enjoying the lives that you (as in the general American public) could have had if you were more productive. You can't blame outsourcing. That's equivalent to blaming yourself for personal insufficiency and not doing anything about it. This only advances my reasoning that we are definitely developing a culture of complacency and entitlement.


[edit on 20-2-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by Zenic


This post reminded me of another comment I've been meaning to make.

Our perception of what hard work and what a "sufficient job" is exceedingly over exaggerated. You should see what's going on in India. The level of entrepreneurship in that country is astounding. The level of innovation and especially in large-scale team settings I've seen there blows everything here out of the water. If you've ever been you will quickly realize that when you consider the urban core of that country they will most likely be the ones making up the modern world in the next half century, and not Americans. I'm sorry, but nationalism and policies of "wage containment" and "shoring up jobs" are strictly speaking inefficient allocations of resources.

If you want to simplify it, you can take this analogy: More people on average will be fed globally when resources (money) is allocated to places of higher productivity (currently Asia). If you take that money away somehow, i.e. protectionism and "shoring up the economy", globally less people will be fed, but nationally or domestically the population you represent will be fed more than average (this is what has been happening the USA for the past few decades-unfortunately for Americans, global market forces are going to strip this sense of entitlement straight off the shoulders of the aging megalith). It's like stealing food from one club and indulging in it at your tree fort while you snicker at the hopeless people running around the bushes below. I'm sorry, but global market forces will prevail in the end, and there will be a massive redistribution of wealth and resources throughout the globe, and they will be situated exactly where there is a strong culture of passion, dedication, hard work, resilience and all those other characteristics the Founding Fathers expected of us all, but who were inevitably met with dissatisfaction of failure.

So my point is, we either learn from our mistakes and get to #ing work (and copy the Indians) or starve. Any other strategy would be 1) immoral - stealing resources from people that deserve it and 2) hypocritical - we patronize the rest of the world for not adopting Capitalism for decades and finally when we start to feel the heat we give up and enact all these socialist schemes to bring wealth to our citizens, such the Community Reinvestment Act, the fraudulent securities sales on Wall Street, the Troubled Assets Recovery Program and finally this big hulking pile of # that is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (notice the similarities in names?).

I don't want anyone to question my patriotism or national pride, or #all. But seriously, my patriotism lies in the ideals and core beliefs of the Founding Fathers, not within the political boundaries of the state. The nation doesn't exist in any physical locality. It's a dream for all hard working citizens of the planet. I say on with globalization!

TLDR short version:

1) Blaming outsourcing and vilifying globalization is hypocritical and immoral, considering the history of American free enterprise and Capitalism.

2) The majority of America's work force are complacent, and have a strong sense of entitlement and over exaggerated (naive might be more appropriate) sense of self worth in terms of their contribution to real productivity.

3) Policy measures on national lines to "contain wages" and "shore up jobs" would be nothing short of political undermining, quite possibly an act of war with the world's globally dependent economy.

4) US bills and policies over the last two decades, such as the CRA, TARP and the 2009 ARRA are actually a symptom of America's head on collision with globalization and it's lack of preparedness to deal with it, and not in any way solutions to the problems we face today. Those bills weren't strategic reactions, but they were in deed delayed corrections to previous failed policy.

5) Obama has a lot of work ahead of him. His Presidency can't be consumed by trying to reduce the severity of this economic crisis. He has to build things that are valuable. Infrastructure construction provides only marginal value to society today. We have enough roads already! Start digitizing the country. Put RFID tags in everything and track their activity. This will allow our academia to flourish, our economists, psychologists and mathematicians to produce infinitely better predictive models, which would further aid national policy measures. And get to work already on that broadband infrastructure already. Telling people to build roads and bridges with American steel only is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Roads are redundant, and Buy American is economically inefficient in the long run for American citizens, not to mention a call for international political instability (which ultimately hurts American citizens by putting them at risk of envy, violence and political scapegoating by potentially arising, extreme nationalist or dictatorial parties in other countries).

Sorry, I got carried away. While this second part of my post might be long, it's slightly better organized. I know my writing sucks.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by cognoscente]

Someone connected with NBC said that? WOW. I'm impressed. Considering that NBC is in the tank for Obama, I'm betting this guy won't have a position of any kind with NBC for much longer ...

Not that I'm a holy-roller by any means, but this situation --- the outrageous disingenuousness of it --- brought to mind the parable of the servant from Matthew 18:

... "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.
When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents;
and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.
So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.'
And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, 'Pay what you owe.'
So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.'
He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt.
When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place.
Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me;
and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?'
And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt.

Wall Street developed, sold and hyper-leveraged investment products that began to fail. The Fed came in and bailed them out in one form or another (cash propping-up, forced mergers, etc.) essentially getting them out of the debt that they could not pay. And then the Fed talks about propping-up homeowners and they act like their poop doesn't stink.

It seems that many people seem to have no concept of the people who are at-risk. You act as if taking out a home equity loan is a crime against humanity. I took out a home equity loan to help prop up my business after the economy imploded. And to help put my daughter through college. I've worked for everything I own, have never been financially irresponsible, have paid more child support per year than many people here earn but have been hammered by the economy as businesses fail and go into bunker mode. I built my home a little over 11yrs ago (much of it myself) and it was never 'more home than I could afford'. But if things don't staibilize soon I could lose my home.

My business' financial situation isn't because of anything I did or failed to do. But when forces cause other businesses to contract to this degree, those of us who support them are the first to be damaged.

So, because a government failed to provide the required oversight to the financial markets and banks, because a government involved us in a series of highly questionable wars that slowly bankrupted the country and saddled it with incalculable debt, because investment banks were allowed to run amok leveraging highly suspect investment products hundreds-fold, because the unbridled greed of banks allowed them to write knowingly fraudulent mortgages since they would be able to dump them on Wall Street and have no concerns about being repaid, because of these actions --- all beyond my control or even knowledge --- I get to lose my home as a result of 'moral hazzard'? Yet the people sitting around Santini on the trading floor --- employees of Lehman, Goldman, Morgan, et al --- leading the cheer --- indirect recipients of hundreds of billions of dollars who would otherwise be unemployed themselves, get to wag their fingers at me???

I don't think so. If your neighbor decided to play with hazardous chemicals on their property which ultimately caused your home to become uninhabitable and lose whatever value it had would that be YOUR fault? Should you have known not to buy that house? Go rent.

reply to post by cognoscente


China and India only get to where they are by outsourcing by the globalist policies of companies in western countries which basically meant ripping the jobs off the citizens of those countries.
If this had never have happened, there would be plenty of employment for these uneducated people that you speak of in countries like America.

It's impossible for an uneducated but hard working person in a first world country to accept lower wages to compete with a workforce like India or China when the cost of living in a first world country is ASTRONOMICAL in comparison.

There is the rub/crunch whatever you want to call it.

Until this imbalance is addressed there is no way people could compete with these lower wages in second and third world countries.