If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC) Video CNBC's Rick Santelli, on the floor of the CBOT, mocks Obama's stimulus package. Then things get farkin' hilarious   (cnbc.com) divider line 249
    More: Video  
•       •       •

10386 clicks; posted to Video » on 19 Feb 2009 at 5:39 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



249 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-19 08:55:10 PM  
It feels like I played the game and did OK, only to have the house change the rules so that I then lost.

This is the very definition of UNFAIR.
 
2009-02-19 08:55:15 PM  
studebaker hoch: People that claim "I had no idea what I was signing when I found a realtor, selected a house, found a bank, worked up a payment schedule and closed on the deal" should be taken outside and shot twice in the back of the head. LIARS.

This.

Every bubble buyer I know was TOLD that it was a risky venture. By me. "whatever, I'm going to make a lot of money" is what one stupid selfish coont told me. Now we get to pay for their future wealth. fark it.
 
2009-02-19 08:56:02 PM  
SigmaAlgebra: No, he was talking about bailing out those who bought a house they could afford, as long as the economy didn't go completely to shiat, forcing them to use all their savings to just try to stay afloat with no job.

People have been getting laid off since there have been businesses to employ them. They seemed to get by without government assistance until now.


It honestly depends on the length of the downturn. We bought our house, our first and current one, for half of what the real estate agent, mortgage broker, and anyone else told us what we could afford. My wife just got laid off, and she's a farking attorney, not an autoworker.

We have enough savings to get by (if she doesn't find another job) for about 14 months, which is better than most people. After that, we'll have just enough money to keep the house, but everything else is going to go. The one car we have a payment on? That's gonna go. Cable? Hell yes. The cat farm? Most likely.

I don't expect anyone to get all weepy - we aren't going to suffer like other people will. But I can understand that anyone who was "barely" making it, or even people who planned six months out could get royally screwed if the economy tanks for an extended period of time. Hell, I used to think 14 months was good padding. Now? I'm not so sure.

The economy is getting so bad in Richmond that people are posting craigslist requests to rent rooms in a house for parents/children (pops). I haven't seen that before.

I'm not a big fan of all parts of the stimulus, but if it can help keep people in their homes, then it will likely do good for other segments of the economy. Like it or not, we've based the whole economy on home ownership. If we lose that pillar, everything else starts falling down.

I'm pretty farking conservative, at least fiscally, but this problem is so big that my "normal" reaction: punish the irresponsible, is just going to have to wait a few years. The truly irresponsible are going to fark up again, and the people who are a victim of circumstance will truly benefit.
 
2009-02-19 08:57:42 PM  
Renowned transvestite sexologist: Problem is SOMETHING has to be done about the systemic risk in the markets

Maybe, but it falls somewhere between doing nothing and subsidizing assholes' mortgages. Preferably nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I'm sick of hearing that "something MUST be done". Bad shiat happens all the time. We're a resilient nation. Bailing out the losers and funding their lavish lifestyles is pretty shiatty.
 
2009-02-19 08:59:23 PM  
I agree with what he said - what's so funny?
 
2009-02-19 08:59:42 PM  
mediablitz: radiumsoup: impaler: swr2000: Traders of the floor of the CBOE were cheering when he said that we shouldn't be bailing out those that weren't responsible.

No, he was talking about bailing out those that couldn't pay their mortgage.

No, he was talking about bailing out those who were irresponsible enough to buy a house they could not afford. (little of what both of you were getting at, I think)

No, he was talking about bailing out those who bought a house they could afford, as long as the economy didn't go completely to shiat, forcing them to use all their savings to just try to stay afloat with no job.


No, he was talking about people that DID buy too much house than they could afford. You don't buy a house with interest only loans and houses too large that you can barely get by with until the economy goes to shiate. You buy enough house that you can still during a downturn because you save, you budget, you plan.

I know some of those words might sound foreign to a bunch of you so I put them in bold. This bill is to bail out the losers. Its as simple as that.

I would say that I don't want to be paying off my neighbor's defaulted mortgage, but I won't have to. This will just tacked onto the national debt and one day the government will be bankrupt! Then it'll be open season on those corrupted politicians that put us here in the first place. That means you too Clinton! I don't care what your doctored numbers say your budget surplus was! You pissed it away on blue dress stain remover instead of paying off our debt!
 
2009-02-19 09:02:24 PM  
inglixthemad: Listerine: inglixthemad: godofusa.com: AspectRatio: godofusa.com: i196.photobucket.com

You probably believe the fairy tale that Candyland Laissez-Faire Capitalism would work. That's as cute as a Cotton Candy Communist believe that it will work. Of course the destruction you both cause is staggering.


LOL at a picture of Bush as a "capitalist". Free Market capitalism really screwed America during the first 150 years of its existence didn't it?

Do you honestly believe we've had 150 years of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. That, fortunately, only existed for a very, very, very short period of time. Like some in Communism fall for it's allure, we get tempted by Laissez-Faire Capitalism's allure of "unbridled wealth creation" and start sliding back. The situation is a pendulum really, and a necessary one. Should we go too far toward Communism or Capitalism we will, mark my words, destroy this country.


You can find that on slate. Please don't try to foist Bush, the man that proved "the party is all Reaganite now" off as a librul.

St. Reagan was a whore that sold out the Republican party and country for power from the political tripod Neo-Conservatives, Religious Wackjobs, and Supply-Side Morons. You earned these people, buck up for the suds.


No proof for any of your assertions, just bland Moderatism for the sake of being in the middle, and throwing out any extreme to either side as necessarily wrong. "It can't be all this and none of this, it HAS to be in the middle".

Why can't I say Bush was a Liberal? Because it would throw off your Republican = Conservative Democrat = liberal world-view?

Look up where neo-cons came from. There's a reason they are "neo", because they are big spenders. Bush was the father of the first retarded bailouts, spent billions on a stupid war to "spread democracy", just like one of the favorites of modern liberalism, Woodrow Wilson.

You won't find me defending Reagan either. I'm not a fan of tax cuts while over spending.
 
2009-02-19 09:04:46 PM  
studebaker hoch: It feels like I played the game and did OK, only to have the house change the rules so that I then lost.

This is the very definition of UNFAIR.


Yes, yes it is. I don't get what these other farkers are missing in their big picture. They must still be in college. Maybe they didn't live on their own, responsibly, and meet some quasi-wealthy asshole couple at a bar bragging about their cash machine mcmansion. I sure did.

Met a lot of well-off folks that were farking hot off their britches about their magic cash machine houses and how quickly they could turn them into spending cash. And for anybody that wants to make this a lib vs neocon argument, I can tell you that nearly ALL of them were adamant Bush supporters (this was around fall 2004) and thought their wealth was because of his stupid tax cuts, and that he'll get Saddam for doing 9/11. I'm not kidding. Something to think about that while you pay for their expensive houses and BMWs for the next several years.
 
2009-02-19 09:06:44 PM  
nashBridges:
I'm not a big fan of all parts of the stimulus, but if it can help keep people in their homes, then it will likely do good for other segments of the economy. Like it or not, we've based the whole economy on home ownership. If we lose that pillar, everything else starts falling down.


What if that's the problem, that we've based an entire economy on telling people they have some American Dream right to buy a home? Should we entrench that lie by letting people who can't afford to live in a home leech off taxpayers, or should we let it sort itself out, and then start over again.

It's going to be painful, but its a necessary restructuring and transferring of power and wealth from the incompetent to the competent. Politicians don't like seeing pain, because they're up for reelection, even if it's necessary pain.
 
2009-02-19 09:06:46 PM  
nashBridges: It honestly depends on the length of the downturn. We bought our house, our first and current one, for half of what the real estate agent, mortgage broker, and anyone else told us what we could afford. My wife just got laid off, and she's a farking attorney, not an autoworker.

We built a modest ranch with nice amenities rather than a McMansion for the same reason.
 
2009-02-19 09:07:29 PM  
mediablitz: radiumsoup: impaler: swr2000: Traders of the floor of the CBOE were cheering when he said that we shouldn't be bailing out those that weren't responsible.

No, he was talking about bailing out those that couldn't pay their mortgage.

No, he was talking about bailing out those who were irresponsible enough to buy a house they could not afford. (little of what both of you were getting at, I think)

No, he was talking about bailing out those who bought a house they could afford, as long as the economy didn't go completely to shiat, forcing them to use all their savings to just try to stay afloat with no job.


Amazing. Simply amazing.

You people arguing that they just couldnt afford it are god damn crazy, if it wasnt for them going belly up when one little thing went wrong there would not be a problem. These farks were put in homes they could not afford but the relaxed loan rules made them passable so in the end they got into bigger homes that they should never have qualified. These are the same morons who live in $600/month apartments but drive mercedes and land rovers, farking morons.
 
2009-02-19 09:09:08 PM  
Listerine: inglixthemad: Listerine: inglixthemad: godofusa.com: AspectRatio: godofusa.com: i196.photobucket.com

You probably believe the fairy tale that Candyland Laissez-Faire Capitalism would work. That's as cute as a Cotton Candy Communist believe that it will work. Of course the destruction you both cause is staggering.


LOL at a picture of Bush as a "capitalist". Free Market capitalism really screwed America during the first 150 years of its existence didn't it?

Do you honestly believe we've had 150 years of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. That, fortunately, only existed for a very, very, very short period of time. Like some in Communism fall for it's allure, we get tempted by Laissez-Faire Capitalism's allure of "unbridled wealth creation" and start sliding back. The situation is a pendulum really, and a necessary one. Should we go too far toward Communism or Capitalism we will, mark my words, destroy this country.


You can find that on slate. Please don't try to foist Bush, the man that proved "the party is all Reaganite now" off as a librul.

St. Reagan was a whore that sold out the Republican party and country for power from the political tripod Neo-Conservatives, Religious Wackjobs, and Supply-Side Morons. You earned these people, buck up for the suds.

No proof for any of your assertions, just bland Moderatism for the sake of being in the middle, and throwing out any extreme to either side as necessarily wrong. "It can't be all this and none of this, it HAS to be in the middle".

Why can't I say Bush was a Liberal? Because it would throw off your Republican = Conservative Democrat = liberal world-view?

Look up where neo-cons came from. There's a reason they are "neo", because they are big spenders. Bush was the father of the first retarded bailouts, spent billions on a stupid war to "spread democracy", just like one of the favorites of modern liberalism, Woodrow Wilson.



Wilson. A favorite of modern Liberalism. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!
 
2009-02-19 09:10:44 PM  
PascalsGhost: Listerine: inglixthemad: Listerine: inglixthemad: godofusa.com: AspectRatio: godofusa.com: i196.photobucket.com

You probably believe the fairy tale that Candyland Laissez-Faire Capitalism would work. That's as cute as a Cotton Candy Communist believe that it will work. Of course the destruction you both cause is staggering.


LOL at a picture of Bush as a "capitalist". Free Market capitalism really screwed America during the first 150 years of its existence didn't it?

Do you honestly believe we've had 150 years of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. That, fortunately, only existed for a very, very, very short period of time. Like some in Communism fall for it's allure, we get tempted by Laissez-Faire Capitalism's allure of "unbridled wealth creation" and start sliding back. The situation is a pendulum really, and a necessary one. Should we go too far toward Communism or Capitalism we will, mark my words, destroy this country.


You can find that on slate. Please don't try to foist Bush, the man that proved "the party is all Reaganite now" off as a librul.

St. Reagan was a whore that sold out the Republican party and country for power from the political tripod Neo-Conservatives, Religious Wackjobs, and Supply-Side Morons. You earned these people, buck up for the suds.

No proof for any of your assertions, just bland Moderatism for the sake of being in the middle, and throwing out any extreme to either side as necessarily wrong. "It can't be all this and none of this, it HAS to be in the middle".

Why can't I say Bush was a Liberal? Because it would throw off your Republican = Conservative Democrat = liberal world-view?

Look up where neo-cons came from. There's a reason they are "neo", because they are big spenders. Bush was the father of the first retarded bailouts, spent billions on a stupid war to "spread democracy", just like one of the favorites of modern liberalism, Woodrow Wilson.



Wilson. A favorite of modern Liberalism. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!


Look up how many wars we've started in the name of liberating people to democracy. Go ahead, look it up.
 
2009-02-19 09:14:20 PM  
Listerine: PascalsGhost: Listerine: inglixthemad: Listerine: inglixthemad: godofusa.com: AspectRatio: godofusa.com: i196.photobucket.com

You probably believe the fairy tale that Candyland Laissez-Faire Capitalism would work. That's as cute as a Cotton Candy Communist believe that it will work. Of course the destruction you both cause is staggering.


LOL at a picture of Bush as a "capitalist". Free Market capitalism really screwed America during the first 150 years of its existence didn't it?

Do you honestly believe we've had 150 years of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. That, fortunately, only existed for a very, very, very short period of time. Like some in Communism fall for it's allure, we get tempted by Laissez-Faire Capitalism's allure of "unbridled wealth creation" and start sliding back. The situation is a pendulum really, and a necessary one. Should we go too far toward Communism or Capitalism we will, mark my words, destroy this country.


You can find that on slate. Please don't try to foist Bush, the man that proved "the party is all Reaganite now" off as a librul.

St. Reagan was a whore that sold out the Republican party and country for power from the political tripod Neo-Conservatives, Religious Wackjobs, and Supply-Side Morons. You earned these people, buck up for the suds.

No proof for any of your assertions, just bland Moderatism for the sake of being in the middle, and throwing out any extreme to either side as necessarily wrong. "It can't be all this and none of this, it HAS to be in the middle".

Why can't I say Bush was a Liberal? Because it would throw off your Republican = Conservative Democrat = liberal world-view?

Look up where neo-cons came from. There's a reason they are "neo", because they are big spenders. Bush was the father of the first retarded bailouts, spent billions on a stupid war to "spread democracy", just like one of the favorites of modern liberalism, Woodrow Wilson.



Wilson. A favorite of modern Liberalism. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!

Look up how many wars we've started in the name of liberating people to democracy. Go ahead, look it up.


No, no, I know we have. Right and left.

That doesn't change the fact that refering to a guy who was president almost 100 years ago as a "favorite of modern liberalism" is simply hilarious in its foolishness.

U.S. politics isn't even near the same beast as 100 years ago. Comparisons at all are foolish, but that one was a whopper.
 
2009-02-19 09:15:02 PM  
DslainteC: I can't seem to get the video to work in IE or FF.

This is a little late to the party and pretty much off-topic, but I just thought I'd shed some light on this.

I've been running into this same problem with flash on several varying sites. Flash will work fine on some, not at all on others. I tracked down what it was.

The problem lies with the embedded advertisements in the playlist. This CNBC video for instance uses a playlist that plays an ad first, loaded from http://ad.doubleclick.net/. You watch the ad, then advance to the next thing in the playlist, the linked video.

Problem is, if you have any type of HOSTS file protection, then that video will never load. Using Spybot's "Immunize" function for instance will edit your HOSTS file with ad and tracking cookie spyware sites and redirect to 127.0.0.1 (your own computer). Or there are separate HOSTS file lists you can download, much like downloading an adblock filter list for firefox.

Those sites in the HOSTS file that are directed to loop back to 127.0.0.1 will never connect to the site itself, therefore you don't get ads/cookies/harmful stuff whatever. As an offshoot though, the ad like this one on CNBC will never play and the playlist will never advance to the actual video.

You can confirm this by doing a search on your computer for the HOSTS file, opening it up in notepad, and seeing if doubleclick is in there. Since Akamai and edgefcs.net (streaming flash hosts) seem to use doubleclick a lot, any site using this ad--> video flash playlist scheme won't work for you. You can delete it from the HOSTS file and restart your computer if you want, or just find alternative sources like the youtube link posted above.

Thought people with similar trouble would like to know.
 
2009-02-19 09:16:48 PM  
PascalsGhost: U.S. politics isn't even near the same beast as 100 years ago. Comparisons at all are foolish, but that one was a whopper.

Ahhhh its ghost, do you like how the dems are giving back the seats before its even summer time?

This is why you should never say a political party is dead, there are a ton of people pissed off about this bullshiat, now argue with yourself some more about how the repubs are dead. You are the only one that believes that.
 
2009-02-19 09:19:27 PM  
PascalsGhost: Listerine: PascalsGhost: Listerine: inglixthemad: Listerine: inglixthemad: godofusa.com: AspectRatio: godofusa.com: i196.photobucket.com

You probably believe the fairy tale that Candyland Laissez-Faire Capitalism would work. That's as cute as a Cotton Candy Communist believe that it will work. Of course the destruction you both cause is staggering.


LOL at a picture of Bush as a "capitalist". Free Market capitalism really screwed America during the first 150 years of its existence didn't it?

Do you honestly believe we've had 150 years of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. That, fortunately, only existed for a very, very, very short period of time. Like some in Communism fall for it's allure, we get tempted by Laissez-Faire Capitalism's allure of "unbridled wealth creation" and start sliding back. The situation is a pendulum really, and a necessary one. Should we go too far toward Communism or Capitalism we will, mark my words, destroy this country.


You can find that on slate. Please don't try to foist Bush, the man that proved "the party is all Reaganite now" off as a librul.

St. Reagan was a whore that sold out the Republican party and country for power from the political tripod Neo-Conservatives, Religious Wackjobs, and Supply-Side Morons. You earned these people, buck up for the suds.

No proof for any of your assertions, just bland Moderatism for the sake of being in the middle, and throwing out any extreme to either side as necessarily wrong. "It can't be all this and none of this, it HAS to be in the middle".

Why can't I say Bush was a Liberal? Because it would throw off your Republican = Conservative Democrat = liberal world-view?

Look up where neo-cons came from. There's a reason they are "neo", because they are big spenders. Bush was the father of the first retarded bailouts, spent billions on a stupid war to "spread democracy", just like one of the favorites of modern liberalism, Woodrow Wilson.



Wilson. A favorite of modern Liberalism. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!

Look up how many wars we've started in the name of liberating people to democracy. Go ahead, look it up.

No, no, I know we have. Right and left.

That doesn't change the fact that refering to a guy who was president almost 100 years ago as a "favorite of modern liberalism" is simply hilarious in its foolishness.

U.S. politics isn't even near the same beast as 100 years ago. Comparisons at all are foolish, but that one was a whopper.


Abraham Lincoln was killed 144 years ago, but people still use him as inspiration. FDR more recently is constantly referenced as the benchmark (unfortunately) for what a wartime/depressiontime president should be.

Drawing inspiration and motivation from long past presidents isn't unusual, and the fact that the U.S's policy of interventionism only began in earnest with Wilson is no laughing matter if his philosophy caused a new public mindset which has stayed essentially the same throughout the years. Old mindset: "let's mind our own business" New mindset "let's liberate the downtrodden". Simplified, but that's how political sloganeering works and it's what gets the public behind policy.
 
2009-02-19 09:20:01 PM  
godofusa.com FTW!
 
2009-02-19 09:21:58 PM  
steamingpile: Ahhhh its ghost, do you like how the dems are giving back the seats before its even summer time?

This is why you should never say a political party is dead, there are a ton of people pissed off about this bullshiat, now argue with yourself some more about how the repubs are dead. You are the only one that believes that.This is why you should never say a political party is dead, there


I'm sorry? Seats back? Huh?


Republicanism is dead. Many moderates realize it and left or retired. Everything they do digs them deeper. Its like a bad dream. The new "black dude" that they got running is the biggest power in history and , even though I don't know how it would be possible, going to drive minorities and young people eeven further away. Holding CA hostage until the last minute will now get the 2/3 requiremnent overturned, leaving a weak CA party completely impotent for the foreseable future.

Its over, LOL. You few holdouts ride it out though. Don't be smart and start and intelligent party. Don't you dare do that.


Democrats will eventually fukk up. Republicans won't be the ones to fill the void. Again, it will be interesting to see what politcal powers show up.
 
2009-02-19 09:23:43 PM  
Listerine: PascalsGhost: Listerine: PascalsGhost: Listerine: inglixthemad: Listerine: inglixthemad: godofusa.com: AspectRatio: godofusa.com: i196.photobucket.com

You probably believe the fairy tale that Candyland Laissez-Faire Capitalism would work. That's as cute as a Cotton Candy Communist believe that it will work. Of course the destruction you both cause is staggering.


LOL at a picture of Bush as a "capitalist". Free Market capitalism really screwed America during the first 150 years of its existence didn't it?

Do you honestly believe we've had 150 years of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. That, fortunately, only existed for a very, very, very short period of time. Like some in Communism fall for it's allure, we get tempted by Laissez-Faire Capitalism's allure of "unbridled wealth creation" and start sliding back. The situation is a pendulum really, and a necessary one. Should we go too far toward Communism or Capitalism we will, mark my words, destroy this country.


You can find that on slate. Please don't try to foist Bush, the man that proved "the party is all Reaganite now" off as a librul.

St. Reagan was a whore that sold out the Republican party and country for power from the political tripod Neo-Conservatives, Religious Wackjobs, and Supply-Side Morons. You earned these people, buck up for the suds.

No proof for any of your assertions, just bland Moderatism for the sake of being in the middle, and throwing out any extreme to either side as necessarily wrong. "It can't be all this and none of this, it HAS to be in the middle".

Why can't I say Bush was a Liberal? Because it would throw off your Republican = Conservative Democrat = liberal world-view?

Look up where neo-cons came from. There's a reason they are "neo", because they are big spenders. Bush was the father of the first retarded bailouts, spent billions on a stupid war to "spread democracy", just like one of the favorites of modern liberalism, Woodrow Wilson.



Wilson. A favorite of modern Liberalism. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!

Look up how many wars we've started in the name of liberating people to democracy. Go ahead, look it up.

No, no, I know we have. Right and left.

That doesn't change the fact that refering to a guy who was president almost 100 years ago as a "favorite of modern liberalism" is simply hilarious in its foolishness.

U.S. politics isn't even near the same beast as 100 years ago. Comparisons at all are foolish, but that one was a whopper.

Abraham Lincoln was killed 144 years ago, but people still use him as inspiration. FDR more recently is constantly referenced as the benchmark (unfortunately) for what a wartime/depressiontime president should be.

Drawing inspiration and motivation from long past presidents isn't unusual, and the fact that the U.S's policy of interventionism only began in earnest with Wilson is no laughing matter if his philosophy caused a new public mindset which has stayed essentially the same throughout the years. Old mindset: "let's mind our own business" New mindset "let's liberate the downtrodden". Simplified, but that's how political sloganeering works and it's what gets the public behind policy.


I accept all this, but "liberal", "conservative", "Republican", "progressive", ect all simply don't translate well in U.S. politics through the decades. They have such different meanings in what were such different worlds that such comparisons are foolish as Hell.
 
2009-02-19 09:24:00 PM  
asmith993: And yet you still have $5 per month for total fark, a computer and internet access. Interesting.

THIS!

/America's poor are so well off
 
2009-02-19 09:25:07 PM  
soy_bomb: asmith993: And yet you still have $5 per month for total fark, a computer and internet access. Interesting.

THIS!

/America's poor are so well off


Fukking poor, always biatching when they have it so good.

Filthy, dumbass poor.
 
2009-02-19 09:26:48 PM  
Washington is great at spending money they don't have. The part of the population that benefits is thrilled and the other part waits 4-8 years until they get their turn to benefit, all the while everyone gets their jollies complaining about the opposite party.

It's too bad we all get to suffer when we start paying 15 bucks for a loaf of bread.
 
2009-02-19 09:29:02 PM  
PascalsGhost: Listerine: PascalsGhost: Listerine: PascalsGhost: Listerine: inglixthemad: Listerine: inglixthemad: godofusa.com: AspectRatio: godofusa.com: i196.photobucket.com

You probably believe the fairy tale that Candyland Laissez-Faire Capitalism would work. That's as cute as a Cotton Candy Communist believe that it will work. Of course the destruction you both cause is staggering.


LOL at a picture of Bush as a "capitalist". Free Market capitalism really screwed America during the first 150 years of its existence didn't it?

Do you honestly believe we've had 150 years of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. That, fortunately, only existed for a very, very, very short period of time. Like some in Communism fall for it's allure, we get tempted by Laissez-Faire Capitalism's allure of "unbridled wealth creation" and start sliding back. The situation is a pendulum really, and a necessary one. Should we go too far toward Communism or Capitalism we will, mark my words, destroy this country.


You can find that on slate. Please don't try to foist Bush, the man that proved "the party is all Reaganite now" off as a librul.

St. Reagan was a whore that sold out the Republican party and country for power from the political tripod Neo-Conservatives, Religious Wackjobs, and Supply-Side Morons. You earned these people, buck up for the suds.

No proof for any of your assertions, just bland Moderatism for the sake of being in the middle, and throwing out any extreme to either side as necessarily wrong. "It can't be all this and none of this, it HAS to be in the middle".

Why can't I say Bush was a Liberal? Because it would throw off your Republican = Conservative Democrat = liberal world-view?

Look up where neo-cons came from. There's a reason they are "neo", because they are big spenders. Bush was the father of the first retarded bailouts, spent billions on a stupid war to "spread democracy", just like one of the favorites of modern liberalism, Woodrow Wilson.



Wilson. A favorite of modern Liberalism. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!

Look up how many wars we've started in the name of liberating people to democracy. Go ahead, look it up.

No, no, I know we have. Right and left.

That doesn't change the fact that refering to a guy who was president almost 100 years ago as a "favorite of modern liberalism" is simply hilarious in its foolishness.

U.S. politics isn't even near the same beast as 100 years ago. Comparisons at all are foolish, but that one was a whopper.

Abraham Lincoln was killed 144 years ago, but people still use him as inspiration. FDR more recently is constantly referenced as the benchmark (unfortunately) for what a wartime/depressiontime president should be.

Drawing inspiration and motivation from long past presidents isn't unusual, and the fact that the U.S's policy of interventionism only began in earnest with Wilson is no laughing matter if his philosophy caused a new public mindset which has stayed essentially the same throughout the years. Old mindset: "let's mind our own business" New mindset "let's liberate the downtrodden". Simplified, but that's how political sloganeering works and it's what gets the public behind policy.

I accept all this, but "liberal", "conservative", "Republican", "progressive", ect all simply don't translate well in U.S. politics through the decades. They have such different meanings in what were such different worlds that such comparisons are foolish as Hell.


shades of difference in some cases, and large in others. That ideas evolve and develop doesn't change the fact that they had at some point an inspiration, and that inspiration is much closer to the current product than the opposition to that current product, if there is one. The problem is that the idea of universal democratic liberation is so pervasive that support for it is constant, but only when one's own party supports it, which essentially makes parties a meaningless distinction, and mere preference, save a few individuals with principals who are trying to desperately save what their party once stood for, and what it claims in vain to stand for now. It's a losing battle.
 
2009-02-19 09:34:04 PM  
soy_bomb: THIS!

/America's poor are so well off


He could be a sponsored TF'er working in the library.

Most likely, he's living with family. People that don't have family are really screwed.
 
2009-02-19 09:40:29 PM  
Listerine: What if that's the problem, that we've based an entire economy on telling people they have some American Dream right to buy a home? Should we entrench that lie by letting people who can't afford to live in a home leech off taxpayers, or should we let it sort itself out, and then start over again.

Normally you would be preaching to the choir, but I think we have to stave off the day of reckoning for a year or two, because otherwise the collapse is going to be on a level we simply can't deal with.

Like, it would get to the point that we can't start over again. If you are lucky enough to own everything you have outright, that is fantastic. But even if you aren't carrying bad debt (credit cards, payday loans) I suspect you probably carry a mortgage or a student loan. If the whole economy gets to the point that you simply can't pay it anymore, and everybody else is in your same position, then we're farked.

Banks can't eat unlimited losses. If the Fed steps in to calm everything down until the markets pick back up then there are quite a few people who don't have to stiff their loans.

Hopefully, the smart ones will realize it sucked and plan accordingly. The stupid ones will find themselves in trouble again in due time.
 
2009-02-19 09:49:25 PM  
nashBridges: Listerine: What if that's the problem, that we've based an entire economy on telling people they have some American Dream right to buy a home? Should we entrench that lie by letting people who can't afford to live in a home leech off taxpayers, or should we let it sort itself out, and then start over again.

Normally you would be preaching to the choir, but I think we have to stave off the day of reckoning for a year or two, because otherwise the collapse is going to be on a level we simply can't deal with.

Like, it would get to the point that we can't start over again. If you are lucky enough to own everything you have outright, that is fantastic. But even if you aren't carrying bad debt (credit cards, payday loans) I suspect you probably carry a mortgage or a student loan. If the whole economy gets to the point that you simply can't pay it anymore, and everybody else is in your same position, then we're farked.

Banks can't eat unlimited losses. If the Fed steps in to calm everything down until the markets pick back up then there are quite a few people who don't have to stiff their loans.

Hopefully, the smart ones will realize it sucked and plan accordingly. The stupid ones will find themselves in trouble again in due time.


But it's like putting bubble gum in the hole in the Titantic. It's pointless. The Fed will just screw it up more. We need the collapse to restart. It's tragic that it has come to this, but the inability of politicians to accept pain and their desire to spend away every problem on earth is finally coming back to bite, and letting it happen will be about as gentle of a landing as we can get. The alternative would be for the government to destroy the currency, which would be far worse. I just have no confidence that the government can solve any problem that it has created. The market could, if it weren't stifled.
 
2009-02-19 10:18:05 PM  
Greatness.
 
2009-02-19 10:19:47 PM  
nashBridges: soy_bomb: THIS!

/America's poor are so well off

He could be a sponsored TF'er working in the library.

Most likely, he's living with family. People that don't have family are really screwed.


Let's ask him then,

1. Are you a sponsored TF'er?
2. Are you on a computer you own?
3. Are you online using public internet access?
4. Have you ever left your mom's basement?
5. Have you ever seen me leave your mom's bedroom?
6. Have you done anything to find a job (notice I said a job, not your dream job)
7. Are you the new czarangelas?
 
2009-02-19 10:20:23 PM  
When a forest gets totally out of balance, it burns down and resets itself.

Our economy is trying to do this. To sweep all the losers aside in one gesture.

But somehow, we fear the fire so much, we continue to do everything to prevent it from happening.

If you do this to a forest, you can stop fire for a few more years, but when it does eventually come, it will burn so intensly it kills *everything there*.

We're now trying to stop the healthy fire we're supposed to have, and setting ourselves up for food lines, looting, and real hardship worldwide.

We should just let the losers lose, and then let them try it again.

In a normal system, this is healthy to do.
 
2009-02-19 10:22:19 PM  
Wizzin: eeyoreptz1: My own opinion is that the mortgage plan is just another way to bail out the banks.

I usually hate conspiracy theories, but this one I buy. A lot of these big banks are worth less than the amount of money we have poured into them and yet we keep propping them up. There are thousands of well run banks in this country. I fail to see any reason why we can't let them take the place of the so called "big banks". Other than the fact that these well run banks aren't buddy/buddy with the politicians and the Goldman Sachs' of the world.


Banking is a funny business. Banks are worth both much more and much less than what we poured in. Banks are worth what they loan out, not what so much is put in.
Those "well run" little banks are a part of the system, not apart from the system. They are safe in that the terrible big banks got their back. Now that the big banks are flinching, people demand banks to be worth what is put in and there isn't that money anywhere. That's basically why the baillout. Gov't comes up with 8b to pump in not from nowhere (fiat), but borrows it from you and me. Since we loan it through our representatives, it's real.
/don't have a clue
 
2009-02-19 10:26:04 PM  
what the heck is wrong you free market people? why don't you, the invisible hand, and ayn rand go have a threesome in the corner while people actually try something to fix this mess (the one the free market created and cannot fix on its own)

for a laissez faire market to function well, the heads of industry need to be actual stewards of business- that means looking at the long term health of a company and all of its obligations (to self, shareholders, employees, and society at large)

Instead the captains of the private sector have been stewards of their own compensation and the greedy needs of shareholders' expectations of unreasonable and unsustainable returns

Capitalism is broken and needs realigning- untouched, the psychology perpetuating the problem remains, and the trend continues- whether keynes was right or wrong the problem of confidence stays central.

that commentator was farcical... representative group of who? white male floor traders? we all rise on the backs of others whether we like it or not...reaching down to help some up is not coddling... it is good citizenship

I (as an frikkin atheist even) remind you of the parable of the good samaritan- recall that after the man was (deceived and) robbed of his belongings all of the ideologues passed him by without lifting a finger- it was up to another traveling stranger to be the moral compass

so how's that three way going?... ayn likes a little reach around- but she's willing to work hard for it and pay fair market value
 
2009-02-19 10:33:00 PM  
studebaker hoch: When a forest gets totally out of balance, it burns down and resets itself.
Our economy is trying to do this. To sweep all the losers aside in one gesture.
But somehow, we fear the fire so much, we continue to do everything to prevent it from happening.
If you do this to a forest, you can stop fire for a few more years, but when it does eventually come, it will burn so intensly it kills *everything there*.
We're now trying to stop the healthy fire we're supposed to have, and setting ourselves up for food lines, looting, and real hardship worldwide.
We should just let the losers lose, and then let them try it again.
In a normal system, this is healthy to do.


An economy however is not a normal system. Furthermore the losers include people, guilty and not. "Won't somebody think of the Children?!" Seriously, culling the herd laissez-faire style is not an ethical option. I think someone already posted an Ayn Rand meme.
/I prolly shouldn't get involved as I know jack about this stuff. (like most of us)
 
2009-02-19 10:34:44 PM  
Fark Me To Tears: Too bad we don't have a [RETARD] tag.

What an asshole.

He assumes that all of the foreclosures are due to people buying more house than they could afford. He is completely ignoring the fact that a lot of people who are defaulting are doing so because they've been laid off and can't find work or can't find another job paying enough to help them keep the house. If he wants to punish the people in that situation, then he is a complete dumbass.

Being long-term unemployed myself, I normally wouldn't wish it on anybody else, but he's so goddamned sure of himself, I'm going to make an exception: I'd like to see his ass without a job for an extended period of time, drawing state unemployment benefits and unable to make his mortgage payments, having to listen to some righteously selfish blowhard like himself on TV talking about how people like him are losers and don't deserve to be helped out. In fact, I wish this on everybody who was in the trading pit cheering the asshat on. Every last one of them.


Get a farking job. If you think it's "below you" to get ANY job, I have a surprise for you: it's above you. WHOA

/cheesemonger
//11.50/hr, 25% off everything in the store, health insurance, etc..
///fark you
 
2009-02-19 10:35:57 PM  
etant_donne: what the heck is wrong you free market people?...

thank-you.
 
2009-02-19 10:37:33 PM  
asmith993: nashBridges: soy_bomb: THIS!

/America's poor are so well off

He could be a sponsored TF'er working in the library.

Most likely, he's living with family. People that don't have family are really screwed.

Let's ask him then,

1. Are you a sponsored TF'er?
2. Are you on a computer you own?
3. Are you online using public internet access?
4. Have you ever left your mom's basement?
5. Have you ever seen me leave your mom's bedroom?
6. Have you done anything to find a job (notice I said a job, not your dream job)
7. Are you the new czarangelas?


It's impressive you can tell so much about a random poster by sensing the force-fields coming through the intertubes...

I mean god forbid someone's who been unemployed through no fault of their own and every fault of the people who have run this country into the ground be allowed to provide a different viewpoint than one your small network of recluse friends hanging out in the VIP room of your local country club can provide. (hey maybe your hiring practices are farking up the economy too...)
 
2009-02-19 10:42:29 PM  
swr2000: Traders of the floor of the CBOE were cheering when he said that we shouldn't be bailing out those that weren't responsible.

blog.joins.com

Deserve's got nothin' to do with it...

Has Joe Sixpack been selfish and irresponsible? Maybe so, but he's getting a bailout for the same reason the selfish and irresponsible bankers are getting one... not because it's the moral thing to do but because the alternative is even worse. The "Bank of Joe Sixpack" accounts for many, many billions of dollars of economic activity. If it/they go belly up and drop out of the economy, the consequences will be just as grim as what happens if we lose a bank like AIG, BoA, or Citi...
 
2009-02-19 10:46:57 PM  
Leonard Washington: asmith993: nashBridges: soy_bomb: THIS!

/America's poor are so well off

He could be a sponsored TF'er working in the library.

Most likely, he's living with family. People that don't have family are really screwed.

Let's ask him then,

1. Are you a sponsored TF'er?
2. Are you on a computer you own?
3. Are you online using public internet access?
4. Have you ever left your mom's basement?
5. Have you ever seen me leave your mom's bedroom?
6. Have you done anything to find a job (notice I said a job, not your dream job)
7. Are you the new czarangelas?

It's impressive you can tell so much about a random poster by sensing the force-fields coming through the intertubes...

I mean god forbid someone's who been unemployed through no fault of their own and every fault of the people who have run this country into the ground be allowed to provide a different viewpoint than one your small network of recluse friends hanging out in the VIP room of your local country club can provide. (hey maybe your hiring practices are farking up the economy too...)


Hey Leonard,

If one is going to biatch about being unemployed, and expect any sympathy, they had better make sure they are making a good faith effort to fix their situation. Sitting around blaming the worlds problems on fark (while paying $5 per month) is not going to earn any sympathy.

As for the implication that I am sitting in a VIP room at the country club, see your first point about knowing random posters.
 
2009-02-19 10:48:27 PM  
studebaker hoch: We're now trying to stop the healthy fire we're supposed to have, and setting ourselves up for food lines, looting, and real hardship worldwide.

The healthy fire your asking for would give you exactly what you say you're trying to avoid. We are on the verge of not having a functioning banking system. Do you understand what would happen to the broader economy if one or two or three of this country's largest banks stopped working? To your list of consequences I'll add martial law in some cities and rations as things that will happen if this spins out of control.

Instead of looking at this as a bailout of deadbeats see it for what it equally is: bailing out shareholders from the irresponsible risks of those they bestowed with fiduciary duties. At least as important a motivation for the housing stimulus as keeping people in their homes, is to keep banks whole on their dumbass loans. Why some most people fail direct the blame to those that had both the responsibility to prevent this from happening and reaped far greater rewards from failing to live up to it, mystifies me.

/on second thought, no it doesn't. It's because of shills like the one in TFV.
 
2009-02-19 10:50:11 PM  
Fuggin Bizzy: That's the most interesting thing I've ever seen on CNBC. Ever. He's loud like Jim Cramer, but he's smarter than a nickel.

Dime bags are a better value.
 
2009-02-19 10:51:44 PM  
Branch Dravidian: Has Joe Sixpack been selfish and irresponsible? Maybe so, but he's getting a bailout for the same reason the selfish and irresponsible bankers are getting one... not because it's the moral thing to do but because the alternative is even worse.

Says you. I'd take my chances with not rewarding retard homeowners. Something tells me they'll go on renting, some deserving family will buy their retarded house, and they'll all live happily ever after. And maybe the retard former owners will learn to live like non-retards and will benefit themselves and society. That is change you should believe in.
 
2009-02-19 10:51:51 PM  
Leonard,

Another thing, "long term unemployed" was what really got me going. If they had just lost their job, well damn, that does suck. Go out, get hammered, spend a week in your own misery...I get that. But if you are long term unemployed you need to be doing something about it. Start flipping burgers, move to where the jobs are, cut off all non-essential bills (cable, total fark etc...)
 
2009-02-19 10:53:10 PM  
Branch Dravidian:

Imagine I just said that with a Clint Eastwood voice.
 
2009-02-19 10:54:12 PM  
asmith993:
Hey Leonard,

If one is going to biatch about being unemployed, and expect any sympathy, they had better make sure they are making a good faith effort to fix their situation. Sitting around blaming the worlds problems on fark (while paying $5 per month) is not going to earn any sympathy.


Maybe the subscription was given by someone who felt bad for him... you know someone who has what you don't have... a heart.

As for the implication that I am sitting in a VIP room at the country club, see your first point about knowing random posters.

My powers are stronger than yours...
 
2009-02-19 11:15:26 PM  
etant_donne: what the heck is wrong you free market people? why don't you, the invisible hand, and ayn rand go have a threesome in the corner while people actually try something to fix this mess (the one the free market created and cannot fix on its own)

It's a tragedy that everybody gets to vote. Honestly, we should limit it to taxpaying landowners.

Where to start...

How about with Dodd, Frank, Rangel, and that community agititor oops, "organizer" Obama forcing the banks to make bad loans lest they block their applications for new branches, acquisitions, etc.

Sprinkle in a good measure of Bush/Paulson socialism. Enough said there.

Elect a left wing Marxist/Socialist government.

And the glue that holds it all together...our Chinese fianciers, who undoubtedly held a gun to the head of Bush and now Obama, that they will cease to fund our national debt if they are forced to take losses on their CMO portfolio, or anything else they happened to invest in.

READ BETWEEN THE LINES YOU IDIOTS.

Bush, and now Obama are shiatting themselves with "urgency" "crisis" "catastrophic" etc. because they have been told in no uncertain terms by the Chinese that if they take losses in their portfolio, the party is over. Get it now?

Imagine a treasury auction failing? Or interest rates suddently bid up to 20%? We're there folks.

You can make all the tinfoil accusations you like. But if you remember this post, you will predict tomorrow's news with astonishing accuracy.

The people who are funding our national debt are not going to take losses. Everything they are invested in will be bailed out.

Just watch.
 
2009-02-19 11:17:38 PM  
When you're right, you're right.
 
2009-02-19 11:22:40 PM  
fark this guy. All his irresponsible trader and executive friends on Wall St, meanwhile, get billions with no strings attached and proceed to spend it on big-kid frat parties. Oh, but homeowners, yes while irresponsible too, don't deserve any help. Which is worse: a few tens of thousands of unemployed Wall Steeters, or 4 million more foreclosures that are sure to bankrupt the financial system and cripple social programs?

This douchebags friends were part of the initial problem, and now he and everyone else that cheered wants to walk away like they had nothing to do with this mess. Man, fark you, DIAF.
 
2009-02-19 11:23:04 PM  
God what a twat. He makes Cramer look sane.
 
2009-02-19 11:24:22 PM  
All this means is that Obama hasn't a freaking clue as to what he's doing. He's a fake, a flop, a snake oil salesman. He's not going to fail--he's already failed! He's a McChimpy HUSSEIN Empty Suit. A socialist without a country. He needs to go back to organizing bingo games for ACORN. He's -- hey, I like this Obama Derangement Syndrome!
 
2009-02-19 11:26:14 PM  
PascalsGhost: Republicanism is dead. Many moderates realize it and left or retired. Everything they do digs them deeper. Its like a bad dream. The new "black dude" that they got running is the biggest power in history and , even though I don't know how it would be possible, going to drive minorities and young people eeven further away. Holding CA hostage until the last minute will now get the 2/3 requiremnent overturned, leaving a weak CA party completely impotent for the foreseable future.

Its over, LOL. You few holdouts ride it out though. Don't be smart and start and intelligent party. Don't you dare do that.


The biggest thing you are not seeing is that the dems acting like this have made it clear they are done, hopefully it will a real republican party and not the ones that have been around lately. But you can bet that the dems are going to lose massive seats in both sides in the next elections if shiat like this goes through because it does nothing that st obama and the left said they would get accomplished.

You need to get outside your bubble, the change has started with obama supporters that were middle of the road and even with die hard obama people, hell one of our acquaintances told me the other day that hes starting to think like the rest of us. Neither party gives a shiat about the people and are just in it to be in power.

All these bills are doing will be to gimp the economy even more and take us back to carter levels of inflation, hes following the playbook precisely and its going to fark it up for every one. Obama has no plan, hes a dud if this is the best hes got.
 
Displayed 50 of 249 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report