So the unlucky schmucks who are unable to pay their mortgages because they were laid off due to the sheer incompetence of their employers and a struggling economy shouldn't be assisted? And who says this? A bunch of white collar types who had the good fortune NOT to be laid off? What a bunch of self-righteous, selfish bastards. Screw Santelli...
Well, maybe if they hadn't lied on the loan app., and re-financed 3 times in 4 years, and took the trip to Hawaii, and bought his and hers BWMs and the 52" LCD TV, they might have saved enough money to continue making their mortgage payment. If they can't make the mortgage payment, then let them rent.
Typical handout mentality babble. Yes I do feel bad for as you say "the unlucky schmucks" who are unable to pay their mortgage. But is that really my problem? I am working harder than ever to make less money than I did previously ... I can't carry their load and mine while my legs are being cut out from beneath me. Life is unfair ... always has been, always will be. I feel compassion for all the people who have lost their homes, even the idiots who bought way out of their league. But how much more burden are we going to put on the backs of those who get knocked down everyday but keep getting back up?
Santelli is the smartest guy on cnbc, hes the only reason I watch cnbc. They should have him on more often, get him to replace steve liesman or that useless blond guy.
Excellent point. I might be wrong about this, but I would suggest that the correlation between Wall Street and Main Street went out the window about 6 months ago with Paulson's TARP and all of the bonuses that people such as John Thain gave out even though they ran their company into the ground.
I think that some of you guys are missing the point of the Housing Plan, or what was discussed as the Barron's Plan. This homeowner bailout isnât really even aimed at easing peopleâs suffering. Itâs aimed at the BANKS, whose downward spiral will not stop until the housing market stabilizes. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10090 No hysterics, no over the top showmanship, no irrational anger. Just a very frank and honest economic discussion.
Excellent, Landis. The entire idea is to price houses. Find the bottom. Then all the derivatives based on those prices can be priced. Losses can be calculated and other related assets priced. I still think our system is broken, though, and all these crazies here who think that by letting things hit rock bottom, everything will miraculously rebound, haven't taken an economics class or educated themselves in any way about the reality of economic systems. And not just ours, but all the systems that have been used throughout history. By the way, I'm NOT saying that hitting bottom isn't the answer. I'm saying that if rock bottom is total collapse of the system, then we need to intervene in some way. And I'm not some liberal looking for a handout, but I'm a conservative who's looking around and seeing an incredible global collapse. Traders aren't immune. Look at volume. In general, there is less trading and there are less traders.
You would think most traders on this board could see past their own noses, but apparently they are unable. Even IF traders were somehow immune, I'm not looking at current circumstance for my own well-being. I see friends and family suffering, and I know how much worse it can get. It still surprises me when I talk to people not directly involved with finance. They have no concept of where we could be in the next couple years. And, like you, I'm not some liberal looking for a handout. I'll be just fine. I already have a plan B, and I'm quite self sufficient. Others around me are not quite so lucky and have no clue about the potential shit storm headed their way.
The legislation that allowed for credit default swaps to become a $70 TRILLION DOLLAR NIGHTMARE - - - without any regulation/oversight, or the transparency of being traded on an exchange and cleared via a clearing house . . . came from none other than Republican de-regulator, Phil "Enron" Gramm via the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which passed through Congress without even a committee hearing or a recorded vote. Again, I don't think that the point is about individuals paying their mortgages or being upside/down as much as it is about the BANKS. Several very LARGE banks are currently insolvent. If you stand idly bye and allow them to go under, you are going to not only subject other banks to "runs" and total panic and chaos, but also to Lehman Brothers-Part II x's 1000 due to the counter-party risk. If they don't go under and are somehow able to stay "afloat", they will most likely become the kind of "Zombie" banks that we saw help create the stagflation long decade of Japan in the 90's. Some form of Govt. intervention is necessary at this point and time, in my opinion . . . and that will most likely include some form of loan modification if not an actual reduction in the face-value of mortgage principle. To argue otherwise, is to simply say that we are willing to do nothing and stand pat - - - virtually guaranteeing a total collapse of the banking system and an economic Depression. I fear that the comments posted earlier in this thread by Volcker and Soros are spot on.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/20/business/20090220-lend-graphic.html Not a bad deal for the "investor" in the graphic, hmmm? Put up 8%, $8 is thier max loss in a default. Lets just all continue to get ripped off with more gov't schemes.Keep the games going.