Home > Opinion > Mary Kate Cary > Rick Santelli Rant on Unjust Democrat Bailouts Hit the Nail on the Head

Rick Santelli Rant on Unjust Democrat Bailouts Hit the Nail on the Head

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Stewart didn't single out Cramer. In fact he was just as critical of Rick Santeli the entire fast money staff and well as Maria Bartiromo, Carl Quintalilla. One of Stewart's best quotes was when he paraphrased Bartiromo saying "It's amazing we've had a lot of executives on who say the same thing, that, in fact, their businesses are doing okay."
Stewart followed the Bartiromo clip with: "That is amazing. I mean these CEOs saying their own businesses are doing okay! I mean, it makes sense to take the CEO's word for it. For instance, I know O.J. Simpson. He told me that he didn't kill anybody, and he should know—he was there!"
We turn to CNBC because we want to hear an investigative journalism feature. If CNBC's reporters are just reporting the words of CEOs as the gospel then the network really has no reason to exist.

ed drossman of NY 10:43PM April 13, 2009

We should all crinch at the thought of spending $75B to bailout irresponsible homeowners - but isn't home foreclosures the beast that started the big mess we are in?
Instead of dumping HUNDREDS of billions of dollars to AIG and the likes, we should spend some to fix the root of the problem. Why is it ok to bailout irresponsible banks, auto makers and insurance companies and not ok to bailout homeowners?

Rail Taf of TX 11:19AM March 05, 2009

Republican logic. Let's spend billions of dollars to re-build a country that none of us will ever go to and we'll get no return from re-building it. Lets just ignore the fact that we can't pay to invade and re-build the country. Heck our grand children and great grand children will repay the debt. But lets go crazy when Obama wants to spend similar money to the money we spent in Iraq to re-building our banking system. Also lets talk about getting off oil, and winning the war against terror but continue to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC member countries/terrorists hand over fist.
Also does anyone honestly think that Bush wouldn't have signed a stimulus
bill also? Bush authorized the first tarp that went to auto companies and asked for Obama to get additional funds for the financial firms. Bush was a friend of American companies. In fact, when Bush ran for president, he promised less regulation of American companies. Of course Bush would have done exactly what Obama did. Get over yourself, if its un-American to be critical of Bush then its also un-American to be critical of Obama. Don't be two faced.

edward Drossman of NY 4:40PM February 27, 2009

so you're concerned that this new plan will spend about $75 billion working out mortgage loans with people. I don't know if this plan is a good or bad thing. But I hope you were also outraged when the $750 TARP plan was approved, and $350 billion of it spent with almost no oversight. I guess my question is are you as concerned when billions are thrown at banks, investment houses--the wizards of Wall Street who made monstrously bad decisions--as you are with individual investors who may have made bad decisions (with the help of lenders who should have known better). Or is this just me-too, boot licking at the feet of the CNBC sudden sensation?

Des Keller of NC 8:51PM February 25, 2009

It's about time someone from the media spoke out!! In fact, I am shocked he had the nerve to tell the truth. The rest of the "journalists" who are covering this administration can't stop drooling over BHO to actually write or say something factual.
Taking money from hard working Americans to subsidize others is simply SOCIALISM. BHO's entire "stimulus" package and bank bail out is SOCIALSM. NOBODY should really be surprised at this turn of events. BHO TOLD us that he thinks everyone benefits when "we spread the wealth around." - THAT is SOCIALISM.
The last time I checked the Consitution does not GUARANTEE a home as one of our rights and we live in a DEMOCRACY.
All you people out there who WANT to pay other people's mortgages can move to Cuba. SOCIALSM has worked very well there. OR you can pay my share!

Lady M of FL 5:05PM February 24, 2009

I realize that most people cheering on Rick Santelli do not own property; they are renters. What these renters do not understand is that someone does own that property which they are renting. If a house or apartment building nearby is in foreclosure(or even rumored to be), *all* of the surrounding buildings, whether houses, apartments or other, will lose value.
That lost value will keep the property owner from being able to refinance a mortgage, possibly leading a future foreclosure. Apt. renters need to understand that once a bank owns the apt. building, they can evict all renters.
Where will you live, if your landlord is foreclosed upon and you are evicted?
This could be averted, with government help to struggling mortgage holders who are in danger of foreclosure.
Remember, it is not the danger you see that is the problem; it is the danger you *dont* see.
Unfortunately, most people who support Mr. Santelli point of view are not well-enough educated to realize that they will be hurt just as much as the person who was foreclosed upon.
By all means, go ahead; let your neighbors go down the drain; just dont be surprised when your once-nice neighborhood becomes a broken-down and crime ridden.
The selfish man brings all misfortune unto himself; the self-less man is helped by those he has helped.

Peter of WA 4:45PM February 24, 2009

I like your ideas "Major of FL"., a conservative approach. I think if we don't let the market work now, we will have another adjustment later. There are unfortunately many different groups among those "needing" the the bailout. Those who lost a job should get help. Those who are retired and who were duped by the greedy mortgage marketers should get help. Those who just bought over their head (as 2 of my nieces and nephews did), should be foreclosed on and try again to be more frugal. They need this lesson! They shouldn't go on thinking they should be entitled to all the latest and greatest (cars, tv's, vacations, clothes,computers, just to name some of their extravagence), and then get bailed out because they never saved a dime. I will be paying for the rest of my working years to bailout their bad habits as well as many like them, and you will too. What message is this for their 4 spoiled kids? If they lost their house they would just have to rent. When all these houses are forclosed on there will be a lot of rentals out there.

Frugal in CA of CA 2:43PM February 24, 2009

Absolutely unfair! Santelli is right but does not have solutions! The only solution to get out of this problem is a global market based solution. Get those foreigners who buy our treasuries to buy property in the US and create a special investor immigrant visas for those who would buy million dollar properties which no other American can afford. Get the billionaire Chinese to buy up million dollar properties in Miami. Anti immigration folks such as CIS and FAIR will not like more aliens coming into the US legally or illegally. Tough luck! Beggars cannot be choosers!

George of VA 2:33PM February 24, 2009

Santelli’s simple-minded rabble rousing is not serving anyone but himself. The fact of the matter is that we are all in this together, whether we like it or not and we need to put our childish idealism aside for the time being and be practical about solving the problems facing us.
I didn’t consider it “reckless behaviour” to purchase a home with 40% down while I was working at a conservative (I thought) bank that had been in the business for 50 years through all kinds of market conditions. I luckily foresaw the downturn in the housing market in time to find a job elsewhere (at a considerable cut in salary) so I wasn’t around when my previous employer went out of business.
Now, nearing retirement, I find that my home is worth much less than I owe on it and I must scrimp in order to make the mortgage payments on my reduced income. I also know that I will not be able to sell the house for enough to pay off the mortgage for many years to come. Since I can rent for a lot less than my current house payment, I should as a “smart investor”, just walk away and rent until the foreclosure comes off of my credit report.
However, I do feel a responsibility to my neighbors and I’m willing to make a sacrifice as long as I can in order to help maintain property values in my community. In my book, that is being a good citizen and “playing by the rules.” If it so happens that my country sees fit to assist me in this effort by making it easier for me to stay in my home, then I will be grateful. Apparently, Santelli would begrudge me that relief.
The way I see it, we are all circling the drain, waiting to be sucked into the sewer and Santelli doesn’t think it’s a good idea to put a plug in the drain.

Bruce McDougall of CA 2:29PM February 24, 2009

With all of the complaints about the housing stimulus bill, it's time to look at what a conservative solution might be. Now, I do think there are flaws in what is currently being proposed. I also think there is no easy fix, or easy solution. But something must be done, and it's obvious that not everyone is going to be happy with whatever is proposed.
I have been hearing very specific complaints, by conservatives, about the current bill. For example:
--- It uses taxpayer money, and is too expensive.
--- It rewards homeowners who exercised bad judgement, and gives nothing to those who used sound
judgement.
--- It will nationalize banks, and eliminate shareholder value.
--- It does not penalize banks who participated in getting us into this mess.
The following proposal addresses ALL of the above complaints, and should be something that conservatives can give full support. It is a true bailout plan for those that need help.
We should allow homeowners, those who are actually living in their house, to walk away from the house AND the mortgage. They WILL lose whatever downpayment they made, and any equity they may have, in the house. There should also be NO entry (by law) in their credit record concerning this mortgage, and the fact that they walked away. If they already have bad credit, it will still be bad. If they happen to have good credit, it will still be good.
Now, this will allow those with decent credit a chance to later buy a "cheaper" house (especially since ALL housing values will fall drastically). In fact, if they rent for a few years and save money, they might even be able to buy a house comparable to what they had, for cash. It will certainly penalize banks who put us in this mess. And it will let the "free" market do it's job on shareholder value, as well as on the careers of bank managers. NO TAXPAYER MONEY WILL BE USED.
The only downside is that those who complained about the current bill may discover that it does, in fact, give them something afterall.
If you circulate this, or discuss it, please make sure that you present it as an example of conservative thinking. I want to make sure that the credit goes to the "right" place.

Major of FL 2:20PM February 24, 2009