Rick Santelli Speaks for the Silent Majority 81 comments
February 19, 2009
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
It's been a year since I've pumped Rick Santelli as my Hero [Feb 28, 2008: Rick Santelli is Quickly Becoming my Hero]. I truly think Rick speaks for the silent majority.
I have said in these pages at some point we will have a Boston Tea Party 2.0 in America - Rick is calling for a Chicago Tea Party this summer. I don't know what the heck it takes to get the sheeple of America angry but at least some people finally are.
At the least cut out 4 hours of these nonsense pundits on CNBC whose value add is zilch (I love how we ask people who got this all wrong about the future!) and put a 4 hour block of Rick Santelli on. This also made the front page (TOP!) of Drudge Report! Hat tip to Todd Sullivan
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 81 comments:
What Obama is doing is nothing less than selling Socialism to America.
It's easy to snipe from the sidelines but much harder to be the grownup at the wheel. Kudos to CNBC for airing a wide spectrum of views.
and Obama is Wesley Mouch
When people in this country start a tax revolt, Atlas will have shrugged
Larry Kudlow has been wrong, wrong and GOLDIwrong all along, yet he is getting more and more air time at CNBC. Go figure.
Review your pronouns, Rick!
On Feb 19 07:21 PM User 360465 wrote:
> Has anyone ever exposed Mr. Santelli to the use of the personal pronoun?
> It's "people WHO" not "people that"...so embarrassing to hear him
> rant on TV at such a low skill level with the language. One doesn't
> have to be very bright to be a mainstream media spokesperson...I
> see that now.
> Review your pronouns, Rick!
On Feb 19 07:17 PM Betsy wrote:
> It IS the silent majority. He's right - put it up on the internet
> and let everyone with a social security number vote on it. I hear
> his sentiments echoed at work, at kids games, at school, everywhere.
> People are against this totally! It's a miracle this wasn't buried
> by the MSM - probably will be by tomorrow. They don't represent
> the majority anymore anyway - just their own self interests - let's
> make sure we don't bail them out! Matter of fact, NO MORE BAILOUTS
> PERIOD!
pacificgatepost.blogsp...
Obama and Congress appear to think so. Is there any common sense in this program?
pacificgatepost.blogsp...
Obama and Congress appear to think so. Is there any common sense in this program?
pacificgatepost.blogsp...
It is time to view a house as an expense.
Moral hazard is overrated. Most people don't have the incentive nor the time nor the sophistication to act hazardously towards society. They simply make small decisions within their own realm. The Obama plan does introduce a moral hazard, but only for those whose other option is a "rational default". Either behaviour is destructive to neighbours and there is nothing one can do about it except not offer stupid loans behind the shield of securitization on the first place. unwinding that position is a true dilemma and no preaching from a trading floor will change that.
The moral hazard fear is that the Obama plan will create a perverse incentive to foreclose. There's actually not a not of evidence that people are choosing to foreclose (save for second properties and Jumbo loans, all of which are specifically excluded) under these circumstances. Foreclosure is a pretty demoralizing and brutal process. The side effects of a foreclosure greatly outweigh the benefits, so the moral hazard argument is substantially diminished once other factors are controlled for (like investment properties, and LIAR loans). Also, Santelli rants on about people with an "extra bathroom, that can't pay their bills" etc. That's not the point. The point is they can pay a reasonable mortgage, just not one that is resetting higher. These reworked mortgages will be to people who have income and have demonstrated they CAN pay their bills—just not bills that ladder up because the contact were horribly designed in the first place. Statistical evidence suggests that the vast majority of underwater homeowners will pay anyway, so long as the rate does not rise.
But we do know that it takes only a few foreclosure on an otherwise solid street to deeply discount all properties on that same street, sending even prime mortgage holders into negative equity. That will create another, very real hazard of rational default. Imagine a family that has to deal with a probate on a street where a couple of marginal foreclosures wipes out 10's of thousands of $$$ equity, and the estate is still underwater. They have a legal rational default built right into the probate process that can destroy relative property values of neighbours nearby. That's a terrible outcome for all. Or a job transfer creating a sell-off at (apparently this is a problem within the military for non-base housing; people are requesting no transfers because they cannot get out of mortgages). Overall, the crush of underwater mortgages will kill labour mobility and impede a recovery, unless steps are taken to keep payments in line with earnings and not the fudged mortgage contracts.
Nibbling away at the margins of the crisis, to ameliorate some of its effects does not justify the moral majority canard of outrage portrayed here. Obama's plan is pretty restrained compared to others. It was the Republican Administration who wanted to buy $700 billion worth of those same mortgages from banks that should never have them in the first securitized place.
When the banks created and accepted all those clever loans from the citizens who could MEASURABLY not pay, then guys like Santelli who have a podium like he does, have no reason to complain. He did not see a meltdown coming. Was he not reading the contracts and doing his diligence on the client base? Obviously not. Hence his anger.
Ultimately, this plan won't make much difference save for a few small successes that may speak to larger successes down the road. This thing is too huge and is swamping the entire national real estate market. Until they kill the securitization trap and the moral hazard those things create (and until the trader dudes like Santelli actually admit these things are the real poison) guys like Santelli have zero credibility when wrapping themselves in the "This is America" flag of misplaced patriotism.
Santelli is great for what he knows, but solving broad problems ain't one of them.
Their are people, who at no fault of their own (i.e.the victims of zip code direct marketing: poor and ignorant), got scammed into predatory mortgages the originators knew or should have known were debt bomb vests, who should make the loan originators bear the cost of their victimization. Santelli wants to victimize the victims again? If the borrowers were injected with cocaine beyond a safe level, do you blame the doctor or the patient?
Rick won't tell you that "cramdown" powers exist in the bankruotcy act for chapter 12 (farmers) and chapter 11(corporations). Why can't individuals, the subject of our constitution/Bill of Rights, have the same privilege?
The question RICK should have asked was "How many of you TAXPAYERS want to bail out homeowners who will and can pay for "MOST" of their mortgage if modified, that you will otherwise, as taxpayers, will PAY twice as much for because crooks and knowing banksters are pushing our banks into insolvency/nationaliza... and when they collapse, you, taxpayers, will bail them out."
Rick, as a product of this corrupt system of "find a sucker, sell for big commissions/bonuses, and ask the taxpayers to eat their excrement", why don't you and your crooked capitists eat this meal?
As a former president of two banks and a licensed inolvency attorney, I know "SPIN" when I hear it. Take Santelli's own example, apply the act Obama proposes, and on the facts Santelli put forth, taxpayers aren't going to pay for that mortgagors debt's and SANTELLI OWES THE NATION AN APOLOGY FOR MISREPRESENTING THE EFFECTS OF THE PRESIDENTS PROPOSAL IN RELATION TO THE FACTS SANTELLI DESCRIBED.
And some of us who did none of those things are getting pretty nervous. I'm glad Obama is diving into this, I'd just as soon chuck my shoes at Santelli.
Oh! I'm asking this as if it's a hypothetical question when it's already been answered in reality: Such loans didn't even exist back in 1970- and what was the average hourly wage then- around $28.00 in today's dollars! Today it's... half that much? Maybe?
So it's okay for some (elitist) people to bet the national farm by investing in derivatives in a market leveraged at 30 to 1, but if someone else tries to flip a home in a risky- but far less risky- manner then we label them irresponsible for it. Santelli's okay with bailing out the first group, but the second- those drinking the water he carries?- NO! Waaaaaaahh!
If the second group could earn enough- as they once could in this nation- to buy a house and live comfortably then they don't seem to engage in the business of flipping homes through loans they shouldn't have gotten.
But then they could get those loans...why? Because of the greed group one had while trying to profit off of them anyway.
Hard to see the truth when you're born with a silver spoon up your ass... Maybe Santelli will finally stop squawking and see how the other 90% lives by seeing how life is if he had to work as a waiter or something.
Then he could poor my water.
Remember; We can't make money off of other people's money- honestly or even unhonestly- if no one has any money left. Everyone in society has to have a path to prosper in life for anyone to do well...
What about the FUTURE homeowners who will now take advantage of not paying their mortgages? This stupid administration has now opened a door they will not be able to shut and get us deeper in debt.
How many people would have voted for Obama had they known he would keep rewarding the irresponsible people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm going to anticipate the way his corporate higher-ups will punish him, and protest it proactively, since his little spasm of lucidity ran in the direction of political incorrectness. He has nothing to apologize for. It's about time we called losers "losers", and broke it down around the issue of who can pay a mortgage and who can't.
You should watch before u speak. He's opposed all bailouts. One stupidity dosent justify another.
On Feb 20 01:19 AM The Ideological Dyslexic wrote:
> How could anyone view Santelli the water bearer as a hero?!? Funny,
> I don't remember him throwing tantrums on the screech box when Wall
All they are doing is make you and me pay for their losses.
On Feb 20 12:29 AM imzem wrote:
> I built my house with my own two hands and make those mortgage payments
> every time. Valuations have increased, I have good equity. But I
> don't want foreclosures in my neighborhood. Next thing you know valuations
> will be going down and I could be underwater, despite having done
Now things have deteriorated to a point where it's possible to do it on TV from the Merc. Frankly, I don't appreciate persons in this forum who in some ways attempt to equate the two settings. For the most part the soapbox crowd could detect a phoney.
Notwithstanding all the "crap" many of the dissenters are herein attempting to pile upon him (from use of language, to trading, etc.& ad nauseam), Rick has been and will continue to be a very "bright light" among a sea of very dim bulbs.
Additionally, I am certain that he will weather these slings and arrows quite well & without any malice toward any of his detractors - in fact, he most often just deflects this kind of stuff with a smile!
Godspeed Rick... I, for one, am absolutely delighted that you are on the scene!
On Feb 19 07:05 PM HaavBline wrote:
> Somebody has to do it, and I am glad Rick is the one. He is my favorate
> at CNBC.
>
> Larry Kudlow has been wrong, wrong and GOLDIwrong all along, yet
> he is getting more and more air time at CNBC. Go figure.
On Feb 19 09:22 PM PacificGatePost wrote:
> PERHAPS AMERICA SHOULD CHANGE ITS PERCEPTION OF HOUSING
>
> pacificgatepost.blogsp...
>
>
> It is time to view a house as an expense.
>
I keep hearing different forms of that argument. Prove it. Show me. Not in a narrative blah blah blah, but give me a thesis and some numbers. Many have gone to great lengths to outline models for recover here on SA and other blogs. But all I keep hearing is "we have to artificially prop up house prices or else we'll all die".
Prove it or, as it were, STFU.
By the way, I published a piece called "The Perfect Financial Storm" on my blog. SA hasn't published it yet, and it's by no means novel. If you're bored.
Invest in US Resi...& get the upside trade in all these homes & drive your homes' value too !
USAffordableHome.com
If the majority is actually silent, and is actually a majority, and remains silent, they have no basis for complaint. Being silent is simply giving up on your country. The Silent are getting what they deserve.
If you really believe in what Santelli is saying then get off your butts and do something. Volunteer for a candidate who you believe in. Get out and vote. Make contributions to people you want to see in office. Write your elected officials.
Don't just sit on your ass and whine.
If you do nothing and remain silent you are just saying 'I don't really care'.
" Has anyone ever exposed Mr. Santelli to the use of the personal pronoun?"
The message is more important than a "form" it was presented.
The present US crony-capitalism and terribly corrupt American legal & political systems are about to bring a second American revolution. After 200 years, the first one was betrayed and perverted.
On Feb 19 05:01 PM The Driver wrote:
> Who is John Galt?
On Feb 20 11:26 AM bricki wrote:
> I have a real problem with the concept of 'Silent Majority'. America
> is based on activism and people standing up for their beliefs. If
> you are silent you are not living up to your duty as an American
> citizen. Being passive and apathetic means you are disenfranchising
> yourself.
>
> If the majority is actually silent, and is actually a majority, and
> remains silent, they have no basis for complaint. Being silent is
> simply giving up on your country. The Silent are getting what they
> deserve.
>
> If you really believe in what Santelli is saying then get off your
> butts and do something. Volunteer for a candidate who you believe
> in. Get out and vote. Make contributions to people you want to see
> in office. Write your elected officials.
>
> Don't just sit on your ass and whine.
>
> If you do nothing and remain silent you are just saying 'I don't
> really care'.
>
This is all about trying to shift the blame for the economic mess from the Republicans -- who created it -- to Obama.
People need to stop being so selfish. If my neighbor gets assistance but I don't, do I get jealous? No. Do I whine that it's not fair? No. The assistance keeps him from foreclosing, which in turn keeps my property value up. He wins, I win. Quit asking, "what's in it for me," and start asking, "what can I do to help my country?"
Look at his CNBC profile. He's a senior derivatives advisor! He is one of the original architects of the very products choking the system. Have you EVER heard him speak to this on air? No. He dodges the issue.
He's a very typical high-flyer in finance. When his own risk-taking blows up in his face he blames the government! Yet he has continuously argued for less regulation. The same products he helped create are sucking capital and value from the market because they are black boxes, by design.
If you want to hold anyone responsible, try holding the guy in the $3,000 suit on the trading floor responsible. He created the products that are toxic. He's a major polluter in the financial system.
Also note: He's not spoken out against the $1 Trillion attempt by Geithner and Co. to underwrite hedge funds (who Santelli is a trader for, BTW) in this public/private market attempt to buy these toxic assets. He's likely to get far more taxpayer money than any regular viewer watching CNBC.
Don't be sucked in by his flag-waving populism. He has an agenda too. It's just red, white and blue Kool-Aid. Before you support someone, try checking into their background. It's called due diligence.
On Feb 20 09:49 AM speculari wrote:
> Rick Santelli is delightful: smart as a whip, always upbeat, has
> the demeanor of a very successful carnival barker, & always speaks
> the truth.
> Notwithstanding all the "crap" many of the dissenters are herein
> attempting to pile upon him (from use of language, to trading, etc.&
> ad nauseam), Rick has been and will continue to be a very "bright
> light" among a sea of very dim bulbs.
> Additionally, I am certain that he will weather these slings and
> arrows quite well & without any malice toward any of his detractors
> - in fact, he most often just deflects this kind of stuff with a
> smile!
> Godspeed Rick... I, for one, am absolutely delighted that you are
> on the scene!
If the trillions of dollars pumped into the banking system and corporate sector and guarantee GSE's is looked into and the stimulus bills. We can see that the simplest and most direct method would have been to wipe out the banking system -start a new one which would later be privatized. A jubilee for the indebted upto 50k and a tax rebate applied over 5 years for those who are not indebted.
The leading culprits (Madoff/Stanford/Thain etc) should be permanently exiled from the country and have 60% of their assets remanded to the US government and be permanently exiled from the US. All insolvent institutions (banking, auto etc) should be taken over by the government and sold t investors after bankruptcy proceedings of which no sovereign fund, foreign country , hedge fund can own more than 30 percent of the stake.
The Federal Reserve should be forced to take a 30 percent haircut on the debt it holds of the US. In return for the trillions of dollars already spent by the taxpayers in bailing out it's main institutions (Citi,JP Morgan/Chase/BOA).
A sovereign bank will be created by the sale of assets of bankrupt institutions that would always provide prime + 1 percent loans to US citizens in need who meet strict lending criteria and agree to do some sort of volunteer or national service. That means doctors/MBAs/ etc would in return for government education loans must work in the government for a period of 3 years to access these loans or provide volunteer services to their commuity (police/fire/boys&... clubs, healthcare, eldercare).
The reduction of the debt burden would revitalize America with in a few years. The banks/Fed Reserve would still be allowed to function but have paid their requisite penalties. The Credit card agencies usurious rates would be caped at the prevailing rate of a 30 year mortgage + annual fees not to exceed 5% of credit extended. The soveriegn credit bank for US citizens ensures that US citizens do not have to be ripped off by private institutions that seek to further indebt them through unfair practices. FDIC protection would only extend to US sovereign banks and nationalized banks -this forces private banks to be more careful when taking risks with depositors money and also forces them to increase interest rates for deposits in order to compete. Gone will be the days of zero percent interest on savings and checking accounts and therefore encourage savings and also attract those clients who would take on greater risk of losing their money i return for higher interest rates.
In short- US government must tackle indebtedness that engulfs this nation. I do feel that the US government is well with i its right to demand a 30 percent haircut fro the Fed on all US debt held by the federal reserve. The extra money fro savers will be put in the economy rewarding thse who led their lives responsibly. The debtors get a break and are punished by not being able to participate in the opportunities provided when the national debt burden is reduced.
Maybe it's is because I've always had a pessimistic out look but I have never treated a job as a source of any real security. This was driven home to me on the one occasion when I did buy a very modest condo (the least expensive property sold in Boston that month) and about a eighteen months later lost the job had qualified me for the mortgage.
I quickly found a new job and just as quickly sold the condo (at a nice profit). Once bitten, I've been a renter ever since also started up two small business because I think that there is more security when one holds the reigns in one's own hands. I will not buy a home again until I can pay for it in cash.
I also will not have kids because I see the future as being too uncertain. There is no way to speak to a potential person, explain to them what living will entail in terms of joy or pain and to then gain their informed consent to be born into this world. Perhaps,, if I accumulated such a mountain of wealth that I could virtually guarantee a child a life that was at least free of any financial woes or worries I might consider becoming a parent. However, since wealth has not been found to truly correlate to genuine happiness*, I believe that Iwould still be reluctant.
I am sure that some of the people who read this will spew venom at for me having these thoughts but that is pointless. That is like hating someone for liking the color blue or for disliking celery. I can't change that I am astounded and baffled that so many people risk so much based upon the rather tenuous prosperity that most of us enjoy, and that many people also involuntarily introduce others into their financially uncertain lives. I don't think I am right or wrong to feel that way, there is just some part of me that is utterly challenged by that widespread mentality.
In turn, my way of looking at life informs my way of looking at the housing bail-out. Since I am unwilling to take on the risk of a large mortgage and/or the responsibility of having children who will depend upon me, I am not able to muster sympathy for those who did assume those risks and who did take on those responsibilities but who then find themselves in dire economic straits.
As it is bailing them out keeps housing prices artificially high with my own tax dollars and extends the period of time until I will be able to purchase home of my own.
Our actions have consequences. I have tried to make sure that I will not suffer because I got in too deep debt based upon an uncertain employment and also that no others will be victims of my inability to make ends meet.
*so far as i have seen.
We are patient and extremely tolerant of the arrogance that is displayed by the bankers, and attorneys, and the fatcats that sit on congressional committees and take the kickbacks, or the media that insults us. But the day is coming.....
on Feb 20 11:26 AM bricki wrote:
> I have a real problem with the concept of 'Silent Majority'. America
> is based on activism and people standing up for their beliefs. If
> you are silent you are not living up to your duty as an American
> citizen. Being passive and apathetic means you are disenfranchising
> yourself.
>
> If the majority is actually silent, and is actually a majority, and
> remains silent, they have no basis for complaint. Being silent is
> simply giving up on your country. The Silent are getting what they
> deserve.
>
> If you really believe in what Santelli is saying then get off your
> butts and do something. Volunteer for a candidate who you believe
> in. Get out and vote. Make contributions to people you want to see
> in office. Write your elected officials.
>
> Don't just sit on your ass and whine.
>
> If you do nothing and remain silent you are just saying 'I don't
> really care'.
>
Would you whine or be jealous? Probably not because you would be the one getting someone elses car.
On Feb 20 12:40 PM Elliott wrote:
> Santelli and the "tea party" is all just B.S. We had our tea party
> in November and Obama won -- Santelli represents the vocal minority
> of conservatives who lost the election, and he and they are frustrated.
>
>
> This is all about trying to shift the blame for the economic mess
> from the Republicans -- who created it -- to Obama.
>
> People need to stop being so selfish. If my neighbor gets assistance
> but I don't, do I get jealous? No. Do I whine that it's not fair?
> No. The assistance keeps him from foreclosing, which in turn keeps
> my property value up. He wins, I win. Quit asking, "what's in it
> for me," and start asking, "what can I do to help my country?"
He is doing just as he siad he would Rob from you and give to those that are non producersand are in need cause they do not and will not work.
I wish I had 5 bucks for everytime I heard " we ani't rich yet "
The right knew ,the rest got just exactly what he is a leftist.
The elephants will gather up in 2010 and start a new circus in DC.
Obama did all this in 2 weeks -- He is the Messiah for the left
they shall be rich soon
I am now going to go hide my beer so the liberals do not tax it to death to !
Oregon to increase the beer tax over 1000 % it begins oh my
Cheers, DuffBeer
On Feb 19 09:21 PM PacificGatePost wrote:
> Are you responsible for your neighbor’s bad decisions?
>
> pacificgatepost.blogsp...
>
>
> Obama and Congress appear to think so. Is there any common sense
> in this program?
>
On Feb 20 10:42 AM Randy_H wrote:
> >>But, it all boils down to this; if they sink, the suction will
> pull the rest of us down with them.
>
> I keep hearing different forms of that argument. Prove it. Show
> me. Not in a narrative blah blah blah, but give me a thesis and
> some numbers. Many have gone to great lengths to outline models
> for recover here on SA and other blogs. But all I keep hearing is
> "we have to artificially prop up house prices or else we'll all die".
>
>
> Prove it or, as it were, STFU.
On Feb 20 08:57 AM davidma11 wrote:
> Thank you Mr. Santelli. I couldn't agree more we shouldn't be
> bailing out failure.
On Feb 19 05:01 PM The Driver wrote:
> Who is John Galt?
On Feb 20 03:22 PM DuffBeer wrote:
> Being from Chicago I got the chance to watch this CiviL Rights Attorney
> in action over the past 10 years.
> He is doing just as he siad he would Rob from you and give to those
> that are non producersand are in need cause they do not and will
> not work.
> I wish I had 5 bucks for everytime I heard " we ani't rich yet "
>
> The right knew ,the rest got just exactly what he is a leftist.
>
> The elephants will gather up in 2010 and start a new circus in DC.
>
>
> Obama did all this in 2 weeks -- He is the Messiah for the left
>
> they shall be rich soon
>
> I am now going to go hide my beer so the liberals do not tax it to
> death to !
> Oregon to increase the beer tax over 1000 % it begins oh my
>
> Cheers, DuffBeer
On Feb 20 02:05 PM iyamwutiam wrote:
> I feel that Aristophanes, the Ideologic Dyslexic and of course dc2ndtest-
> have all put forth a countervailing interpretation that is valid.
> After all- the term majority is bandied about with out a shred of
> objectivity. Fine -50 people on this site agree with him or a 1000
> -that does not constitute a majority- it may in fact constitute an
> opinionated and loud minority. As has been proven with the 'moral
> majority' -who neither moral nor a majority.
>
> If the trillions of dollars pumped into the banking system and corporate
> sector and guarantee GSE's is looked into and the stimulus bills.
> We can see that the simplest and most direct method would have been
> to wipe out the banking system -start a new one which would later
> be privatized. A jubilee for the indebted upto 50k and a tax rebate
> applied over 5 years for those who are not indebted.
>
> The leading culprits (Madoff/Stanford/Thain etc) should be permanently
> exiled from the country and have 60% of their assets remanded to
> the US government and be permanently exiled from the US. All insolvent
> institutions (banking, auto etc) should be taken over by the government
> and sold t investors after bankruptcy proceedings of which no sovereign
> fund, foreign country , hedge fund can own more than 30 percent of
> the stake.
>
> The Federal Reserve should be forced to take a 30 percent haircut
> on the debt it holds of the US. In return for the trillions of dollars
> already spent by the taxpayers in bailing out it's main institutions
> (Citi,JP Morgan/Chase/BOA).
>
> A sovereign bank will be created by the sale of assets of bankrupt
> institutions that would always provide prime + 1 percent loans to
> US citizens in need who meet strict lending criteria and agree to
> do some sort of volunteer or national service. That means doctors/MBAs/
> etc would in return for government education loans must work in the
> government for a period of 3 years to access these loans or provide
> volunteer services to their commuity (police/fire/boys&... clubs,
> healthcare, eldercare).
>
> The reduction of the debt burden would revitalize America with in
> a few years. The banks/Fed Reserve would still be allowed to function
> but have paid their requisite penalties. The Credit card agencies
> usurious rates would be caped at the prevailing rate of a 30 year
> mortgage + annual fees not to exceed 5% of credit extended. The soveriegn
> credit bank for US citizens ensures that US citizens do not have
> to be ripped off by private institutions that seek to further indebt
> them through unfair practices. FDIC protection would only extend
> to US sovereign banks and nationalized banks -this forces private
> banks to be more careful when taking risks with depositors money
> and also forces them to increase interest rates for deposits in order
> to compete. Gone will be the days of zero percent interest on savings
> and checking accounts and therefore encourage savings and also attract
> those clients who would take on greater risk of losing their money
> i return for higher interest rates.
>
> In short- US government must tackle indebtedness that engulfs this
> nation. I do feel that the US government is well with i its right
> to demand a 30 percent haircut fro the Fed on all US debt held by
> the federal reserve. The extra money fro savers will be put in the
> economy rewarding thse who led their lives responsibly. The debtors
> get a break and are punished by not being able to participate in
> the opportunities provided when the national debt burden is reduced.
>
Can't see the forest for the pronouns?
On Feb 19 07:21 PM User 360465 wrote:
> Has anyone ever exposed Mr. Santelli to the use of the personal pronoun?
> It's "people WHO" not "people that"...so embarrassing to hear him
> rant on TV at such a low skill level with the language. One doesn't
> have to be very bright to be a mainstream media spokesperson...I
> see that now.
> Review your pronouns, Rick!
everyday, I bought a house I can afford and the Feds are in ruin. RIck
Santelli is right on the money. You can bet America heard every word
and is hungry for more from RIck Santelli's Listening to baby huey @
the white house was a laugh. They cannot hide the RIck Santelli truth.
I am so proud of this guy who finally stood up and said what I have
been feeling for months. Don't ask me to pay for my neighbors
prolbems. We are behind RIck 110% and are begging for more. Tell it
like it is brother and break it off in the whazoo of the current
adminstration with a red hot poker.
WE LOVE RICK!!!!!
It should read "Has anyone ever exposed Mr. Santelli to the USAGE of the personal pronoun?"
Rick is 100% correct. I don't think a word out of place changes anything.
On Feb 19 07:21 PM User 360465 wrote:
> Has anyone ever exposed Mr. Santelli to the use of the personal pronoun?
> It's "people WHO" not "people that"...so embarrassing to hear him
> rant on TV at such a low skill level with the language. One doesn't
> have to be very bright to be a mainstream media spokesperson...I
> see that now.
> Review your pronouns, Rick!
On Feb 19 08:41 PM EMS wrote:
> Guess you are a 2nd grade teacher.
On Feb 19 05:44 PM Nathaniel C wrote:
> Rick Santelli is dead on with his commentary. Government manipulation
> in the economy has got to stop. Socialism will not save us. Santelli
> is the only person on CNBC worth listening to. He should have his
> own show.
On Feb 19 07:15 PM Betsy wrote:
> It IS the silent majority. He's right - put it up on the internet
> and let everyone with a social security number vote on it. I hear
> his sentiments at work, at kids games, at school, everywhere. People
> are against this totally! It's a miracle this wasn't buried by the
> MSM - probably will be by tomorrow. They don't represent the majority
> anymore anyway - just their own self interests - let's make sure
> we don't bail them out! Matter of fact, NO MORE BAILOUTS PERIOD!
> Let 'um all sink.
On Feb 19 07:21 PM User 360465 wrote:
> Has anyone ever exposed Mr. Santelli to the use of the personal pronoun?
> It's "people WHO" not "people that"...so embarrassing to hear him
> rant on TV at such a low skill level with the language. One doesn't
> have to be very bright to be a mainstream media spokesperson...I
> see that now.
> Review your pronouns, Rick!
person. Dont take Iowa tax money and help people in Cal-Florida who made $500 a week and signed a contract that said they made $5,000 so they could buy a $750,000 house. Instead leave the tax there so the farmer can buy seed and supplies to plant something this year. Or a loan at what the banks are getting it for.No we are charged 6-10% if we can even get one, but they got it for free from my taxes.Get your priorities straight and get rid of all them old worthless Sen+Con who act like they care about us.incomp
Feb 20 12:40 PM Elliott wrote:
> Santelli and the "tea party" is all just B.S. We had our tea party
> in November and Obama won -- Santelli represents the vocal minority
> of conservatives who lost the election, and he and they are frustrated.
>
>
> This is all about trying to shift the blame for the economic mess
> from the Republicans -- who created it -- to Obama.
>
> People need to stop being so selfish. If my neighbor gets assistance
> but I don't, do I get jealous? No. Do I whine that it's not fair?
> No. The assistance keeps him from foreclosing, which in turn keeps
> my property value up. He wins, I win. Quit asking, "what's in it
> for me," and start asking, "what can I do to help my country?"