go rick, He is awesome!

wow I need to watch CNBC more!

I agree CG!

Santelli crossed the journalist/advocate line, which is fine if he's hoping to become the next O'Reilly or Olbermann but as a reporter, it's not up to him to tell the president what to do - and it's really not up to him to refer to anyone in his viewing public as "the losers'". Anything he says now has to be considered in light of the possibility that his reporting is skewed to a certain POV.

"Do you think I want to take a shower every hour!" LOL

Did Santelli show this same outrage over the bailout of the banks?

If your house is on a street with three or four or more foreclosures, the whole street starts looking deserted, and you lose more than 9% of your value, AND nobody will buy it at any price.

Santelli seems like he wants to blame the housing crisis solely on home owners. He has conveniently left out the lenders and banks that approved for these individuals for loans.

Good point Janneth.

Try selling your home when there are several short sale and foreclosure listings in your neighborhood.

It doesnt matter if a bank approved them for the loan, they didn't force them to sign it and people should be held responsible for knowing more about what they can and CANT afford than some bank.

Though I do agree that foreclosures are bad all around.

Agreed, haus. When I applied for a car loan, I was approved for up to $65,000, but I used my own common sense and did the math and realized I couldn't afford that and bought one for $17,000 instead.

Haha, dead on. I watch a lot of CNBC and this is about the only time this POV is offered, except for Kudlow.

I know it's sad to call people that invested in a house that they could never afford losers, but that's what they are. When you place a bet and lose, you're a loser. Prices went down, rates went up, that's the way it goes. If it had been the other way around, they would be living like fat cats.

I've lost a lot of bets over the last year, and I take responsibility for every single one of them. However, I was responsible enough to not risk money I borrowed.

Modus you are AMAZING! You should write a book and teach a class! You could be a millionaire!

people who, rather. I hate it when people say that instead of who.

It took some pretty heavy mental calculations to figure out I couldn't afford a car payment that was higher than my rent.

Yeah it was dumb for banks to loan money like that, but at the same time I have a $20,000 limit on my credit card. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for me to go charge $20,000 to it.

Haus, the bank/lenders often knew what these individuals incomes were. That's why so many of them were approved for subprime loans. The banks/lenders gave a teaser rate. People thought this was great. Many of them planned to refinance before the rate changed. I know people who did exactly that. I know loan officers who encouraged people to believe they could refinance as long they made their mortgage payments on time. But many could not because of pre- payment penalties. I've seen it over and over again. So when Santelli rants about "losers", I wonder why he wasn't making the same noise when it came to bailing out banks.

The prepayment penalties are a provision in the contract. These people can't read? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to make financial decisions for themselves.

Sorry Lil but I still maintain that no one forced them to sign it and its pretty much common sense to question something that sounds too good to be true.

Sure the loan people were pushing bad stuff, but they work on commission, everyone who works on commision tries to upsell. Maybe we should make it so they don't work on commission anymore and that would probably help a lot!

Another thing that is not being discussed is the number of minorities that were pushed by lenders into ARMS/higher interest loans even when they qualified for prime loans.

It's not sad to call the people losers, it's editorializing.

"Sure the loan people were pushing bad stuff, but they work on commission, everyone who works on commision tries to upsell."
Haus, this is the second day in a row that you've excused corporate truth skirting if not outright lying, while condemning individuals.

Why do you think corporations, which are organized groups of individuals, should be allowed to lie in the pursuit of profit?

Pushed by lenders . We're talking about adults here lil. They're not victims; they're poor negotiators.

Not minorities specifically, people who agreed to the wrong loan, before anyone gets excited.

It amazes me that people hold often first time home buyers to the same degree of responsibilty as mortgage brokers and wall street big shoots.

Now they're first time home buyers. Poor illiterate, minority, first time home buyers

No organic, look it up. Minorities were targeted and exploited by many lenders. I work with a lot of people in the real estate field and we talk. I can tell which lenders were out for profit and lied to their clients to close the deal. People weer told that these loans were better for them.

And minorities can't read? Don't know anyone that can read? Can't hire someone to read for them while they embark on the largest purchase of their life? It's a lot to swallow.

Many of them were first time home buyers. Lots of them were minorities. Hispanic immigrants that spoke very little english were often preyed on. You don't have to believe me. I know it's true. I talked to agents who refused to work with certain lenders after they learned about their practices.

If you have enough money to buy a house, you have enough money to hire an advocate to read a contract. When someone signs a contract, they better know what it says. I'm pretty sure everyone knows the lender isn't out for their best interest.

At what point do they become responsible for their own commitments?

Their inability to read was implied by their failure to read and comprehend what they were agreeing to.

I don't know why you keep making broad generalizations about vast groups of people. Conservatives, minorities, subprime home buyers. I think you need to reign that in, lil. I think that they're both responsible, and therefore I think they both deserve what they are getting. The lenders don't win when their loans are defaulted upon, either.

No blame on the lenders/banks/ mortgage brokers that approved people for loans with no proof of income. A person who could not afford to buy a home should never have been approved for any type of loan. But profit was more important.

What?

I think 'caveat emptor' is the appropriate phrase for this situation.

Certainly there need to be restrictions on what lenders (or people selling anything) can do to make a sale, but there's no evidence that the majority of these people broke a law. This is the sort of thing that needs to be examined on a case by case basis. There is obviously a big share of blame for the lenders, but that does not excuse the buyers. They should both have to live with their mistakes.

Mich, have you read about World Savings. Past employees have claimed that illegal practices were used. World Savings was sold to Wachovia. We all know what happened to Wachovia.

"Another thing that is not being discussed is the number of minorities that were pushed by lenders into ARMS/higher interest loans even when they qualified for prime loans."
Or maybe the loan officer just told them that the arm was going to be a lower payment, and the home buyer got greedy? Because the loan officer told them that if interest rates go down, and their credit score gets higher, they can refinance to get a lower interest rate. Maybe it was the home owner who was greedy and the loan officer was actually honest and forth coming with information, but these home buyers can never accept responsibility for anything they do because our government tells them that they don't have to, so they continue to play the victim even though they, themselves are to blame.
My loan officer when I purchased my house tried to get us into an ARM as well. I was 22. I told him, no way. If you don't know what goes into purchasing a house and don't bother to gain the knowledge, than you don't need to be buying a house. Keep renting and depend upon your landlord to handle everything, since you can't handle or be held responsible for any of your own actions. That way you can blame everything on your landlord!!!

Organic, World Savings is also an example of a lender winning even after the borrowers default.

"In 2006, just before the housing crash, the Sandlers sold their bank to Wachovia and pocketed $2.3 billion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/13/60minutes/main4801309.shtml

I don't hold the borrower blameless. But some of you are quick to excuse the banks.

"But some of you are quick to excuse the banks."
MOST of you are quick...

I was against the bank bailout... I think those lending companies that made loans to people they shouldn't, should have been dealt the capitalist punishment.... bankruptcy.

Banks are not excused, so who do you think are quick to excuse them?

Wasn't it your president who urged the bank bail out? I think he excused them (as well as mc cain and Bush, which is why many of us republicans on here are angry with them) when he voted for that legislation.

World Savings bank didn't win. It had such an absurd amount of debt that it brought down Wachovia. It lost. You have illustrated exactly what I said.

And if the bank broke the law, the the owners should be prosecuted and have all earnings gained by illegal enterprise seized.

Liliblu, my statement was that there was no evidence that the majority of them broke any laws. Majority being the operative word. Anyway, it sounds as if your case hasn't even been proved beyond the statements of a few employees. If it could be proven in individual cases, then it might invalidate the loan. But do you really consider the majority of these homeowners victims? I just can't swallow that.

Who is excusing the banks? People keep saying that. Not many on the conservative side wanted them bailed out. All I'm seeing is a bunch of excuses for upside down home owners.

This is sort of like the illegal immigrant argument. I think the laws and granting them any kind of amnesty is punishing to those who followed the rules. I think bailing out people who have mortgages over 30% of their gross income are and continue to be highly irresponsible people. I don't have one. I could afford my mortgage even if my husband didn't have a job. That is what responsible people do. So the bailout doesn't reward responsible people like myself and many of my responsible homeowner friends. It is sort of like a back handed punishment. Because we see our irresponsible neighbors who will now have interest rates of 2% while we are stuck with 6.5%
Is that fair to me?

"World Savings bank didn't win. It had such an absurd amount of debt that it brought down Wachovia. It lost. You have illustrated exactly what I said."

Organic the former owners of World Savings are billions of dollars richer and Wachovia took the hit. How did they lose.

I must commend all of you who posted on this topic. No one got personal, no ad homonym attacks. It was entirely enjoyable reading down the comments.

Everyone who worked at the company and participated in the illegal practices lost their job. Wachovia took the hit because they didn't do their due dilligence. The owners lose when someone sues for damages for their illegal practices. If it was really illegal, then there will be much to pay. All you've offered is accusations And if they're true, there will be plenty of powerful people ready to take their money including Wachovia shareholders.

If a bank goes bankrupt, the individual bankers still have their personal fortunes - they may not have jobs, but they don't go down with the ship. So you 'punish' an entity, not a human being and the human beings who made the corporate decisions and pushed the products that created this crisis walk away.

Unless they actually did something illegal, in which case their money is subject to seizure.