Leftover Metrocard Change Infuriates Some
Senate Report: Bush Missed Chance To Catch Bin Laden
2nd Avenue Subway Cooling System Will "Blight" UES
Tiger Woods' Alleged Mistress Lost Fiance On 9/11
Video: Wrecking Ball Smashes Van
If there's one thing late night talk shows love to rip apart more than self-righteous hypocrisy, it's guests who cancel on them at the last minute and give them an excuse to take off the gloves and do it. Last night just that went down on The Daily Show when CNBC's Rick Santelli backed out his scheduled appearance on the show and prompted Jon Stewart to spend the first eight minutes of the show tearing CNBC to shreds.
Stewart has a tendency to hush his studio audience down when their "rah rah" mentality gets a little too sycophantic for his tastes. But Santelli crossing him must have fired up the host as he found himself basking in the moment of defending the failed mortgage homeowners looking for bailout money that Santelli became famous for his recent rant against. Stewart even glowed that he found "cheap populism oddly arousing."
As the clip makes the rounds today, Daily Intel is the only place so far we've seen sticking up for CNBC (much to their own surprise). If the cancellation did really come at the 23rd hour, then The Daily Show research and editing staff sure didn't look caught off-guard in putting together another one of their top notch packages to bury CNBC in so many of the ways the network falls short. It's almost a shame to think that one has to become an enemy of the show in order for them to come out swinging with such reckless (yet wonderful) abandon.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Santelli blasphemed against the almighty messiah Obama.
Enforcer Rahm Emmanuel has no doubt put the hit out on him and Obama's obediant media sycophants like Stewart are happy to oblige.
All Santelli did was to give voice to the millions of responsible homeowners who resent paying other people's mortgages. Quel horreur!
These responsible homeowners of which you speak, they don't resent the billions more in taxpayer monies money that are going to pay to prop up the millionaires on Wall Street?
Did you realize those millionaires don't exist in a vacuum, but in fact employ millions of non-millionaire taxpayers who wouldn't have jobs if said millionaires' businesses were to fold?
As one of those responsible homeowners who doesn't rely on others to cover their debts, I don't feel like I should need to pay for anyone who was too stupid/lazy/greedy/careless to cover their debts or live within their means. Not reading the fine print on your mortgage terms is subsequent to due diligence in purchase.
As for caring about the Wall Street prop up, I am not a fan, but I would rather the stock market not crash because Obama moves closer to a de facto Socialist system day by day. He simply does not seem to understand that when you gouge at the top, the bottom feels it more.
"I don't feel like I should need to pay for anyone who was too stupid/lazy/greedy/careless to cover their debts or live within their means."
What about the guy who loses his job? Which box does he fit into?
I lost my job last October, dipped into the savings I had been putting away diligently for years and started looking for a new job. I never expected anyone else to cover my mortgage payments. It's called financial responsibility.
So it's only after your savings run out that you fall into the greedy/lazy/stupid boxes?
The housing plan does not "cover mortgage payments", btw. It provides incentives to banks to lower interest rates and restructure mortgages. The homeowner pays for all of the equity they receive. In some cases, banks will eat the negative equity that has resulted from the drop in home prices, but in no case is anyone having their mortgage paid for them.
I apologize for short-wording my estimate on the covering of mortgage payments, I didn't realize how vested you werein arguing. And yes, in order to stay in their homes, refinancing will be some exceptional effort on those who are in that position.
However, at what point are individuals going to stop assuming the that taxpayers will be their safety net and assume personal accountability? You can't say that the debt crisis doesn't owe itself to a large portion of individuals living beyond their means.
Of course I cannot say that.. but while there is greed at the root of this crisis, I don't think it's appropriate to lump everyone who is currently having problems into that box, which is why I first replied. To be clear, I don't really like the plan either, but I see it as the lesser of two evils (a false dichotomy, perhaps, but it seems those in opposition don't feel that it's necessary to counter-propose). In my experience, many people seem to have this idea that banks can fail or millions of foreclosures can occur without any negative consequence.
I didn't rant on the mortgage payments to argue, per se.. Many people don't know the details and might assume that the bailout plan involves the government paying your mortgage.
"In my experience, many people seem to have this idea that banks can fail or millions of foreclosures can occur without any negative consequence."
Rereading this, I see it is a strawman.
I believe the negative consequences from doing nothing outweigh the negative consequences (moral hazard) from these bailouts.
I think that both the banks failing and the foreclosures would both cause seriously extenuating negatives on the system and everyone in it, no doubt. And I may have been cavalier in not leaving a fifth group for those with completely different sets of circumstances, but I feel like those people are far fewer between than those who simply overextended themselves or made foolish investments. It wreaks of tragedy of the commons to me while I (and others) have worked my ass off for years to have it devalued for all the reasons the economy is now tanking. [/rant]
Indeed it does, with extreme encouragement from a fiscally irresponsible government and the shady workings of the financial industry that took advantage of a lack of oversight to feed its greed.
I'm not happy my taxes are paying for irresponsible homeowners. But I'm much more pissed off that my money is being used to fund Citibank, AIG, etc., who are definitely more responsible for the current mess.
Last night's Daily Show might not have been LOL funny, but Stewart made important points: CNBC has been wrong again and again in their reporting over the past few years; their reporters complain when lower-class and middle-class people might benefit from bailout money, but not when Wall Street bankers directly benefit; and it's clearly stupid to judge the success of the President and political policy based on the daily fluctuations of the stock market over a six-week period (the first six weeks of an Obama presidency that inherited an economy that's been tanking for at least two years).
CNBC is a network with guest on a lot. Schiff, Whitney, Rogers, Roubini---these ppl have all been on.
Comedy Central has had Carlos Mencia on for the past 3 years. He sucks. So that does mean everyone on CC is unfunny?
No doubt Mencia is an unfunny turd. Still, assuming you think CNBC is a news newtwork, I don't think you can hold Comedy Central to the same standards of journalistic integrity and honesty. CC mainly focuses on dick, fart and pot jokes (and I'm not knocking those). CNBC mainly focuses on old farts telling people what to buy and what to sell (with real money).
MSNBC, CNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, Bloomberg, ESPNEWS...
They're all cable news networks.
This doesn't mean they have to show two anchors reading AP or Thomson Reuters news wire stories 24/7. They can all have the commentary types of shows. Does a newspaper have editorials and op ed pieces?
Essentially, that's what Olbermann, Fast Money, Maddow, O'Reilly and Happy Hour are. They are news commentary shows. It's rather clear, no? Sqawk Box is on on the morning---it's essentially the Today Show for brokers and traders. Is Jon Stewart going to blast NBC for not having journalistic intergrity when Matt Lauer and Meredith Viera are baking cookies with Martha Stewart?
I'm sick and tired of the obtuse Stewart followers. He's funny and witty, but he's not news and O'Reilly and Olbermann aren't news anchors.
Um, yes? Have you ever watched TDS?
awesone
awesome
Memo to Santelli:
Dissent is only patriotic when a republican is in office.
You sound like a hollow, uninformed Limbaugh drone. Did you ever watch the clip in which Blowhard Santelli jumps off the ironic deep end?
No he didn't. He's always like this. Just ignore him.
this should be shown on a loop over and over again,
till Americans smarten up.
and, Eff Bloomberg.
"...based on the daily fluctuations of the stock market..."
Fluctuations? How about plunge, plummet, death spiral?
Anyone with a cursory knowledge of economics and history can see Obama is installing a bloated, overbearing, business-unfriendly socialist state. With more and more people expecting a free ride in the apple cart
instead of pulling it, don't be shocked when the apple cart comes to a grinding halt.
"Anyone with a cursory knowledge of economics and history can see Obama is installing a bloated, overbearing, business-unfriendly socialist state."
So only ~30% (at best) of Americans have a 'cursory knowledge of economics and history'?
Considering the public indoctrination, I mean education system of the last few decades, I'm amazed more than 30% of Americans can spell their own names.
It was not a 23rd hour cancellation, according to B&C:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/BC_Beat/11479-Jon_Stewart_s_Rick_Santelli_Moment.php
Billy Parker uses the term "at the twenty-third hour" euphamistically, not literally. It means "at the last minute" which is probably what the Daily Show's booker considers a Friday cancellation when a guest is scheduled for the following Wednesday.
"If the cancellation did really come at the 23rd hour, then The Daily Show research and editing staff sure didn't look caught off-guard in putting together another one of their top notch packages..."
The point of my comment was to show that the staff had more than enough time to put something together and they were not at all "off-guard". Next time I'll make sure to connect all the dots for you.
The stock market isnt like an opinion poll, there is actually money involved. And ask any plaintiff securities attorney about who owns the blocks of millions of stocks. Its pension funds, state and local govt pension funds are the ones who own 20 million shares of stocks like Yahoo. They are getting destroyed.
Today? Down -246 at 6629
We need to 'exchange dialogue' and 'respect diversity' or there will be a 'chilling effect' and there will be 'draconian measures'. HAHAHAH
There is nothing, nothing, more patriotic than dissent.
So you're in Santelli's corner, right? 'Cause the tide of populism is actually for more bailouts and federal spending. Stewart mixed that on up.
Damn! Why can't I come on here to rant or rave about what the Gothamist article says, instead of having to read every dickhead's attempt to prop up their own misguided political agenda? This article was about Stewart blasting some pansy for not showing up when he had promised to do so. There was nothing within the paragraphs Mr. Parker wrote to suggest this was anything other than that.
Maybe if you were an unemployed investment banker, you'd be inundating Gothamist with a bunch of right-wing talking points, too.
Astute observation. It's a damn shame their own incompetence came back to bite them in the ass. I guess that's what unbridled greed will do to people.
To be honest, I don't care for the left-wing agenda either. Neither side seems to understand that when you overload one side of the plane (wing analogy) you're going to crash and burn.
This trend of dismissing opinions that differ from your own as "talking points" is completely played out.
I dismiss his comments because he's a Cowboys which speaks to his low intelligence.
Of course. Call someone names because you don't like the team they root for, instead of addressing the topic at hand. Now that's high intelligence.
I dismiss his comments because he's a Cowboys which speaks to his low intelligence.
LOL
Well, the homeowners don't exist in a vacuum either. They make for the consumers who buy the products and use the services of those companies owned by those millionaires. At the very least, the consumers of the building materials and labor used to build those damn houses.
The point is: how do you prop up the economy: by giving to the consumers or by giving to the products and services providers?
The answers that seems to make sense is: both. That's what Obama is doing. Of course, both sides will be pulling for their own and pushing against the other, but that's to be expected.
Rick Santelli is a backtracking asshat!!
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rick-santelli-says-white-house-threaten
The point of the clip is that those irresponsible homeowners CNBC's Santelli was ranting about are the same people CNBC market "analysts" and reporters, including Santelli, have been telling to buy buy buy for years. You can't have your cake and eat it too, CNBC. If you tell people over and over to buy houses, and they buy houses, you can't then blame them for buying houses.
Between Maria Bartiromo slutting herself out on another Citigroup junket, Jim Cramer blowing his bald wad and giving lousy investment advice, and Rick Santelli bloviating about that greedy middle class at The Chicago Board of trade in front of a bunch of porcine Jr. Rotarians, CNBC has become just another crappy reality tv show. And here's a 'mustard seed' for you, Ides of March: "Larry Kudlow Shoots Wife, Self In Parking Garage".
I love rick santelli and I totally agree with his point about bailing out home owners who can't afford their mortgages.
I blame both the homeowners who thought they could afford a home without sufficient down payment or income, but even more I blame the government that cast aside sound economics in favor of political correctness that decided mortgages should be extended to people based on factors other than their finances.
Fanny Mae was the time bomb at the center of this mess. Why does it still even exist? It should have been abolished before it does any more damage. Instead Obama is rewarding them with more money. Pure insanity.
There is no known empirical data that supports your assertion that supposed race-based lending even occurred, let alone contributed to anything.
No, but why would he not use a fake Right Wing talking point?
...and I also blame the cowardly banks for taking the short term gains of sub-prime mortgages and not standing up to the government.
So, under the same logic of Fannie Mae needing to be abolished and not given more money, should banks like Citi and BofA go the same route (i.e. extinction rather than more "capital infusions?")
Yes.
So you blame capitalism?
Can I?
"the cowardly banks"? You mean the banks that decided of their own free will to discount obvious risks and lend to borrowers they knew to be unqualified?
Really, Ides, unless this is some sort of long-running performance art piece of yours, you've really got a dense chunk of rotten meat in that skull of yours.
John Stewart and the Daily show have lost there way. They can't make fun of Obama like they could bush, so what's their MO? Making fun of pundits with salient points about something that affects us all? Santelli is no Rush Limbaugh and to demonize this guy is stupid...just like the Daily Show.
I actually agree. We finally have a leadership that we can't ridicule. Cancel The Daily Show.
They criticize Obama (sure not to the same level). An example, I think they did it Monday about Obama sounding like Bush about Iraq.
But, even ignoring that, I think we need more criticism on media and the press. My opinion is that it's important. We need to reference hypocrisy, and aggrandizement... and the Daily Show is the only place I see doing it.
KEEP IT UP.
Seriously, they should go back to the good old days when they made fun of the mentally unstable...such as cat lady, and the man who invented a line of jeans with bigger pouches to support larger...packages.
Now stay tuned to Comedy Central for a rerun of Mind Of Mencia!
Spot on, as always.
About these "loser", home owning Americans: I'm a renter, as are most New Yorkers. And no, I don't want to pay for people who mismanaged their money--on an individual or system wide scale. But you have to keep in mind that these home owners aren't all lazy and dumb. That's a wide, insulting generalization. I'm in my mid-20s, recently married, college grad, with a small savings account. Now, my dad--who's a hardcore fiscal conservative--kept prodding me to buy a few years ago. He's money smart, and is near-obsessed with following the economy and market trends. Even HE said to buy buy buy, that it was "a buyers market", 0% down in some cases. Considering I'm kinda smart, live within my means, etc., I was still tempted into thinking it was a real possibility. When you have the bank (an authority) and people around you assuring the safety of those kinds of investments, a lot of mistakes can be made. I'm not letting everyone off the hook, but we've got to stop generalizing the "dumb homeowners".
Hate to break it to you, but your dad may not be as money smart as you think if he thought houses would continue to appreciate and a no-interest loan would be okay as your equity would build and build before you even make a payment on your house.
Comedians mostly deal with the absurb. The George W. campaign, election, presentation and administration were absurb. Almost every comedian asked said George W. was a gold mine for them. Obama may never be mocked like George W. unless he becomes totally ridiculous and that could be impossible.
Is there anyone who will take on Stewart, the king of smug?
Even so, Santelli, in that contemptuous rant, encapsulated what the moneyed class' true feelings for the middle and lower classes are.
www.forgotten-ny.com
I love how everyone in this country thinks their an economist when clearly most of them probably didn't pass it in high school. This was just as much (if not more) the fault of the banks as it was the home buyers, anyone who says anything different it still figuring out how to balance their checkbooks.
Funny you commented on passing high school classes, I noticed there that you misused their, when I think you meant to say they're.
Classic Boyah
Braiden Harvey