video: a review of cnbc analysis

[afx114]

Tonight Colbert compared Santelli to The Dramatic Chipmunk. I would post it but it’s not on colbertnation.com yet.

[CA renter]

[quote=j]OK, but where is the clip of Santelli being wrong? Santelli and Mark are the only two I see no CNBC that make any sense. Santelli and Mark were against the bank bailouts and they are against the irresponsible homeowner bailout, like me.

Why is the media trying make it sound like Santelli is only against the irresponsible homeowner bailout?[/quote]
——————

You are correct, j. Santelli has been against ALL the bailouts, and I’ve never seen him advocate giving money to the banks or Wall Street.

The fact that this video is going viral, and that the White House attempted to make Santelli look like an uninformed rube the next day (?) makes me suspicious (there I go with my tin foil hat, again).

Why is nobody correcting the people who are trying to discredit Santelli?

I’ve watched CNBC for years, and Santelli is the ONLY one who has been making sense all along.

He’s right. There is a major minority or minor majority who do NOT want to pay peoples’ mortgages.

I don’t mind helping people who’ve gotten cancer (or some similar disabling illness) and have to be out of work for an extended time, or those who’ve have had some very serious, totally unexpected emergency hit them. But the notion that we have to pay for some jackasses who overspent and maxed out their finances during the good times — making no provisions for the bad times — makes me furious.

If renting is good enough for my family, then it’s good enough for their families. I have no more sympathy for them than they did for renters who’ve lost their homes due to having LLs who wanted to flip homes or get foreclosed on…or the people who were tossed out of their homes when the specuvestors converted apartments to condos. Let them fail.

[CA renter]

[quote=j]OK, but where is the clip of Santelli being wrong? Santelli and Mark are the only two I see no CNBC that make any sense. Santelli and Mark were against the bank bailouts and they are against the irresponsible homeowner bailout, like me.

Why is the media trying make it sound like Santelli is only against the irresponsible homeowner bailout?[/quote]
——————

You are correct, j. Santelli has been against ALL the bailouts, and I’ve never seen him advocate giving money to the banks or Wall Street.

The fact that this video is going viral, and that the White House attempted to make Santelli look like an uninformed rube the next day (?) makes me suspicious (there I go with my tin foil hat, again).

Why is nobody correcting the people who are trying to discredit Santelli?

I’ve watched CNBC for years, and Santelli is the ONLY one who has been making sense all along.

He’s right. There is a major minority or minor majority who do NOT want to pay peoples’ mortgages.

I don’t mind helping people who’ve gotten cancer (or some similar disabling illness) and have to be out of work for an extended time, or those who’ve have had some very serious, totally unexpected emergency hit them. But the notion that we have to pay for some jackasses who overspent and maxed out their finances during the good times — making no provisions for the bad times — makes me furious.

If renting is good enough for my family, then it’s good enough for their families. I have no more sympathy for them than they did for renters who’ve lost their homes due to having LLs who wanted to flip homes or get foreclosed on…or the people who were tossed out of their homes when the specuvestors converted apartments to condos. Let them fail.

[CA renter]

[quote=j]OK, but where is the clip of Santelli being wrong? Santelli and Mark are the only two I see no CNBC that make any sense. Santelli and Mark were against the bank bailouts and they are against the irresponsible homeowner bailout, like me.

Why is the media trying make it sound like Santelli is only against the irresponsible homeowner bailout?[/quote]
——————

You are correct, j. Santelli has been against ALL the bailouts, and I’ve never seen him advocate giving money to the banks or Wall Street.

The fact that this video is going viral, and that the White House attempted to make Santelli look like an uninformed rube the next day (?) makes me suspicious (there I go with my tin foil hat, again).

Why is nobody correcting the people who are trying to discredit Santelli?

I’ve watched CNBC for years, and Santelli is the ONLY one who has been making sense all along.

He’s right. There is a major minority or minor majority who do NOT want to pay peoples’ mortgages.

I don’t mind helping people who’ve gotten cancer (or some similar disabling illness) and have to be out of work for an extended time, or those who’ve have had some very serious, totally unexpected emergency hit them. But the notion that we have to pay for some jackasses who overspent and maxed out their finances during the good times — making no provisions for the bad times — makes me furious.

If renting is good enough for my family, then it’s good enough for their families. I have no more sympathy for them than they did for renters who’ve lost their homes due to having LLs who wanted to flip homes or get foreclosed on…or the people who were tossed out of their homes when the specuvestors converted apartments to condos. Let them fail.

[CA renter]

[quote=j]OK, but where is the clip of Santelli being wrong? Santelli and Mark are the only two I see no CNBC that make any sense. Santelli and Mark were against the bank bailouts and they are against the irresponsible homeowner bailout, like me.

Why is the media trying make it sound like Santelli is only against the irresponsible homeowner bailout?[/quote]
——————

You are correct, j. Santelli has been against ALL the bailouts, and I’ve never seen him advocate giving money to the banks or Wall Street.

The fact that this video is going viral, and that the White House attempted to make Santelli look like an uninformed rube the next day (?) makes me suspicious (there I go with my tin foil hat, again).

Why is nobody correcting the people who are trying to discredit Santelli?

I’ve watched CNBC for years, and Santelli is the ONLY one who has been making sense all along.

He’s right. There is a major minority or minor majority who do NOT want to pay peoples’ mortgages.

I don’t mind helping people who’ve gotten cancer (or some similar disabling illness) and have to be out of work for an extended time, or those who’ve have had some very serious, totally unexpected emergency hit them. But the notion that we have to pay for some jackasses who overspent and maxed out their finances during the good times — making no provisions for the bad times — makes me furious.

If renting is good enough for my family, then it’s good enough for their families. I have no more sympathy for them than they did for renters who’ve lost their homes due to having LLs who wanted to flip homes or get foreclosed on…or the people who were tossed out of their homes when the specuvestors converted apartments to condos. Let them fail.

[CA renter]

[quote=j]OK, but where is the clip of Santelli being wrong? Santelli and Mark are the only two I see no CNBC that make any sense. Santelli and Mark were against the bank bailouts and they are against the irresponsible homeowner bailout, like me.

Why is the media trying make it sound like Santelli is only against the irresponsible homeowner bailout?[/quote]
——————

You are correct, j. Santelli has been against ALL the bailouts, and I’ve never seen him advocate giving money to the banks or Wall Street.

The fact that this video is going viral, and that the White House attempted to make Santelli look like an uninformed rube the next day (?) makes me suspicious (there I go with my tin foil hat, again).

Why is nobody correcting the people who are trying to discredit Santelli?

I’ve watched CNBC for years, and Santelli is the ONLY one who has been making sense all along.

He’s right. There is a major minority or minor majority who do NOT want to pay peoples’ mortgages.

I don’t mind helping people who’ve gotten cancer (or some similar disabling illness) and have to be out of work for an extended time, or those who’ve have had some very serious, totally unexpected emergency hit them. But the notion that we have to pay for some jackasses who overspent and maxed out their finances during the good times — making no provisions for the bad times — makes me furious.

If renting is good enough for my family, then it’s good enough for their families. I have no more sympathy for them than they did for renters who’ve lost their homes due to having LLs who wanted to flip homes or get foreclosed on…or the people who were tossed out of their homes when the specuvestors converted apartments to condos. Let them fail.

[Downtowner]

Yes, Stewart was on fire that night! This is one of the only shows I record and it seems as though he is at his best when he is pissed off and he was visibly pissed off that night. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him dedicate a whole show to one topic – Slamming CNBC! I think he has been jonesing since Bush left office, after all they provided him with more than enough material.

The real root of the media’s problem is that in the 24/7 information age – there is simply not enough news for 10 different news channels to cover, so they have manufacture something every hour or so. The sad thing is that pretty much no one holds anyone accountable for these manufactured news stories.

[Downtowner]

Yes, Stewart was on fire that night! This is one of the only shows I record and it seems as though he is at his best when he is pissed off and he was visibly pissed off that night. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him dedicate a whole show to one topic – Slamming CNBC! I think he has been jonesing since Bush left office, after all they provided him with more than enough material.

The real root of the media’s problem is that in the 24/7 information age – there is simply not enough news for 10 different news channels to cover, so they have manufacture something every hour or so. The sad thing is that pretty much no one holds anyone accountable for these manufactured news stories.

[Downtowner]

Yes, Stewart was on fire that night! This is one of the only shows I record and it seems as though he is at his best when he is pissed off and he was visibly pissed off that night. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him dedicate a whole show to one topic – Slamming CNBC! I think he has been jonesing since Bush left office, after all they provided him with more than enough material.

The real root of the media’s problem is that in the 24/7 information age – there is simply not enough news for 10 different news channels to cover, so they have manufacture something every hour or so. The sad thing is that pretty much no one holds anyone accountable for these manufactured news stories.

[Downtowner]

Yes, Stewart was on fire that night! This is one of the only shows I record and it seems as though he is at his best when he is pissed off and he was visibly pissed off that night. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him dedicate a whole show to one topic – Slamming CNBC! I think he has been jonesing since Bush left office, after all they provided him with more than enough material.

The real root of the media’s problem is that in the 24/7 information age – there is simply not enough news for 10 different news channels to cover, so they have manufacture something every hour or so. The sad thing is that pretty much no one holds anyone accountable for these manufactured news stories.

[Downtowner]

Yes, Stewart was on fire that night! This is one of the only shows I record and it seems as though he is at his best when he is pissed off and he was visibly pissed off that night. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him dedicate a whole show to one topic – Slamming CNBC! I think he has been jonesing since Bush left office, after all they provided him with more than enough material.

The real root of the media’s problem is that in the 24/7 information age – there is simply not enough news for 10 different news channels to cover, so they have manufacture something every hour or so. The sad thing is that pretty much no one holds anyone accountable for these manufactured news stories.

[Arraya]

You are correct, j. Santelli has been against ALL the bailouts, and I’ve never seen him advocate giving money to the banks or Wall Street.
The fact that this video is going viral, and that the White House attempted to make Santelli look like an uninformed rube the next day (?) makes me suspicious (there I go with my tin foil hat, again).
Why is nobody correcting the people who are trying to discredit Santelli?
I’ve watched CNBC for years, and Santelli is the ONLY one who has been making sense all along.
He’s right. There is a major minority or minor majority who do NOT want to pay peoples’ mortgages.

I think Santelli is a little more honest than most on CNBC as well. The problem I had with the rant is that it focuses on less 1/100 portion of the bailout funds which is the one that supposedly will help people. For the record we don’t know how much “helping” it will do. Judging from the criteria it won’t modify but a small portion of the proposed amount of loans.

Most have a visions of somebody with 60 inch plasma tvs and a hummer that has a license plate that says “Da Broker” on it. When in reality the majority of the people going into foreclosure today and walking away because they are so far upside down and they rather rent for less or they lost their job because of this mess. Most of the “speculators” have been purged all ready. Not that I think this is a wise allocation of funds, its not, it won’t help a thing. People or economic recovery. It seems gimmicky and only serves as a divisive measure and possibly a way to dump more toxic assets on the public.

Still, the overall mindset of the people championing this rant as something “special” seems to be rooted in a juvenile jealousy of the bad kids that did not finnish their homework getting milk and cookies before bedtime. When in reality mommy and daddy are abusing the whole family.

If the want to “help” people they should give the 75 billion to food pantries around the country but that would not help line bankers pockets.

[Arraya]

You are correct, j. Santelli has been against ALL the bailouts, and I’ve never seen him advocate giving money to the banks or Wall Street.
The fact that this video is going viral, and that the White House attempted to make Santelli look like an uninformed rube the next day (?) makes me suspicious (there I go with my tin foil hat, again).
Why is nobody correcting the people who are trying to discredit Santelli?
I’ve watched CNBC for years, and Santelli is the ONLY one who has been making sense all along.
He’s right. There is a major minority or minor majority who do NOT want to pay peoples’ mortgages.

I think Santelli is a little more honest than most on CNBC as well. The problem I had with the rant is that it focuses on less 1/100 portion of the bailout funds which is the one that supposedly will help people. For the record we don’t know how much “helping” it will do. Judging from the criteria it won’t modify but a small portion of the proposed amount of loans.

Most have a visions of somebody with 60 inch plasma tvs and a hummer that has a license plate that says “Da Broker” on it. When in reality the majority of the people going into foreclosure today and walking away because they are so far upside down and they rather rent for less or they lost their job because of this mess. Most of the “speculators” have been purged all ready. Not that I think this is a wise allocation of funds, its not, it won’t help a thing. People or economic recovery. It seems gimmicky and only serves as a divisive measure and possibly a way to dump more toxic assets on the public.

Still, the overall mindset of the people championing this rant as something “special” seems to be rooted in a juvenile jealousy of the bad kids that did not finnish their homework getting milk and cookies before bedtime. When in reality mommy and daddy are abusing the whole family.

If the want to “help” people they should give the 75 billion to food pantries around the country but that would not help line bankers pockets.

[Arraya]

You are correct, j. Santelli has been against ALL the bailouts, and I’ve never seen him advocate giving money to the banks or Wall Street.
The fact that this video is going viral, and that the White House attempted to make Santelli look like an uninformed rube the next day (?) makes me suspicious (there I go with my tin foil hat, again).
Why is nobody correcting the people who are trying to discredit Santelli?
I’ve watched CNBC for years, and Santelli is the ONLY one who has been making sense all along.
He’s right. There is a major minority or minor majority who do NOT want to pay peoples’ mortgages.

I think Santelli is a little more honest than most on CNBC as well. The problem I had with the rant is that it focuses on less 1/100 portion of the bailout funds which is the one that supposedly will help people. For the record we don’t know how much “helping” it will do. Judging from the criteria it won’t modify but a small portion of the proposed amount of loans.

Most have a visions of somebody with 60 inch plasma tvs and a hummer that has a license plate that says “Da Broker” on it. When in reality the majority of the people going into foreclosure today and walking away because they are so far upside down and they rather rent for less or they lost their job because of this mess. Most of the “speculators” have been purged all ready. Not that I think this is a wise allocation of funds, its not, it won’t help a thing. People or economic recovery. It seems gimmicky and only serves as a divisive measure and possibly a way to dump more toxic assets on the public.

Still, the overall mindset of the people championing this rant as something “special” seems to be rooted in a juvenile jealousy of the bad kids that did not finnish their homework getting milk and cookies before bedtime. When in reality mommy and daddy are abusing the whole family.

If the want to “help” people they should give the 75 billion to food pantries around the country but that would not help line bankers pockets.

[Arraya]

You are correct, j. Santelli has been against ALL the bailouts, and I’ve never seen him advocate giving money to the banks or Wall Street.
The fact that this video is going viral, and that the White House attempted to make Santelli look like an uninformed rube the next day (?) makes me suspicious (there I go with my tin foil hat, again).
Why is nobody correcting the people who are trying to discredit Santelli?
I’ve watched CNBC for years, and Santelli is the ONLY one who has been making sense all along.
He’s right. There is a major minority or minor majority who do NOT want to pay peoples’ mortgages.

I think Santelli is a little more honest than most on CNBC as well. The problem I had with the rant is that it focuses on less 1/100 portion of the bailout funds which is the one that supposedly will help people. For the record we don’t know how much “helping” it will do. Judging from the criteria it won’t modify but a small portion of the proposed amount of loans.

Most have a visions of somebody with 60 inch plasma tvs and a hummer that has a license plate that says “Da Broker” on it. When in reality the majority of the people going into foreclosure today and walking away because they are so far upside down and they rather rent for less or they lost their job because of this mess. Most of the “speculators” have been purged all ready. Not that I think this is a wise allocation of funds, its not, it won’t help a thing. People or economic recovery. It seems gimmicky and only serves as a divisive measure and possibly a way to dump more toxic assets on the public.

Still, the overall mindset of the people championing this rant as something “special” seems to be rooted in a juvenile jealousy of the bad kids that did not finnish their homework getting milk and cookies before bedtime. When in reality mommy and daddy are abusing the whole family.

If the want to “help” people they should give the 75 billion to food pantries around the country but that would not help line bankers pockets.

[Author]

Posts