Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC was 5 years ago

[cawacko]

I remember watching this at the time. Obviously became quite the moment.


5 years later, Rick Santelli 'tea party' rant revisited


Five years ago, the American political landscape changed due in large part to one fed-up CNBC journalist.

Rick Santelli, who covers the bond markets at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, had seen enough as Washington policymakers began funneling what would be trillions of dollars to bail out various sectors that had been hit during the financial crisis.

Pushed to the brink, Santelli, speaking on the "Squawk Box" show, exploded into a rant resembling the famous "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" diatribe from the character Howard Beale in the 1976 movie "Network."

As he closed the segment, he turned to traders on the floor and asked them if they would like to bail out their neighbors who had spent too much money on their homes. A chorus of "no" ensued. Earlier in the segment, he suggested he and some others in Chicago planned that summer to throw a "tea party" to show their anger.


Closing, he turned to the camera and asked, "President Obama, are you listening?"

Explosive events would follow: Santelli's urging took hold, with millions of U.S. voters forming multiple tea party affiliations across the country that helped elect numerous candidates and change the conversation of American politics.

Much has changed since then. Santelli believes most of it, at least in terms of public awareness and activism, has been good.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/101441165

 

[The Dude]

He's a tool, you are too!
Most of the blowhards predictions failed to come to pass.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

He's a tool, you are too!
Most of the blowhards predictions failed to come to pass.

Hypocritical as hell too. He didn't have a thing to say about Washington bailing out his masters on Wall Street either.

This is the inherent problem that has exacerbated the income inequality issue. Profits for large institutional investors are privatized. Most of the productivity gains on the last 30 years have gone to them but when an event like this occurred the risks and losses were socialized. The 99% had to pay for the losses of the 1% while they still kept their profits and shamelessly too. Remember how they fought tooth, claw and nail for their bonuses after the cocksuckers submarined the US economy? Why should they give a fuck? They got a free ticket to gamble with our money and we got to pay the tab. They didn't lose any money. They didn't lose their life savings, they didn't lose their home, they didn't lose their retirement investments.

This injustice is going to be a bone of contention and will lead to political instability if not corrected.

What should have been done was too have bailed Wall Street out, to have prevented the economy from totally collapsing, per Keynesian economics. Then anti-trust laws should have been enforced to break up these "Too big to fail" companies. Then Glass-Steagal should have been reintroduced as law and then we should have raised taxes on the 1% to 70% so that they could pay for their greed and to finance a broader stimulus package on public construction projects. But that's not what happened the middle class and the working people had to bail these pricks out so that they could get their bonuses and go on as if nothing ever happened and bitch about how food stamps for the poor and extended unemployment benefits is so unfair to the job makers...who need have their bonuses and there summer homes in the Hamptons.

 

[leaningright]

He's a tool, you are too!
Most of the blowhards predictions failed to come to pass.

Why is cawacko a tool? Because he dares to vote for a republican on occasion? Or maybe because he dares to try to look at all sides of a situation?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Why is cawacko a tool? Because he dares to vote for a republican on occasion? Or maybe because he dares to try to look at all sides of a situation?

Maybe it was because Wacko thinks Santelli's rant wasn't significant. Topper is right, Santelli was wrong on virtually all the points and predictions he made. If Santelli had shown one iota of the passion for opposing TARP as he did for homeowner assistance I'd give him some credibility.

 

[Dantès]

I remember watching this at the time. Obviously became quite the moment.


5 years later, Rick Santelli 'tea party' rant revisited

Five years ago, the American political landscape changed due in large part to one fed-up CNBC journalist.

Rick Santelli, who covers the bond markets at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, had seen enough as Washington policymakers began funneling what would be trillions of dollars to bail out various sectors that had been hit during the financial crisis.

Pushed to the brink, Santelli, speaking on the "Squawk Box" show, exploded into a rant resembling the famous "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" diatribe from the character Howard Beale in the 1976 movie "Network."

As he closed the segment, he turned to traders on the floor and asked them if they would like to bail out their neighbors who had spent too much money on their homes. A chorus of "no" ensued. Earlier in the segment, he suggested he and some others in Chicago planned that summer to throw a "tea party" to show their anger.

Closing, he turned to the camera and asked, "President Obama, are you listening?"

Explosive events would follow: Santelli's urging took hold, with millions of U.S. voters forming multiple tea party affiliations across the country that helped elect numerous candidates and change the conversation of American politics.

Much has changed since then. Santelli believes most of it, at least in terms of public awareness and activism, has been good.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101441165

BFD

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hypocritical as hell too. He didn't have a thing to say about Washington bailing out his masters on Wall Street either.

This is the inherent problem that has exacerbated the income inequality issue. Profits for large institutional investors are privatized. Most of the productivity gains on the last 30 years have gone to them but when an event like this occurred the risks and losses were socialized. The 99% had to pay for the losses of the 1% while they still kept their profits and shamelessly too. Remember how they fought tooth, claw and nail for their bonuses after the cocksuckers submarined the US economy? Why should they give a fuck? They got a free ticket to gamble with our money and we got to pay the tab. They didn't lose any money. They didn't lose their life savings, they didn't lose their home, they didn't lose their retirement investments.

This injustice is going to be a bone of contention and will lead to political instability if not corrected.

What should have been done was too have bailed Wall Street out, to have prevented the economy from totally collapsing, per Keynesian economics. Then anti-trust laws should have been enforced to break up these "Too big to fail" companies. Then Glass-Steagal should have been reintroduced as law and then we should have raised taxes on the 1% to 70% so that they could pay for their greed and to finance a broader stimulus package on public construction projects. But that's not what happened the middle class and the working people had to bail these pricks out so that they could get their bonuses and go on as if nothing ever happened and bitch about how food stamps for the poor and extended unemployment benefits is so unfair to the job makers...who need have their bonuses and there summer homes in the Hamptons.

1) Glass Steagall was essentially an anti-trust law. Thus your first two were redundant, but I agree... Glass Steagall should be put back in place. Dodd Frank should be repealed.

2) Raising taxes to 70% is moronic at best.

 

[cawacko]

Maybe it was because Wacko thinks Santelli's rant wasn't significant. Topper is right, Santelli was wrong on virtually all the points and predictions he made. If Santelli had shown one iota of the passion for opposing TARP as he did for homeowner assistance I'd give him some credibility.

Why would I have posted this link if I felt his rant was insignificant? It can be argued this helped lead to the creation of the tea party. Seems pretty significant to me.

And as an aside, this is not a rhetorical question, what other predictions did Santelli make that were wrong? (I don't know what other predictions he made)

 

[Bonestorm]

Why would I have posted this link if I felt his rant was insignificant? It can be argued this helped lead to the creation of the tea party. Seems pretty significant to me.

And as an aside, this is not a rhetorical question, what other predictions did Santelli make that were wrong? (I don't know what other predictions he made)

If some asshole's rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange broadcast on CNBC can be argued to have led to the creation of the tea party, it says a heck of lot about the tea party and what it represents.

 

[cawacko]

If some asshole's rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange broadcast on CNBC can be argued to have led to the creation of the tea party, it says a heck of lot about the tea party and what it represents.

I'm wordsmithing here but I said it helped lead. I didn't say it lead to the creation of.

 

[Bonestorm]

I'm wordsmithing here but I said it helped lead. I didn't say it lead to the creation of.

Even so.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

1) Glass Steagall was essentially an anti-trust law. Thus your first two were redundant, but I agree... Glass Steagall should be put back in place. Dodd Frank should be repealed.

2) Raising taxes to 70% is moronic at best.

I meant that as hyperbole though I do believe a significant raise in taxes for the upper 1% would have been appropriate to defray the cost of socializing the losses during the debacle and for infrastructure investment.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Why would I have posted this link if I felt his rant was insignificant? It can be argued this helped lead to the creation of the tea party. Seems pretty significant to me.

And as an aside, this is not a rhetorical question, what other predictions did Santelli make that were wrong? (I don't know what other predictions he made)

That Tarp and the Fed actions in response to the 2008/2009 crises would create full blown Weimar inflation and that they would also cause foreign exchange volatility. Neither of which occurred.

 

[Bonestorm]

I meant that as hyperbole though I do believe a significant raise in taxes for the upper 1% would have been appropriate to defray the cost of socializing the losses during the debacle and for infrastructure investment.

I think there should be substantially more tax brackets and in such a scheme I don't see why a 70% marginal tax rate on income of, say, $10,000,000 and above would be at all inappropriate.

 

[The Dude]

Why is cawacko a tool? Because he dares to vote for a republican on occasion? Or maybe because he dares to try to look at all sides of a situation?

Not at all
Because he went to USC
Is a drunkard
And is long term unemployed
I could care less that he's right wing

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think there should be substantially more tax brackets and in such a scheme I don't see why a 70% marginal tax rate on income of, say, $10,000,000 and above would be at all inappropriate.

I don't think in the grand scheme of tihngs that would accomplish much as most wealthy people make their income off of investment income that is taxed at the 15% long term capital gains rate.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Not at all
Because he went to USC
Is a drunkard
And is long term unemployed
I could care less that he's right wing

I wouldn't consider Wacko "right wing". I'd consider him a member of a near extinct group. The Rockefeller Republican.

 

[The Dude]

I fucking love the tax code just like it is!
It's freaking awesome

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I fucking love the tax code just like it is!
It's freaking awesome

LOL I can see why you would.

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't think in the grand scheme of tihngs that would accomplish much as most wealthy people make their income off of investment income that is taxed at the 15% long term capital gains rate.

Well I'd tax all income at the same rate and use a scale that didn't really have "brackets" per se but rather resulting in taxation along an exponential scale with increasing level of taxation at higher and higher incomes. The way we do it now is pretty stupid, taxing dollar $400,001 at the same rate as dollar $10,000,000.