Friday, March 06, 2009

FTW

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I watched this yesterday on The Huffington Post and couldn't stop laughing. I think his show is pretty much funnier than anything else on TV now.

Hardeep said...

It appears that bailing out on the daily show is even worse then bailing out on Letterman.

CNBC was thoroughly owned along with Santelli.

jrm78 said...

That whole episode of the Daily Show was solid. Almost as good was the Colbert Report's smackdown on Glenn Beck and their "Doom Bunker" segment that appeared afterward.

Anonymous said...

It's too bad that they didn't skewer Larry Kudlow more. He kept talking about how good the economy was until it really tanked. His term for the economy was Goldilocks. Too bad his Goldilocks was a tramp and he was her pimp. He's on "The Call" at 11:00am and has his own show at 7:00pm (EST).
The Call
The Kudlow Report

Anonymous said...

Santelli's point is that if a bank offers a mortgage that requires a monthly payment of $1500, and your take home pay is $1700 dollars, it's probably not a good idea to buy the house...which many people did, and now our tax money is being used to bail their ass out.

His point has nothing to do with following the idiots at CNBC, but everything to with being held accountable for making irresponsible decisions.

But, if The Daily Show got the point, then they wouldn't have this eight and a half minute segment..so never mind.

Anonymous said...

You may or may not enjoy this short story I wrote shortly after watching Santelli's rant a couple weeks ago:

http://schwa242.livejournal.com/664438.html

spazmodeas said...

"Santelli's point is that if a bank offers a mortgage that requires a monthly payment of $1500, and your take home pay is $1700 dollars, it's probably not a good idea to buy the house" Which wouldn't have been an issue if the banks hadn't been offering people such unsafe mortgages in order to increase their own profit statements.

C Riedel-de Haen said...

@ Anonymous 3:57
I don't think the point was to absolve the borrowers of responsibility, because clearly, they should have done a thorough assessment of their financial situation before accepting unrealistically-termed loans.

I think the point was rather to highlight the fact that the big banks and corporations that also made stupid decisions regarding their finances are generally being given a free pass and more, a whole hell of a lot more, taxpayer money.

That's what I think.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon @ 3:57 P.M.: Neither the bailout or stimulus packages were needed. That's the point that should be made.

I keep wondering why these lenders haven't just reworked the loans so that people can keep making payments. I mean, it's not like you're getting money out of a foreclosure.

Whatever.

Alex said...

Except that Santelli IS one of the idiots at CNBC!

Anonymous said...

I love Jon Stewart and TDS. Totally and without reservation.

Anonymous said...

Yes, other Anonymous poster, it's a real shame all those people who only brought home $1500 a month had guns to get those mortgages from those poor, helpless bankers.

Please, they couldn't have gotten those loans if the banking industry wasn't so f'd up, greedy, and *irresponsible*. "And now our tax money is being used to bail their ass out" indeed.

Santelli has no problem with bailing out his Wall Street buddies. And that's the Daily Show's point, which somehow, defying all odds, you've missed.

But, if you got the point, then you wouldn't have your feeble anonymous post. And I wouldn't have mine..so never mind.

Vermillion said...

@Anon 3:57 PM - So some jackass from Wall Street (you know, the folks who decided giving out such mortgages was a bright idea) says that the government shouldn't consider giving the money to some of the people who paid for the bailout (and face it, not everyone ruined was some rube who couldn't count), with no mention of another solution, and Stewart called him on it.

Seems to me they got the point just fine.

SteveR said...

Has anyone from the banking industry explained why they loaned out mortgages under such dubious conditions?

And sorry, I won't accept variations on "as a favor".