Jackie Mason Explains Sub-Prime Mortgages

At least I think he does. The only two facts I can verify from this video: it was posted by "The Ultimate Jew" and it's the 46th Jackie Mason vlog that's been tossed onto YouTube like a sack of kittens into the river.

Actually, Mason is mostly correct about the sub-prime panic, especially about whether we should bail out the schmucks (oh God, it's like osmosis) who got them. But the delivery… and if you haven't torn your eyes out yet, there's more.

Tim Cavanaugh had a slightly more comprehensible rant about sub-primes in the June reason.

Comments

[Mutts]

What delivery? The guy hasn't been funny since 1987. Omigod, once-mildly-amusing comedian takes on a subject he knows nothing about! Should I give him a link to a friendly audience? Should I buy him a $400 hooker who will pretend to laugh at his jokes when she really is laughing at his shrivelled, 74-year-old penis?

A Mercedes is equivalent to a house? That's not a funny premise. Some schmuck thinks a Mercedes is equivalent to a house and thinks he's funny? That's funny.

[JW]

Why yes, yes it is.

Either you can afford to pay for something you have bought *and* have the sense to not be in a situation where your inability to extract yourself is only matched only by your stupidity....

Or not. Your choice.

While what he is saying may not be funny, but like many of us, he's tired of morons and the deafening drumbeat of dread and doom from the MSM defining the norm.

[Stephen the Goldberger]

The only person he trusts is Neil Cavuto. Hence the only analysis he knows is Neil Cavuto's. No wonder he's able to simplify the situation so succintly and in such black and white terms.

[Finkelstein]

The way lefties portray, anyone who signed a subprime mortgage had a gun to their head.

[Warren]

The guy hasn't been funny since 1987

Was he funny in 87? Cause ever since Caddyshack 2, I've been changing the channel as soon as I hear that voice.

[Dan T.]

Either you can afford to pay for something you have bought *and* have the sense to not be in a situation where your inability to extract yourself is only matched only by your stupidity....

Or not. Your choice.

How exactly is it your choice to not be "stupid" (or, to put it more politely, not perfect in judgement)?

As easy as it is to look down on people who are duped into making poor financial decisions, I'm not sure shrugging our collective shoulders is the best public policy when trying to figure out how to deal with the results of such transactions.

[Bubba Zanetti]

Re: The Ultimate Jew, two weeks ago I was driving on the maine coast and saw the greatest boat name of all time: The Wandering Jew.

[Pro Libertate]

Fine. How about we bifurcate this nation into people willing to subordinate their judgment to the government and people who are not? I'm even willing to chip in a small gratuity to keep the former group out of trouble. Bibertarians and libertarians, living side by side. Ah.

[The $50 is the new $20]

You see son, usury allows the little man to have that which he desires

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_WieQ-g63A

[joe]

Hey! That's the guy who was the anteater in the Pink Panther cartoons!

[The Real Bill]

How exactly is it your choice to not be "stupid" (or, to put it more politely, not perfect in judgement)?

It's called education.

[Baylen]

This reminds me that the late, great Spy magazine worked out "Jism on a cake" as an anagram for Jackie Mason.

[Pro Libertate]

joe,

Was he really? I thought those were mostly silent. Or was it the panther that was silent?

I still like Mancini's old tune 🙂

[JW]

As easy as it is to look down on people who are duped into making poor financial decisions...

No, it's easy to look down on people who were not in any position to be buying a house, but had to have one anyway, and couldn't be bothered to read the contract and/or understand the terms that they were signing.

It's even easier to look down on politicos and newsies who now think we should bail them out.

[uncle sam]

There must just be something interesting about someone who can spew their thought jumbles out in a continuous stream.

It was the pink panther that never spoke.

The anteater had a definit Australian accent.

[joe]

No, the anteater sounded like Jackie Mason.

He wasn't a character in the Pink Panther cartoons themselves - they ran little shorts around the PP cartoons. One was about the Anteater, and the other was about, IIRC, two lazy Mexican frogs.

[Dan T.]

No, it's easy to look down on people who were not in any position to be buying a house, but had to have one anyway, and couldn't be bothered to read the contract and/or understand the terms that they were signing.

It's easy, but it's bad karma. You may have lived absolutely mistake-free up til now, but you never know when you might find yourself in a situation where you need to be helped, er, "bailed out".

[MP]

No, the anteater sounded like Jackie Mason.

The wiki claims it's an intentional impersonation.

[TrickyVic]

Yes, he is the voice of the Anteater, and the Pink Panter does not speak.

I saw Jackie Mason on Broadway in 1991, he was funny. I have never seen Caddy Shack 2 and I'm not planning on it. It's a tall order to sequel the first Caddy Shack. I probably would think less of him after that too.

[JW]

You may have lived absolutely mistake-free up til now, but you never know when you might find yourself in a situation where you need to be helped, er, "bailed out".

Growing up, I knew a couple of way-too-rich kids whose parents would buy them another new, fancy car, to replace the one they just totaled.

They never learned either.

[TrickyVic]

According to TV Squad MP is correct

[lunchstealer]

I'd much rather Jackie Gleason explain sub-prime mortgages, possibly with Art Carney doing the visual aids.

That or Senor Cardgage Mortgage

[dhex]

"It's easy, but it's bad karma."

nitpick: there's no such thing as "good" or "bad" karma - action is action.

[Ayn_Randian]

You may have lived absolutely mistake-free up til now, but you never know when you might find yourself in a situation where you need to be helped

Dan, are you ever, ever going to just make people take responsibility for their own mistakes? I mean, do I have to perpetually pay and "help" people out because somewhere, in someplace, someone's doing something with "imperfect judgement"?

This isn't a Christian government...please stop forcing me to be my brother's keeper.

[joe]

Randian,

If you have so little respect for the well-being of your "brothers," why should we respect your desire to pay lower taxes?

[Mo]

No, it's easy to look down on people who were not in any position to be buying a house, but had to have one anyway, and couldn't be bothered to read the contract and/or understand the terms that they were signing.

Uh, except for the people that were duped, had signatures/documents forged or had terms changed by their lenders. Unless, of course you've missed the news of those sorts of dirty tactics. Of course, BusinessWeek and the WSJ are well known communist rags, so it's hard to trust in these situations.

A lot of people made bad decisions, both lenders and borrowers. No one should be bailed out. But lets not jump to conclusions that everything was on the up and up.

[Dan T.]

Dan, are you ever, ever going to just make people take responsibility for their own mistakes? I mean, do I have to perpetually pay and "help" people out because somewhere, in someplace, someone's doing something with "imperfect judgement"?

I guess we don't "have" to, but it's probably a better option than not helping people when they need it. You may find that people don't starve to death willingly, if you catch my drift.

[JasonL]

Regardless of how you feel about people in certain circumstances, paying them to repeat their mistakes seems like an un-smart idea.

[nebby]

I don't think moving back to the apartment they were in a year ago is quite the same as starving to death.

Yes, no one should starve in the streets, no, paying off the "poor" peoples credit cards is not a moral imperative for everyone else in society.

[Isaac Bartram]

Dan, are you ever, ever going to just make people take responsibility for their own mistakes?

I'm uneasy about making people take responsibility for their mistakes but i'm fine with letting people take responsibility for their mistakes.

Taking responsibility can take many forms. But generally bad investments need to be liquidated. That means someone's going to lose something.

Get back to me when someone's life is actually in danger on this one, OK.

[Isaac Bartram]

D'oh, nebby said most of what I wanted to say while I was composing my longwinded response.

[Rex Rhino]

As easy as it is to look down on people who are duped into making poor financial decisions, I'm not sure shrugging our collective shoulders is the best public policy when trying to figure out how to deal with the results of such transactions.

Except that people learn their lesson by suffering the consequences. If someone buys a house they can't afford, they end up having to sell the house and move to a smaller house. We aren't talking about homeless people, we are talking about people who paid way too much for their McMansion. These people aren't going to go live on the street or have their children starve, they are just going to have to find some smaller more affordable housing.

The Mercedes analogy is a good one. Get rid of the Mercedes and buy a Toyota! Toyota isn't a bad car... Anyone bitching about having to sell their Mercedes to buy a Toyota is going to piss off those people who purchased a Toyota.

Likewise, many of us purchased reasonable homes that we could afford... had we known, we could have purchased super-sized luxury homes that we couldn't afford and just had the government bail us out. Why do you want to punish people who don't live way beyond their means, to subsidize those that do?

Why should the family with a small two bedroom condo and a single Toyota in the driveway and are responsible with their money, have to bail out the people who live in a 6 bedroom McMansion and have an SUV and Luxury Sedan because those people who choose a rich lifestyle are idiots?

Why should smart poor people subsidize the lifestyle of dumb rich people?

If you have so little respect for the well-being of your "brothers," why should we respect your desire to pay lower taxes?

Because taxation is slavery. Is slavery OK, so long as a tiny percentage of the people being enslaved are assholes?

[Dan T.]

I think it's amazingly cynical to think that helping somebody recover from a mistake prevents that person from learning from the mistake.

I broke my arm as a kid and the doctor fixing me up did not cause me to go out and break it again.

[TrickyVic]

I'm not sure how many people were really duped. Many signed a morgage with an adjustable rate because they bought into the belief that the rate could go lower. They never objectively examined that belief. They never examined the what if the rate goes up 5 points scenario.

People need to be wiser when they enter into these agreements. Don't ass-u-me.

[Pro Libertate]

As far as helping people who are in dire straits goes, I'd like to decide who to help. Preferably someone I know or someone in my community. By my choice, not by compulsion. Besides, those helped out by government are selected for political reasons, nine times out of ten. Not the best basis for doling out charity, if you ask me.

[Dan T.]

Because taxation is slavery. Is slavery OK, so long as a tiny percentage of the people being enslaved are assholes?

It's a Catch-22, isn't it? Taxation is slavery, but we need taxation to enforce the laws against slavery.

[tarran]

It's a Catch-22, isn't it? Taxation is slavery, but we need taxation to enforce the laws against slavery.

ROFL. Dan, that's not a Catch 22. That's just a rationalization for perpetuating slavery. Taxation is neither a requirement for security. nor for law enforcement.

[Paul]

i've got a win-win idea. let's invest joe's and Dan T's pensions in refinancing people's subprime mortgages down to fixed rates at 6%. They may lose their principal, but they will have their principles.

[ChicagoTom]

A lot of people made bad decisions, both lenders and borrowers. No one should be bailed out. But lets not jump to conclusions that everything was on the up and up.

I agree with this. I don't want any bailouts either, but let's stop pretending like it was just stupid buyers. There were many unscrupulous lenders who fudged stuff to get people to qualify, not to mention shady appraisers bullshit what the house is worth to make sure the loan goes through.

They never objectively examined that belief. They never examined the what if the rate goes up 5 points scenario.

I believe a number of people were under the impression that they would be able to refinance, and also believed that the worth of the house was going to keep going up by about 7-10% annually. And that is what everyone on the TV was saying too -- that Real Estate won't go down and that within a couple of years the owners would have so much equity that a refi wont be a problem.

I have a good friend of mine who became a RE agent 2-3 years ago. We had this exact discussion at the time and he was adamant that there is no way anyone is going to lose money on a house and that RE prices aren't going to drop or go flat.

[Ayn_Randian]

If you have so little respect for the well-being of your "brothers," why should we respect your desire to pay lower taxes?

How can you enforce respect, joe? If I don't respect their well-being, no amount of forcing me to pay for my "brothers" is going to garner that respect. You're just going to piss me off.

Also, I want to mention that "not wanting to be forced to care for my brothers" does not equal "not having respect for them". Maybe I want to choose who to help and how to help them. Boy what a thought...freedom to choose.

[ChicagoTom]

The other problem that seems to be affecting the homeowners is that since the loans have been sold off into hedge funds rather than the lender holding on to it, people in dire straits who would normally be able to deal with their lender to renegotiate terms to try and keep the house and pay what they can no longer can do that.

From what I read, someone else services the loan (collects payments etc) but doesn't really own the loan so there is now no one to negotiate with to try and keep come up with a plan to keep your house.

[Rex Rhino]

It's a Catch-22, isn't it? Taxation is slavery, but we need taxation to enforce the laws against slavery.

Anti-slavery duty can be done by a volunteer militia... so no, it is not a catch-22.

I think it's amazingly cynical to think that helping somebody recover from a mistake prevents that person from learning from the mistake.

If the government bails out people who can't afford their mortgage, I am going to purchase a house way more expensive than I can afford, and just wait for the government to bail me out. I am serious! Why the hell wouldn't everyone do that? So you *ARE* teaching a very important lesson with a bailout: The government will pay a chunk of my mortgage if I purchase something I can't afford. People will use this knowledge to maximize their personal wealth.

[Pro Libertate]

ChicagoTom,

No argument here. There are plenty of lenders--and even more brokers--who cut corners, made misleading representations, and committed out-and-out fraud. They should be punished accordingly. Still, bailing out the suckers who were willing to believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch (or a perpetually rising reals estate market) is a bad idea.

I'd like my money back from that Nigerian official, too 🙂

[TrickyVic]

"""I believe a number of people were under the impression that they would be able to refinance, and also believed that the worth of the house was going to keep going up by about 7-10% annually."""

And at what rate did they believe their refinancing would carry? I really don't think they looked at it that way. I believe they were convinced it was a good deal without really considering what could really happen.

I'm not calling any of them stupid. Most people, at one point or another, overestimate their ability to predict the future, if they are considering the future at all.

I think the bottom line is that people bought into the hype of the benefits of an ARM without considering the risk. Couple that with a salesperson who will do anything to make a sale and you have trouble in the making. What to do about it, I don't know.

"""Also, I want to mention that "not wanting to be forced to care for my brothers" does not equal "not having respect for them".

I respect my neighbors, if my neighbors respect me, they wouldn't ask me to pay their bills.

[ChicagoTom]

Still, bailing out the suckers who were willing to believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch (or a perpetually rising reals estate market) is a bad idea.

ProLib, I agree. I don't think anyone should be bailed out. I think lenders and borrowers should both be responsible for the contracts they entered.

I just don't like the fact that lots of ppl just want to attack the borrowers for beind dumb. What is dumb is offering LIAR and no doc loans or giving people with shitty credit 100% financing.

Unfortunately, I think its going to be the lenders who get bailed out. And if the feds lower the rates like many people who work on Wall Street want, I think inflation is going to spike and we are all going to pay for this mess.

[TrickyVic]

"""If the government bails out people who can't afford their mortgage, I am going to purchase a house way more expensive than I can afford, and just wait for the government to bail me out."""

A gravy train's a coming.

The house was affordable when they bought it.

If they looked at the future, they assumed the interest rate wouldn't rise and that's a bad assumption considering 1. You signed a mortgage that can change. 2. The prime interest rate was 1%.

I think it would be incorrect to assume the home buyer's intent was to buy a house they couldn't afford. They just never asked the right questions. Of course, that's no excuse.

[JasonL]

"I think it's amazingly cynical to think that helping somebody recover from a mistake prevents that person from learning from the mistake.

I broke my arm as a kid and the doctor fixing me up did not cause me to go out and break it again."

How do you feel about airline bailouts and what they meant for the decisions regarding airlines? If it is built into your thought process that you will be bailed out, we are doing naught but subsidizing stupidity.

[Son of a!]

And if the feds lower the rates like many people who work on Wall Street want, I think inflation is going to spike and we are all going to pay for this mess.

The Federal Reserve has no real impact on inflation. "[I]nflation is primarily the result of growth in unproductive forms of government spending (basically defense spending, entitlements and other expenditures that fail to stimulate the supply of goods)."

[Rex Rhino]

I think it would be incorrect to assume the home buyer's intent was to buy a house they couldn't afford. They just never asked the right questions. Of course, that's no excuse.

It doesn't matter their intent. If the government starts bailing out people who can't afford the big luxury house they purchased, I am going to quite intentionally purchase a house I can't afford to get the free money from a government bailout. Myself, and people like me, will fully exploit the program to the fullest.

I don't collect welfare, because you have to be so poor to collect welfare that it would be unpleasant for me to take advantage of those rather unremarkable benifits. But buying a big luxurious house I can't afford, in order to collect government benifits... put me on the list!!!

If you support a bailout Dan T, get ready to pony up a bigger chunk of your paycheck to help your homie Rex Rhino buy a penthouse suite! Yeee hawww! Prepare to cut back Dan, I am a victim of the evil mortgage companies, and I need a bigger swimming pool! I want to live the good life, and all you suckers living within your means better start paying for it! Only a right-wing capitalist would try to deny me a McMansion and a luxury automobile!!!

[Todd]

Let's break down Dan T's analogy a little:

The broken arm doesn't really apply because that's health/safety. Losing a house (after a 9 month foreclosure where you are living in it without paying anything) is more like a kid losing an expensive toy. Dan T wants the kid to learn by buying him a new one right away. No, wait, he wants the whole neighborhood to chip in. No, wait, he wants the neighborhood to buy all kids who lost their toys new ones.

No, wait, he wants the police to go around forcing everyone in the neighborhood to buy new toys ...

[ChicagoTom]

How do you feel about airline bailouts and what they meant for the decisions regarding airlines? If it is built into your thought process that you will be bailed out, we are doing naught but subsidizing stupidity.

Absolutely right! It's called a "moral hazard". People who believe/know they are going to be bailed out are going to be less likely worry about making bad decisions.

The Federal Reserve has no real impact on inflation. "[I]nflation is primarily the result of growth in unproductive forms of government spending (basically defense spending, entitlements and other expenditures that fail to stimulate the supply of goods)."

I believe that if you flood the system with wads of cheap money to bail out all the bad actors, inflation is going to go up. I am not expert, but many experts whose opinion I trust are saying the same thing.

[ChrisO]

I believe that if you flood the system with wads of cheap money to bail out all the bad actors, inflation is going to go up. I am not expert, but many experts whose opinion I trust are saying the same thing.

True, although I imagine it would take quite a bit of "flooding" to create a significant devaluation. Certainly the miniscule actions taken by the Fed in the last week don't count, though they will also do little to keep the credit flowing.

One flaw in the first part of Mason's little rant (such as I could make sense of it) is that the failure of even a seemingly small percentage of mortgages can have a big impact on both housing prices and on the heavily leveraged financial industry. The banks have *already* tightened credit such that very few borrowers are going to be able to purchase houses anywhere near current prices in many coastal cities.

[TrickyVic]

Who are they talking about bailing out anyway, the home owner, or the lending institutions?

I wouldn't be surprised if they bailed out the lending institutions who were foreclosing on peoples homes.

[ChrisO]

The current chatter involves the Fed bailing out the big Wall Street funds that are in big trouble at the moment. That wouldn't do much for individual borrowers who are already in default or on the brink of it, but it would theoretically keep the credit pipeline from drying up completely and sending us into a big ol' recession.

[Isaac Bartram]

ChrisO

As near as I can tell, at this point the central banks are just making sure that there is plenty of liquidity. Keep the credit pipeline flowing.

There is, I believe, as yet, no plan that would protect institutions and individuals from actual losses, including going under if there losses are bad enough.

The idea, as I understand it, is to buy time. Make for a soft(er) landing, as it were.

But, no, someone who is three payments behind on an interest-only loan that just kicked into conventional is SOL. But then that doesn't mean the lender's not going to be sunk too. He's probably stuck with a property he'll be lucky to get seventy-five cents on the dollar for. And he deserves it.

[joshua corning]

If you have so little respect for the well-being of your "brothers," why should we respect your desire to pay lower taxes?

If euclidean zoning had not limited the supply of homes housing would not be so expensive and we would not be in this mess.