Big Ed and Barney Frank get ito it WOW!!!

[bigdarryl]

Big Ed was right talking about the greed on Wall St. and some how Frank didn't want to here it. You could tell the out start of the conversation Frank had a look on his face he wasn't happy and acted like he didn't want to be on Eds show http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/barney-frank-clashes-with_n_351568.html

[tblue]

1. Barney's face at the end of it looked like he wanted to either cry or punch Big Ed.

Even I was shaken by this exchange.

[Cleita]

2. Something is going on with Ed.

He was really bellicose on his radio show yelling at callers like Randi Rhodes usually does and this exchange between him and Frank topped it all off.

[Prism]

3. Barney Frank is very much part of the problem

As much as I'd like to be supportive of Frank, he being one of the very rare openly gay politicians, I just never could ignore the very active hand he had in the financial collapse we find ourselves in. He has long been a friend to Wall Street, he had an active role in the subprime disaster, and he has never been shy about helping his wealthy friends benefit while the American people were on the receiving end of a harsh screwing.

After the collapse, it sickened me to see him on television denouncing everyone but himself for the problems during the collapse. Watching him on the news declaring how shocked he was that there was gambling going on here when he was practically a pit boss left a very, very sour taste in my mouth.

[rocktivity]

5. Tell me about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc

:rofl:
rocktivity

[phleshdef]

8. Thats not really true. Frank was pushing for regulations against the sub prime mortgages and other..

...issues related to the financial collapse since the 90s. The problem was the Republicans controlled everything until 2007, so no one was listening to him until it was too late.

[Better Believe It]

9. Why did Frank vote for and support the de-regulation of Wall Street in 1999-2000?

[Prism]

12. That's untrue

Let's start with the fact he was firmly behind the Freddie Mac / Fannie Mae debacle when his partner held a high-ranking position in the company. He actively removed protections that would have prevented that little meltdown that cost tax-payers billions, and he did it to promote the company (and his partner's) interests. That alone, were he Republican, would've earned the scorn of a thousand Democrats. His role in blocking attempts to reform the FMs is well-known and well-documented. When these two companies started creaking under the weight of future disaster, Frank declared again and again that there was no problem, no crisis, nothing to worry about, nothing to be changed. He was a very powerful force for financial interests that were in the forefront of the collapse that radiated into the wider financial sector and general economy.

Furthermore, Frank advocated for a loosening of loan standards at those two companies. He wanted the companies to take on more high-risk debt. When agitating for this, he claimed he wanted home ownership extended to poorer Americans and minorities who have traditionally been discriminated against in mortgages and banking. It seems like a good intention, and I agree we need to widen opportunities for home ownership, but his methods for doing so were to enrich his friends, increase risk, and put in place the practices and systems that practically destroyed those companies.

He was elbow-deep in it, to an extent that is impossible to ignore.

That is why it is so hard for me to see him pontificating on television. Even with Republicans in control of Congress, he was right there looking out for his wealthy friends, engineering disaster. To believe that now he's really awful serious about cleaning up is a little tough to swallow. It'd be like, say, putting Geithner in charge of cleaning up Wall Street. He does great performance theater, but his fingerprints are all over the financial mess. It's very difficult to stomach.

[Prism]

17. Here's a solid article about Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae

Look at the date. 2003. Even then, people knew there was a problem with these companies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Here is Frank's reponse to the regulatory proposals:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said the administration's position is driven by concerns about the financial safety and soundness of the companies "to the exclusion of concern about housing." Committee members were ready to support legislation that would give the Treasury Department oversight of Fannie and Freddie, as the administration has sought, Frank said, not power over the companies' housing activities, which are regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=discussion&code=cotn%3AFNM&it=ye&action=detail&id=2395631

As you can see, when even a Republican Congress was going "These companies don't look very stable. We need to shore them up," Frank was not exactly willing to go along with helping the companies' "financial soundness" if it meant the high-risk subprime lending would be affected.

If only the politicians, Republican and Democrat, had been more concerned about financial safety and soundness on a much wider scale. We might not be where we are today. But, as we can see, it isn't really about conservative or liberal. It's about one political party - The Money Party. And Frank showed he could be just as much a member of it as any Republican.

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. Correct nt

[bigdarryl]

4. Big Ed: QUOTE I'm probably not going to have many Democrats on my show from now on

because of this health care bill and we progressives are supposed to lay down and take it . Not this fat guy. DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!

[WinkyDink]

6. Where I live, "Big Ed" is Gov. Rendell, period!

[DJ13]

7. Who hasnt Barney gotten into it with over the last few months?

I think Barney is displaying anger as a defense mechanism because he knows many Dems arent happy that he is weakening so many of the proposed financial regulations to the benefit of Wall Street.

[NorthCarolina]

10. Ed really did have Barney squirming in his seat...literally

to the point that it was annoying....either that or poor Barney has a painful hemorrhoid problem.

[yellowcanine]

14. Ed was using Limbaugh and Hannity bully boy tactics. Sorry it must be said.

[yellowcanine]

13. I have to go with Barney Frank on this one. Shultz was insulting, didn't listen to what Frank was

saying, talked over him, and had his facts wrong and kept repeating the mistakes even after Frank pointed them out.

[HughMoran]

16. He was being a bit overzealous

I thought it was a good exchange nonetheless - Frank did a good job of swatting Eds assaults down, though Ed was not being particularly fair to him. Barney can only talk so fast with his speech impediment.

[LaPera]

15. Ed Schultz is truly a good man with amazing no-holds barred passion. I can't

fault him for his great liberal progressive passion, because I have the same.

[yellowcanine]

18. There is no excuse for using Hannity like bullying tactics though. None.

I do fault him. It is just as bad when progressives do it as when Hannity and Limbaugh do it. Sorry, I am not excusing bad behavior just because his heart is in the right place.

[LaPera]

21. That's your opinion- I never watch fucking Hannity so I don't know his tactics....

Ed was not using "tactics"...He was pissed at the bullshit...and well he should be....ED disagreed and wanted straight answers from Franks...who in my, (and Ed's) opinion wasn't giving straight answers, but evasive pontificating answers....Franks was playing the usual coy political game of pretending to be saying loads of shit, when ALL it really was, was loads of shit....there is no reason to accept the Banks bullshit, as Franks has accepted, but apparently doesn't really like, and who does...Franks knows he better not like it.....But, oh gee, it's just that Franks hands are tied? Bullshit!

Are you implying there's only one way to go ask questions and no room for passion and trying to pin some disingenuous Dem politician, (as I saw Franks to be) to simply admit to facts?

And get fucking real dude...and pay attention....Hannity I'm sure, without even watching, (I refuse to support his show) doesn't ever go after people in the republican party with "bullying tactics" because Hannity will agree and go along with any republican bullshit throw out on his show.

Democrat Ed Schultz won't, even if the bullshit is coming from his own party....But you want all Dems to play nice-nice with everyone and that's exactly why we have such spineless motherfucking democrats in congress!

Democrat Franks was trying to out maneuver Schultz with bullshit and Schultz would have none of it...

Franks kept trying his usual smug - I'm never wrong bullshit and Schultz persisted demanding real answers, the truth, and you fault Schultz for this?

What kind of bubble-headed show would it be if it was so polite as like you would want...It would be just another Fox news kiss-ass show, with lies and more lies masquerading as truth...Politicians have to be pinned down, or all we'll get from them is bullshit fluff!!

[rucky]

19. Another incoherent "discussion" on cable news.

quelle suprise.

[uponit7771]

20. Unnn, I can only blame Franks for not running around with his hair on fire for the housing crises...

...I believe he was too silent and if he was yelling fire more than more could be blamed on reThugs

[TheKentuckian]

22. The thing from yesterday struck me as both were arguing about something

they refused to actually mention. Frank didn't want to address the heinous lack of oversight when all the money started rolling out the door and Ed didn't want to acknowledge what Frank is trying to do to correct the problem. It seemed both were perfectly clear on what the other was talking about as well as neither one of them were going to address the other's points.

I'll also say that Ed isn't listening very well in general. He seems really locked onto his points and dismissive of anything that doesn't back them or addresses issues other than what he's locked in on. I feel like he is asking question fishing for a specific answer he wants rather than asking to get the answers.

[opihimoimoi]

23. I'm with Barney...big ed was being small and obstusive....he shows signs of being bought