Interesting revelation about Barney Frank.

[Fire1]

Disappointing but not surprising. This is why people need to think twice before placing blame on President Obama.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ

[Cha]

1. Thanks for this Fire..President Obama

is an all too easy scapegoat for lazy internet attackers.

But, I don't understand why Barney would be so generous to the banks that so called progressives love to revile?

[Fire1]

2. I thought Barney was as progressive as one could get but

obviously he has interests in the mortgage industry (as indicated in the article.) This just conmfirms what many of us have been trying to convey to alot of these progressives. This is the system we have and it ain't gonna change and President Obama is as progressive as we're ever going to see in the WH. Period.

[Cha]

3. Exactly and just one more of their blind spots when playing

the victim.

[rebel with a cause]

4. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And people who don't know what those they call their own are doing are definitely living in glass houses. JMHO

[Number23]

5. Wonder why this author singled out ol' Barney?

I like him alot and agree with easily about 95% of the stuff that he says.

[sandnsea]

6. That's not exactly fair

I'm sure there's plenty in this bill to complain about, but the truth is, the government cannot let the financial sector collapse. It doesn't matter whether it's 5 big banks, or 50 medium sized banks. If they're all gambling with propped up investment vehicles, they're all going to go kapow at the same time. Result is the same. Money go bye bye. What do you think the government should do?

This financial meltdown has been so badly reported, intentionally by the financial sector in order to pass blame to poor people and minorities. They don't want regulations. They're trying to shift the focus and will say anything to do it.

[Fire1]

7. I think we all agree the financial sector can't be allowed to

collapse. It's that Frank was so very concerned about the "too big to fail" banks and the unregulated derivatives market. First, I recall Barney stating some time ago that banks shouldn't even be in that kind of investment business and was seeking to curtail or restrict their activities to BANKING. Not credit default swaps or mortgage backed securities. Secondly, as referenced in the article, those SAME foxes are still guarding the hen house in terms of oversight and "regulation."

[sandnsea]

8. "as referenced in the article"

Just because somebody says something in an article, it doesn't automatically make it true. They are working to get banks out of the investment business, just as Barney Frank says. This bill is probably not perfect, but it's not fair to imply it's because Barney Franks is doing the bidding of the big banks. Republicans have been trying to blame the banking collapse on Franks since it started, along with Freddie and Fannie. It's crap. Letting banks get involved in insurance and investments again, that's what caused the problem.

[Fire1]

9. Oh, for pete's sake. Since none of us have access to a

cumbersome piece of legislation and this guy takes it upon himself to actually read it, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt to accurately report a list of names that just happen to coincide with a previous list. To select the same group of people who "missed" the problems that led to this crisis doesn't bode well for the chairman of the finance committee. Barney may not be doing the banks "bidding" but the legislation doesn't seem to have the bite that we were anticipating. Furthermore, Mr. Frank's banking investment interests is news to me but I must say, it is quite a coincidence. I don't know where you've been but right here on this site the bail outs were blamed on President Obama, NOT Barney Frank and that is my point.

[sandnsea]

10. "doesn't seem to have"

The reason people are in this group is because we are sick to death of henny pennies that read one article and declare it as gospel, and then attack Obama and Congress as well. You have access to this legislation. It's called Thomas. If you want to post attacks on Democrats, the least you could do is fact check the article against what is actually in the bill, in context and in its entirety.

[Fire1]

11. I'm not attacking democrats as much as I am defendng

President Obama, which btw, is what THIS forum is about. As far as reading this bill, I don't have the time to curl up by a fire and read legislation. That's why we depend on reporters and columnists. It's their job and what they do. Granted, some are more credible than others and for that reason I like to think I'm somewhat selective in what I declare as "gospel."

Since you seem to be knowledgable about exactly what is and is not in this legislation, in context and all, perhaps you'd like to share your interpretation. Somehow, I seriously doubt you've read it, either.