oscardeuce
Active Member
From the man who stated Faniie and Freddie were fine, more words of wisdom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
More from Barney Frank
- Thread starter oscardeuce
- Start date
kjr_trig
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3115818
From the man who stated Faniie and Freddie were fine, more words of wisdom.
I saw him last night....It is amazing how all he does is blame other people for the housing crash...I can't decide whom makes me more sick to my stomach, Frank or Pelosi.
http:///forum/post/3115818
From the man who stated Faniie and Freddie were fine, more words of wisdom.
I saw him last night....It is amazing how all he does is blame other people for the housing crash...I can't decide whom makes me more sick to my stomach, Frank or Pelosi.
mantisman51
Active Member
I disagree with BF 95% on most issues, but am wondering what this is supposed to show negatively. I am a proud gun owning, pro-life, traditional family sort, but I think Mr Frank gave an intelligent and thoughtful response. The twit who is comparing President Obama to Hitler didn't deserve the respect Mr Frank gave her. I don't care about her stance on healthcare. She is a brainless parrot of Limbaugh and Beck. And yes, I mostly agree with those two, but this anti-Obama stuff is getting too crazy.
bulldog123
Member
Im sure I would be mad if I could understand what the slobbering imbecile was saying.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3115844
I disagree with BF 95% on most issues, but am wondering what this is supposed to show negatively. I am a proud gun owning, pro-life, traditional family sort, but I think Mr Frank gave an intelligent and thoughtful response. The twit who is comparing President Obama to Hitler didn't deserve the respect Mr Frank gave her. I don't care about her stance on healthcare. She is a brainless parrot of Limbaugh and Beck. And yes, I mostly agree with those two, but this anti-Obama stuff is getting too crazy.
He stoops to her level, then cries how mean they are. Her argument should have been about Marxism/socilism, but then again Nazi=National Socialist. I don't thin Obama=Hilter, but the argument Obama ( or Pelosi, Reid, Frank) = National Socialist is close to the mark.
The pictures of Obama/Marx are much closer to reality.
http:///forum/post/3115844
I disagree with BF 95% on most issues, but am wondering what this is supposed to show negatively. I am a proud gun owning, pro-life, traditional family sort, but I think Mr Frank gave an intelligent and thoughtful response. The twit who is comparing President Obama to Hitler didn't deserve the respect Mr Frank gave her. I don't care about her stance on healthcare. She is a brainless parrot of Limbaugh and Beck. And yes, I mostly agree with those two, but this anti-Obama stuff is getting too crazy.
He stoops to her level, then cries how mean they are. Her argument should have been about Marxism/socilism, but then again Nazi=National Socialist. I don't thin Obama=Hilter, but the argument Obama ( or Pelosi, Reid, Frank) = National Socialist is close to the mark.
The pictures of Obama/Marx are much closer to reality.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3115935
He stoops to her level, then cries how mean they are. Her argument should have been about Marxism/socilism, but then again Nazi=National Socialist. I don't thin Obama=Hilter, but the argument Obama ( or Pelosi, Reid, Frank) = National Socialist is close to the mark.
The pictures of Obama/Marx are much closer to reality.
Just when I thought the Obama/Healthcare threads were coming to a stop.
Go do a search on some of the myriad of threads on the subject posted here. Uneverno and others have clearly explained how any of the policies Obama have enacted since he was worn into office are no more Socialist than most of the programs Bush pushed before he left office:
Bank bailouts - Bush. Banks aren't govt. owned. The Fed. Govt. gave them LOANS.
Car bailouts - started by Bush, implemented by Obama. Refer to above statement.
Healthcare Reform - not even implemented. Medicare = Socialist. Who was that, Truman?
So what else has Obama enacted in the last eight months that you consider would fall under the definition of Socialism? If you believe in that moniker, then I guess you also believe in the comparison of doctors = quacks.
http:///forum/post/3115935
He stoops to her level, then cries how mean they are. Her argument should have been about Marxism/socilism, but then again Nazi=National Socialist. I don't thin Obama=Hilter, but the argument Obama ( or Pelosi, Reid, Frank) = National Socialist is close to the mark.
The pictures of Obama/Marx are much closer to reality.
Just when I thought the Obama/Healthcare threads were coming to a stop.
Go do a search on some of the myriad of threads on the subject posted here. Uneverno and others have clearly explained how any of the policies Obama have enacted since he was worn into office are no more Socialist than most of the programs Bush pushed before he left office:
Bank bailouts - Bush. Banks aren't govt. owned. The Fed. Govt. gave them LOANS.
Car bailouts - started by Bush, implemented by Obama. Refer to above statement.
Healthcare Reform - not even implemented. Medicare = Socialist. Who was that, Truman?
So what else has Obama enacted in the last eight months that you consider would fall under the definition of Socialism? If you believe in that moniker, then I guess you also believe in the comparison of doctors = quacks.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3115981
Just when I thought the Obama/Healthcare threads were coming to a stop.
Go do a search on some of the myriad of threads on the subject posted here. Uneverno and others have clearly explained how any of the policies Obama have enacted since he was worn into office are no more Socialist than most of the programs Bush pushed before he left office:
Bank bailouts - Bush. Banks aren't govt. owned. The Fed. Govt. gave them LOANS.
Car bailouts - started by Bush, implemented by Obama. Refer to above statement.
Healthcare Reform - not even implemented. Medicare = Socialist. Who was that, Truman?
So what else has Obama enacted in the last eight months that you consider would fall under the definition of Socialism? If you believe in that moniker, then I guess you also believe in the comparison of doctors = quacks.
GM, majority owned by the gov't with President Obama forcing the CEO to leave.
President Obama "spread the wealth", right from the works of Marx. Not "enacted" but definitely looks into his mind set.
Medicare started under the great progressive FDR as SSI, but then it was a shadow of what it has become.
How about our taxes? More "progressivism"? More redistribution of wealth? Am I more "patriotic"?
In President Obama's own words the USPS is the one with problems. He held up UPS and FEX EX (privetely owned) as examples of success. So you want them running health care when they already cannot run the USPS efficiently?
FWIW, I was against the Bush "bailouts" just as much.
If I were President, the People would have gotten the bail out, not AIG, the Banks, the Unions and Automakers.
Finally, how many "czars" does President Obama have. How COnstitutional are they?
http:///forum/post/3115981
Just when I thought the Obama/Healthcare threads were coming to a stop.
Go do a search on some of the myriad of threads on the subject posted here. Uneverno and others have clearly explained how any of the policies Obama have enacted since he was worn into office are no more Socialist than most of the programs Bush pushed before he left office:
Bank bailouts - Bush. Banks aren't govt. owned. The Fed. Govt. gave them LOANS.
Car bailouts - started by Bush, implemented by Obama. Refer to above statement.
Healthcare Reform - not even implemented. Medicare = Socialist. Who was that, Truman?
So what else has Obama enacted in the last eight months that you consider would fall under the definition of Socialism? If you believe in that moniker, then I guess you also believe in the comparison of doctors = quacks.
GM, majority owned by the gov't with President Obama forcing the CEO to leave.
President Obama "spread the wealth", right from the works of Marx. Not "enacted" but definitely looks into his mind set.
Medicare started under the great progressive FDR as SSI, but then it was a shadow of what it has become.
How about our taxes? More "progressivism"? More redistribution of wealth? Am I more "patriotic"?
In President Obama's own words the USPS is the one with problems. He held up UPS and FEX EX (privetely owned) as examples of success. So you want them running health care when they already cannot run the USPS efficiently?
FWIW, I was against the Bush "bailouts" just as much.
If I were President, the People would have gotten the bail out, not AIG, the Banks, the Unions and Automakers.
Finally, how many "czars" does President Obama have. How COnstitutional are they?
V
vinnyraptor
Guest
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3116189
GM, majority owned by the gov't with President Obama forcing the CEO to leave.
President Obama "spread the wealth", right from the works of Marx. Not "enacted" but definitely looks into his mind set.
Medicare started under the great progressive FDR as SSI, but then it was a shadow of what it has become.
How about our taxes? More "progressivism"? More redistribution of wealth? Am I more "patriotic"?
In President Obama's own words the USPS is the one with problems. He held up UPS and FEX EX (privetely owned) as examples of success. So you want them running health care when they already cannot run the USPS efficiently?
FWIW, I was against the Bush "bailouts" just as much.
If I were President, the People would have gotten the bail out, not AIG, the Banks, the Unions and Automakers.
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3115818
From the man who stated Faniie and Freddie were fine, more words of wisdom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
speaking of the USPS isnt that a form of socialism? i mean where in the constitution does it say the government must provide mail service? and where is social security mentioned? and why do our hospitals have to take care of those who cant pay? thats not in the constitution either! welfare isn't in there, neither is education.
So we SHOULDN'T be delivering citizens mail, let alone sending them social security checks. and we definately shouldn't be teaching them anything or healing them if there broke! IS THAT THE WAY IT SHOULD BE? i'm asking ALL of you this question!
this Limbaugh fanatics make me sick but i must admit they are sucessful and they are exercising one of there constitutional rights. this is NOT nationalized H.C. like in other countries its a public option. which means it will compete against ALL current insurers. just like the USPS competes against UPS and FED EX. and just like the parcel industry it will create competition and drive costs down. its not there to kill the elderly, lmao or force you to change your current policy. if your job switches to the Government option you can most likely keep your current doctors or at worst go out on your own and buy a new policy at a cheaper rate do to the new competition.
every other industrialized free country has a government H.C. program of some kind. to compare our President to Hitler because were spending 16% of the GDP on healthcare and he wants to save money is RACIST or INSANE, one of the two. polls show that most Americans are for it. Gallop a few weeks ago said 71% for. these few lunatics are doing a good job of making it look otherwise.
http:///forum/post/3116189
GM, majority owned by the gov't with President Obama forcing the CEO to leave.
President Obama "spread the wealth", right from the works of Marx. Not "enacted" but definitely looks into his mind set.
Medicare started under the great progressive FDR as SSI, but then it was a shadow of what it has become.
How about our taxes? More "progressivism"? More redistribution of wealth? Am I more "patriotic"?
In President Obama's own words the USPS is the one with problems. He held up UPS and FEX EX (privetely owned) as examples of success. So you want them running health care when they already cannot run the USPS efficiently?
FWIW, I was against the Bush "bailouts" just as much.
If I were President, the People would have gotten the bail out, not AIG, the Banks, the Unions and Automakers.
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3115818
From the man who stated Faniie and Freddie were fine, more words of wisdom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
speaking of the USPS isnt that a form of socialism? i mean where in the constitution does it say the government must provide mail service? and where is social security mentioned? and why do our hospitals have to take care of those who cant pay? thats not in the constitution either! welfare isn't in there, neither is education.
So we SHOULDN'T be delivering citizens mail, let alone sending them social security checks. and we definately shouldn't be teaching them anything or healing them if there broke! IS THAT THE WAY IT SHOULD BE? i'm asking ALL of you this question!
this Limbaugh fanatics make me sick but i must admit they are sucessful and they are exercising one of there constitutional rights. this is NOT nationalized H.C. like in other countries its a public option. which means it will compete against ALL current insurers. just like the USPS competes against UPS and FED EX. and just like the parcel industry it will create competition and drive costs down. its not there to kill the elderly, lmao or force you to change your current policy. if your job switches to the Government option you can most likely keep your current doctors or at worst go out on your own and buy a new policy at a cheaper rate do to the new competition.
every other industrialized free country has a government H.C. program of some kind. to compare our President to Hitler because were spending 16% of the GDP on healthcare and he wants to save money is RACIST or INSANE, one of the two. polls show that most Americans are for it. Gallop a few weeks ago said 71% for. these few lunatics are doing a good job of making it look otherwise.
mantisman51
Active Member
Good Lord, the military is socialism. The highway department, at every level, is socialism. The fire department is socialism. Every single government agency/bureaucracy(?) is socialism. Anything the government does on behalf of the people collectively, is socialism. I am a big states right supporter, but this "commie under every crevice" is getting just plain, rediculously OLD!!! Ronaldus Magnus increased the size of bureaucracy, namely the Forest Service and Immigration and Naturalization and USDA. OH MY GOD! Ronald Reagan was a socialist. Oscar, I am quickly seeing a pattern here. I think Obama has done alot of stupid stuff, but get a grip. This is getting absolutely nuts.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3116360
Good Lord, the military is socialism. The highway department, at every level, is socialism. The fire department is socialism. Every single government agency/bureaucracy(?) is socialism. Anything the government does on behalf of the people collectively, is socialism. I am a big states right supporter, but this "commie under every crevice" is getting just plain, rediculously OLD!!! Ronaldus Magnus increased the size of bureaucracy, namely the Forest Service and Immigration and Naturalization and USDA. OH MY GOD! Ronald Reagan was a socialist. Oscar, I am quickly seeing a pattern here. I think Obama has done alot of stupid stuff, but get a grip. This is getting absolutely nuts.
"Provide for the Common defense"
Where is "provide auto company bail outs"? I'll include Bush's bail outs too.
http:///forum/post/3116360
Good Lord, the military is socialism. The highway department, at every level, is socialism. The fire department is socialism. Every single government agency/bureaucracy(?) is socialism. Anything the government does on behalf of the people collectively, is socialism. I am a big states right supporter, but this "commie under every crevice" is getting just plain, rediculously OLD!!! Ronaldus Magnus increased the size of bureaucracy, namely the Forest Service and Immigration and Naturalization and USDA. OH MY GOD! Ronald Reagan was a socialist. Oscar, I am quickly seeing a pattern here. I think Obama has done alot of stupid stuff, but get a grip. This is getting absolutely nuts.
"Provide for the Common defense"
Where is "provide auto company bail outs"? I'll include Bush's bail outs too.
zman1
Active Member
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. PETERS, Ms. KILROY, Mr.
WATT, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. CARSON
of Indiana, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. ELLISON, and Mr. HINOJOSA) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial
Services
H. R. 3269
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders
with an advisory vote on executive compensation and to prevent perverse
incentives in the compensation practices of financial institutions.
Sounds good - the owners (shareholders) have input, or how dare they pass such a measure...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...11hr3269IH.pdf
Votes for and against
Ayes: 237 (Democrat: 235; Republican: 2)
Nays: 185 (Democrat: 16; Republican: 169)
Abstained: 11 (Democrat: 4; Republican: 7)
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
Percentage of 'aye' votes: 54%
Result: Passed
WATT, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. CARSON
of Indiana, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. ELLISON, and Mr. HINOJOSA) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial
Services
H. R. 3269
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders
with an advisory vote on executive compensation and to prevent perverse
incentives in the compensation practices of financial institutions.
Sounds good - the owners (shareholders) have input, or how dare they pass such a measure...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...11hr3269IH.pdf
Votes for and against
Ayes: 237 (Democrat: 235; Republican: 2)
Nays: 185 (Democrat: 16; Republican: 169)
Abstained: 11 (Democrat: 4; Republican: 7)
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
Percentage of 'aye' votes: 54%
Result: Passed
zman1
Active Member
What do you think the revolution was (1776). Privately sponsored by business.. I didn't know we had a government sponsored military, then? The constitution wasn't signed until - 9-17-1787
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
mantisman51
Active Member
So if the government starts the endeavor, it isn't socialism? Do I think Queen Nancy and Professor Reed want to grab all the power they can-even if it's an unCostitutional grab? Yes. Should we resist government encroachment into the private sector? Yes. Can government assistance in healthcare be done without an un Constitutional power grab? Yes. We are living longer and with medical technology can be productive far longer than we used to. Isn't there some common ground that can be found to keep folks healthy and productive for a longer time so they don't become a ward of the state sooner?
T
tizzo
Guest
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3116401
Socialism is the government taking control of private enterprise. People claiming the Post office or army is socialists don't understand the term.
SEE! I learn new stuff with every political thread.
http:///forum/post/3116401
Socialism is the government taking control of private enterprise. People claiming the Post office or army is socialists don't understand the term.
SEE! I learn new stuff with every political thread.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3116189
GM, majority owned by the gov't with President Obama forcing the CEO to leave.
President Obama "spread the wealth", right from the works of Marx. Not "enacted" but definitely looks into his mind set.
Medicare started under the great progressive FDR as SSI, but then it was a shadow of what it has become.
How about our taxes? More "progressivism"? More redistribution of wealth? Am I more "patriotic"?
In President Obama's own words the USPS is the one with problems. He held up UPS and FEX EX (privetely owned) as examples of success. So you want them running health care when they already cannot run the USPS efficiently?
FWIW, I was against the Bush "bailouts" just as much.
If I were President, the People would have gotten the bail out, not AIG, the Banks, the Unions and Automakers.
Finally, how many "czars" does President Obama have. How COnstitutional are they?
How many times do I have to say this. THEY WERE LOANS. Jesus, the stinking UAW has more interest in GM than the Federal Govt. The inept CEO was heading out the door regardless whether they got bailout money or not.
What taxes? What distributiion of wealth? My taxes haven't changed. Playing Robin Hood has so far been nothing but talk. When/if it happens, then you have a gripe.
USPS? He was using that as an example to quell your fears about the Federal Government running private insurance companies out of business. The USPS was in trouble financially before Bush was in office.
The bailouts were needed to keep those businesses viable. Yes, I've heard the Capitalist version of, "If they can't cut it, let them fail. It'll all work itself out in the long run." The problem was if they let them fail, you would've had a major collapse in our economic system. How many thousands of workers would be out of a job? How many BILLIONS of dollars would the FDIC have to shell out to cover that $250,000 guarantee each depositor has when they put their money in one of these banks? Those payments alone would've tripled what the banks received in bailout money.
The problem with your logic is you want the throw the blame of any Govt. program on Obama, regardless if it was implemented before he was even a Senator.
http:///forum/post/3116189
GM, majority owned by the gov't with President Obama forcing the CEO to leave.
President Obama "spread the wealth", right from the works of Marx. Not "enacted" but definitely looks into his mind set.
Medicare started under the great progressive FDR as SSI, but then it was a shadow of what it has become.
How about our taxes? More "progressivism"? More redistribution of wealth? Am I more "patriotic"?
In President Obama's own words the USPS is the one with problems. He held up UPS and FEX EX (privetely owned) as examples of success. So you want them running health care when they already cannot run the USPS efficiently?
FWIW, I was against the Bush "bailouts" just as much.
If I were President, the People would have gotten the bail out, not AIG, the Banks, the Unions and Automakers.
Finally, how many "czars" does President Obama have. How COnstitutional are they?
How many times do I have to say this. THEY WERE LOANS. Jesus, the stinking UAW has more interest in GM than the Federal Govt. The inept CEO was heading out the door regardless whether they got bailout money or not.
What taxes? What distributiion of wealth? My taxes haven't changed. Playing Robin Hood has so far been nothing but talk. When/if it happens, then you have a gripe.
USPS? He was using that as an example to quell your fears about the Federal Government running private insurance companies out of business. The USPS was in trouble financially before Bush was in office.
The bailouts were needed to keep those businesses viable. Yes, I've heard the Capitalist version of, "If they can't cut it, let them fail. It'll all work itself out in the long run." The problem was if they let them fail, you would've had a major collapse in our economic system. How many thousands of workers would be out of a job? How many BILLIONS of dollars would the FDIC have to shell out to cover that $250,000 guarantee each depositor has when they put their money in one of these banks? Those payments alone would've tripled what the banks received in bailout money.
The problem with your logic is you want the throw the blame of any Govt. program on Obama, regardless if it was implemented before he was even a Senator.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3116373
"Provide for the Common defense"
Where is "provide auto company bail outs"? I'll include Bush's bail outs too.
Well,
as I've pointed out on other threads, you have a choice to make. The auto companies build a good deal of the vehicles required to "provide for the common defense."
Bail them out, Socialist style, or compromise National Security, Capitalist style.
Take your pick.
http:///forum/post/3116373
"Provide for the Common defense"
Where is "provide auto company bail outs"? I'll include Bush's bail outs too.
Well,
as I've pointed out on other threads, you have a choice to make. The auto companies build a good deal of the vehicles required to "provide for the common defense."
Bail them out, Socialist style, or compromise National Security, Capitalist style.
Take your pick.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3116401
Socialism is the government taking control of private enterprise. People claiming the Post office or army is socialists don't understand the term.
reef, reef, reef, reef, reef - we've been through this before. Gov't taking control of private enterprise is Fascism.
Socialism is Gov't and the governed operating in concert.
Fascism is where Gov't is separate from the people.
Please don't make me repost the definitions.
http:///forum/post/3116401
Socialism is the government taking control of private enterprise. People claiming the Post office or army is socialists don't understand the term.
reef, reef, reef, reef, reef - we've been through this before. Gov't taking control of private enterprise is Fascism.
Socialism is Gov't and the governed operating in concert.
Fascism is where Gov't is separate from the people.
Please don't make me repost the definitions.
deejeff442
Active Member
so if the gm bail out was just a loan how can a lender fire the ceo.
i have gotten loans for my business and i cant recall the lender telling me how to spend it or firing anyone working at my company?
a loan ,right it was a share buy out using our money.
i have gotten loans for my business and i cant recall the lender telling me how to spend it or firing anyone working at my company?
a loan ,right it was a share buy out using our money.
zman1
Active Member
Originally Posted by deejeff442
http:///forum/post/3116609
... fire the ceo... share buy out using our money.
Perhaps, a vote of no confidence by the majority shareholder (Us through our elected officials)
http:///forum/post/3116609
... fire the ceo... share buy out using our money.
Perhaps, a vote of no confidence by the majority shareholder (Us through our elected officials)