advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

BARNEY SPILLS THE BEANS

By
Neal Boortz
@ October 28, 2009 9:06 AM
Permalink | Comments (70) | TrackBacks (0)

Slobbering Barney has let the cat out of the bag. Barney has gone on record saying that the Democrats are trying to do everything they can to increase the role of government in your lives. Now if you have been listening to me for a while or you have been a reader of Nealz Nuze, this is a real big "duh." Consider, though, that only a minority of Americans listen to talk radio, and there sure hasn't been anyone on their TV news or their newspapers telling them that the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party is to grow government while reducing the private sector. Actually ... they're too busy watching Entertainment Tonight and talking about this coming weekend's football games. Growing the role of government in our lives has been the Democrat goal for decades. After all, this is a party that believes America's greatness comes from government. The surprise is that they're finally saying it out loud! Maybe they think they've come to the point where the people share that goal. Have you ever heard such venom aimed at the private sector? The word "corporation" is now used as an epithet. People worry more about what businessmen earn than the corruption of their elected officials. The Democrats see this as their time ... get on the government growth road and go as fast as you can before the voters throw up a roadblock.

Keeping this quote in mind from Barney Frank, what is he currently doing with his position of authority in Washington? He is the guy in charge of solving this problem of "too big to fail." Yep. Slobbering Barney is the one who will figure out how to "give the federal government more powers to wind down major financial firms." How do ya like that? Barney Frank admits that he wants to increase the role of government while working on a piece of legislation to give the federal government unprecedented (and Constitutionally questionable) authority over private businesses.

Barney even got a little clever, comparing his plan to the Republicans "death panels." He says, "We're going to have death panels. But they're going to have death panels that are going to put to death these institutions before they can cause us problems, not old people."

I want you to remember something. Ever heard of someone named Herb Moses? Probably not. Moses was Barney's boyfriend for a number of years. OK ... so no problem with Barney and Moses having a relationship, right? But did you know that Moses was an executive with Fannie Mae while he and Barney were boxing tonsils? Yup; 'tis true! In fact; Herb Moses was one of the Fannie Mae executives pushing the very Fannie Mae loan guarantee programs that led to our housing and mortgage crisis ... all this while his boyfriend was serving on the House Banking Committee (now the House Financial Services Committee) for the entire 10 years of their relationship. During and since that time Barney Frank could be counted on to defend Fannie Mae and to make sure that nobody looked to closely at what was actually going on. Since 1989 Frank has received tens of thousands of campaign contributions from the now-defunct Fannie Mae. Why bring this up? Well ... considering the type of people we have running the show, aren't you looking forward to all that government moving into your personal life? And remember ---- it's the corporations, not government, that are evil.



0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: BARNEY SPILLS THE BEANS.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/48682

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!


Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • reliberalhater
    I never said or implied you voted for anyone or belonged to any party.

    It was meant to reference a belief that you hold that somehow this most recent election is evidence that supports a theory about why people vote. Without taking all previous elections into account.
  • @Snarky
    "so, at what point would you expect to have MORE than one vote? or control how others vote?"

    I was simply stating the reality of the situation.

    However, I would not be opposed to number of votes based on how much you pay in taxes, or not being allowed to vote if you don't pay taxes....but that's another discussion.
  • Snarkybird
    No, I'll tell you what is even more laughable than that brainless statement you just made. It's the fact that you actually think I'm a Republican and that I voted for John McCain. That shows just how ignorant you libs are.
  • snarks twisted logic
    retwisted
    This comment of yours really stuck with me

    ""I have one vote. That's it. I can't control how everyone else votes, nor can any of us control our representatives' behavior. To that end, the government is NOT us.""

    so, at what point would you expect to have MORE than one vote? or control how others vote?

    sheesh. welcome to the real world.
    By snarkybird

    How in any reasonable world do you get from what he said that he thinks he should have more than one vote???? You know better than that, you're just doing your job of obfuscation.
  • That is a stupid statement snark
    "If you really, truly believed this to be true, you're either forgoing your duty as a citizen to take up arms and fight for your country or you're just full of crap."

    It would entail fighting against our government and I'm just not prepared to do that by myself. Just yet.
  • Frank
    C'mon, Neal. I despite Frank as much as you do, but it's not fair to cut off his quote mid-sentence. (Not that the rest of the sentence makes me agree with him, but it's less controversial than many are making it out to be).
  • reACE
    You said ""Didn't I already do that in the previous posting?
    The one we're I referenced a woman saying that she was looking forward to not having to pay for mortgages, etc.

    And the other one from Chicago where several people waiting in line said something to the effect that the voted because of what someone was going to give them?""

    I bet they voted for Kerry and Gore too. How'd that work out?

    That's my point. On balance, things are not as you think.
  • Re: snarkybird “please show me where that's happened?”
    Didn't I already do that in the previous posting?
    The one we're I referenced a woman saying that she was looking forward to not having to pay for mortgages, etc.

    And the other one from Chicago where several people waiting in line said something to the effect that the voted because of what someone was going to give them?
  • rejoyce
    You said "The answer to radical internal forces is yes."

    Joyce, I know you are in love with believing these things but, it's clear you don't.

    If you really, truly believed this to be true, you're either forgoing your duty as a citizen to take up arms and fight for your country or you're just full of crap.

    I think both might be true here.
  • Re: snarkybird Actually I mean monopoly in the ultimate form the Democrats would have of the healthcare system.
    If you don't have ANY choices, they will have you by the short hairs.

    So much for a 'Free' choice.
  • Frank and Moses should be in jail
    Gay or not doesn't matter to me. The fact that if Frank were a Republican or Independant they would both be in jail for their relationship (House Finacial Services Committee and Mortgage Company Executive) does matter to me. Just because he's a Dem he's getting away with wrongdoing.

    Not enough or too much regulation? Not enough information here and I don't feel good so I'll let the rest of you debate that without me.
  • Dear Ole Barney
    . . . increase the role of government in the regulatory area. Not quite the same thing.
  • retwisted
    This comment of yours really stuck with me

    ""I have one vote. That's it. I can't control how everyone else votes, nor can any of us control our representatives' behavior. To that end, the government is NOT us.""

    so, at what point would you expect to have MORE than one vote? or control how others vote?

    sheesh. welcome to the real world.
  • Actually...
    "twisted - I think you're missing the point. You said ""they did everything they could to limit govt power as much as possible."". OK...then what happened?? Were we overrun by another country who changed the rules? Were we taken over by some radical internal forces?" by snarky

    The answer to radical internal forces is yes.
  • reliberalhater
    what's laughable is that you're so myopic that if McCain had won, you'd have no theory at all.

    But, let's forget about everything up until the last election right? it's all meaningless...

    THAT is laughable.
  • Snarkybird
    Snarky, I can't believe you actually remember the past elections but you don't remember the most recent one. How laughable is that??
  • reACEandtwisted
    Ace - medicare is a single payer system so, I guess you're right - as unpopular as it is for how it treats people, I guess you must be right.

    regarding your comment on taxes. OK, the moving van comment was funny, I cant lie. I just asked a question. And you obviously dont know the answer. I know as well as anyone that statistics are easily used to make a point. But often the true causal relationships are missed. Read freakonomics.

    twisted - I think you're missing the point. You said ""they did everything they could to limit govt power as much as possible."". OK...then what happened?? Were we overrun by another country who changed the rules? Were we taken over by some radical internal forces?

    No. WE - WE changed things as the times changed. As a country, we used the mechanism of our representative republic to change things. and the systems in place to check that power remain and did their part.

    I'll say it one more time - we get the govt we deserve.

    is it perfect? hardly. but, it's not broken any more than we allow it to be.

    and our founders understood that it's far better to suffer these things and work to change them than to trash it through violent means.
  • Barney Frank
    Neal, that ain't slobber dripping off of barney's chin.
  • Re: snarkybird "chasing away the achievers" * scratching my head* Can't understand why the press would want to put a positive spin on this /sarc.
    Just because there are variations over the years in the number of achievers fleeing the high tax states doesn't disprove that assertion.

    SB: “did tax rates go down?” In New York? Good one, SB

    The fact is that taxes are going up and the achievers are voting with their feet.

    Maybe lately, fewer are leaving because a lot of them have already left, or they're running out of moving vans.
  • @Snarky
    Snarky, we can't own property if the govt, as you surmise, has unlimited claim on it. Your argument about we are the government, while true in a sense, is not completely accurate.

    I have one vote. That's it. I can't control how everyone else votes, nor can any of us control our representatives' behavior. To that end, the government is NOT us. It is for this very reason that the constitution was specifically designed to limit the powers as government as much as possible. Hell, if you know your history than you know initially our forefathers experimented with the Federal govt having pretty much no power at all...but it didn't work. Then they wrote the Constitution. But the history clearly shows they did everything they could to limit govt power as much as possible.

    No, the government is not us. It is merely an extension of us, and does need to be controlled. And no, it is not entitled to whatever it wants from me without question. The right to own property is absolutely vital to freedom.
  • Re: snarkybird “govt monopoly?? “ Monopoly as in a single payer or universal healthcare plan – the ultimate goal of the Democrats.
    You honestly don't see a problem with a monopoly like that?

    Hey , it's not like they would be making life and death decisions on the voters and have them by the short hairs – OH YEAH! THEY WOULD!!!
  • @Carlos
    Carlos, to answer your question: Monopolies do not exist in a static environment. It is constantly changing. What is a monopoly one day can very possibly not be the next. Even with "no competition" if a so-called monopoly gets out of hand then new competition WILL rise up...eventually.

    The problem is, people want immediate results rather than wait for the natural course of things, so they call on the use of govt force.... which will ALWAYS provide a temporary "feel-good" solution that has far worse long-term ramifications than if they just left well enough alone. Think unions, for example.
  • reACE
    You said "What's to stop those people from voting in the party that will promise them the most plunder from their fellow citizens?"

    nothing. please show me where that's happened? did they elect republicans in 94? Bush to two terms? Reagan to two terms? Clinton is the only modern democrat to have two terms and republicans were voted into a majority of congress during his tenure.

    Please provide the evidence that suggests people have voted this way.
  • @The Programmer - amendments
    13th amendment abolished slavery in 1865, 16th amendment enabled income tax in 1913. If you're going to school Michelle, be accurate.
  • reACE
    yes, I read the item about "chasing away the achievers"

    It is a fact that if you increase tax rates, those who pay more will be incentivized to avoid paying the higher rates.

    But, this last sentence in that story confuses me:

    "The study also had some good news. The peak loss of New Yorkers was in 2005, when nearly 250,000 residents left the state. But last year, only 126,000 left, the lowest figure over the eight-year period."

    did tax rates go down? where is the causal relationship between the drop in exodus and the tax rates? I didnt see that.
  • @varelse
    My take on Neal’s animosity toward athletes and sports comes from his childhood. Take a look at Neal, he obviously doesn’t look like he was ever able to play sports well. He is bitter because as a child, he saw the athletes get the popularity, get the girls, while he twittled his thumbs and was a nobody in school. I’m sure they picked on him a little too, adding to his bitterness towards them. I’m sure during gym class, he was one of the last ones picked, which added to his bitterness.
    So, over the years, he maintains that bitterness from his childhood and lashes out at anything related to sports. I grew up on sports, playing at a high level and watching. I can’t think of any other outlet that provides better real word lessons to kids than playing and competing in sports.
  • Re: snarkybird A fair number of people in this country pay no taxes when you look at the bottom line – taxes they do pay are offset by the receipt of plunder from those that do pay taxes.
    Or are you going to claim that isn't the case?

    What's to stop those people from voting in the party that will promise them the most plunder from their fellow citizens?
    [The answer is NOTHING, for proof see some of the audio of those Obama voters who thought he was going to pay their mortgage, car payments and give them money from his “Stash”]

    How is that good for the Republic?

    SB: “We own our property. “

    Then how can the government have an unlimited claim on it?

    You stated on another thread: “There are two other branches in place to check the power of congress, in addition to the power of the votes of citizens, the press, and free speech. “

    Aren't two of those branches controlled by the Democrats? Soon to be followed by the Supreme court, where will the concept of checks and balances be then?

    You also stated: “in addition to the power of the votes of citizens, the press, and free speech.”


    “The Press” - please! Are you claiming that the majority of the press in this country isn't simply an extension of the Democrats?

    “Free speech” - except that Obama and the rest of the Democrats are attempting to silence opposing viewpoints.

    I would ask you why that doesn't bother you, but that's for a different discussion.
  • reACE
    govt monopoly??

    which one? state? city? county? federal?

    like it or not dude, the govt is us and we deserve the govt we get.
  • reACEjubilationthin
    so, tell me, how many cable companies applied for the franchise exactly?

    My guess would be a rather low number.

    And I'd also guess it wasnt the federal govt awarding that agreement.

    In fact, the feds actually removed much of the regulation in the market with the telecom act in 96. and yet - with less regulation came...less competition.

    isn't that weird?

    Thin - this is the point. Govt broke it up... and that's where all those companies came from (in the funny diagram)... tcom act of 96 removed much regulation in the interests of competition and now we're right back to big monopolies.

    not saying that act was all bad. it did create competition in other areas but, for cable and big telecom's it's had the opposite effect through less regulation.
  • Monopolies can't fail
    How can a monopoly fail? Unless they are producing something stupid like buggy whips? There are no alternatives to their product. Monopolies have no competitors, that's why they are monopolies.
    Everybody else can fail because they have competitors that will take on the business when they do fail. Unless, of course, the politicians deem the company "Too Big To Fail" and puts the shaft to the competition.
    Snarky & thintheherd are arguing apples and oranges.
  • It takes a pretty stupid parasite to kill its’ host, maybe that’s the real goal of this parasite.
    It sure looks like it.

    Barney championed and defended beyond the end the very regulations that caused this. Who really thinks his additional regulations will fix anything, other than his power, wallet, and the next meltdown scam? He’ll play you for a fool as many times as you let him. Apparently there’s no such thing as a conflict of interest if you have a (D) after your name. If congressmen were held to the same standards they want for CEOs, barney would be long gone from banking oversight, if not congress.

    It’s easier to argue that the government declaring something, “Too big to fail,” guarantees failure, than arguing the converse, judging from the track record of the idea so far.

    How does the weapon used mitigate the killing? Oh, he’s just going to regulate them to death, that changes everything!

    How is the GOP any better? By a factor somewhere between two and four so far, depending on how you count it. I can’t really put a value on multiple of freedom it will end up costing, that’s priceless.
  • Which corp to trust
    out odf context or not, the gist of this near freudian slip is that the Government in essence will become THE corporation and liberals will blindly trust IT because the members have D's next to their names. Because anyone with a D next to their name cannot be a scumbag (see the Gospel of Jimmy Dolan chapter 6013, verse 417).

    Got it.

    By the way, isn't government interference in private business a primary cause of the pathetic state of our economy today?
  • @snarky re-cable providers
    As far as cable providers, not just anyone can play - the only cable providers are those awarded the franchise by ... the gub'mint. I know my choice for cable provider: it's "yes" or "no". Why? Because the gub'mint awarded only ONE provider the franchise. Competition? I think not.
  • Snarkybird Did you check out the posting on “CHASING AWAY THE ACHIEVERS”?
    I can readily understand why you wouldn't want to read that, it only confirms the basic fact that when you punish achievement, you get less achievement.

    But you already knew that, just as you already know that any Statist system will always Fail.
  • Re: Michelle
    I understand exactly what you are saying Michelle, I have 3 kids right around your age.

    The reason you never hear of State's rights is they ended well before you were born, in 1865. Do the schools still teach that the Civil War was a war to end slavery? Probably, though that wasn't the cause.

    The Civil War happened because a (gasp) Republican president didn't want to allow Southern states to exercise a right that is not prohibited by the Constitution: the right of secession. Because it is not prohibited directly by the Constitution, Amendment 10 means the States retain that right. Lincoln didn't want that to happen so he declared war on the States that were trying to secede. It doesn't matter why they wanted to secede, the fact remains that was a right they had.

    In order to get the Northern states to cooperate he used slavery as his 'crisis', even though it was already declining in the South by then.

    Prior to the Civil War we were referred to as "These United States". After the Civil War we became known as "The United States". Subtle but very different.

    And for those that don't accept this point that this is why the Civil War was fought, just look at the 16th Amendment. Why is it the Amendment that was passed to officially outlaw slavery in the US, is also the Amendment that allows Federal collection of tax on income? Prior to the 16th Amendment that wasn't allowed. Why was it attached to the 16th Amendment? Because Congress knew that would be ratified by the States. I mean, who would vote against an anti-slavery Amendment after all?

    So, Michelle, you and your age group have been the lucky recipients of over 100 years of history revisionism, indoctrination and Federal government power grabs. And with the creation of the Dept of Education, students no longer actually learn history, they learn the glory of the almighty government.

    Sad, isn't it?
  • So Far
    "regulatory area" and just where do you think that could take them????? Use your imagination, I'm sure they are.

    Michelle, great post, I hope we have a lot more 23 year olds like you, keep talking to your friends, your group may be the ones dealing with this the most in the coming years.

    If any think this is a good idea, well then we know you are truly in the tank for socialism or any other ism you want to use. They'll be "regulating" our food next. Oh wait, they already want us to give up meat!

    just really disgusting
  • lol @ snarkybird
    Oh yeah.. gubmint saved you and broke up that mean old big at&t corp - and how!

    Colbert dumbs it down to ease your consumption:

    http://www.glumbert.com/media/att
  • Re: snarkybird “right, which explains all the competition for cable providers. “
    Isn't that an industry that is Regulated by the Government?

    So I guess Your point would be that government intervention only screws things up, making costs go up and bringing the level of quality down?
  • reACE
    Here is what I answered yesterday:

    ""If so,[referring to federal income tax] we all pay it but some, through tax policies we (through our elected representatives made legal) get rebates equal to or sometimes exceeding the amount they pay in for federal taxes. And sometimes that even eclipses the amounts they pay into SS and medicare/caid.

    So, through our elected representatives, meaning "us", we allow people to pay no taxes at all or sometimes even get more back than they put in if they meet certain economic or lifestyle (read mortgage holder, parent, etc) criteria.""

    We own our property. We also own the power to govern how taxes are collected.

    Your question assumes the two are the same. They are not. But they do impact each other.
  • Re: snarkybird @ 10/28/09 11:25:55 AM “that large, monopolistic organizations are good for the market? “
    Oh, you mean like GOVERNMENT???

    Why are Government Monopolies Okay?

    [Sorry, couldn't resist that hanging curve ball]
  • Hmmmmmmmmmm...
    Too big to fail...remind me again who has the final approval if a bank wants to merge with another bank...Oh, that's right it is a government agency. Now how is the government going to police the government...that should work out well.
  • retwisted
    You said "As long as anyone can start up a business, there is competition."

    right, which explains all the competition for cable providers.

    Let's compare the telecom market before the MFJ and after and see if your theory holds up.

    hint: it doesnt. :-)

    another hint: look up MCI and Sprint and how they came to be...
  • Re: snarkybird [from yesterday] “I've answered that one”
    Here's the Question Again: How do those who pay no taxes fulfill their responsibility to the collective.

    How and where did you answer that?
    Again, we're talking about the philosophical question of whether the government has an unlimited claim on your property.

    You agreed that it did and that it is a black and white question.

    You would like to muddy the waters with a boat load of hokum about tax policies, rebates and payments to SS and Medicaid.

    That is why I posed the question as Yes or No.

    If the government has an unlimited claim on our property, it can be said that it owns our property (and our time on this earth).

    Is your answer still 'Yes' to that question?
  • Another
    reason why Neal needs to be on XM - "Consider, though, that only a minority of Americans listen to talk radio, and there sure hasn't been anyone on their TV news or their newspapers telling them that the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party is to grow government while reducing the private sector."
  • Another
    good reason why Neal needs to be on XM - "Consider, though, that only a minority of Americans listen to talk radio, and there sure hasn't been anyone on their TV news or their newspapers telling them that the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party is to grow government while reducing the private sector."
  • re:Man UP
    Snarkybird can't man up. She's a jilted wonam who holds some man responsible for her misery.
  • Another
    reason why Neal NEEDS to be on XM - "Consider, though, that only a minority of Americans listen to talk radio, and there sure hasn't been anyone on their TV news or their newspapers telling them that the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party is to grow government while reducing the private sector."
  • Too Big To Fail
    Its interesting to consider how a business gets "Too Big To Fail". With competition a real factor in American business, no company or business would get "Too Big To Fail". The principles of free enterprise would not allow it. Once any business grows so large it is vulnerable to attack by a smaller, more nimble, and enterprising competitor.

    A business that becomes "Too Big TO Fail" has gotten that way by being in bed with politicians that have protected it for a long time. The politicians have a financial stake in seeing that the company does not fail. Ergo, the death of free enterprise.

    The politicians have now turned their tender mercies on the health care business. Particularly home health. Our business is now facing what the politicians call Competitive Bidding which is anything but competitive. Little companies like ours won't survive in a bidding war with the big giants. They have the cash reserves to survive until we wither on the vine. The big giants have the politicians in their pockets and competive bidding is their way of getting rid of the competition and making these giants "Too Big To Fail"
    Of course, once the competition is gone, watch the quality of home care go down the toilet.
  • reliberalhater
    right, so I'm guessing you thought breaking up at&t was a bad thing?

    that large, monopolistic organizations are good for the market?

    it's more "manly" to have fewer companies and less competition? and govt need not concern itself with how the market decides who gets all the business? Even when the "business" ends up flowing to a few giant corps somply because they are able to manipulate the market through their sheer size and power?

    You think that's good? and I'm just whining for saying it's bad?

    seriously?
  • Where's the T word?
    I'm disappointed to find that no-one pointed out the term used to describe a government whose role covers all facets of people's lives.

    That word is "totalitarian".
  • A few points
    (1) “BF: “We're going to have death panels. But they're going to have death panels that are going to put to death these institutions before they can cause us problems, not old people….."

    Not sure if you all saw this video, but while he made this comment, that Turbo tax cheating little twerp Geithner was smirking and laughing. Man, wouldn’t you just love to smack that smile off that little pansy’s face.

    (2) Michelle – well said. For someone just out of college, you seem wise beyond your ears. It takes many of the brainwashed college kids, who have been pumped with endless liberal dogma, to break out of the liberal spell several years later. You’re well ahead!

    (3) MikeS – we do need to address this concept of “too big to fail”. The gov’t is using that concept as a tool to gain control of industries. Take a look at the financial sector and the bailouts and TARP. We bailed out Citi, BofA, and other banks because they “were too big to fail” and a systemic risk that could lead to a panic. However, you give these cretins an inch in the door, and they slam it wide open, as they started to use those funds to bailout auto companies, and insurance companies. How is an insurance company “too big to fail”? It’s not subject to a bank run, the insurance company gradually goes away as peoples policies expire and don’t renew.
  • @Snarky
    "because it's horrible when the govt steps in and breaks up companies"

    More flawed reasoning perpetuated by government education (brainwashing).

    The only people that don't like "monopolies" are the losers that can't figure out how to compete with them. As long as anyone can start up a business, there is competition.
  • varelse
    I have contempt for people who get into football in the form of sticking those gay stickers on their cars or hang the flags out of their windows every Saturday or Sunday.
  • Nothing to big...
    Nothing is too big to fail. Without failure no one learns to lessons of failure. Without failure nothing can arise anew, reborn from the ashes, stronger than before. Without failure, it is presumed we are all winners, all equal, all the same...which in reality makes as all losers.
  • Priorities
    This is a profound statement, that points to the root cause of our problems: "People worry more about what businessmen earn than the corruption of their elected officials."

    Yes yes yes..... very true. The libs get all this wealth envy and anger towards the earning and spending of corporations, but don't look at the worst offenders here: The very same government you want to "watchdog" the corporations.

    Stop asking one inept and corrupt organization to guard you from another "so-called" inept and corrupt organization (I don't think, percentage-wise, corruption in the private sector even comes close to that in government).
  • Snarkybird
    Are you going to continue to whine, cry like a baby, and wet your diaper over everything? Have you even thought for one minute about taking responsibility for your own actions instead of letting drool and snot run down your shirt every time a private business doesn't support your Marxist idea of "the business belongs to the people" nonsense? Quit blubbering and man up.
  • Neal.....
    Do you really have contempt for people who watch football? Is it more or less than the contempt you have for people who send their kids to public school?
  • And how is the GOP any better?
    Informed voters should know that the democrats want to increase the role of government. And how is the GOP different? They controlled all of Washington and the result was more government programs, higher deficits and they doubled the size of government. Isn't it time for the GOP to take the "less government" plank out of their platform?
  • Barney Frank's Beans
    Is there ANYONE up there in Mass who can run against Frank? I mean, I know nothing about his district, but come on...any group of people that would just repeatedly return that despicable hack to the US Congress...what's the deal up there? Lots of lead-base paint on the walls? I just don't get why anyone would WANT to vote for such a noxious, arrogant, freedom-hating jerk.
  • I Hate to Say It
    But you never address the question: should we allow firms to get "too big to fail"? This creates a profound moral hazard. If financial firms are too big to fail than they can run all the risks they want, knowing that the taxpayers will bail them out.

    You can argue that no firm is too big to fail. or you can argue, as Frank does, that we should break up any firm that is too big to fail. But you don't seem to be arguing anything, Neal -- just throwing napalm. I'm happy to throw it at Frank, but at some point we do need to address this problem of firms being "too big to fail".
  • They always...
    openly say things like this. Always. Hell they OPENLY talk about global governance under "THE NEW WORLD ORDER" and yet everyone practically ignores it. It gets better. Even though they openly say these things they have also programed the general public to demonize people who talk about it. They have convinced the American people to label people who talk about The New World Order as conspiracy theorists and anarchists. These elites literally tell you it is raining whilst they piss all over not only your leg but the rest of you because they KNOW you won't do anything about it. They KNOW that you will fall in line because they KNOW you fear being treated like an outcast. God these people are sick. You want to know why I get so upset over this? It is because these elites are laughing at us while they destroy our once beautiful country. If we do not stand up to them we will be destined to be slaves to the elite and our children will be born into a world where everything and everyone is tracked. Where individual thought is controlled. Where healthcare can be given and taken away. Please help me get the message out. This is where we have to make our stand. ALL options are on the table as far as I am concerned. This fight cannot be won unless the American people solidify behind the cause of destroying tyranny. This is probably one the most pivotal moments in American history. This is make it or break it time people.
  • finish the statement
    "...in the Area of Regulation."

    Finishing the quote changes the meaning, but then you know that, Neal. He was referring to regulation of the financial industry. You can argue whether that's a good or bad idea, but at least supply the context with the quote.
  • Cat out of bag...
    DUH dittos!
  • The role of government
    I think I finally get it. I'm 23 and not that long out of school, so I think I know why people do not understand the constitutional roles of government, and why people are so apathetic to the federal government's increasing role in our lives. No one teaches about the difference between State's Rights (local government) and the role of the Federal Government!

    I wasn't even aware State governments were supposed to have a function besides figuring out how to handle money that was "given" to them by the federal government. In school, you basically learn that the federal government is the only body where any kind of action, laws, or decision making comes from. The only context we learn about state government was mentioning "antiquated" laws that the states still have on the books from days gone by (silly ones like not being allowed to tie donkeys to trees, etc.)

    So, no WONDER people don't see an increased role of the federal government as a problem. The way we're taught, that's all there is! State, local, county, city... according to schools, all they do is figure out how to spend "their share" of the money. Obviously this isn't true, but that's what we're learning!

    Even two years ago I didn't understand the point of state's rights and the importance of local vs federal government. But as I learn more and more about how the founding fathers set up the country, it makes a lot more sense, and it makes the federal government's reach seem more and more worrisome.
  • Take a Closer Listen
    Actually, he says, "we are trying on every front to increase the role of the gov't in the REGULATORY area".

    I'm not a fan of Barney, or politicians in general, but this is taking a comment straight out of context.

    Good thing your website comes w/ that disclaimer to not believe anything you say without first researching it.
  • Cocky
    They're just getting cocky and arrogant. Let's hope they become even more transparent before Election 2010 rolls around. Hell, what am I saying? We all know the Republican party's going to foul this up anyway by nominating McCains, Dedes, and Powells to office.
  • Find me someone better
    I have not seen conservatives bring someone to the table that is better than Barney Frank. I trust him more than any crazy crying conservative worrying more about gay marriage than the economy. Again, conservatives are sitting on the ground crying rather than trying to think of a solution on their own.
  • riiiight
    because it's horrible when the govt steps in and breaks up companies

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modification_of_Final_Judgment

    remember how horrible it was when we couldn't get phone service and had no options after this incredible overreach of judicial power?

    yeah, me either...
  • Normally with you.
    And while I think it's bad enough, he said "increase the role of government in the REGULATORY AREA."

    Yes, it's bad, but it's not as bad as Neal makes it sound.
  • Would be a great ad to run over and over
    "We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government"

    "We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government"
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement