• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Frank: "We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government"

ReverendHellh0und

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Frank: "We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government"


RealClearPolitics - Video - Frank: "We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government"
Click to expand...




uhm if this is not the correct place for this, I beg the mods pardon....




I guess it would not be breaking news that democrats want to increase the role of government. But what is breaking to me is about how cavilear they are becoming about it.....


Do you really want your government's hand in every aspect of your lives? Are you so helpless that you NEED to be coddled by a nanny state?

Is this, if you are a lefty, one of your core values?


discuss. :thumbs:
 
This is in part simply a method of eventually bringing in some form of World Government.
A fanciful statement?, I think not.
 
This is fact and not at all surprising....it is a bit surprising that someone is admitting it up front.

Of course, this is Barney Frank.
 
To be fair the entire quote is "We are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area" in response to the financial derivative crisis.
 
laska said:
To be fair the entire quote is "We are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area" in response to the financial derivative crisis.
Click to expand...


That's kinda different. And if that's the quote, then .... GOOD !
 
jackalope said:
That's kinda different. And if that's the quote, then .... GOOD !
Click to expand...

Why is it good? What specific aspects of the derivatives market do you think need regulation and why?
 
The more the Government "makes the market fair" the more we all get poorer for it.

But hey, we'll be fairly poor right?
 
laska said:
To be fair the entire quote is "We are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area" in response to the financial derivative crisis.
Click to expand...

Gotta love the spin the opposition tries to put on things, huh?

Quote him right or don't quote him at all.
 
laska said:
To be fair the entire quote is "We are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area" in response to the financial derivative crisis.
Click to expand...

Would sound a little odd if it said "We are trying on every front to increase the role of the government in the non-regulatory area" But ya statements should be quoted till the. period
 
Ethereal said:
Why is it good? What specific aspects of the derivatives market do you think need regulation and why?
Click to expand...

How about equity limits? Firms really shouldn't be allowed to take out derivatives in aggregate that exceed their net values or reach a point where insolvency is highly likely.
 
laska said:
To be fair the entire quote is "We are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area" in response to the financial derivative crisis.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and? Regulatory is what we're always talking about. That's what the liberals in govt are best at, regulating every damn thing they can get their hands on. Those last four words add nothing new to the statement. We already know what it refers too. The only regulatation Barney Frank would oppose is one limiting the number of dicks he can suck on in a day.
 
At least Barney is up front about it.... and many more liberals are finally showing their true colors thinking they get cover by Obama. Can we now call a socialist a socialist and stop the label banter?
 
Ethereal said:
Why is it good? What specific aspects of the derivatives market do you think need regulation and why?
Click to expand...


All of it, the parts I barely understand, and the parts I don't understand at all.

The energy derivatives that led to the implosion of Enron.

The slicing and dicing of mortgage streams so that the buyers and sellers have absolutely no care as to whether the underlying mortgage is good, they only care if they can sell this bucket of xx year revenue streams.

The insurance being sold on these revenue streams.

The new derivatives being built around life insurance policies.

The allowing of leveraging up of 30-to-1 by the big banks on broad street and elsewhere.

The creation of 'instruments' that regulators can't understand.

Primary goals, imo should be making it so that risk of underlying securities stays with the makers and the sellers, instruments can be understood by regulators and market people (even Warren Buffet couldn't understand them), and over-leveraging is prohibiited.
 
jackalope said:
Primary goals, imo should be making it so that risk of underlying securities stays with the makers and the sellers, instruments can be understood by regulators and market people (even Warren Buffet couldn't understand them), and over-leveraging is prohibited.
Click to expand...

I don't mind financial industries being creative in order to make money. That's what the free enterprise system is all about. But what I do mind is when financial industries take on so much risk and begin to take heavy losses as a result that not only do they take themselves down but they take others with them.
 
Objective Voice said:
I don't mind financial industries being creative in order to make money. That's what the free enterprise system is all about. But what I do mind is when financial industries take on so much risk and begin to take heavy losses as a result that not only do they take themselves down but they take others with them.
Click to expand...

That isn't a problem, unless the government steps in and removes the penalty for poor judgement.
 
Barney Frank would have been on the side of those bastard krauts, and well you know how Papa Patton feels about those damn fascists!

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1130-patton-frowns-your-dickery.jpg
 
He might have been with the very early ones. There was a strong undercurrent of militant homosexuality in the young organization. Later they were purged, with some vigor.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
uhm if this is not the correct place for this, I beg the mods pardon....




I guess it would not be breaking news that democrats want to increase the role of government. But what is breaking to me is about how cavilear they are becoming about it.....


Do you really want your government's hand in every aspect of your lives? Are you so helpless that you NEED to be coddled by a nanny state?

Is this, if you are a lefty, one of your core values?


discuss. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Frank is an excellent Congressman. Now why would a Conservative say that? Because I recognize that he is going a hell of a job implementing programs he supports. Now I could bash him personally, but people need to know about Barney Frank, the lawmaker, not Barney Frank, the man. The personal attacks on Frank sidetrack the real issue, which is how dangerous he really is to American values. In that regard, I must admit that Frank is doing his job well, and with a purpose. Congressmen on the opposite side of the fence need to do what it takes to make Frank not do his job as well.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Frank is an excellent Congressman. Now why would a Conservative say that? Because I recognize that he is going a hell of a job implementing programs he supports. Now I could bash him personally, but people need to know about Barney Frank, the lawmaker, not Barney Frank, the man. The personal attacks on Frank sidetrack the real issue, which is how dangerous he really is to American values. In that regard, I must admit that Frank is doing his job well, and with a purpose. Congressmen on the opposite side of the fence need to do what it takes to make Frank not do his job as well.
Click to expand...

A lot of Congressional reps are damn fine Congressmen and women. They make on average 150k or so a year doing as little as possible until it comes to something they want or at least want their name attached to. Hooray for the Republic!

:lol:
 
danarhea said:
Frank is an excellent Congressman. Now why would a Conservative say that? Because I recognize that he is going a hell of a job implementing programs he supports. Now I could bash him personally, but people need to know about Barney Frank, the lawmaker, not Barney Frank, the man. The personal attacks on Frank sidetrack the real issue, which is how dangerous he really is to American values. In that regard, I must admit that Frank is doing his job well, and with a purpose. Congressmen on the opposite side of the fence need to do what it takes to make Frank not do his job as well.
Click to expand...

Examples of how Barney Frank "the man" and Barney Frank "the lawmaker" are actually the same thing:

The Einstein of compensation

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Government Motors


A corrupt man who is a Congressman is a corrupt Congressman. And Barney Frank is not "an excellent Congressman", he is a corrupt one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom