The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Opinions on Barney Frank?

JSB_01

Sex God
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
835
Reaction score
4
Points
0
What do ya'll think? Any praise or criticism? I'm particularly curious about what ya'll think about his involvement with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What are the repercussions, positive or negative, of his involvement with theses two entities? I've heard a lot about him, but I want to get more opinions!
 
Wasn't that the name of Andy Taylor's deputy in Mayberry? Or was that Barney Fife? Which one was played by Don Knotts?
 
Barney Frank is a menace. He pushed scrutiny of FM/FM off the agenda and criticized those who brought up concerns. He's completely culpable in their shenanigans, though certainly not alone. But that's Washington politics.
He's part of the problem today,not part of the solution.I agree 100% Barney can't be trusted and neither many other pols in Washington....he's one of the most prominent Democrats and Republicans to have gotten us into this mess.At best he was blind,at worst reckless and irresponsible.
 
His ideas certainly did nothing to improve the situation then, so I'm skeptical about any solutions he has now.
 
He's part of the problem today,not part of the solution.I agree 100% Barney can't be trusted and neither many other pols in Washington....he's one of the most prominent Democrats and Republicans to have gotten us into this mess.At best he was blind,at worst reckless and irresponsible.

Reckless and irresponsible is an understatement.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...ells_of_his_despair_during_14689_sex_scandal/

US Representative Barney Frank acknowledged yesterday that for a brief time in 1989 he saw a psychiatrist and took antidepressant medication as he battled allegations from a gay prostitute and companion who had operated a sex-for-hire ring in the congressman's home.

''I was pretty dysfunctional for five or six weeks," Frank said in a brief interview, referring to the scandal that drew national attention and opened up his private sexual life to public scrutiny.

The 64-year-old congressman said he was still able to ''show up and vote" in the House during the period. He said he thought about stepping down from his congressional seat, but rejected the notion because he wanted to use the House Ethics Committee as a public forum to fight the allegations

Then there is the fact that when the Bush administration wanted to reign in Freddie and Fannie, Barney kept saying everything was ok and under control - all the while he was in bed with (literally) a fannie or freddie executive.

One wonders why the voters of Massachusetts keep returning scum like slobbering Barey to DC. Of course, they keep returnig an aging alcoholic murderer and an aging career gigolo to the Senate. Must be something in the water.


Frank certainly does nothing to enhance the image of gays.
 
I'm glad I'm not the only gay guy who thinks Barney Frank got to go. I hope
people are not voting for him just because he's gay.
 
Then there is the fact that when the Bush administration wanted to reign in Freddie and Fannie, Barney kept saying everything was ok and under control - all the while he was in bed with (literally) a fannie or freddie executive.

I'm curious Henry is your understanding of our government so limited that you actually believe a minority congressman all by himself can stop a president whose party is in the majority from doing anything?

If you do could you help me understand which levers of government he uses to force his will on the helpless President?
 
I'm curious Henry is your understanding of our government so limited that you actually believe a minority congressman all by himself can stop a president whose party is in the majority from doing anything?

I

I'm curious, is your sophomoronic understanding of our government so limited that you don't realize how things work?

Slobbering Barney has been Chairman of the House financial services committee since 2007. With a majority of Democrats in the house he has absolute control of what bills emerge from that committee. Even before he assumed the chairmanship of the committee he had considerable power, and was well positioned to block any serious changes in Fannie/Freddie.

Perhaps you think members of congress merely stand up during a session and introduce a regulatory bill.


In 2007 Frank became the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (when the Democratic Party won a majority in the House of Representatives). The committee oversees the housing and banking industries.

The New York Times has called Frank "one of the most powerful members of Congress

Source Link (added by moderator): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank
 
I'm curious, is your sophomoronic understanding of our government so limited that you don't realize how things work?

Slobbering Barney has been Chairman of the House financial services committee since 2007. With a majority of Democrats in the house he has absolute control of what bills emerge from that committee. Even before he assumed the chairmanship of the committee he had considerable power, and was well positioned to block any serious changes in Fannie/Freddie.

Perhaps you think members of congress merely stand up during a session and introduce a regulatory bill.

My understand of the sub-prime problem, which is obviously different from yours, was that it began well before 2007 and the changes to Freddie and Fannie that the Bush attempted also occurred before 2007.

And while minority members do have some power the power to stop the majority from acting is not among them.

Of course you can differ with me on the last point but that would mean that you believe that the current republican minority had the power to stop Obama's stimulus bill which they derided as being about anything but stimulus but choose not to for a reason unknown to me but one I'm sure you'll be happy to explain. :-)
 
My understand of the sub-prime problem, which is obviously different from yours, was that it began well before 2007 and the changes to Freddie and Fannie that the Bush attempted also occurred before 2007.

And while minority members do have some power the power to stop the majority from acting is not among them.

Of course you can differ with me on the last point but that would mean that you believe that the current republican minority had the power to stop Obama's stimulus bill which they derided as being about anything but stimulus but choose not to for a reason unknown to me but one I'm sure you'll be happy to explain. :-)

The Bush administration tried several times (some say as many as eight times) to pull the reigns on Freddie and Fannie.

A well-placed minority member can be very effective in blocking legislation -
a) given sufficient determination and b) given effective support by their own party and c) given a lack of resolve on the part of the other party.

The Republicans in general (there are a couple of exceptions) have shown a lamentable lack of a) understanding how to be in charge and b) understanding how to effectively oppose things they are against.

Bottom line - Slobbering Barney, a disgrace to all gays, managed to protect his boyfriend's interests, not to mention his own.
 
A well-placed minority member can be very effective in blocking legislation -
a) given sufficient determination and b) given effective support by their own party and c) given a lack of resolve on the part of the other party.

The Republicans in general (there are a couple of exceptions) have shown a lamentable lack of a) understanding how to be in charge and b) understanding how to effectively oppose things they are against.

Bottom line - Slobbering Barney, a disgrace to all gays, managed to protect his boyfriend's interests, not to mention his own.

OK I understand now you don't like Barney but believe him to be a very effective member of congress while you prefer republicans but don't think they are very effective members of congress.

Is that it?

Its amusing that above you wondered why the voters of Massachusetts would keep returning an effective member to congress shouldn't you really be asking why republicans keep returning their ineffective members to congress?

You did confirm a long held suspicion of mine which is that conservatives just don't understand how government works. ;)
 
OK I understand now you don't like Barney but believe him to be a very effective member of congress while you prefer republicans but don't think they are very effective members of congress.

Is that it?

Not even close.
 
What do ya'll think? Any praise or criticism? I'm particularly curious about what ya'll think about his involvement with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What are the repercussions, positive or negative, of his involvement with theses two entities? I've heard a lot about him, but I want to get more opinions!

Here is a link to a you tube video which gives some of the history of the Bush administration's attempts to reign in Freddie and Fannie, and Barney Frank's efforts to stop them..

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1++
 
Does anyone know when he is up for re-election? He is a menace to Washington and has "Guilty" written all over him. What a bumbling idiot, too. I suggest putting both him and Pelosi under the bus. The sooner the better.
 
Here is a link to a you tube video which gives some of the history of the Bush administration's attempts to reign in Freddie and Fannie, and Barney Frank's efforts to stop them..

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1++

Thanks for the link, although I'm not a huge fan of FOX news. Or any of the main US news outlets, to be honest. At least it helps point out that our current problems came from a failure on all fronts.

Interestingly, I recently saw online an episode of Frontline and they featured Frank. The episode highlighted the bailouts of Wall Street institutions that were failing due to the housing burst. I wonder if he felt a little uncomfortable talking about it, given his role in the whole thing!
 
Does anyone know when he is up for re-election? He is a menace to Washington and has "Guilty" written all over him. What a bumbling idiot, too. I suggest putting both him and Pelosi under the bus. The sooner the better.

Like all congressmen, Frank has to be re-elected every two years.
So the answer is either this November or November 2010.
 
Here is a link to a you tube video which gives some of the history of the Bush administration's attempts to reign in Freddie and Fannie, and Barney Frank's efforts to stop them..

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1++


The only part of Frank's embarrassing Harvard video which had some validity was when Frank said that blaming him for the sub-prime crisis and the lack of regulation at Fannie and Freddie was a right wing republican strategy to deflect blame from themselves and sadly some here are falling for just such a strategy.

First off barely three months after the hearing linked above President Bush signed the Bush American Dream act which would help minorities buy homes by helping them with the downpayment.

http://www.americandreamdownpaymentassistance.com/whsp12162003.cfm

I found it amusing that the man who insisted that Fannie and Freddie needed tighter regulation not months later said "This administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their homes. It is in our national interest that more people own their homes.

But Bush isn't responsible for this mess at all it was Barney Frank's fault. :rolleyes:

In the Fox piece above they focused on Frank's role in opposing the Bill (HR2575) and some here have said he blocked it even though as a minority member of the committee he had no such power. The Fox piece only says the bill was blocked which isn't even true if they are referring to the House's action on the bill. They could be referring to the Senate's action on the bill but their reporting is so shoddy with their mixing of facts one can't tell what happened to the bill in the House.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-2575

As the link above makes clear Barney Frank did not block the bill. It was reported out of the committee he sat on and was referred to a sub-committee of which he was not a member. The bill was never reported out of that committee and since republicans were the majority on that committee they are the ones who would need to explain why it died there and certainly not Mr. Frank.

Without doubt Barney played his role in this mess and as the Harvard Video shows he's no more willing to take any responsibility than the republicans whose primary responsibility it was if you believe that with power comes responsibility.

As an aside had the bill passed the primary regulatory weapon the Treasury would have been given was to increase the capital requirements on Freddie and Fannie which most likely would have increased mortgage interest rates at a time when there was no crisis and I for one doubt they would have done so. Frankiln Raines who was the head of Fannie at the time must have agreed with me because he didn't even oppose the idea of increased regulation as he knows politicians rarely do the unpopular thing like putting a dent in the home refinancing market.

Does anyone know when he is up for re-election? He is a menace to Washington and has "Guilty" written all over him. What a bumbling idiot, too. I suggest putting both him and Pelosi under the bus. The sooner the better.

I'm with you grantt as long as we're including all the republicans serving on the committees in question on that list. I think the majority deserves primary blame but that opinion is based more on logic than politics.
 
Its amusing that above you wondered why the voters of Massachusetts would keep returning an effective member to congress shouldn't you really be asking why republicans keep returning their ineffective members to congress?

A member of Congress who is effective at lying and corruption -- yes, I also wonder why they would keep returning him.
Maybe it's because Americans have gotten to where they think that what Congress is for is getting back for their state more money than they sent to Washington?
 
Back
Top