Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

snowy owl

(2,145 posts)
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 07:44 PM Apr 2016

OMG! Shut Barney Frank up! Anybody see him vs Reich today?

Ge even offended Reich in his out-of-control blather and he contstantly is talking over Reich. And Reich gets cut off as did Nina Turner when arguing Blustery Frank. Thanks Chris. You should be able to control your show. I just turned the station.

49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OMG! Shut Barney Frank up! Anybody see him vs Reich today? (Original Post) snowy owl Apr 2016 OP
Barney was exuding superiority flamingdem Apr 2016 #1
Barney co-authored Dodd-Frank, who is Bob Reich to tell him oasis Apr 2016 #8
You really think Barney wrote that? Really? Skwmom Apr 2016 #13
That's why Dodd-Frank is useless - Frank is a politician. Smarter than Reich? snowy owl Apr 2016 #16
Reich: Glass-Steagal wouldn't have stopped the meltdown wyldwolf Apr 2016 #2
Reich: But it would have helped Armstead Apr 2016 #4
How? wyldwolf Apr 2016 #34
Too big to fail? The bailout BECAUSE they were too big to fail? Ring any bells? /nt RiverLover Apr 2016 #37
As vague as Sanders' answers wyldwolf Apr 2016 #45
But it would have helped. Listen carefully. snowy owl Apr 2016 #6
Yeah, but Franks beedle Apr 2016 #21
I never thought anyone could out debate Robert Reich until Barney oasis Apr 2016 #3
If you mean being louder and more aggressive, yes Armstead Apr 2016 #5
He exposed Bernie's lack of knowledge on what it would take oasis Apr 2016 #9
He did? beedle Apr 2016 #22
Glass-Stegall is not Frank's "own frigging bill". oasis Apr 2016 #25
Right beedle Apr 2016 #29
It repeats now, we have a chance to review. oasis Apr 2016 #30
I don't think he likes doing this. kristopher Apr 2016 #15
What's your proof? I ask because I've found him bogus for a long time now. snowy owl Apr 2016 #20
Barney performed the same way last night on Chris Hayes/MSNBC with Bob Reich, appalachiablue Apr 2016 #42
Really? beedle Apr 2016 #19
Consider the words he said carefully, please. UtahJosh Apr 2016 #43
How are you differentiating between size and debt? Counting employees? snowy owl Apr 2016 #46
I disagree. Reich has always been a bit of a lightweight. Didn't see the exchange, but I'm DanTex Apr 2016 #39
pure opinion - I used to think so too. When facts change I change my mind. snowy owl Apr 2016 #47
GOP debate tactic 101 Gwhittey Apr 2016 #7
Yes! Barney was super annoying Waiting For Everyman Apr 2016 #10
Yes "annoying" like a traffic cop busting you for going 55 mph oasis Apr 2016 #11
Not sure your point but HRC might want to put a leash on him. snowy owl Apr 2016 #14
I thinking Barney Frank just might be an expert on Dodd-Frank. oasis Apr 2016 #17
Expert on the verbiage but not on its impact or that it does what it is supposed to do. snowy owl Apr 2016 #18
I cruise and don't see Frank anywhere else. MSNBC/HRCpaid consultant? snowy owl Apr 2016 #12
I used to like Barney. SusanCalvin Apr 2016 #23
me too, and I agree renate Apr 2016 #24
Then you must have literally never seen Frank give an interview before--ever. Meldread Apr 2016 #32
+100 bigtree Apr 2016 #41
+1000000 UtahJosh Apr 2016 #44
REPEAT of segment in about 8:28 PST. MSNBC oasis Apr 2016 #26
No, I didn't see him today, but elleng Apr 2016 #27
He doesn't know more than Reich. He's a paid lobbyist onecaliberal Apr 2016 #28
About Dodd-Frank? I think he knows a shiteload more. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #36
He's such a poor speaker I can't understand a word he says. N/t Peregrine Took Apr 2016 #31
I agree. Even when he was in Congress he always sounded like he had a mouthful of feathers. nt nc4bo Apr 2016 #38
He's now a lobbyist and is full on for Hillary. It was difficult listening to him on Real Time cui bono Apr 2016 #33
He handed Reich his ass. nt msanthrope Apr 2016 #35
Yes, he sure did. Completely dominated him, and Frank's comments about the "McCarthyite suggestion" R B Garr Apr 2016 #40
I guess glass steagal really didn't matter at all...right? I wonder why it was passed first place? snowy owl Apr 2016 #49
He made Reich look like a ..."unprepared." Jitter65 Apr 2016 #48

flamingdem

(39,294 posts)
1. Barney was exuding superiority
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 07:46 PM
Apr 2016

and maybe he does know more than Reich but he came off as hostile and it was hard to understand him. I think he hates Bernie.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
13. You really think Barney wrote that? Really?
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:13 PM
Apr 2016

I'm sure Wall Street and the big banks were happy to provide the manpower.


snowy owl

(2,145 posts)
16. That's why Dodd-Frank is useless - Frank is a politician. Smarter than Reich?
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:19 PM
Apr 2016

I don't think so. Reich has a much broader education and much broader service in government. You're looking for someone to reinforce your beliefs aren't you? A real party loyalist in spite of the facts.

 

beedle

(1,235 posts)
21. Yeah, but Franks
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:35 PM
Apr 2016

said that because Bernie did not mention Glass–Steagall in regards to breaking up the banks that he did not know what he was talking about, then in the same sentence that Glass–Steagall Act has nothing to do with breaking up the banks. ?????

oasis

(49,046 posts)
3. I never thought anyone could out debate Robert Reich until Barney
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 07:55 PM
Apr 2016

gave him an old fashion ass whoopin'. Talk what you know Bob.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
5. If you mean being louder and more aggressive, yes
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 07:59 PM
Apr 2016

Content-wise and basic reasonableness no.

Barney has become a bull in a China shop. His rudeness and arrogence eclipses any expertise he may have. And he has lost his sense of perspective since going on his anti Bernie jihaad.

oasis

(49,046 posts)
9. He exposed Bernie's lack of knowledge on what it would take
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:05 PM
Apr 2016

to break up so-called "too big to fail banks". Mission accomplished.

 

beedle

(1,235 posts)
22. He did?
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:38 PM
Apr 2016

How?

By claiming the big banks aren't the ones with the political power, it is the little banks?

Please, Franks contradicted himself in the same sentence talking about Glass–Steagall, his own frigging bill.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
15. I don't think he likes doing this.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:18 PM
Apr 2016

His arguments are empty and, as noted, he has to employ the filibuster. I think he likes Bernie but he's obligated to Hillary in some way. I have no evidence but his behavior past and present. He likes skewering with reason.

snowy owl

(2,145 posts)
20. What's your proof? I ask because I've found him bogus for a long time now.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:31 PM
Apr 2016

I used to be a fan. But since he did Dodd-Frank and I read so many criticisms of it by economists, I stopped thinking of him as anything but establishment - a typical money-changing politician. Not sure it takes much to be stand out intellectually in the House.

appalachiablue

(40,908 posts)
42. Barney performed the same way last night on Chris Hayes/MSNBC with Bob Reich,
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 09:14 AM
Apr 2016

becoming loud and aggressive, claiming Bernie was 'McCarthyite', and repeatedly saying breaking up the big banks would be harmful. It was really embarrassing, I've never seen him that unhinged before. This is clearly a very important issue to him and the banking industry he now works for as a board member of the Signature Bank of New York.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 deregulated the banks to allow wider involvement with high risk derivative products like MBS and CDOs fueling the Great Burndown of 2008.
As Reich brought up, even high level bankers on Wall Street like a former Goldman Sachs exec & powerhouse Sandy Weill, ex chief of Citibank have called since 2008 for the revival of Glass-Steagall, the 1933 Banking Act under FDR.

 

beedle

(1,235 posts)
19. Really?
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:28 PM
Apr 2016

Barney in once sentence accused Sanders of not knowing what he was talking about regarding breaking up the banks because he didn't mention Glass–Steagall Act, and without so much as a pause said that the Glass–Steagall Act did not have anything to do with breaking up the banks.


Then later when Barney was going on about how it wasn't the 'size' of the banks that caused the problem, it was their 'debt', Robert made him look like a fool again by pointing out that with 'size' comes political influence, so Big Banks have both financial and political risks to deal with, not just 'debt'.

Franks then actually decided to go even deeper down the spin-hole and accused the little banks of having all the political influence in Washingotn, not the big banks.

Really? The little banks are the problem? or to paraphrase: "WHAAA, WHAAA, Leave the Big Banks A Loan"

UtahJosh

(131 posts)
43. Consider the words he said carefully, please.
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 09:26 AM
Apr 2016

"Then later when Barney was going on about how it wasn't the 'size' of the banks that caused the problem, it was their 'debt'"

No, Frank said it was the debt that caused "too big to fail". That's actually correct.


"Robert made him look like a fool again by pointing out that with 'size' comes political influence, so Big Banks have both financial and political risks to deal with, not just 'debt'"

No, because Reich continually ignored the debt point that Frank was making (seemingly purposefully, but perhaps he didn't catch it?). Neither made the other "a fool", but there was a great deal of cross-talk and misunderstandings going on.

Size DOES equal political influence, sure, but "too big to fail" is a specific issue, as Frank said, and has to do with leverage and debt, something apparently too subtle for most to grasp.

Frank, being in the thick of things way back when he helped the Pelosi Congress bring us back from the brink, knows a thing or two about the issue.

I like Reich, but in this interview, he was ignoring the finer points in a big way (with a lot of catch phrases along the way).

snowy owl

(2,145 posts)
46. How are you differentiating between size and debt? Counting employees?
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:00 AM
Apr 2016

Name a big bank with small debt? Name a small bank with big debt? Do you know what you're talking about and is Barney parsing here?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
39. I disagree. Reich has always been a bit of a lightweight. Didn't see the exchange, but I'm
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 06:23 AM
Apr 2016

not surprised that Frank came out on top. Barney Frank knows his stuff.

snowy owl

(2,145 posts)
18. Expert on the verbiage but not on its impact or that it does what it is supposed to do.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:23 PM
Apr 2016

Which has been very little. Reich knows what he's talking about. Can you really say that Barney did anything but interrupt and talk ad infinitum? Or that he insulted Reich?

snowy owl

(2,145 posts)
12. I cruise and don't see Frank anywhere else. MSNBC/HRCpaid consultant?
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:12 PM
Apr 2016

Barnett "Barney" Frank (born March 31, 1940) is an American politician who served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts from 1981 to 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (2007–2011) and was a leading co-sponsor of the 2010 Dodd–Frank Act, a sweeping reform of the U.S. financial industry. Frank, a resident of Newton, Massachusetts, is considered the most prominent gay politician in the United States.[1]

Ergo: Politician

Robert Bernard Reich (/ˈraɪʃ/;[1] born June 24, 1946) is an American political commentator, professor, and author. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997.

Reich is currently Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was formerly a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government[2] and professor of social and economic policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management of Brandeis University. He has also been a contributing editor of The New Republic, The American Prospect (also chairman and founding editor), Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

Reich is a political commentator ...In 2008, Time magazine named him one of the Ten Best Cabinet Members of the century,[3] and The Wall Street Journal in 2008 placed him sixth on its list of the "Most Influential Business Thinkers".[4] He was appointed a member of President-elect Barack Obama's economic transition advisory board.[5] Until 2012, he was married to British-born lawyer, Clare Dalton, with whom he has two sons, Sam and Adam.[6]

He has published 14 books, including the best-sellers The Work of Nations, Reason, Supercapitalism, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, and a best-selling e-book, Beyond Outrage. He is also chairman of Common Cause and writes his own blog about the political economy at Robertreich.org.[7] The Robert Reich – Jacob Kornbluth film Inequality for All won a U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award for Achievement in Filmmaking at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival in Utah.[8][9]

Ergo Superior-to-Frank economically astute does-everything professor who provides government service

renate

(13,776 posts)
24. me too, and I agree
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:14 PM
Apr 2016

His obnoxiousness really overshadowed any case he may have been trying to make--I honestly could not bear listening to him.

I usually assume that if volume and bad manners are the only way of getting a point across, it's probably not a very good point.

Meldread

(4,213 posts)
32. Then you must have literally never seen Frank give an interview before--ever.
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:22 PM
Apr 2016

He is literally one of the most curmudgeonly people I have ever seen in Congress. He regularly interrupts people, other panelists, the interviewer, insults them, and in general just doesn't give a fuck. If he thinks he is right about something, he'll shout down the other person to get his point across. This interview was tame by Barney Frank standards.

I normally can't stand his behavior, but in the interview here they were actually talking over and interrupting each other. Robert was the first one to interrupt, in fact. The problem was that Barney is so much better at it, and if you try and fight Barney he isn't afraid to cut you down to size.

Temperament aside, I actually found the discussion intense and enlightening. I actually think Barney made some strong points, and won the debate. His main point was this:

- If you are saying the Big Banks should be broken up, then how big is too big? Obviously, for legislation you are going to need some way of measuring it. Is it 500 billion, 50 billion, 5 billion, 5 million, 5 dollars--what is the number?

- The reason he was asking the question, was because Dodd-Frank already has an answer. Rather than trying to create an arbitrary number, Dodd-Frank measures debt and leverage. If a bank that could pose a systemic risk to the economy is over leveraged, Dodd-Frank forces the government to take certain actions to basically shut that bank down.

- Now, the obvious rebuttal here is that Dodd-Frank doesn't go far enough, because what happens if we have some really huge banking institutions that pose huge systemic risks to the system--a bank so large that the government cannot properly mitigate the risk? We may or may not have banks already in that territory, but as the banks continue to grow larger we will approach that point in the future. There is also the issue of morally leaving tax payers on the hook financially for a failing institution.

- Instead of going with that point, Robert Reich makes a completely counter intuitive argument that it isn't really about risk at all. it is about political power and influence. Whether or not you agree with this line of reasoning, the problem arises with how do you regulate that, and why just target the banks? It is unclear that such a regulation would even be constitutional.

- Barney didn't make this argument though, instead he spoke about his experience with fighting to get Dodd-Frank passed. He said the difficulty in getting it passed was not really from the Big Banks, as Robert Reich would have people believe, but it was instead from smaller banks and credit unions. The reason they posed a larger threat to the regulation, he argued, was because they all were community based and located in individual congress members districts. This intuitively makes sense, because this would mean that those individuals would likely have intimate ties with people in congress, and would likely do some personal lobbying against the bill.

There were some other points made, but this was the core meat of the debate. It centered around how to determine what too big to fail is, and whether the Dodd-Frank approach was correct or the Sanders approach is correct. Barney ended up coming out making a lot of sense, and Reich appeared to be a bit baffled--as if he wasn't expecting this line of attack, so he really didn't have real answers to the challenges.

I came away with the feeling that the best path forward is to stick with Dodd-Frank, but strengthen it in certain ways. For example, rather than leaving tax payers on the hook, setup a system where banks have to purchase "insurance", the "insurance" policies would help mitigate the growth of banks. If you grow too large what you'll have to pay will be through the roof. We can do risk assessments. This takes tax payers off the hook, and makes the industry responsible for itself. In addition to that there could also be some additional regulations to help mitigate and lower risk, something like a modern version of Glass-Steagall could be part of that plan. Some of Hillary Clinton's proposals, in particular those involving shadow banking, could also be part of that plan.

The problem, ultimately, is that Bernie Sanders has a clear goal but not a clear plan on how he intends to accomplish that goal. This is true on a lot of issues. This was how the debate ended up getting started.

elleng

(129,091 posts)
27. No, I didn't see him today, but
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 10:25 PM
Apr 2016

when I have seen him recently, he did what you describe, talking over someone(s), and 'blustery' is putting it mildly. I expected, after he retired, he'd act like an 'elder statesman,' and he's disappointed me regularly in that respect.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
33. He's now a lobbyist and is full on for Hillary. It was difficult listening to him on Real Time
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:24 PM
Apr 2016

a few weeks ago too.

.

R B Garr

(16,855 posts)
40. Yes, he sure did. Completely dominated him, and Frank's comments about the "McCarthyite suggestion"
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 08:02 AM
Apr 2016

that banks and other institutions were not prosecuted was because they took financial contributions was a devastating blow to Bernie's entire platform, which is all a generalized smear anyway.

This type of questioning is happening really late in this process. This is basic vetting that should have been done months ago. And Frank's comments that Reich was essentially saying, "poor Bernie" when Reich brought up the bogus MSM/establishment "fear" of Bernie was right on. It's about time these things are said.

snowy owl

(2,145 posts)
49. I guess glass steagal really didn't matter at all...right? I wonder why it was passed first place?
Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:03 AM
Apr 2016

People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»OMG! Shut Barney Frank up...