http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-Freddie-Cannot-Exist-cnbc-2714480624.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=

No kidding Barn, where were you a few years ago when the previous administration tried to restructure Fannie/Freddie?

Amazing.

He's been called out and shown to be a liar and scoundrel on this topic before.

Makes you wonder what's changed this time.

Maybe he figures with Brown winning, even his seat isn't safe, anymore.

Well, someone on another message board I frequent posted poll stats in Mass that shows that his district went heavily for Brown.

I'm stunned that two of the highest ranking Congressmen/women (Pelosi and the aforementioned Frank) would likely be unelectable in the supermajority of all other districts.

Awfully quiet at the brothel Tuesday night.
Unofficial numbers from Barney's snake like gerrymandered district.
Scott Brown: 116,765
Martha Coakley: 113,831
Joe Kennedy: 2,069

http://www.rightklik.net/2010/01/barney-frank-and-scott-brown.html

Barney knows he has to face election in 10 months. He is fully aware that he could be kicked out. Also someone gave him a copy of Scott Brown's semi-naked centerfold spread.

Wow, just a few years ago, Mr. Lollipop was telling us there was nothing wrong here. Move along now.

Victory in Jesus!

Barney & the Dems just experienced their own political Haitian-style earthquake in leftist Taxachussetts. They are all a little nervous right now.

But rest assured that the liberal media will swoop down on the devastation and even perform the extraction of bodies from the rubble themselves if necessary in order to get the Dems back on their feet.

There's still a lot of time between now and November. The media will do all it can to salvage the devastated Dem majority they helped put in power the past two elections.

They will do so by turning up the heat on Dem opponents over the next few months rather than conducting true objective investigative journalism to expose why the Dems have failed so miserably and rapidly the past 2 years.

There's still a lot of time between now and November.

That the biggest thing Obama has going for him. His Bill Clinton moment cost him all of 1 senate seat before he had to change course. Clinton lost all of Congress when his wake-up call came.

Had Scott Brown not won Democrats would have gone along being blissfully unaware of the mounting backlash in the country and November would have been an epic tsunami.

They know it is coming now, and at least they can prepare and change course. So much can happen in 10 months, it is a political eternity.

Not to mention, it is going to be hard to keep this fever pitch of anger and momentum up that long. There is a chance of this movement cresting early, as even a slight turn around economically to make things seem like they are finally moving in the right direction will completely change the equation moving into the November elections.

Healthcare will also be well in the rear view mirror at that point. There was a lot of immediate anger in Massachusetts as we are right in the middle of it now, but given the attention span of the American electorate 10 months from now we will have moved on to some other controversy that may or may not have people as fired up.

cutting taxes to increase and stimulate the economy

It will be impossible to advocate cutting taxes, yet complain about the deficit. Debt is scaring people, and a major tax cut will blow a bigger hole in the debt then we are experiencing now.

Larry Kudlow has been advocating tax cuts every night on his show and yelling at Republicans that they are calling for it, some one pointed out to him is that the major problem is no one wants to talk about what spending they plan on cutting to do so.

If nothing else, the public got wise during the Bush years that you can't have tax cuts without spending or it increases the deficit. So the conundrum for either party is that they will lose votes when the spending cuts they plan on doing are revealed in order to facilitate the tax cuts they want.

Politicians since Reagan have gotten away with the free lunch of tax cuts without spending cuts, but I finally think the electorate has woken up on how damaging a practice it is.

Cutting taxes is the key to spurring the private sector economy and simultaneous cuts in public spending is the key to reducing the deficit.

Tax cuts will help spur private growth which creates MORE tax revenue streams through job and business growth. Meantime TRUE cuts in wasteful, redundant and inefficient government PORKULUS programs will allow the increased tax revenues to be applied towards public debt. Analyze the true public need, streamline it, add accountability, and finally add efficiency incentives to the remaining agreed upon "must have" government programs in the same manner as for-profit businesses are operated.

YES- I'm still a supply sider and it will work IMHO. The DC politicians need a set of testicles to REALLY try it though.

There are only 3 programs you can cut spending in that will make any dent on the budget.

Medicare, Social Security and Defense.

I don't see how it will be politically palatable to suggest cuts to any of them as seniors will revolt if you touch any of the first 2, and there is no way either party will cut defense spending so they can be forever tagged with having been responsible for a terror attack were one to occur after defense cuts.

Not to mention at this point any tax cut proposal skewed to the rich will be demagogued to death (even though they pay the biggest share of taxes proportionately) as populism against the rich is running wild.

Obama was elected after openly campaigning to increase taxes on the rich. If another Bush style tax cut is proposed that shows the top 2% getting the majority of the benefits it will be a political liability. Besides, tax rates were at their lowest for the decade and we saw a net job loss for the period in private sector jobs created, so the argument about it creating jobs has at least temporarily lost its sway.

I just don't see any politician putting their name on a plan to significantly cut spending. Yet I also don't see how talking about a big tax cut while being unwilling to specify what spending you are cutting will fly as a political strategy.

Spurring tax growth through tax cuts = loss of government control. THats the hard part for DC, all the meglomaniacs cant stand giving up their power and control.

That's somewhat the problem. We have created a situation with the 24 hour news cycle that if you think about touching any of those 3 topics you are accused by the minority party (R or D...even if they don't philosophically believe it) that you are soft on defense, want seniors to die on the streets by taking away their S.S, or want them to die outside a hospital because you are taking away their medicare.

Any of the 3 charges is a ticket to a lost election essentially, hence the reason politicians won't touch them knowing they will be on a loop over the major networks all day every day.

Look at how the Medicare cuts in the healthcare bill morphed into death panels for seniors. Yet we think anyone from here on out will ever think about suggesting that again. Not going to happen.

Problem is they are the only places in the budget to really make cuts that will lead to closing the budget deficit.

IggyPride00 wrote:I just don't see any politician putting their name on a plan to significantly cut spending. Yet I also don't see how talking about a big tax cut while being unwilling to specify what spending you are cutting will fly as a political strategy.

Oh I agree....that's where the testicular fortitude comes into play.

Look the American corporate tax rates are some of the highest if not the highest in the developed countries.

When the Dems point out the 2% of the richest get all the breaks, that is just typical dirty class warfare politics. Corporate tax rates and capital gains need re-examined. YES the rich get richer but the average Joe also benefits from jobs creation and then the government benefits by RECEIVING taxes from Joe as opposed to paying out unemployment, welfare, and Food Stamp "entitlements" to Joe.

Does Social Security, Medicare and defense spending need looked at? Yes...

For example Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex and it is alive and well today. The military procurement and supply chain management needs a competitive enema to flush out the waste and reformation to insure it goes away.

Social Security needs options to include the possibility of taxpayers to route at least part of their SS to go into private higher yield investments.

Fraud and abuse in the Medicare system need eradicated (and there's a TON of it based on what I learned in 9 months of Federal Grand Jury duty).

It can be done but there must be a radical buy-off by the people, business, bureaucrats, and the Barney Frank's of the world.

Boehner would be just as worthless as Frank, IMO. Both are giant douches.

cbus4life wrote: Boehner would be just as worthless as Frank, IMO. Both are giant douches.

Boehner has a better tan.

True.

They are both just incredibly odd, creepy people when you see them speak in person, as i have.

They give me the creeps.

I would not stand near Barney when he is speaking. He would be spraying spit all over.

LOL on Baehner. Evan though I may be agreeing with the words coming out of his mouth, I have always felt strange when listening to him. I don't know if it is the tone of his voice or what.

majorspark wrote:...I have always felt strange when listening to him. I don't know if it is the tone of his voice or what.

I think Boehner is sleeping with Pelosi. THAT would give any man's voice a creepy tone!

It would make sense.