Video: Barney Frank throws a fit on Cavuto

posted at 5:21 pm on January 5, 2007 by Ian

Rep. Barney Frank threw a fit on ‘Your World with Neal Cavuto,’ whining he was unable to speak. It’s quite childish. Frank’s argument is weak, Cavuto was just clarifying his question and trying to get an answer.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I say let’s just give up and lay out a welcome mat for socialism, cause it’s coming. Thank you democrats!

Tell me again why we fought the British for our independence?

armyvet on January 5, 2007 at 5:26 PM

lol, glad you got this little hissy fit… can’t say it any better than I did in my email:

Apparently the new rule is “all out war” on Fox News, and Barney Frank is clearly taking the lead. First he unloaded on Chris Wallace, then O’Reilly had to spank him, and now he flips out on Cavuto… Did you guys record that? Good for entertainment value if for nothing else.

What’s funny is I had no clue he’d be making waves today over the insane “ethnic cleansing” crap. Kind of overshadows this display.

RightWinged on January 5, 2007 at 5:28 PM

What the hell business is it of Lollipop Frank how someone any business is run?

Wade on January 5, 2007 at 5:28 PM

What the heck, let’s just go ahead and lay out the welcome mat for socialism, cause it’s coming. Thanks Democrats!

Tell me again why we fought the British for our independence…

armyvet on January 5, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Touchy guy.

He ought to see a speech therapist.

JammieWearingFool on January 5, 2007 at 5:31 PM

He always uses this same ploy. whinner, I cant say anything, you keep interrupting me, blah, blah, and then he WONT stop NOR will he answer.
You are a rude narrow minded selfish man, barney frank.

How about shareholders vote on pay amounts and be able to fire congressman?
We are the United States shareholders, we the people.

shooter on January 5, 2007 at 5:31 PM

STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING

Vincenzo on January 5, 2007 at 5:32 PM

What the heck, let’s just lay out the welcome mat for socialism. Thanks democrats for looking out for us cause (like Kerry) you think we’re just too dumb to know what’s good for us.

Tell me again why we fought the British during the American Revolution…

armyvet on January 5, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Ya know, I could never interview these people. I’d just yell at them to shut their pie holes and turn off the feed for their camera. Kudos to anyone who can deal with rabid politicians like Barney Frank and remain even a little civil for more than a minute.

corbettw on January 5, 2007 at 5:35 PM

How much you wanna bet Franks thinks congress should be a shareholder in any business and have the majority vote.

Or at least decides what how the vote will be.

I wouldn’t want congress running my business.

Kini on January 5, 2007 at 5:37 PM

What is he suggesting… e-mail all shareholders for any given company what they think the CEO should make and then take the weighted average based on the number of shares held?

MT on January 5, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Barney Frank is competing with…Barney Frank.

Entelechy on January 5, 2007 at 5:38 PM

If Dems think FOX is just a right-wing news network and they don’t get treated fairly there then maybe they should just stop going on FOX news shows….Of course I also believe that Republicans should also stop going the rest of the MSM news programs too.

mlong on January 5, 2007 at 5:38 PM

These are the people that still do not even understand the concept of a Democratic Republic, so please keep your hands off of the parts of our lives and businesses that you really have no comprehension of at all.

bbz123 on January 5, 2007 at 5:38 PM

I’m confused why people are made that Home Depot paid their CEO 200 million for retiring.

If that’s what the board pays so be it. If the stock gets trounced for it, so be it.

The market, with its current regulations, is both the only free trade system in America, and one of the best regulated systems in the world.

Vincenzo on January 5, 2007 at 5:39 PM

I love Cavuto. He rocks.

Share holder democracy? Is he kidding? Since when was being a share holder being a pseudo ceo?

Where does it state we have that right in the constitution?

Are the dems ever going to STOP pushing us towards a populist socialism?

One Angry Christian on January 5, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Raising minimum wage by over 30% which means almost 65% to a business owner after matching taxes and insurances (NOT including life or health). Shareholders now vote on payroll issues that will begin to narrow ‘the gap’.
Socialism? yep. Plus I think Barney thinks he’s the new millennium Robin Hood.
I said here in November, be prepared to sell stocks, now I’m thinking, sell your small businesses…../I don’t know how much sarcasm is in that statement, but I am quite concerned.

I’m glad Cavuto (who’s 3x the man barney is) got him to say NO CAP about 8 times.

shooter on January 5, 2007 at 5:43 PM

I heard this last night. Neal ripped him a new one. Write your own punch-line.

sibobr on January 5, 2007 at 5:45 PM

What a crabby little man.

Griz on January 5, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Personally, I think some of the CEO salaries are ridiculous, just like I think that some pro athletes’ salaries are ridiculous. But as long as they can get somebody to pay them that much, more power to them. It’s called the free market. It doesn’t matter what I think or what the government thinks, as long as somebody out there thinks their services are worth that much. But Frank and the rest of the Socialists will never give up on their Marxist class-warfare rhetoric.

ReubenJCogburn on January 5, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Quite the whiney, lispy, little b*tch, aint he?

R D on January 5, 2007 at 5:57 PM

SO what if he said No Cap three times, when he votes for the cap he really won’t care,they never do.

bbz123 on January 5, 2007 at 5:58 PM

If Cavuto really wanted to bait him, he would’ve asked Barney about a salary cap for call boys.

billy on January 5, 2007 at 5:59 PM

You know, listening to Barney talk, it sounds like he has no teeth.

R D on January 5, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Raising minimum wage, limiting salaries….

OK… I give up.. HOW is that not communism??

Ringmaster on January 5, 2007 at 6:01 PM

Sorry for the triple posts. My computer was freaking out.

armyvet on January 5, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Does he have Pelosi’s OK to go out and be a tool?
The Dems want us to run from fights and become just another socialist cesspool, but don;t you dare qiestion their patriotism.

bbz123 on January 5, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Raising minimum wage, limiting salaries….

OK… I give up.. HOW is that not communism??

Ringmaster on January 5, 2007 at 6:01 PM

Add in the National Health Care plan of Shillery, and you’re half way there.

R D on January 5, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Frank is one of the very worst of a Bad Bunch in the House, because he is not stupid and not a fanatic–just a corrupt,arrogant Marxist who wants power and money while he tries to make the entire country more like him.

Not that long ago his live-in boyfriend was turning tricks in the parlour while Barney was away, and Barney got caught trying to fix parking tickets for this “man”. He never showed either guilt or shame ( he likely has no idea of the difference ), confident that his constituents would re-elect him as long as he kept the Pork coming

Janos Hunyadi on January 5, 2007 at 6:11 PM

I wonder if he is for raising the minimum wage for his homosexual prostitution ring that was running out of his house?

PinkyBigglesworth on January 5, 2007 at 6:12 PM

I would love to see Barney Frank in a conversation with Bill Parcells. That would be worth the price of a video camera.

Zetterson on January 5, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Barney Frank = Barney Rubble He has never run a business ( except for the boyfriend junckets out of his appartment in MA) When do you think someone who has crediblity should be paid to be a CEO? How much? All of it is negotiated before a CEO is hired. If the shareholders don’t want the man get rid of him or never give him the package tp begin with. A CEO’s lifespan is not a long term thing with any corporation in today’s world anyways. I want the Free Enetrprise, Captilist system that works in this country not a Socialist program’s that so many dem’s want. This is just a beginning people, hold onto your wallets,the DEMOCRAT’S are back on power. For a couple years anyways !!

bones47 on January 5, 2007 at 6:16 PM

The word is definately out for the left to act very tough and confrontational with the “right wing”FOXNEWS.

Ben Hur on January 5, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Raising minimum wage, limiting salaries….

OK… I give up.. HOW is that not communism??

Ringmaster on January 5, 2007 at 6:01 PM

Did you really watch that video and come away thinking Frank wanted the government to limit salaries? He made it abundently clear this wasn’t the case so many times I wanted to rip my ears off. If you can watch that and come away thinking he is in favor of salary caps I think I finally understand of this whole right-wing thing works.

JaHerer22 on January 5, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Barney Frank or is it Barney Rubble? He is sure a comical side show to watch as he explains his socialistic view points. The Dem’s are back in power, I hope we can make it throught two years of this type of BS before this country goes to far down the toilet.

bones47 on January 5, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Honestly, I haven’t heard anything from Barney Frank since the Clinton impeachment hearings. Where was this guy?

I guess he’s a big shot now that the Democrats control the House.

I’ll look forward to reading an upcoming Fortune magazine piece destroying Frank’s simplistic comments regarding CEO pay. Maybe he should subscribe to that magazine and learn something.

asc85 on January 5, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Wow … I hereby dub thee “Barney the Weasel”.

darwin on January 5, 2007 at 6:22 PM

waht did you expect from this creep Barney the scumbag??

retired on January 5, 2007 at 6:22 PM

I wonder if he is for raising the minimum wage for his homosexual prostitution ring that was running out of his house?

Ain’t that the damn truth. I’m still amazed these
panckes keeeeeeep getting Re-elected.

I tawht I taw a puddy tat! I did! I did!

Texyank on January 5, 2007 at 6:24 PM

I think I finally understand of this whole right-wing thing works.

JaHerer22 on January 5, 2007 at 6:20 PM

No, troll, you don’t even have a clue. Frank’s arrogance and vanity make him unable to resist an audience, even on Fox. He’s on record as being in favor of limiting corporate salaries–that’s why Cavuto was prodding him.

You should stick to HuffPo and DU. Here you’re just a freak show and an object of ridicule

Janos Hunyadi on January 5, 2007 at 6:27 PM

This is not a new debating tactic for Barney. His act of claiming he can’t get a word in, is one he uses evwy time.

fogw on January 5, 2007 at 6:50 PM

I don’t know much about this. Is there not already a system whereby stockholders have a say in how the company is run, even beyond choosing to buy or sell shares? Do you implicitly agree to whatever rules the BOD follows when you buy a stock?

mikeyboss on January 5, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Good lord. This guy and others like him are now running the country. It is as simple as looking at the European economy and then take a look at ours and realize that theirs sucks because of the massive welfare state and socialism. “For God’s Sake,” says it all at the end of the clip.

zerodamage on January 5, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Wow…it’s Frank-o-Rama Friday!

flipflop on January 5, 2007 at 6:55 PM

These are the people that still do not even understand the concept of a Democratic Republicfree enterprise, so please keep your hands off of the parts of our lives and businesses that you really have no comprehension of at all.

bbz123 on January 5, 2007 at 5:38 PM

There, that’s better.

BacaDog on January 5, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Dammit Neal, stop confusing Barney with the franks, uhh, facts. Remember when Barney starred in the Starr Wars episdode as R U Me 2? Ahh, the next two years are going to be something………..

ritethinker on January 5, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Frank is at best a socialist and at worst a communist. What’s next Barney . . . should the government take over the railroads, or the oil companies, or even all major corparations in America. Perhaps you should call your friend Hugo for advice. Frank is not only noisy, he’s a clear danger to the Republic. You had better be ready to fight people lest the America as you once knew it will be nothing but a vague memory.

rplat on January 5, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Do you implicitly agree to whatever rules the BOD follows when you buy a stock?

mikeyboss on January 5, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Sure you do mikeyboss. Most companies have a compensation committee, made up of outside board members, that set executive salaries, grant bonuses, etc. In a company’s 10-k there is a section called executive compensation where the guidelines are explained.

If you want to effect company policy, buy enough shares to vote yourself onto the board. Other than that, all a shareholder gets is one vote per share for votable common stock, a dividend if the board declares one payable, and a nice, taxable gain if the shares increase in price.

BTW, dividends are taxed at 15% for now. Expect the Dems to change that.

BacaDog on January 5, 2007 at 7:11 PM

I saw this too..
All the dems go on Fox with a chip on their shoulder so I wasn’t shocked when Barney flipped out.
They are used to speaking $hit and not being challenged so when they go on Fox, they get snippy.

madmonaco on January 5, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Interestingly, Boards of Directors are elected by shareholders, in much the same way that representatives are elected by citizens. They have an election once a year. And CEOs can be removed by bitching. Unlike congressmen and presidents and senators and supreme court justices.

I say Barney is right (except for the homo thing). I say its time to run government as efficiently as business.

The assclown.

HerrMorgenholz on January 5, 2007 at 7:29 PM

I don’t know much about this. Is there not already a system whereby stockholders have a say in how the company is run, even beyond choosing to buy or sell shares? Do you implicitly agree to whatever rules the BOD follows when you buy a stock?

mikeyboss on January 5, 2007 at 6:53 PM

I am not sure of the particulars of what Frank is proposing but if it involves making it easier for shareholders to vote their stock then I am all for it. I am a trader with a masters degree in finance with a strong pro-free market bent so don’t come back to me with accusations of socialist. Just listen.

Corporate officers have very often made it difficult for shareholders to petition to have issues placed on shareholder ballots. Often management and the board of directors have a too cosy relationship in which there are interweaving jobs and memberships in on other boards. The idea being if you don’t complain about my pay package then I won’t complain about yours.

I watched this happen at the bank in which my grandfather had been president and Chairman of the board and at the Chicago Board of Trade which was destroyed by management which agreed to a partnership with Eurex which turned into great jobs at different places for the managers and a lousy deal for the owners of the board of trade. Both times management lied and used the law to keep discension among the membership from being heard.

If Barney Frank wants to reform corporate governance to make it easier to propose changes in corporate bylaws then I am all for it. Afterall, we are only talking protecting the shareholders from duplicitous management and their lawyers.

Bill C on January 5, 2007 at 7:29 PM

When you talk about Barney Frank and “pork,” please specify if you’re talking about pet projects or…um.. er.. ah.. .well, “pet” projects.

LOL

MsUnderestimated on January 5, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Your Democratic Congress, Ladies and Gentlemen!

Black Adam on January 5, 2007 at 7:47 PM

This guy seems to simple to be working in the political sphere. He should be driving a bus or something.

uptight on January 5, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Haven’t we learned not to question the liberals yet?!!? They don’t like it…

SouthernGent on January 5, 2007 at 8:28 PM

Why does Barney Frank sound like Charlie Rangle with a bad bleach job?

Cavuto ran rings around Blowhard Barney and made him sound like an ignorant, whiny, little b*tch.

Jack.

Jack Deth on January 5, 2007 at 8:50 PM

I think Barney needs a whaa-burger and some french-cries…

x95b10 on January 5, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Anybody remember the old Carvel Ice Cream commercials?

forest on January 5, 2007 at 8:56 PM

I couldn’t care less what issues face a corrupt corporation we should never have government involved in its internal operations. If it fails it fails but the free enterprise system goes on. And yes, socialism is an issue that must be fought off at all costs. Frank is full of it up to his eyeballs and his quest for government involvement is pure socialist garbage.

rplat on January 5, 2007 at 9:06 PM

The word is definately out for the left to act very tough and confrontational with the “right wing”FOXNEWS.

Ben Hur on January 5, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Yeah, I noticed that too. Makes ’em look tough for the DUmmies and Kos Kids and MsM

armyvet on January 5, 2007 at 9:07 PM

what a douche!

This guy seems barely literate….

liquidflorian on January 5, 2007 at 10:14 PM

I don’t know much about shareholders rights etc, but isn’t it the shareholders right to sell their shares if they do not like the way the company is being run? Or is that not realistic?

csdeven on January 5, 2007 at 10:30 PM

The condescension is so deep on the part of Frank. Covuto handles himself very well against Frank’s socialist diatribe and crybaby fits.

The dems are definitely playing to the Kos/ DU crowd by acting indignant on Fox.

Verbal Abuse on January 5, 2007 at 11:17 PM

what is so very disturbing about Frank,Pelosi Reid,Rangel, Conyers and Dems is the utter lack of knowledge of free market economics and remedies of shareholder derivative lawsuits,if justified, to address these perceived problems.does a bbal player deserve $30 mil a year to score pts or strike out batters.yes, if that is what the market decides. same for CEOs.

beens21 on January 6, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Share holder democracy? Is he kidding? Since when was being a share holder being a pseudo ceo? …
One Angry Christian on January 5, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Nobody forces you to buy stock, and you can sell any time you want to sell. If you think the CEO is overpaid (hello, Home Depot!), sell the freaking stock and buy Lowes.

And if you don’t like Lowes, buy some other stock.

And if you don’t like stocks, buy bonds.

And if you don’t like bonds, you can put your money in a mayonnaise jar and bury it in your backyard, for all I care, but the point is: It’s your money, and nobody’s forcing you to invest it, so either get your money out of the market or STFU about CEO compensation.

Ali-Bubba on January 6, 2007 at 12:38 AM

My objection to Frank’s proposal is that he wants to alter the terms of the contract between the corporation and the shareholders. There is a reason why corporations don’t put executive compensation up to a vote of the shareholders; a top-quality manager isn’t going to accept a tentative offer that is subject to ratification by the shareholders before giving notice to his current company, only to have the vote fail, leaving him with no job at all.

Same thing with the ‘golden parachutes’. To attract the right guy, you have to offer him a contract that guarantees that if you kick him to the curb next year, he’ll have a certain amount to cover him while he’s looking for a new gig (and it’s always tougher to find a new job on good terms when you don’t already have one).

Intelligent shareholders understand that this is the deal they make with the corporation: they delegate substantial authority to the directors to be able to quietly negotiate things that cannot be done in public. If a group of shareholders wanted, they could propose an amendment to their bylaws capping CEO pay to a certain percentage of gross profits, or whatever formula they wanted, and if they could get enough shares to vote their way, they get the cap. They also don’t get the services of the executives who go to another company that will outbid them.

Cavuto’s problem was that he was attacking a straw man. Frank isn’t calling for a law defining a maximum amount an executive can be paid. This allowed Frank to repeatedly deny the words Cavuto tried to put in his mouth. Instead of asking if he supported a cap on CEO pay, he should have asked him why he wanted to prevent shareholders from exercising their right to delegate authority to the directors.

The Monster on January 6, 2007 at 1:25 AM

Shareholders don’t own a company, they invest in it. @#$% commie…

Tuning Spork on January 6, 2007 at 2:46 AM

hi-larious

paranoid on January 6, 2007 at 3:16 AM

Shareholders don’t own a company, they invest in it. @#$% commie…

Tuning Spork on January 6, 2007 at 2:46 AM

They do own the company and often are allowed to vote their shares according to the rules of the company. Then management changes the rules. That is what I am against. That and fraud which is much less of a problem because it is usually rooted out. I knew about Tycos fraud for years.

Anyway, big investors might not have the option of selling a stock without moving the price. Who is to say that if shareholders who own 40-60% of a company decide that they don’t like management and they want them out that they should have to fight company lawyers trying to game the rules of corporate governance?

I will wait and see the specific proposal, coming from Barney Frank I wouldn’t be surprised by the worst case, but we are jumping to conclusions on this because there is a real issue here that needs to be addressed.

Bill C on January 6, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Barney the pimp is starting to sound just like his economic adviser, Fidel Castro.

By the way, what ever happened to his “partner” who was caught running a brothel out of “their” apartment in Georgetown???

Zorro on January 6, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Tell me again why we fought the British for our independence?

Because paying 2% in taxes was too much not enough….

Tim Burton on January 6, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Barney sure seems to have something up his ass. I wonder what it could be.

eagles5 on January 6, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Barney the pimp is starting to sound just like his economic adviser, Fidel Castro.

By the way, what ever happened to his “partner” who was caught running a brothel out of “their” apartment in Georgetown???

Zorro on January 6, 2007 at 10:24 AM

That was one of those “heads I win, tails you lose” deals…

Jaibones on January 6, 2007 at 1:02 PM

I am definitely no fan of Barney Frank, but he has a point, shareholders should have the say on executive compensation, among other issues, that they do not have now. I also think the problem was not with Frank, but Cavuto, in his interview style.

OK, so everybody beat up on me now, I disagree with the majority of Hot Air folk here.

$210 Million as executive pay is outrageous – and that is just one example. Executive compensation is way, way, way out of line with their services, shareholders see it, but are unable to do anything about getting ripped off because of the way the bylaws are written and executives have manipulated corporate system.

All Barney Frank (remember, I am definitely not a fan) is saying is give the shareholders more voice, more “empowerment” to run the companies they own with their shares.

Cavuto was out of line in his interviewing style. As a professional in that trade he should have handled it better. I am getting new appreciation for Michelle’s style, and O’Rilley’s, after seeing what the alternative is.

OK, everybody beat up on me now, we can debate shareholder participation and executive compensation.

omegaram on January 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM

OK, everybody beat up on me now, we can debate shareholder participation and executive compensation.

I agree that 210 mil is outrageous, but what is the alternative? The government getting involved? That never works. People with money always find a way to protect their income, so even if the shareholders got a bigger voice through some legislation, the management et al would find another way to get that 210 mil into the guys pocket.

I think the best way is through the pockets of the CEO’s etc. Don’t invest in that company or sell your stock and invest in a company that gives the stockholders a larger voice. I know it isn’t fair, and admittedly I know little to nothing about stocks etc. Perhaps someone more knowledgable can explain why my suggestion is unrealistic?

csdeven on January 6, 2007 at 6:05 PM

csdeven:

In my opinion, the issue is that management in many publicly held companies has control or undue influence over the mechanism that controls the major decisions and oversight in those corporations. Those mechanisms are almost impossible to change at present because of the way the corporate by-laws were written and the complicity of the board members.

All Frank (who I not a fan of) is proposing is that federal legislation be initiated to give more control over corporate operations, compensation, and oversight to the people who own the company – the shareholders. Federal legislation is needed because abuse is, I believe, widespread under the the current system and is almost impossible to change because management has undue control over the rules the corporation is run by.

$210 million is only the tip of the iceberg, discussed in detail in the January 4, 2007 edition of the Wall Street Journal referencing the affair with Home Depot and Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Nardelli.

According to Forbes article at http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html Executives at Fortune 500 companies recieved a 54% pay raise last year to the tune of $5.1 Billion. This is not a small issue, especially when these excutives actively work to lower the pay of the rank and file, deprive retires of health and pay benefits previously committed to, and just plain and simple do not deserve such obscene compensation at the the expense of shareholders.

“Shareholders” by the way includes not only large retirement funds but the retail investor who is trying to make their retirement work or have some means of profit that will help them pay the bills. Shareholders are not all “high value individuals” who hope to maximize their wealth so they can live in their mansons.

The idea is that with shareholder activism Management would not be able to find other ways to squeeze such obscene compensation from the corporation. Shareholder “empowerment” would also bring to light abuses such as backdating options to maximize management compensation far sooner than has happened with SEC action.

Invest in another company is a solution mentioned. Many investors do just that but the issue is that in many ways the financial system this country has in place is what makes our prosperiety possible. That system must regulate the actions of corporations to a degree to avoid actions that happend in the past that were not in the nation’s best interest.

LAISSEZ FAIRE does not work for the interests of the nation – it encourages fraud and abuse of the common investor for the benefit of the wealthy. Justification for this position include the basis for SEC actions, and examples such as Chevron and Carnegie at the turn of the century. Laissez Faire, as you would propose, does not work for the benefit of the nation, the investor, or the participants in the corporation – only the top dogs who take advantage of the rest of us.

omegaram on January 6, 2007 at 7:28 PM

omegaram on January 6, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Well, I must admit that you make a compelling argument and I’ll have to defer to it because my knowledge of corporate dealings would fit in a thimble with room to spare.

csdeven on January 7, 2007 at 12:04 AM

LAISSEZ FAIRE does not work for the interests of the nation – it encourages fraud and abuse of the common investor for the benefit of the wealthy. Justification for this position include the basis for SEC actions, and examples such as Chevron and Carnegie at the turn of the century. Laissez Faire, as you would propose, does not work for the benefit of the nation, the investor, or the participants in the corporation – only the top dogs who take advantage of the rest of us.

omegaram on January 6, 2007 at 7:28 PM

The invisible hand works just fine when everyone follows the rules. What I, and I believe you, want is for the gov’t to step in and be an impartial arbiter. Nobody here is calling for anarchy. We want the legal system to work for shareholders.

Like I said, I hope this is what Frank is proposing and if it is, Cavuto did us a disservice by not getting more details.

Bill C on January 7, 2007 at 3:40 AM

Federal legislation is NOT needed. What we need are more people to be aware and informed of what their STATES are doing for the benefit of these corporations. There are numerous reasons why states enact laws which benefit corporations in this way. A big one is that it entices the corporations to make that state their headquarters, or home office, which generates more jobs, and increases revenue of the state through different types of taxation. The citizens of the States have the power to implement change if they so desire through their elected representatives.

THIS IS A STATE ISSUE AND THE FEDERAL GOV’T HAS NO BUSINESS IN MEDDLING IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE STATES!!!

Troy Rasmussen on January 13, 2007 at 10:57 PM