Barney Frank Pulls Plug On CNBC: "This Interview Is Over!"

Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a vocal critic of Wall Street pay, appeared on CNBC this morning to talk about what should be done to limit executive compensation. Let's just say it didn't go well. Frank stormed off the set after exchanging heated words with CNBC's Mark Haines.

"It seems to be that you're dealing with a model that no longer works," Haines said of Frank's proposed executive pay rules, which would give shareholders much greater control over compensation.

Then things escalated. After Frank said, "May I respond sir?" several times, the interview devolved into a mini-shouting match. Frank ended the interview abruptly -- apparently, in anger over being interrupted several times.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[5hy56]

Take back the trillions of $$$ given to the banks, who just sit on it and make it totally ineffective then start government incentive to create realistic industries that give employment and generate real productive income, some of which would hopefully be from exports.

Every other country, especially China and most of Europe have goverment incentives to protect it's industries. No matter what you call it it's a form of protectionism and its inevitable. We should stop being naive and take care of our own house. The only ones who win if we don't are the multinational corporations who don't care where they get their hand out.

good articles for a slow news day: href=".http://www.bit.ly/12NCJR>Econ & Finance Articles Updated Daily

[biotechwoman]

You are incredibly naive and Americo-centric to think that in the 21st century, most businesses are not multi national in some form or another. I run a very small consulting firm, but I do business in multiple countries and currencies. It is the reality of globalization. Which, by the way, America created. It was all well and good when America was shoving McDonalds and Starbucks down the throats of every one else in the world..expecting other countries to open their markets. But, then, poor babies. Now that America cannot compete they want protection. Wake up and get a passport.

[darkmark]

I've watched cnbc for 10 years. they are what they are, all of them, to the right of center, some to the extreme right of center. cnbc always promotes the ceo s of corporations as if they are the true leaders of this country. when their show gets away from their right wing politics and into what's happening and why its happening in the stock market its a good show. but they only do that about 30% of the time. the rest of the time its always with a slant to the fascist society we could be if we just gave it a chance.

[DEJM]

Watch the interview closely.

Rep. Frank calmly responds to David's questions, but things quickly head south with Mark Haines right out of the gate.

Perhaps Frank doesn't like Haines. They've known each other for years, way back when Haines worked as a reporter in Providence, Rhode Island (Frank is from Massachusetts)

Sometimes it's just personal.

[Elitist Lefty]

Barney Frank has had no influence on Fannie Mae.

[Confused1]

But he and Dodd did stop an investigation into Fannie and Freddie back in 2004 or 2005 when concern was expressed by Congress as to their accounting practices and wanted the books audited. So he is complicite IMO.

[Nostraboris]

hissy fit haha.
the guy was right, most shareholders have their money in mutual funds, what Frank is saying is not workable and he apparently knew it, so he walked off before he was exposed.

[WRPrintz]

Speaking from the Left Side of the isle...I think that Barney did 90% of a good job, but that he should not have walked. He was already winning, so even if the commentators were able to "spin" away a point or two, he was still clearly ahead, in knowledge and credibility.

Walking off, in that manner, even if they were being foolish, was not the game to play. Be calm, let them restate what they said, and take them apart. Mark "restating" would not have made him seem any less foolish.

Everybody gets angry, but on TV, in that Situation, no need. Calmly respond, and take them down with what you know. Wins every time. This was a draw, because Mark got to seem like he was standing up to bullying...when in fact he was simply being obtuse.

[1ChanceOnly]

These Buttholes for commentators ought to be pulled. They think they have all the answers and now we see through their smokescreen. They had their chance to warn stockholders about the risky credit default swaps but they didn't...they had a chance to warn us about the risk the financial institutions were taking...but they didn't. Therefore, I say they all need to be fired. They have no credibility. Now they want to sensationalize everything...Cramer and all.

[wiig]

Cast another vote for Jon Stewart who so clearly nailed the story on the failures of CNBC and the rest of the financial news media. It is also funny watching Joe Scarborough lament Jon Stewart. It is sad how when effective debate on the subject is over, the losing side resorts to character assassination.

Though, the problem with CNBC is rampant within the Main Stream Media. That is probably why most of us posting here read The Huffington Post anyway. At least here we can get a more accurate reporting of the news as two of the biggest stories of the decade, WMD in Iraq and the financial meltdown were totally missed by the MSM.

The sad thing about all of this is that the writing was on the wall each time as there were people out there warning of the impending meltdown. Additionally, with WMD in Iraq, Hans Blix was not finding anything and you had his predecessor, Scott Ritter talking about how they rid Iraq of WMD and effectively left a program in place that would prevent this in the future. It was all out there for everyone to see; however, the MSM only listened to the Bush Administration's false intelligence and ignored people who were obviously in a position to know better.

[wiig]

The problem is that both of them are wrong. We had a system that managed executive pay. It worked for many years until Reagan changed it. The system is a progressive tax.

From the 1930's until 1980, the top tax bracket was in the neighborhood of 80-90%. If we picked an income level, whether it is 1 Million, 2 Million or what ever makes sense, and taxed income earned beyond that level at 90%, executive compensation will be properly managed. If it was 2 million where the 90% bracket began, if a CEO were to earned 10 million, the 8 million earned over 2 million would net the CEO $800,000 and the government $7,200,000.

There would have to be some way to prevent stock options and other income schemes from triggering the capital gains tax rate of 15%. That could be managed by applying a progressive rate to capital gains. By doing that a loophole would be eliminated and CEO pay would be effectively capped.

[Elitist Lefty]

The CEO earned it while the government took it.

How is that a good thing?

Or do we asume that the evil CEO really didn't earn it but it took from poor people?

[Dystopic]

there is not a single CEO in this country worrth more than 10x the average salary of an entry level job within that co

[wiig]

We are discussing cases where CEOs earned large amounts of money running their companies into the ground. I would dispute that these CEOs and top executives fairly earned their money. Additionally, these banks and financial institutions were ripping off poor and middle class people.

The problem is that the current system encourages greed. It was based on having the market manage and regulate their behavior. It is clear that this model has failed and the best alternative is to revert to a system that kept our economy afloat from the 1930's to 1980.

As for the individual rights argument, yes this does impinge on the individual rights on that very small percentage of people who make millions of dollars. Though, these individuals did not necessarily make it to this position because they were that much better than the rest of us. As we often lament, it is a matter of being in the right place at the right time and it is who you know not what you know. Therefore, making these millions of dollars is in a way like hitting the lottery and if that is the case, I don't see this as an infringement on their rights.

[biotechwoman]

EXACTLY! You got it right. This is the way it should be in America, in terms of compensation. But Reagan and the ultra rich changed that. Good luck changing it back without a revolution. Which, unfortunately, Americans are too lazy to wage.

[dcondie]

Absolutely! There's nothing more American than smothering the ambition of American minds! Taking away the incentive to work harder and create, design, and produce the products and services that benefit society should be our way of life!

Nothing says "progressive" like telling a small business owner that if he/she works hard, sacrifices family and leisure time, and does what 95% of the rest of the public won't do, they can tell their grandchildren that they were successful enough to have the government forcibly take 90% of what they worked for.

Or, maybe shareholders of public companies could actually do what they already have the right to do with their ownership shares: watch over the board of directors, who put together the compensation packages for the CEO. But that would require a bit of effort and maybe even some reading. Ugh. I guess it's not worth it.

[IHaveNotYetBegunToFight]

There was a spirited exchange on this thread late into the night and early morning of June 11-12.

All those posts have been purged.

A fine example of the libs double standards, and how they will always attempt to cut off debate if it is not going their way.

You slander conservative principles, conservative public figures, and conservative posters ad nauseum, but if you start to get a little of your own thrown back at you, you simply can't handle it and will do everthing in your power to stop the exchange.

You are an especially thin skinned bunch of folks when it comes to someone poking a little fun at alternative life styles, yet with your double standards see no foul in poking fun in a very vicious way at those of us who hold traditional values we believe to be an essential part of the character that founded, built and maintain this country.

We traditional value, liberty loving, limited government, free marketeers will not be cowed, and you will not silence us.

We love a good fight, and you will not win in the long run because you blindly follow your ideology without observing and learning from history, and have no core values you believe worth fighting to defend.

We have not yet begun to fight.....

[michiganman2]

uh oh

we;ve got another e x t r e m i s t

[Shelley Appell]

Ummm... yeah. Good luck with that.

[WRPrintz]

You understand this is a message board, right? Fighting here has nearly zero significance, as the only people you are playing to is yourself.

Showing up and saying "I am ready to fight" will not change the fact that as of today, we have won.

If you want to CHANGE that, go volunteer for your local Reb. party. Send money to the RNC.

If you show up here, and expect to "Fight" and "win" anything...you have already lost.

[IHaveNotYetBegunToFight]

You won a battle, but not the war.

The American swing voters seem to have to be reminded of the results of unadulterated liberal policies on their pocketbooks every 30 years or so before they wake up and throw the libs out of office.

You guys will start to be on your way out by the 2010 midterms as the lib's policies continue to take effect.

To wit, more unemployment, sluggish economy, higher energy costs, higher inflation, and higher taxes.

That's why Obama is in so much of a hurry to get his programs in place. He has to buy more of the non-producer's votes to attempt to cement a majority, and hope the blind ideology of his other supporters will keep them with him as economic conditions deteriorate.

I see this board a place to point out those facts to any clear minded observer.

[IHaveNotYetBegunToFight]

We will change it, and certainly not by donating to the RNC to subsidize more RHINOs.

We will donate directly to free market conservative condidates, and by protesting subsidizing the opposition on a national scale thrugh ACORN's 501c tax exempt status of Project Vote.

[tigerlyly]

Commentators need the credentials (having expertise in that field) if they are going to interrupt reasonable responses.

[utley04]

Barney Frank mischaracterized the commentator's opinion! That's why he interrupted his response. He wanted to correct the record.

[IHaveNotYetBegunToFight]

Please.

Barney, as usual, tried to filibuster the conversation. Time the interview. How many minutes does Barney speak compared to everyone else?

The interviewer was simply trying to have an exchange of ideas instead of letting Barney give one of his usual self-serving speeches.

Barney has perfected the art of never letting anyone get a word in edgewise, especially if it contradicts his opinion, or illustrates his lack of standards and complete rejection of the concept of limited constitutional government.

He is a joke, a crybaby, and should be run out of town on a rail.

[IHaveNotYetBegunToFight]

My apologies, utley04. Meant the above as a reply to tigerlyly.

I agree with your response.

[Charlesfoster]

barney, this is abt the 1000th time you have done this.

Spare us your hissy fits.

[dennisrs]

He is such a baby!

[mmonarch]

Diversionary tactic. If he doesn't want to answer the question cause it will incriminate him in some way OR he doesn't know the answer, he will blow his stack at some perceived wrong and stomp off. Very childish.

[roch20]

This is why i like Barney Frank, he is right! Plus, i've had enough with the back and forward from commentators, it's so annoying!

[utley04]

I'm hoping that I missed the sarcasm in your comment, but if you truly mean what you wrote: The commentator had every right to correct the record to make his position clear, despite Frank's unfortunate mischaract­erization. And, why should we discourage questions that may highlight flaws in a certain policy proposal (namely 'Say on Pay').

[mmonarch]

I am on Mike Haines' team. Hold Barney's feet to the fire. Listen carefully, Barney is the first to interrupt Mike. 1:58-59 seconds, Mike is trying to get the word shareholder out when Barney interrupts him with "I don't understand how you can say this burns down the house". Barney wanted out of this interview, it got too hot for him and he started the brawl. The guy is a phoney. He knows that since his Fannie Freddie comments in 2005 he has got to CYA.

PHONEY.

[AlteSoldier]

In this case Barney Frank is right. The "newsanchors" would never let him make a complete argument or point before they would cut Frank off.

[mmonarch]

Barney cut in first. Listen closely. He started this fight on purpose.

[utley04]

Frank spoke for nearly the entire interview, and at the end, he states the commentator's position incorrectly. The commentator had every right to restate his position, so that Frank's strawman argument would be discontinued.

[music27]

I hate it when "newsanchors" ask someone on their show for an "interview" and never let them speak! Chris Matthews is another who will invite someone on their show, supposedly to ask them about their views but never let them respond! There IS a difference between asking hard-hitting questions AND being rude to your guest. This is why THE person to watch is Rachel Maddow- she asks pertinent questions, and can disagree with the person while being respectful. She doesnt feel the need to prove herself dominant in a conversation, she just lets the interviewer speak and clarifies positions, this is how an interview should be conducted. NOT as this guy on CNBC did with Frank.

[GetRidOfWires]

I agree 100%. Rachel is the ONLY host that can debate a topic without resorting to emotion or ad hominem attacks. Even when she strongly disagrees, she is respectful and speaks to her guests like an ADULT.

[5hy56]

The recovery is a forest. People have let their credit cards go, and don"t have mortgage payments it looks as if we are spending more and people have disposable incomes again. Actually, savings are getting drained and there are no new jobs. We are in the calm before the storm. People are spending what every little cash they have left on eating out and shopping for smaller ticket items. This will come to an end in 6 months. There are no new jobs. Can you hear the quiet in America?

hat tip to href=".http://short.ie/g264dk">E for providing good finance and economics articles