Is it going to be easy to sucker, er I mean RALLY youth support in 2012?

A record number of young Americans had been inspired by Obama’s promises during the 2008 presidential campaign. Nearly 2 million more young Americans under age 30 voted that year than in 2004, 11 percentage points higher than 1996. Sixty-six percent of them voted for Obama, propelling him to a historic victory. At that time, the unemployment rate was about 7.5 percent.

What’s happened since? Young Americans have been hurt disproportionally in the Obama economy. Unemployment now hovers above 8 percent, but unemployment for college graduates under age 25 has averaged 9.4 percent over the past year. Close to 40 percent of employed graduates with a bachelor’s degree were “mal-employed,” according to researchers at Northeastern University, working in jobs that don’t require the degree they earned. Young women still earn less than young men — regardless of their educational background.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78290.html#ixzz20Daeh5RT
Attachments:

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it going to be easy to sucker, er I mean RALLY
> youth support in 2012?
>
> A record number of young Americans had been
> inspired by Obama’s promises during the 2008
> presidential campaign. Nearly 2 million more young
> Americans under age 30 voted that year than in
> 2004, 11 percentage points higher than 1996.
> Sixty-six percent of them voted for Obama,
> propelling him to a historic victory. At that
> time, the unemployment rate was about 7.5
> percent.
>
> What’s happened since? Young Americans have been
> hurt disproportionally in the Obama economy.
> Unemployment now hovers above 8 percent, but
> unemployment for college graduates under age 25
> has averaged 9.4 percent over the past year. Close
> to 40 percent of employed graduates with a
> bachelor’s degree were “mal-employed,”
> according to researchers at Northeastern
> University, working in jobs that don’t require
> the degree they earned. Young women still earn
> less than young men — regardless of their
> educational background.
>
>
> Read more:
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78290.ht
> ml#ixzz20Daeh5RT


Tell these babyboomer to retire already. They spent all there money now they can't get off the pot. I blame them. Mandatory retirement now! Also I think the younins have been totally been put off by the Republicans and their social policy that they will never vote for them. IF Republicans just accepted gays, evolution, and the pill they would be unstoppable.

republicansareold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is it going to be easy to sucker, er I mean
> RALLY
> > youth support in 2012?
> >
> > A record number of young Americans had been
> > inspired by Obama’s promises during the 2008
> > presidential campaign. Nearly 2 million more
> young
> > Americans under age 30 voted that year than in
> > 2004, 11 percentage points higher than 1996.
> > Sixty-six percent of them voted for Obama,
> > propelling him to a historic victory. At that
> > time, the unemployment rate was about 7.5
> > percent.
> >
> > What’s happened since? Young Americans have
> been
> > hurt disproportionally in the Obama economy.
> > Unemployment now hovers above 8 percent, but
> > unemployment for college graduates under age 25
> > has averaged 9.4 percent over the past year.
> Close
> > to 40 percent of employed graduates with a
> > bachelor’s degree were “mal-employed,”
> > according to researchers at Northeastern
> > University, working in jobs that don’t
> require
> > the degree they earned. Young women still earn
> > less than young men — regardless of their
> > educational background.
> >
> >
> > Read more:
> >
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78290.ht
>
> > ml#ixzz20Daeh5RT
>
>
> Tell these babyboomer to retire already. They
> spent all there money now they can't get off the
> pot. I blame them. Mandatory retirement now! Also
> I think the younins have been totally been put off
> by the Republicans and their social policy that
> they will never vote for them. IF Republicans
> just accepted gays, evolution, and the pill they
> would be unstoppable.

People are getting onto disability in record numbers, is that good for the economy?

Why not strive for an economy that can provide employment for all instead of asking some to step out of the workforce?

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
is that good for the economy?
>
> Why not strive for an economy that can provide
> employment for all instead of asking some to step
> out of the workforce?


Because it can't happen. Because there are always people who are under-skilled, lazy, fat, physically and mentally unable. And we have a crap load of them, especially underskilled. Babyboomers sit in middle management justifying their existence while gumming up the works. Companies are holding on to their gray headed employees since they are fully trained but not hiring new workers to take over. The key is, for every 35+ year veteran in a chair is 2-5 people not being trained and aiding growth to the company.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> republicansareold Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WingNut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Is it going to be easy to sucker, er I mean
> > RALLY
> > > youth support in 2012?
> > >
> > > A record number of young Americans had been
> > > inspired by Obama’s promises during the
> 2008
> > > presidential campaign. Nearly 2 million more
> > young
> > > Americans under age 30 voted that year than
> in
> > > 2004, 11 percentage points higher than 1996.
> > > Sixty-six percent of them voted for Obama,
> > > propelling him to a historic victory. At that
> > > time, the unemployment rate was about 7.5
> > > percent.
> > >
> > > What’s happened since? Young Americans have
> > been
> > > hurt disproportionally in the Obama economy.
> > > Unemployment now hovers above 8 percent, but
> > > unemployment for college graduates under age
> 25
> > > has averaged 9.4 percent over the past year.
> > Close
> > > to 40 percent of employed graduates with a
> > > bachelor’s degree were “mal-employed,”
> > > according to researchers at Northeastern
> > > University, working in jobs that don’t
> > require
> > > the degree they earned. Young women still
> earn
> > > less than young men — regardless of their
> > > educational background.
> > >
> > >
> > > Read more:
> > >
> >
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78290.ht
>
> >
> > > ml#ixzz20Daeh5RT
> >
> >
> > Tell these babyboomer to retire already. They
> > spent all there money now they can't get off
> the
> > pot. I blame them. Mandatory retirement now!
> Also
> > I think the younins have been totally been put
> off
> > by the Republicans and their social policy that
> > they will never vote for them. IF Republicans
> > just accepted gays, evolution, and the pill
> they
> > would be unstoppable.
>
> People are getting onto disability in record
> numbers, is that good for the economy?
>
> Why not strive for an economy that can provide
> employment for all instead of asking some to step
> out of the workforce?


Yeah because they are older and getting hurt easier. You are not supposed to be dropping engine blocks at the age of 65 on a daily basis, while supporting your diabetes habit. .

gumming up the works Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> is that good for the economy?
> >
> > Why not strive for an economy that can provide
> > employment for all instead of asking some to
> step
> > out of the workforce?
>
>
> Because it can't happen. Because there are always
> people who are under-skilled, lazy, fat,
> physically and mentally unable. And we have a
> crap load of them, especially underskilled.
> Babyboomers sit in middle management justifying
> their existence while gumming up the works.
> Companies are holding on to their gray headed
> employees since they are fully trained but not
> hiring new workers to take over. The key is, for
> every 35+ year veteran in a chair is 2-5 people
> not being trained and aiding growth to the
> company.

I understand and know the deadweight that you speak of, and there are tons of people like this in the prvate sector as well as the public.

Economic reality should be forcing some of them out of work in the private sector, but until there is serious reform of government, they will stay there.

Yes, there are younger and hungrier workers who I imagine would work for less. But are you going to ask companies to pay early retirement or are you going to suggest forcing them to cut the lops from their payroll?

I think in the private sector, your scenario has the ability to play out and correct itself.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gumming up the works Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WingNut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > is that good for the economy?
> > >
> > > Why not strive for an economy that can
> provide
> > > employment for all instead of asking some to
> > step
> > > out of the workforce?
> >
> >
> > Because it can't happen. Because there are
> always
> > people who are under-skilled, lazy, fat,
> > physically and mentally unable. And we have a
> > crap load of them, especially underskilled.
> > Babyboomers sit in middle management justifying
> > their existence while gumming up the works.
> > Companies are holding on to their gray headed
> > employees since they are fully trained but not
> > hiring new workers to take over. The key is,
> for
> > every 35+ year veteran in a chair is 2-5 people
> > not being trained and aiding growth to the
> > company.
>
> I understand and know the deadweight that you
> speak of, and there are tons of people like this
> in the prvate sector as well as the public.
>
> Economic reality should be forcing some of them
> out of work in the private sector, but until there
> is serious reform of government, they will stay
> there.
>
> Yes, there are younger and hungrier workers who I
> imagine would work for less. But are you going to
> ask companies to pay early retirement or are you
> going to suggest forcing them to cut the lops from
> their payroll?
>
> I think in the private sector, your scenario has
> the ability to play out and correct itself.


Yes, the Private sector will correct on its own. Public Sector, and the retirement in place syndrome, they should have mandatory retirement especially if they have a robust define benefits pension plan. They sucked at the teet long enough, cut them lose and bring in new blood that is more innovated and a little more motivated to reform or just doing a decent job; plus whose benefit package is usually much cheaper.

Don't forget what Barry del Barrio did with legitimizing millions of illegals...


Good for youth employment?


Ya think?
Attachments:

gumming up the works Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > gumming up the works Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > WingNut Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > is that good for the economy?
> > > >
> > > > Why not strive for an economy that can
> > provide
> > > > employment for all instead of asking some
> to
> > > step
> > > > out of the workforce?
> > >
> > >
> > > Because it can't happen. Because there are
> > always
> > > people who are under-skilled, lazy, fat,
> > > physically and mentally unable. And we have
> a
> > > crap load of them, especially underskilled.
> > > Babyboomers sit in middle management
> justifying
> > > their existence while gumming up the works.
> > > Companies are holding on to their gray headed
> > > employees since they are fully trained but
> not
> > > hiring new workers to take over. The key is,
> > for
> > > every 35+ year veteran in a chair is 2-5
> people
> > > not being trained and aiding growth to the
> > > company.
> >
> > I understand and know the deadweight that you
> > speak of, and there are tons of people like
> this
> > in the prvate sector as well as the public.
> >
> > Economic reality should be forcing some of them
> > out of work in the private sector, but until
> there
> > is serious reform of government, they will stay
> > there.
> >
> > Yes, there are younger and hungrier workers who
> I
> > imagine would work for less. But are you going
> to
> > ask companies to pay early retirement or are
> you
> > going to suggest forcing them to cut the lops
> from
> > their payroll?
> >
> > I think in the private sector, your scenario
> has
> > the ability to play out and correct itself.
>
>
> Yes, the Private sector will correct on its own.
> Public Sector, and the retirement in place
> syndrome, they should have mandatory retirement
> especially if they have a robust define benefits
> pension plan. They sucked at the teet long
> enough, cut them lose and bring in new blood that
> is more innovated and a little more motivated to
> reform or just doing a decent job; plus whose
> benefit package is usually much cheaper.


Good luck getting the unions to agree to this.

Hoffa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Yes, the Private sector will correct on its own.
>
> > Public Sector, and the retirement in place
> > syndrome, they should have mandatory retirement
> > especially if they have a robust define
> benefits
> > pension plan. They sucked at the teet long
> > enough, cut them lose and bring in new blood
> that
> > is more innovated and a little more motivated
> to
> > reform or just doing a decent job; plus whose
> > benefit package is usually much cheaper.
>
>
> Good luck getting the unions to agree to this.

If the unions could wangle early retirement buyouts that were large enough, some of the older union bosses may not be able to resist selling out the younger members with lesser benefits.

I think "Logans Run" is in our future.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

18-29 year olds

16.8% unemployment.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-jobless-class-of-2012.html

Holy mother of fuck.

That's because it includes pre-grad unemployment which is historically around 20%.
Engineering degree unemployment rate is 2%. If you go to a decent school, such as Penn State, the overall unemployment is still only 4 to 5 percent for recent graduates.

If you look at just the hispanics and blacks in the 16-21 category, the unemployment rate is in the 30s and 40s.

leafblower, ne1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you look at just the hispanics and blacks in
> the 16-21 category, the unemployment rate is in
> the 30s and 40s.


Yup they make up a large chunk of unemployed and 90% will vote for Obama. That's why unemployment is always more of a political liability to republicans than Dems.

leafblower, ne1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you look at just the hispanics and blacks in
> the 16-21 category, the unemployment rate is in
> the 30s and 40s.

Unemployment rate for black Americans jumped to 14.4% in June from 13.6% the previous month...

From article:

Even more alarming is the unemployment rate among black youth, ages 16-19, jumped a full 2.8 points, to 39.3 percent. That's nearly double the 20.9 percent unemployment rate for whites in the same age demographic.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/black-teen-unemployment-rate-jobs-report-2012-7#ixzz20FKtVgHQ
Attachments:

UE rate by race, sex, and age

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

Young white college kids are the easiest to fool. They believe life will be totally fair and there will always be a job waiting for you with a corner office, four weeks paid leave, 100k to start and a four day work week.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 18-29 year olds
>
> 16.8% unemployment.
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-jobless-class-of
> -2012.html
>
> Holy mother of fuck.


Yes we are still suffering from the G W Bush years. He truly was the worst president in American history One more term for Obama and he will have things back on track.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Close to 40 percent of employed graduates with a
> bachelor’s degree were “mal-employed,”
> according to researchers at Northeastern
> University, working in jobs that don’t require
> the degree they earned.

Why would you bother reporting this? It isn't like there is a direct correlation between types of degrees conferred and types of degrees needed in the workplace. Getting a degree in marine biology doesn't mean there is a job waiting for you.

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Close to 40 percent of employed graduates with
> a
> > bachelor’s degree were “mal-employed,”
> > according to researchers at Northeastern
> > University, working in jobs that don’t
> require
> > the degree they earned.
>
> Why would you bother reporting this? It isn't
> like there is a direct correlation between types
> of degrees conferred and types of degrees needed
> in the workplace. Getting a degree in marine
> biology doesn't mean there is a job waiting for
> you.

Because its an important fact that you liberals like to ignore. Not only is unemployment sky high, a shrinking work force from people stopping looking for work, but a lot of those that are employed have just taken whatever shitty job they can find now that businesses have been demonized and are going to sit on cash instead of expand so they dont become the next target of Obama

wrong.

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Close to 40 percent of employed graduates with
> a
> > bachelor’s degree were “mal-employed,”
> > according to researchers at Northeastern
> > University, working in jobs that don’t
> require
> > the degree they earned.
>
> Why would you bother reporting this? It isn't
> like there is a direct correlation between types
> of degrees conferred and types of degrees needed
> in the workplace. Getting a degree in marine
> biology doesn't mean there is a job waiting for
> you.

I hear you, and I'm sure we all know at least one philosphy major who is intelligent as they come but works at Target.

The point is that even though it's not a new phenomem (I hate spelling this word btw), the level of unemployment and underemployment is in record territory for people new to the work world.

Stimulus was supposed to fix this, Barry promised!

Argentina, Brazil and Chile have lower unemployment rates than the United States does right now.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Argentina, Brazil and Chile have lower
> unemployment rates than the United States does
> right now.


Yeah, but they are willing to work for $5/day or a pail of compost (poop). We have plenty of jobs, just a terrible workforce.

yeahbut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Argentina, Brazil and Chile have lower
> > unemployment rates than the United States does
> > right now.
>
>
> Yeah, but they are willing to work for $5/day or a
> pail of compost (poop). We have plenty of jobs,
> just a terrible workforce.

Don't forget that Dear Leader is also pushing the DOJ to stop cooperating with AZ on immigration enforcement.

Look for more illegals flooding the job market nationwide after coming through that border state hub.

Haven't seen an American kid washing dishes or pushing a mower in a long, long time.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Argentina, Brazil and Chile have lower
> unemployment rates than the United States does
> right now.


While that may be true do they have a President who can sing, dance and play a mean game of golf?

barry fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Argentina, Brazil and Chile have lower
> > unemployment rates than the United States does
> > right now.
>
>
> While that may be true do they have a President
> who can sing, dance and play a mean game of golf?

Bowling for Food Stamps!
Attachments:

So wingnut....if you want to blame Obama for record high youth unemployment, on the other hand are you going to give him credit for the jobs that were created during his term?

If your core belief is that governments don't or shouldn't create jobs, then why harp on politicians for not 'creating' jobs or badger them into doing more in the form of spending, tax cuts, or risky deregulation...

res Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So wingnut....if you want to blame Obama for
> record high youth unemployment, on the other hand
> are you going to give him credit for the jobs that
> were created during his term?

I think there is probably a net gain of ZERO jobs on these wasted Obumma years.

The unemployment rate is higher than when he took office and more people are out of the work force.

Obama sold a bunch of idealistic and naive dipfucks on the idea that a trillion dollar "stimulus" would keep unemployment from reaching 8%..instead it hasn't been BELOW 8% in OVER THREE FUCKING YEARS.

The guy is a miserable leader plain and simple. If you are still a fan of his show- get your head examined.
Attachments:

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> res Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So wingnut....if you want to blame Obama for
> > record high youth unemployment, on the other
> hand
> > are you going to give him credit for the jobs
> that
> > were created during his term?
>
> I think there is probably a net gain of ZERO jobs
> on these wasted Obumma years.
>
> The unemployment rate is higher than when he took
> office and more people are out of the work force.
>
> Obama sold a bunch of idealistic and naive
> dipfucks on the idea that a trillion dollar
> "stimulus" would keep unemployment from reaching
> 8%..instead it hasn't been BELOW 8% in OVER THREE
> FUCKING YEARS.
>
> The guy is a miserable leader plain and simple. If
> you are still a fan of his show- get your head
> examined.

Ok fair enough, in Jan '09 it was 7.8%. It peaked at 10% Oct '09. Clearly you didn't expect him to fix in a year or two what it took Bush 8 years to f up did you? And what we'll never know is how much worse things would be WITHOUT the stimulas, and bank/auto bailouts. But I guess he can't get credit for something that we'll never know how it would have turned out.

But if I had to bet on the stimulas and bailouts vs. the GOP plan to do none of that then by all means I'll side with bailouts. To stand on the sidelines and let the whole thing go down the crapper is not a method I would vote for.

res Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > res Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So wingnut....if you want to blame Obama for
> > > record high youth unemployment, on the other
> > hand
> > > are you going to give him credit for the jobs
> > that
> > > were created during his term?
> >
> > I think there is probably a net gain of ZERO
> jobs
> > on these wasted Obumma years.
> >
> > The unemployment rate is higher than when he
> took
> > office and more people are out of the work
> force.
> >
> > Obama sold a bunch of idealistic and naive
> > dipfucks on the idea that a trillion dollar
> > "stimulus" would keep unemployment from
> reaching
> > 8%..instead it hasn't been BELOW 8% in OVER
> THREE
> > FUCKING YEARS.
> >
> > The guy is a miserable leader plain and simple.
> If
> > you are still a fan of his show- get your head
> > examined.
>
> Ok fair enough, in Jan '09 it was 7.8%. It peaked
> at 10% Oct '09. Clearly you didn't expect him to
> fix in a year or two what it took Bush 8 years to
> f up did you? And what we'll never know is how
> much worse things would be WITHOUT the stimulas,
> and bank/auto bailouts. But I guess he can't get
> credit for something that we'll never know how it
> would have turned out.
>
> But if I had to bet on the stimulas and bailouts
> vs. the GOP plan to do none of that then by all
> means I'll side with bailouts. To stand on the
> sidelines and let the whole thing go down the
> crapper is not a method I would vote for.

I have little doubt there would have been some kind of stimulus package if McCain had won or if there had been a larger representation of repubs in Congress...

...However, I seriously doubt it would have been nearly as misspent as ill-advised as the "stimulus" Owebama signed off on..


PLEASE don't start with the shit about "Bush ruined the economy and Barry is only trying to fix it"... American consumers RUINED the economy by borrowing like assholes- the banks made it possible, but I don't blame the ABC store for drunk drivers. Do you?

President Barry was in Congress with a Democrat majority and NONE of these revisionist douchebags or Owebama chose to pursue ANY financial legislation that would have regulated the stupid loans that banks were giving and that their constituents were happily taking out.

WingNut Wrote:

> I have little doubt there would have been some
> kind of stimulus package if McCain had won or if
> there had been a larger representation of repubs
> in Congress...
>
> ...However, I seriously doubt it would have been
> nearly as misspent as ill-advised as the
> "stimulus" Owebama signed off on..

You know, its not like Obama pulled stimulas amounts out of thin air...he's taken guidence from various economists and advisors. Considering the mistake McCain made in picking Palin as a running mate I trust Obama's decisions more than McCain.


>
> PLEASE don't start with the shit about "Bush
> ruined the economy and Barry is only trying to fix
> it"... American consumers RUINED the economy by
> borrowing like assholes- the banks made it
> possible, but I don't blame the ABC store for
> drunk drivers. Do you?

Ok, sure, a lot of factors led to the recession. But again you started the thread tying obama to low youth unemployment. As a Dem I'll admit you can't completely blame Bush for the recession OR Obama for unemployment but you, Mr WingNut, are playing a game all to familiar with the GOP. Brush aside holding Bush accountable for various reasons but OTOH blame Obama for all sorts of things. Inconsistant logic.

> President Barry was in Congress with a Democrat
> majority and NONE of these revisionist douchebags
> or Owebama chose to pursue ANY financial
> legislation that would have regulated the stupid
> loans that banks were giving and that their
> constituents were happily taking out.

Really???? Google "dodd-frank bill". A bill the GOP was against. I'll paste a summary for you below.

Also, under Obama the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created to "promote fairness and transparency for mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products and services." Read: protect consumers from being screwed by companies and protect them from themselves.

Dodd-Frank Bill; "The Act implements financial regulatory reform sponsored by the Democratically controlled 111th United States Congress and the Obama administration. Passed as a response to the late-2000s recession, the Act brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression,[2][3][4] representing a significant change in the American financial regulatory environment affecting all Federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every aspect of the nation's financial services industry"

Dodd-Frank came AFTER the recession...


Barney opposed any kind of reform or criticism of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Dodd himself was disgraced by receiving preferential treatment from Angelo Mozello and Countrywide, one of the biggest purveyors of subrpime and ARM lending.

What did the dems (or any politico) do BEFORE the recession hit and the warning signs were clear as day??

NOTHING

The Dems had a majority in both chambers and did shit. Not that the repubs were any better, but please save the revisionist BS for some bonged up college geek looking for someone "big" to blame.