I remember sitting down with my aunt and a few other relatives late last year (around October/November 2009) and in the midst of a discussion about politics and joblessness my aunt said: "Well this is what you get for electing Obama. Things are only terrible now because we're in 'Obama's Recession.'"

At that point I flew off the handle a bit and my regular calm demeanor turned into a barrage of "How exactly?" questions with a dash of "Where do you get off?" until everyone else at the table was like "Let's just drop it ok?"

The sad part is even if she watched this, I doubt her ideas would be swayed by 'fancy, facts and statistics.'

You are such a dude

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
For what it's worth, I'd be morally OK with Stephen Hawking robotically raping a fat, jobless X-files fanboy on the subway, whilst reciting passages from 'A Brief History in Time'; partially because of the funny imagery, but also partially because I think the fat nerd would kind of enjoy it on some level: You can't rape the willing.

For what it's worth, I'd be morally OK with Stephen Hawking robotically raping a fat, jobless X-files fanboy on the subway, whilst reciting passages from 'A Brief History in Time'; partially because of the funny imagery, but also partially because I think the fat nerd would kind of enjoy it on some level: You can't rape the willing.

This site would be so much more pleasant if it wasn't completely overwhelmed by 16 year old liberal nutjobs like Nithern who haven't done enough research to realize that both Dems and Repubs have been complete fiscal retards for a really long time. Nithern, you bring up the old Clinton surplus myth. Read this:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

If you can't understand it, let me break it down for you: there was never a surplus under Clinton. Ever. There are two parts of the national debt. Imagine you're a household and you have a mortgage and credit card debt. You take out a second mortage on your home and pay down some of your credit card debit. Home debt goes up, credit card debt goes down. Then you go all over the city and tell people you reduced your credit card debt! Whee! You don't tell them you went deeper into debt elsewhere in order to do it. Do you realize how ridiculous of an accomplishment this is?

Moreover, Social Security payments are adjusted for the CPI. The CPI is the government's way of calculating rises in the cost of living. In the 90s, the Boskin commission was formed to look for "bias" in the way the CPI was calculated. Let me translate that for you: hey guys, we need reduce Social Security obligations without anyone noticing by subjectively omitting certain price increases, thereby artificially lowering the CPI against which SS payments are adjusted.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

Perhaps there is no accurate measure for the underemployed, but discouraged workers (jobless for over a year) are no longer counted when they used to be prior to the Clinton admin. It's a goofy new category created to intentionally make the number look more timid that historical numbers and nothing more. Both the CPI and the way unemployment are calculated changed during the Clinton administration as short term "fixes" of problems that need real solutions that no citizen is ever going to vote for. So if you think Clinton solved jack shit fiscally, I've got news for you: we're going to need something 100x more potent. And it won't happen, because people are retards like you. Think about it. You bitch about the Iraq war, and rightfully so, but before you were born the Democrats started a useless little war called "Vietnam" that led to Nixon severing our currency's last link to gold. Oh, and we lost about 50k soldiers. Which is sad, because you can always count on communism to fail by itself, which is exactly what happened after we pulled out.

You cry about the lack of Republican regulation. We need more regulation like we need a hole in the head. You don't even know what the word means, it's just some magical decree for officiating infractions in a game that can't exist without "subsidy fever". I mean, there's laws against stealing and killing and defrauding, and then there's handing out free money while impossibly trying to stop people from gambling with it. People's hope for gain is NORMALLY offset by their fear of loss. That goes out the window in an economy where anyone can borrow foreign money cheaply for a depreciating asset that they're convinced is an infinitely appreciating piggy bank. It goes out the window WITHIN the government, because politicians are by nature operating with money it appropriated rather than labored for. A "GSE" like Fannie and Freddie need way more regulation that any bankruptcy-fearing company.

Moreover, no one cares what bank they give their money because all bank deposits are insured by the FDIC. No investor gave a shit what loans Freddie and Fannie were spewing out because they were implicitly backed by the federal government. The home bubble got a huge boost from a 97 tax law excepting certain home sales from capital gains taxes. Because politicians like being the candyman. They don't think about the unintended consequences of creating artificial demand and employment in certain sectors with all their subsidy intervention bullshit. TO THIS DAY, FHA loans are being made requiring only 3% down. All the private subprime lenders? Couldn't have happened unless a politically motivated central bank exists to PRICE FIX the cost of borrowing in the market. Spike the punch, see mayhem that ensues, then resolve that the solution isn't to kill the spiker, but rather to hire more police officers to regulate the effects caused by the spiker. That's great logic. I hope you're regulating your regulators, too, because the SEC was told of Madoff's scheme 8 FUCKING TIMES and didn't do jack shit about it. I have more confidence in genuine personal risk of loss regulating behavior than some fucknut at the SEC. If only you would support an economy that wasn't so awash in fucking subsidies.

Social Security is another Democrat timebomb. Why not bring that shit up? It operates like a ponzi scheme and if you know how ponzi schemes work, you know that early investors win at the supreme expense of later investors. Guess who that later investor is? It's you!

Sorry Im horrible at getting myself understood the first time on these things I think my brain over thinks simple conversations sometimes. I guess what I was thinking was what the likely hood of that kind of thing happening again was or does it happen often? Do people seriously get harassed a lot? I was even thinking of taking a trip there one day and I wanted to have a good experience. I guess Im wondering if thats likely?

Ive actually thought of Denmark it looks like a beautiful place but the language barrier would be huge for me. I actually know a little French thought of moving close to the coast where I could take a ferry to the Isle.
Thanks for your input.

In reply to this comment by DrivelsAdvocate:
I'm not sure I understand your question fully, but if you're asking me for a ratio of goths to degenerate low-life then I would say 1: many. Aimless, jobless, intent-on-criminality pond life are legion in this country, although in part I suppose that's down to the government as unemployment is high and aspirations are low among the young in the less privileged parts of our society. Forget England, apparently Denmark is a very nice place to live (well at least according to a friend who spent a few months there) if you are looking for tolerant, friendly folk and a youth culture that doesn't revolve around loitering on the streets and haranguing members of the public. I'm starting to sound like the Daily Mail now, So I'd better shut up

In reply to this comment by ctrlaltbleach:
Yes I have often thought that moving to England would be some kind of a dream. From hearing about this and what you have said maybe I was wrong. I really thought it would be the king of place where people could walk down the street at night and smile and say hi and be nice to everyone.
A question for you. You say you live in the area. What do you think is the percentage of people that are goth or different according to the people who committed these crimes? Or do you know?

In reply to this comment by DrivelsAdvocate:
>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
Really shocked that this happened in England. I always thought Europeans were more tolerant of others. Now I'm starting to realize maybe there is no place on the earth where everyone can be happy together.


I live quite near to where this girl was killed. I'm afraid that any romantic notion you had of England doesn't exist any more - we are under siege from feckless, moronic, feral youths who engage in low levels of criminality (and the occasional high profile case) with near impunity. God help you if you ever decide to take one of the little bleeders down a peg or two, though, as you'll more than likely be the one who ends up banged up.

Edit: That's a cringe-worthy related link at the bottom of the page; Sophie Ellis Baxter's Murder on the Dancefloor? Only if they play your song..

>> ^happyTurtle:
As I understand it, employment typically lags the economy by about a year.
Are you saying we shouldn't be happy that the economy is turning around because employment hasn't caught up yet? Seems to me that the sooner the economy turns around, the sooner people will be able to get back to work. That's reason enough to cheer it on for me.
GO recovery GO!!!


This just in:

Fed sees slow recovery holding jobless rate high

>> ^blankfist:
To be fair, some have argued health care could be allowed under "the general welfare" of the Preamble.


I think "general welfare" is a very good argument in this case. Perhaps not so much because of our situation today, but because of where we're heading.

For better or for worse, we are beginning the transition to an automated society. Advances in software have allowed individuals to accomplish tasks that would have taken a team of people 10 years ago and this will only continue (or increase). When uncertainty becomes a large part of the economy (recessions, etc) then companies start looking for ways to cut costs. Why pay more for extra workers you no longer need?

It isn't a huge issue today, but it will be much more obvious in 20 years or so. Technology isn't going away, and the population isn't decreasing anytime soon. As companies find ways to automate many of their activities for less cost, the job pool shrinks. Businesses will always need to hire people, but they won't need as many of them so it becomes a little harder to find employment. As more people end up jobless their lack of medical coverage definitely becomes a "general welfare" issue, strengthening the argument for a federal program.


I don't see this as a question of whether or not health care and basic necessities should be provided... it's a question of how to do it effectively and least expensively. Will businesses cover the unemployed? Can a government system be effective? How are taxes handled with a smaller employment base?

I don't think the business-centric model is sustainable because it assumes there are enough jobs for everyone to participate. Many people like the Darwinian aspect, but that doesn't take into account the political unrest that can appear if enough people are jobless and lack outside support. Some would say "that's their problem, let them fix it", but the free market doesn't function as well in times of political turmoil.


Having said that, deficit spending is not sustainable either. That is the most difficult portion of this issue. I do not share the opinion that government can not be efficient, but I do agree that efficiency is not its default state (poor design mainly). I couldn't tell you which options will lead to the best result, but I am strongly convinced that any plan which doesn't provide for the unemployed will ultimately fail.

Funny how BreakstheEarth calls the other guy, whoever he is, a fundamentalist apologist when his vid is of Hitchens standing there excusing western abuses of power.


How ignorant are you? Hitchens never excused western abuses, he pointed back to the fact he wrote a, if not THE, book on it with 'The Trial of Henry Kissinger'. He never excused the west, but once again renewed his condemnation and calls for war crimes prosecution of those responsible. What video where you watching exactly????


Yeah, we gave the Indonesians weapons knowing full well what they were intended for but thats ok because thirty years later we stopped the killing. THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!!?


I must repeat, what video were you watching? Hitchens never even vaguely suggested that the western turn around thirty years later justified anything. What he stated was that Al-Qaida's stated reasons for hating the west included not the East Timor genocide, but the act of ENDING their support for it.


He admits that history yet still feels like the west has some sort of moral superiority over a human surplus of young, poor, uneducated, jobless fundamentalists.

And yet again, which video did you watch? Hitchens condemned villians of both the west AND the fundamentalists. Unbelievable...

Funny how BreakstheEarth calls the other guy, whoever he is, a fundamentalist apologist when his vid is of Hitchens standing there excusing western abuses of power.

Hitchens's arrogance is mind blowing.
Yeah, we gave the Indonesians weapons knowing full well what they were intended for but thats ok because thirty years later we stopped the killing. THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!!?

He admits that history yet still feels like the west has some sort of moral superiority over a human surplus of young, poor, uneducated, jobless fundamentalists.

We should know better is my point.

The first guy had it right. Islamic "terrorism" is a predictable outcome of the west fucking with the autonomy of other nations. In fact military and political strategists are planning for an increase in such attacks as the engine of globalisation warms up and the great un-washed, un-moneyed masses of the world become increasingly marginalised from society.

Hitchens is just a fat, rich, pompous, warmongering git from the states. quite unlikeable

>> ^quantumushroom:
You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.


Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)



Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?
How does that work?


Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane. Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.


And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...
I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Wah? Huh? I don't get the point of this comment at all. If you're going down that religious path of 'well, I have this book that tells me my morals, and what is right and wrong... you must have no morals and not know what's right and wrong because you don't have a book', then sorry, but that's an insanely stupid tree to be barking up. If you truly believe that you would do 'bad things' if you didn't have the fear of god punishing you for breaking his commandments for doing so then you are a 'bad person'. Most of us don't do 'bad things' because we don't want to hurt other people or make life worse off for others, not due to some selfish fear for ourselves.


Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.
I'd friggen love it.
Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.


You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?


No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything. What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.


automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.
I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.
No, people who have no access to their own transport through not being able to afford it, despite their best efforts, should be able to use public transport to get around. If you deny people the ability to get around, how are they ever going to get to the jobs to make the money to be able to pay for these things themselves?



(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?
You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.
And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.
It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.
Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain. "Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". Which is a load of crap. SOME people pick themselves up completely independently and become successful with no external help, but ALMOST ALL have support from many places. A particular case I'm thinking of (a friend), spent years being horrendously insecure in themselves and doing f-all for his career and being effectively 'a drain' on society as you would say. But now he earns a good wage and is giving back to society through his taxes, so therefore paying back for his time. He needed that time being supported to get out of that rut. If there was no support... well, I don't know what would have happened to him, but it wouldn't have been nice.


Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.
If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.
A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."


Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples), then they have public outcry from the country to contend with because it's health care that WE are all paying for. If a private company denies treatment then you'd just say 'Well... it's a free market, go with another provider'.

I really think that you've been taught to believe these right wing mantras but, like most right wingers, you haven't thought through the consequences of those actions AT ALL... You run on an endless loop of 'hard work will get you what you need', whereas we run on one that says 'a fair go for everyone'. Your loop ignores how people get started in the first place, how people need help to get up from being poor and uneducated and pull themselves up to be really productive members of your country. You think that anyone who can't afford to go to university or get healthcare or have a car only lacks those things purely through their own laziness. We think that maybe you help people to have the opportunity to become educated and not be sick, and maybe that gives them a better chance to spend time learning a trade and becoming skilled and earning a great wage and getting their family moving on and up rather than staying poor and a drain on society for ever.

You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?

How does that work?

Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...

I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.

I'd friggen love it.

Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.

I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.

(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?

Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?

You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.

And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.

It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.

Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.

A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."

You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.

Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?

How does that work?

And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...

food
Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.

I'd friggen love it.

automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.

(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?

You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.

And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.

It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.

Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.

Update on the story: http://www.videosift.com/video/Keith-Olbermann-s-Worst-Person-in-The-World-1

Since Cook was a volunteer, he could chose whether or not to go. However, as a civilian, he was a DOD contractor. Well the military has severed that relationship, so Mr. Cook is now jobless.

If anything the shit is set to really hit the fan the moment that China stops buying US treasury bonds which currently has the effect of artificially depreciating the Yuan and appreciates the US dollar, in addition to providing the US an almost guaranteed lendor.

There's no reason this would happen dramatically though, I'm sure that Chinese leadership is fully apprehensive of the effects that the economic crisis had in diminishing demand by US consumers, and would not want a repeat of it. Rather, I'm sure they'd gradually ease of it, although there is always the possibility that China will be forced into dramatic expansionary policy with the resultant decrease in their budget surplus effectively forcing their hand.

Either way though, yes the profligate spending under the Bush years was disastrous, but not exercising expansionary fiscal and monetary policy during the economic crisis of 2008 would have had the effect of enacting a self-fulfilling prophecy of economic collapse through a cycle of joblessness and business failure on a scale much worse than what eventuated.

Whether the initial stimulus was effective in preventing collapse and whether Obama's long term projects for infrastructure and health care among others will recoup the initial outlay in a reasonable time frame and provide significant improvements to the efficiency and productivity of the economy or whether they will have wasteful results is unclear. What I would say is clear, is that doing nothing will confirm the inevitable projections right now that the budget will rise to unsustainable levels, foreign debt will continue to mount, business activity will continue to shift abroad and as a result relative wage levels, livings standards, and yes, purchasing power will continue to fall.

If you set all the liberal/socialist/statist nonsense ruining America next to the Constitution, little to none of it matches the original spirit, intent and meaning of the Law.

Do the same with classical liberalism (now modern libertarianism) or conservative principles, and most of it matches.

How odd that in America things always worked out, until now. The federal leviathan has mightily grown these past 5 months and the people that the statist pretends to love have lost 1.3 trillion dollars in stocks and property. Unemployment is at Depression-Era levels--not the height of the Depression's jobless rate, but certainly in that spectrum. Do ya think maybe if this train wreck occurred on Bush's watch the media might try--I don't know--tying his incompetence to these disasters?

We've got a loyal Obamedia that might as well be State run propaganda. The numerous crimes and fallacies of this Administration are not being reported loudly or at all. In a sense I welcome it because the very scum that have betrayed the Constitution on both sides of the aisle are building scaffolds of silence on which they will certainly hang.