What Bloggers Expect To Happen

This week's National Journal Bloggers Poll is out (here is their Beltway Insiders Poll.) I am going to present the first question (on health care reform) to you in a poll.

The second question asks "if unemployment continues to rise, should their be a second stimulus?" My answer was "They should have passed a bigger stimulus in the beginning to avoid the rising unemployment we have suffered."

What do you think?

< Cilizza: Nobel Makes It Easier For Obama To Escalate In Afghanistan | Friday Night Open Thread >


If major health care legislation clears Congress this year, will it include a public option?
Yes 57%
No 29%
Other 12%

Votes: 57
Results | Other Polls
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think that major action on unemployment (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:29:15 PM EST
    needs to happen ASAP and not some time in the distant future.

    Hmm, 50 - 50 split between yes on the public option and other.

    stimuli (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Illiope on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:33:51 PM EST
    the stimulus package was directed at the wrong actors in the economy. yes, it should have been bigger, but aside form that it went to the wrong people/institutions.

    my fear, is that if there is a second stimulus, it will, again, be funneled to ruling class interests and leave the most important part of the economy out in the cold.

    stimulus package (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kindGSL on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    I would agree with that assessment. These packages are dwarfed by big industry. It is the wrong solution, it is too late.

    They started out well last time but it was allowed to get politically derailed by the bank 'failures' /blackmail. 'Big money' interests got politically involved and the federal effort was swamped by private business layoffs.

    Basically we were punked by Republicans. It is not worth trying again.

    What we should focus on is things that would actually strengthen the people (human capital) and the dollar. Things like forcing banks to restructure loans and preventing evictions, passing single payer healthcare, NOT more war. The argument war pulls up the economy is bogus and we simply can't afford it. More war will turn us into a master slave economy.

    We have to turn our economy from making war and arms to making peace and equipment for the eco-restoration and greening of our planet. It is going to take a complete refocusing of goals.

    Good thing the Progressives have that very thing as their agenda.


    States really need help (none / 0) (#39)
    by Coral on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 03:39:17 PM EST
    Direct aid to states, if I recall correctly, was the thing that was cut in deference to moderates. Right now schools in MA are undergoing new round of cuts because MA is cutting local aid again.

    So, I definitely want another stimulus, especially for local school districts and direct to states to help them balance budgets.

    Tax shortfalls are humongous.


    Please don't call it stimulus (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ladyjustice on Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 07:25:54 AM EST
    I'm with Coral on this and with the most recent Krugman column - . . . "it would save thousands of jobs . . . and be an investment in our future."  Call it "aid to state governments."  

    We can't cry over spilled milk.  Sorry if the first stimulus was not big enough, but we can still fix it. Weren't we taught to believe that if you can conceive it you can achieve it.  It's not even a year that Obama has been in office - seeds planted need time to germinate and grow.  We need to believe and instill again, as Krugman suggests and as I was taught by my parents, grandparents, and the good nuns, that education was the key to all success, and certainly the key to "America's economic success."


    Two missed opportunities (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    Obama missed the boat twice on the stimuus package. One was job creation and the other was the mortgage crisis. Until these two problems are addressed, there can't be any meaningful economic recovery.

    Obama chose to rely on Reaganomic's and the trickle down philosphy. This didn't work before and it won't work now. The gap between the have's and the have not's continues to grow.

    Third time is the charm (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:04:27 PM EST
    even Rahm must understand you cannot go into an election with 10% unemployment.  I remember Nixon saying an incumbent party cannot hope to be succesful when unemployment is at 7%, and that is back before the government changed the method of counting unemployed to understate the reality.  

    Whether they want it to be or not, job creation will be the focus for the Administration  in 2010.


    Unfortunate the concept of a 2009 WPA (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:50:53 PM EST
    type stimulus has been deemed "socialist" or something.  Read a comment recently by a person who remembered the painting of murals in public buildings, CCC, etc.  As the parent of an adult person who is unemployed, IMO such a stimulus would show highly visible action to help the unemployed not only get back to work but also help with self esteem.  

    WPA (none / 0) (#10)
    by kindGSL on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:36:53 PM EST
    My mom was telling me how she raised pheasants to release for the hunters to shoot as a WPA in high school.

    I know her dad and brothers did a lot of hunting, trapping and fishing. They were poor farmers, she was eating the game they caught, milk from the cow, vegies from the garden.

    Why can't we do stuff like that now? Imagine how cheap that WPA program was and it kept people fed.


    Not only was the stimulus package likely (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    too small and poorly targeted, it was implemented way, way too slowly. We were told that this was for imediate shovel ready projects and that was why family planning did not deserve funding. And yet the money has been given out at a trickle.

    "Was" implemented? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    Most of the money is yet to be released.  It was totally mind-boggling that they did that - really.  Of course, it was all about the 2010 elections, but the fact that they put in so many delays suggests to me that very, very few people on the Hill actually understood what was happening.  Every day of delay, the cost of fixing the problems actually goes up; and unfortunately for them it is rising much faster than they could even imagine.

    If they do another stimulus, the question is how much of the latest funding would be released before the last?


    Agreed.....my understanding is that much of the (none / 0) (#56)
    by DFLer on Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 08:39:20 AM EST
    dough may have been "allocated" but is not yet spent. The so-called shovel ready projects were not quite ready. Some money for road work is just rolling out here (MN).

    Pelosi (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    is making me quite confident about the robust public option actually passing.  And I think the picture with this article is quite apt:  Pelosi is clear, focused, and ready to fight, while Reid is unable to really exert any kind of presence.  Hopefully she will run the conference show.

    What do I think will happen? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:32:20 PM EST
    I think the goal that Americans want Congress and the president to reach on health care will continue to be out of reach, mostly due to the collective inability of bought-and-paid-for legislators to do what's right for the people; with the focus on insurance and not care, there is little reason to think otherwise.

    As for the economy, failure of leadership and more clusterf**kery from Comgress will prevent substantive help from reaching the people who need it most.

    After the hash they made out of the first stimulus, what reason would we have to think they could get it right this time?

    I'm just so disgusted with the whole thing.

    New stimulus... (none / 0) (#3)
    by bocajeff on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    It's not the size of the stimulus, it's knowing what to do with it...small can be good if it gets to the right places, and big can be bad if it's wasted.

    The first stimulus was misguided in many ways - not the least of which was that most of it hasn't hit the economy yet!

    You have a large (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:13:06 PM EST
    lower, middle and upper class tax increase coming next year as Bush's tax cuts expire

    That will further devastate the economy.

    Oh right (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    Just like Clinton's tax increase in 1993 devastated the economy.  May God send us another disaster like that one.

    If you do a bit of research (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    you will discover that the economy was on the way up Clinton was elected and his tax increase turned it down.

    It then climbed back up based on a huge jump in technology, the expansion of communications and the Internet, which was your basic "bubble." This burst in March of 2000 driving the NASDAQ down 50% over the next year. 9/11 further zapped the markets. Bush's tax cuts slowly drove the economy upward to where is was when the Democrats took control of Congress in February 2007.

    Gasoline was around $2.00 a gallon, crude oil $55 a barrel. Unemployment was below 5% and the market was around 13500.

    Under the esteemed leadership of the Democrats it took them only a short 17 months for their energy policy (never drill) to drive gasoline to around $4.50 a gallon, crude oil to $146.; send unemployment spiraling past 6% on its way to the current 10% and drop the market to around 11000 on its way to a post Obama low of near 6000.

    So if you will just please get me back to where we were 2/1/2007 I, and my retirement money, will be eternally grateful.


    Not sure where you live (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    but gas is about $2.06 here.

    I'm in the Seattle area (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    $2.59 is a GREAT price for gas over here.  Typical price is $2.77-2.89.

    Of course it is over $3 here for (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    "87."  Why, oh why?

    Because they can get it. (2.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:24:42 PM EST
    idiotic (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    When gas was $4.50 Bush ran the government and could veto anything Congress did.  Gas has come down since because the economy sucks, which it did  2007, 2008 and will continue to for many years thanks in large part to fraud in the banking industry that Bush left completely unregulated.  Job growth at its best under Bush was anemic to pur it charitably, income growth for all but the wealthiest non-existent.

    Clinton attempted with some success to re-inject some needed progressivity into our tax structure and the economy grew as it did when our tax strucure was the most progressive it had ever been in the 50s and 60s.  Clinton dampened a growing economy in 1992-3?  That's revisionism of the highest order.  His putting the government finances in some semblance of order after years of executive indifference set the stage for resulting growth.

    Jobs for workers with families is far more important than the friggin stock market.  YOu got to be kidding.


    heh (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    It wasn't what the Democrats did, but what they didn't do. The speculators realized that the Democrats would not drill and they saw this as a signal to do what they do best. Make money by speculating.

    Gasoline remains low because Obama's economic plans suck and the economy sucks.

    Check your facts about '92.

    As for your love of the 50's and 60's I can tell you it was almost impossible to save a dime because the government sucked it up with their thieves market tax rates. If hat is progressive, "Include me out."


    gas pains (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Illiope on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:35:44 PM EST
    you wrote earlier decrying the high gas prices under the dems... yet, now, as gas prices have lowered under obama it is because "Obama's economic plans suck"....

    seems that no matter what price gas goes for, it is always bad, and it is always the dems fault.



    No, not confusing (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 03:14:22 PM EST
    With the right energy plan the economy would be good and gasoline would be cheap.

    And the Demos have No Plan... No drill, no nuke, no shale, no coal...


    jimakaPPJ, meet jimakaPPJ (none / 0) (#40)
    by Illiope on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 04:02:20 PM EST
    you should read some of the posts from jimakaPPJ, as they seem to argue that cheap gas is due to a bad economy...

    "Gasoline remains low because Obama's economic plans suck and the economy sucks" -- jimakaPPJ

    oh wait, that's you...



    We had low gas prices (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:14:20 PM EST
    and good economies for years and years and years...

    Of course that was before we sold out to OPEC and the environmental wackos..


    OPEC has been a problem since 1974 (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 06:44:26 PM EST
    The Yom Kippur War really kicked it all off.

      That was the last time that there were significant aerial dogfights....The Israeli Air Force shot down dozens of MIGs--the Israeli aircraft had pioneered a radar homing/jamming system that even we didn't have.  Since then, no  one has challenged U.S. or U.S. allies air surpemacy....During the first Iraq war, the Iraqi pilots wisely fled.


    You do know that its not the government (none / 0) (#37)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 03:23:28 PM EST
    that drills right? I mean even under the republican congress in 2004 you didn't have the Corp of Engineers setting up Oil Fields and stuff.

    You are kidding, right? (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    Next thing you'll do is tell me there is no free lunch....

    figments (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Illiope on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    it is folly to assess the state of the economy based on the daily machinations of the DJIA or NASDAQ; not to mention that the 'official unemployment' statistics have been so politically massaged as to be nearly useless.

    if you really want to do some research on the state of the economy investigate the rise in income disparity, the increase in household leveraging up until the economy took a nose dive, the reliance on credit, the stagnant wages, the reliance on consumer spending, etc. and you will see that the economy under bush was on death's doorstep. from reagan on through bush, without stop, the american economy was a house of cards built on shifting sand--and when the subprime housing collapse started it triggered the implosion.

    not to mention the fallacy that not drilling caused gas prices to spike.


    My comments spanned (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:15:44 PM EST
    17 years, from 1992 until 2009.

    You also ignore Clinton's collapse in 2000.

    The subprime housing mess is plainly the result of Democratic policies and their resistance to regulation proposed by Bush and McCain. (If you want to argue Bush and/or McCain should have protested and fought harder that's fine with me but doesn't change who did what.)

    If you will look back you also see that the housing debacle was coming under control in late March into April 2008 but the rapid run up of oil prices in May and June into July reignited the fire.

    If you will also check you will see that oil prices started to collapse when Bush belatedly killed the Ex Order forbidding drilling on the continental shelf. Even Obama did his bit by telling everyone to make sure their tires were at the correct pressure.


    financial services modernization act (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Illiope on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    the deregulation of the financial sector was a bipartisan affair--which led to the subprime debacle. [note: i am not a democrat, i'm nonpartisan]

    the oil price spike was due to speculation, not the lack of actual drilling. consider also, that when the price of a barrel of oil dropped several years ago the gas prices were still climbing.

    and, my comments spanned from 1980-2009, 29 years.


    Facts instead of fiction (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.


    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

    Link NYTimes

    And you are partially right. There was no shortage. But it was the understanding that the Democrats would prevent drilling that helped fuel the speculative bubble.


    Cherry picking facts to fit the theory (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:29:03 PM EST
    The 1993 tax increase did not hurt the economy.  After that, we had the tech boom and budget surpluses and low unemployment, and low interest rates.  The surpluses in part caused by the tax increase actually helped the economy.

    Oil prices:  you confuse cause and effect.

    Regulation:  Republicans were for it?  Maybe if you look real hard.  

    It is interesting that the Republican view of reality blames minorities for the current recession.  If Democrats had not insisted on more minority lending, the argument goes, then everything would have been just fine.  Back to blaming minorities.  How many foreclosures are of homes owned by minorities?  Rubbish.  

    The recession was caused by a deregulated financial sector.  Most Republicans lauded that deregulation--except when it came to lending to minorities....  


    Say what??? (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:07:10 PM EST
    Repubs blame minorities for the recession?

    Care to tell me how and maybe a link??


    Courtesy of Michelle Bachmann (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:38:41 PM EST
    and other Repbulicans, here is the argument:

    BACHMANN: Larry, thanks so much. If you look at the housing crisis, government has to take its share of the blame. After all, government was goading these mortgage lenders, saying you're red lining. You're being discriminatory. If you don't give loans out to marginally credit worthy people, we're going to come after you. In fact, Chairman Barney Frank has made comments like that as well. The Democrat-controlled Congress wants to have these mortgage lenders make loans to people with marginal credit. * And now the American people have to come in and step in and pay for these bad loans when people have zero equity or negative equity.

    Redlining=excluding minorities.


    So being factual is "blaming?" (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:01:30 PM EST
    By STEVEN A. HOLMES (New York Times)

    Published: September 30, 1999

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

    The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

    Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

    ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

    Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's

    Now you do know who Franklin Raines is, don't you?

    But some people knew what was going on and what could happen.

    ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

    Link NYTimes

    And fail they did and we are bailing them out.


    I appreciate your admission (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:30:29 PM EST
    that the economy is impacted by many more factors than whether marginal tax rates go up or down.

    Of course, your alternative theories are even more bizarre, but I'll take what I can get.


    hehe (2.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    And I thank you for demonstrating how to ignore reality.

    Man... (none / 0) (#47)
    by NealB on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:56:14 PM EST
    ...none of what you banked on was sustainable. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. It's been almost forty years of bad fish-heads. So far Obama's got the stink, too. None of those good years were very good; they were just for a few years in a while, less worse.

    If we fail to become a sociable country, a country where we live as if our profits aren't won at the expense of others, but because others profit as well, we lose. Socialism is the only future that will work. Without it, all we get is bubbles and lies.


    Long overdue for increased taxes (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    on the highest income earners.  I'd like to see their net worth taxed.  the wealthiest have been free riding on working men and women for thirty years now.

    Why? And how much? (none / 0) (#29)
    by bocajeff on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    the ys and hows (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Illiope on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:45:24 PM EST
    why: it is good for the economy (see, kevin phillips' book "Wealth and Democracy" for about 450 pages of reasons)

    how much: pre-reagan levels, 70% on top income bracket.


    Ok (none / 0) (#41)
    by bocajeff on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 04:10:01 PM EST
    pre-reagan levels, 70% on top income bracket. So I assume you want to return to the same amount of deductible expenses as well?

    No. (none / 0) (#48)
    by NealB on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 06:00:31 PM EST
    Anyway, what kind of expenses add up to much for the top 10% of income earners? Please. It's negligible.

    Suggested you might want to peruse (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:50:16 PM EST
     As for why, check these books out for starters:

    1.  Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else by David Cay Johnston

    2.  Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and StickYou with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston

    For income taxes I'd reinstate the upper backet as it was under under Clinton, and create a new 50% bracket to kick in at incomes $1 million & greater.  I'd also lower the SS Medicare tax to 3% on incomes $50 K and less, and make it progressive rising to the current 6-7% level on incomes up to 250,000K (repeal the income cap) then higher on incomes over 250k.

    I am flexible on the actual percentages but there must be a more progresssive tax scale for the income as well as the payroll tax.


    Long overdue for increased taxes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    on the highest income earners.  I'd like to see their net worth taxed.  the wealthiest have been free riding on working men and women for thirty years now.

    Finish HCR w robust public option (none / 0) (#13)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 01:49:19 PM EST
    only compromise being the state opt out, then a second stimulus aimed at jobs and building things of lasting value.

    Biden's comment on the first stimulus that there won;t be any "parks, pools, gyms etc" still rankles.  Those things have value for generations to come and their construction puts people to work.  

    Who says the stimulus isn't working? (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    Our airport used solely by private planes is getting a new tarmace pd. for by stimulus money. Now the public streets and sidewalks are an entirely different matter.

    Not shovel ready (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    We have a project that is going to use $2 mill of stimulus to clean up an old railyard for a private investor (the argument of who was to clean it up has been going for years.)  It hasn't gotten EPA clearance yet and will be using an out of state contractor.

    Cal Trans has been trying to force an overpass on us for years also.  I'm waiting for it to have a 'stimulus' sign tacked on it and in it will go.


    I agree (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:51:30 PM EST
    with your statement w/r/t stimulus and I would proably be against doing another at this point since there's no evidence that Obama has learned from his mistakes with the first one.

    HCR? Who knows on that? Everyday it's a different story.

    I voted for ponies (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:00:13 PM EST
    Because it is the only thing I want to happen.  I haven't a clue what IS going happen.  That is what I have you for...

    But the "You" dodged the question. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:09:06 PM EST
    Heh, I didn't notice that (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    I thibk there should also have been a . . . (none / 0) (#54)
    by Doc Rock on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:09:59 PM EST
     . . .  jobs program!