It may feel like that but I suspect they did not lay off workers just to "make more profits". Very few businesses in very few industries are making profits right now. Most are trying to hang on until the economy turns around.

I was talking about what was going on years ago, long before the subprime disaster was even suspected. The company laid off people at the end of 2004 even though they had record profits that year.

The place is a complete nuthouse today. They've been sending jobs overseas as fast as they can. The few projects that are still going on are all in deep trouble because too much knowledge and experience has been laid off. Nobody will tell management about the problems because everyone is afraid of being fired. Everyone is praying that the inevitable failures will be blamed on somebody else. It's pretty pathetic.

They've finally come up with a case that a court might actually hear.

... that while everyone else is suffering, the companies that created this mess are continuing business as usual thanks to massive infusions of government money.

Companies that haven't received bailouts are laying people off. The people who still have jobs are having their pay and benefits reduced, and they have to live with the continual worry that their jobs will be the next ones to be cut.

Meanwhile, AIG needs huge amounts of government money to stay out of bankruptcy, but they continue to pay bonuses. This is crazy.

There is a better approach. "In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you'll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old.

Don't forget to explain why it so much better to have insurance bureaucrats doing exactly the same things, and earning big bonuses for doing them aggressively.

So.. load up on those oil stocks while they're still paying 8% dividends.

I don't think the Chinese will be buying much oil from Exxon and, if things keep going the way they are, WE won't be buying much oil from Exxon either.

I thought the big problem with corn-based ethanol was that it took more energy to make than it could produce when used as a fuel. Am I mistaken about this?

The extra capitalization supposedly needed by the "bad" banks totals about $73 billion. Exactly how much is this going to help if they end up another $600 billion in the hole?

So if I begin to think things have turned a corner and I feel more secure I am more apt to go out and spend $.

Yabut, isn't "spend today because things will be better tomorrow" the way we got into this mess in the first place?

America doesn't create enough wealth to be able to afford its lifestyle. Too many good jobs have been sent overseas, probably forever. Wall Street managed to keep the party going into overtime with financial trickery that subsequently collapsed. What's next? I don't see much.

I kind of remember you not liking when Bush fucked around with the rule of law and intimidating people when he was president. Why the change?

I didn't like it then and I don't care too much for it now. However, since we seem to have abandoned the concept of rule by law, I do like seeing the occasional outcome that isn't tilted heavily in favor of the wealthy and powerful.

In retrospect, would you prefer that Bush hadn't set the precedent of brazenly ignoring the law?

Rush never ever said he wanted the United States to fail only that he feared Obamas policies and he we wished they'd fail because he felt they are bad for Americans.

Sure, but you have to admit that this is exactly the way the right-wing cheerleader squad would have played it if someone had said something similar during Bush's term. I'd bet Rush himself would have been leading the mob with his tantrums. Heck, they were pretty much saying that anything less that 100% support for Bush and his policies was tantamount to treason.

What really burns the right wing is that they know countless people won't check the facts and will believe that Limbaugh actually said it. They know this because they counted on the same result when they told their own lies.

Really, wingnuts, don't you think it's time you learned to take it as well as dish it out?

I don't think they can do that. AFAICT, being able to dish it out without having to take it is the primary objective of all conservative philosophy.

But why would an inventor spend a year of her life for no gain?

I think your question has the built-in assumption that the inventor would have to pay for her needs and comforts. The answer isn't so obvious if that requirement is removed.

You might say that a moneyless system would collapse from the drain caused by freeloaders who contribute nothing. I'll respond by saying that our money-oriented system has a complementary defect: It's collapsing because of the drain caused by people who game the system to gain wealth far in excess of their contributions.

Abstinence education isn't necessarily bad.

I'm not so sure about that. I've heard stories about abstinence courses using all kinds of mind games to try to make an impression on the kids. I don't think that making kids neurotic about sex is a good idea.

I also don't think there's any such thing as a "white lie" in sex education. Telling scary fairy tales is counterproductive. The kids will dismiss everything they've been told as soon as they discover that any of it is bullshit.

Seems like you are searching for a story here when it's just the government doing what it's supposed to do.

After 8 years of Bush, it IS a story.