If what we've experienced over the last 2 years is an example of "Democrats in power", I think the meaning of the word "power" has been changed without proper notice.

"Why wasn't I informed!" --Mel Brooks

If the Democrats are to blame for anything, it's that they didn't stop the Republicans.

And it states that who ever is in power is at fault for everything. 9/11, Bush's fault. Recession at the turn of the century, Bush's fault. Pre-war intelligence, Bush's fault. All or most of this with a GOP congress or GOP leaning congress. I am not going to be a Bush apologist, but I get sick of the silly hypocrisy from the left. If we want to pretend the world occurs in present time only, then right now our problems are created by those in power right now, the democrats and Bush.

It seems these two years of democratic control of Congress have really netted a lot. Housing market in ruin, jobs quickly going away (literally), weak dollar, rising energy prices, recession, etc. and all on their watch.

Nice try, but it's pretty obvious that the damage was done by Republican policies that are difficult to change without a veto-proof majority. For example, the Bush/Republican tax cuts for billionaires are still in effect and still destroying the value of the dollar.

Seriously, are there?

McCain was not clear when he said this. I believe he meant retraining benefits, assistance with college tuition for unemployed people. Nothing new or exciting, but a nod toward education.

The governor of CA has a plan, rather than layoff state workers, he plans to cut their pay to minimum wage. (The state controller didn't pay attention to him, and wrote the paychecks when they were due). The McCain plan sounds eerily similar. TO begin one has to accept the role of government as the employer of last resort.

CA is now almost two months without a budget. However if you layoff state workers, and pay them unemployment benefits, you have a lose-lose situation. Business doesn't get done, private contractors are shut out, and the workers draw benefits, which puts a further drag on the economy.

Better to give them an AHDUR! GID BAGCK TA WUHRK! US history is replete with examples of this, when Unions and collective bargaining breaks down. Back to work orders have been used to force all sorts of private employees back on the job, but they have never been forced to take a humiliating pay cut at the same time. If the paycut approximates the package benefits, would voters support this kind of indentured servitude?

As an aside the Bush Immigrant Worker Program, the old Brasero program, forced the worker to reapply for a visa, if they wanted to change employers. Gotcha! Of course Americans went through this in WWII, the government controlled who you worked for, and hey, this war in Iraq is at least as big as that one, and is still going on, much to the benefit of the people who would abuse the laws to compromise your freedoms.

The precendents need only a bit of tweaking to make it fit the economy of the 2000's, for John McCain and his rich Republican pals. Rather than pay you unemployment, while you do nothing, we pay you unemployment and you stay on the job. Is that the McCain plan too?

Because frankly it seems the pocketbook, whether it's full or empty, is the only thing we Americans are motivated by. I may be wrong, but as the economy heads south, the greater the chances Obama will be our next president.

It seems these two years of democratic control of Congress have really netted a lot. Housing market in ruin, jobs quickly going away (literally), weak dollar, rising energy prices, recession, etc. and all on their watch. So where is that glimmer of hope? Is it Obama who is a part of that group? Legitimate question that I would like to know the answer (from him, not from all of us guessing).

Here's the quote from his speech:

"I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn't even noticed. Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That's going to change on my watch."

How the heck did Andrew Leonard get "wage insurance" out of that? He then went on to say that he'd give the unemployed jobs that wouldn't go away instead (what jobs those would be, I have to idea). It seemed to me he wanted to do away with unemployment insurance.

Where they a) Speak English and b) it's cheaper to live and work there. One is the most violent country in the world not at war (South Africa) and the other, well let's just say that between the floods, the infectious diseases and the occasional tiger attack, it's a little adventurous.

The new, or service economy apparently isn't picking up the slack. One of the stalwarts of the service industry is the restaurant business. Restaurants are sometimes considered recessionproof. (The banks closed in 1930, but the diners stayed open) The national chains have overbuilt, competing for a declining number of consumer dollars. Profit margins are sufficent to keep them going a while longer. If you wonder why headline inflation hasn't shown up as core inflation, that's how the process works. Food producers, suppliers, and restuarants, are living off profit margins, which is as it should be. When a few of these chains start closing outlets, and reducing expansion, things will change, and quickly. High enders like PF Changs seems like good sells to me. The typical high end customer pads their bill with alcoholic beverages, which have huge markups. The first thing diners cut back on is drinks and tips. Places like McDonalds seem well placed, with an overseas footprint, beware of a resurgent dollar, and of course if those overseas outlets start closing, the support staff based here will get layoff notices. When the service economy implodes we have a recession or worse.