Take away the bank profits and oil profits and out nations GDP is dropping not improving. As far as jobs go we are not creating enough to keep up with the current high school grads. You say UE is dropping but thats bunk. You fail to count all the people who can no longer qualify for UE insurance. Also, you do not count high school grads adn college grads who can not find work. The truth of the matter is that you fail to count more people than you ARE counting. No, Obama has failed on the economy. Lies and missleading people will not work.

I agree there should be no subsidies given to any oil companies. Instead i think they should be paying way more taxes. I would put export tarrifs on all oil and gas exported from America. Then watch as fuel prices drop.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Unemployment rose under Reagan during his first 3 years as he was willing to trade off employment to first get inflation under control. By the end of his first term, unemployment had begun to drop off dramatically. You can see that unemployment has begun to drop off under Obama, but I believe labor force participation is a far better picture of the country's economic health and is not reflected by the unemployment rate.

Labor force participation had begun to rise under Reagan by the end of his first term. Under Obama, it has sunk to historic lows.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Under this administration, workers have shifted from unemployment status to out of the labor force entirely, artificially lowering the unemployment rate.

Those links aren't working, let me try to correct.

Labor force (change the dates)

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

DeerHunter:

What is UE?

Klown:

Paul Volcker deserves the credit for getting the economy on the right footing in the 80s not Reagan. Reagan was not "trading off employment to get inflation under control", that was Volcker.

i voted for n/a.

Sorry i meant it to be UI Unemployment Insurance. Sorry i got in a rush and was not thinking.

I like how the blame is put on Obama. Being from Canada we have the exact same situation as you describe. It is not a US only problem dude. Maybe we should blame Obama too :)

you probably should, it is the in thing right now. Everyone blames the President, when it is Congress that is royally fluffing up lol. But yes, Obama, just like Romney, is to blame for the world's problems. Sudan? That is Obama's fault, EU Debt problems? Also Obama's fault! Poor US Education? It must be Obama's fault too! I blame Obama for me not being in the 1% too! :D

I also blame him for making me wait 7 years for the movie adaption of the Hobbit!

I'm still hoping for a Ron Paul victory in Tampa :-)
Unless he gets the nomination, or SERIOUSLY influences the platform AND they stick with it, I'll be looking at third parties again.

Voting for the "lesser of two evils, is still making a deal with the devil", and it will only slide the scale towards more evil. Just take a look at far from our Constitution we've moved.

The problem is that by voting for a third party here you are throwing away your vote. You can never have everything the way you want it. All you can ever have it the best possible. And there are two possibilities. I urge you to vote for one of them. I understand your feelings, i have felt the same before. I now see a third party vote is a wasted vote.

Then someone should start up a couple more parties and have a four party system :P I think that's the best number for the way north american politics work.

Deerhunter: Obama still ordered the strike that got bin Laden. Each President gets credit for the things that happen under their presidency, so to try to take that away is your way of trying to take away a pretty big accomplishment.

However, I'll play along.

First off, you say the Affordable Health Care Act has negatively affected you. Let's look at some of the things that the law has done:

1) Created a mandate for all Americans to have health insurance. Unless you were uninsured and have since gotten health insurance, the law hasn't affected you in this way.
2) It's closed the "doughnut hole" for seniors with their prescription coverage. If you're of the age that you're getting Medicare, then I can't imagine this change has affected you negatively.
3) It's allowed young adults to stay on their parents' insurance up to age 26, which with unemployment being where it's at is probably a very good thing.
4) It prevents insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with certain pre-existing conditions. I don't know about you, but I personally think it's unethical to put someone fighting cancer into a situation where they're in fear of losing their insurance and not being able to get new insurance. I'd hate to think that if I were in remission for cancer and thinking about starting my own company that I might elect to stay in a dead-end job because I knew I wouldn't be able to get insurance if I had to buy an individual plan. However, again, I don't see how this likely affects you.

Is the AHA everything I'd like to see in a reform bill? No. I think that Republican reform ideas of limited malpractice claims are reasonable and I would have liked to see the ideas of people being able to buy insurance from out of state and prescriptions from safe foreign countries to help ease the costs. I'd like to see those things implemented in the future, but it doesn't mean that what's been passed so far is bad.

Immigration stuff has been addressed by others. already, so I'm going to avoid that one.

The Mexican truck driver thing I know nothing about, so sure, I'll give you that one without arguing it or researching it to confirm it.

However, as far as positive achievements of the Obama administration.
1) Osama bin Laden is now dead.
2) Homosexual military personnel no longer have to live in fear of being exposed. I've heard of far too many instances of experts, like people knowledgeable in Arabic, being booted from the military because of DADT. Our military needs all the able-bodied, knowledgeable soldiers they can get.
3) The auto bailout has completely revitalized the American auto industry.
4) The economy is still struggling, but would far likely be much worse if tea party, Rand Paul austerity economic plans would have been imposed instead of a Keynesian stimulus budget.
5) World wide attitudes about America are much more positive due to Obama's handling of foreign affairs.
6) Iran is actually in far worse shape economically and we even have the usual opposition of Russia agreeing to sanctions in the Security Council because of the handling of the situation.
7) Libya has deposed Khaddafi due to help from American security forces using drones and imposing a no-fly zone.
8) Overhauled the credit card industry, making it far more consumer friendly.
9) Pulled troops out of Iraq.
10) (Not entirely his, this is partially Pres. Bush) -- Even the unpopular TARP program has actually been a net positive, as the banks have paid back more than they borrowed (due to interest) than they received (true as of a year ago).

That's far from a comprehensive list, and I'm sure you don't believe many of these are accomplishments.

Lastly, don't just assume I'm going to resort to namecalling with you or call you a racist. If you say something racist, I'll call you out for it. If you think gay marriage is morally wrong, that's your opinion and you have a right to it. If you feel that because it's morally wrong it should be forbidden by the U.S. government, then I'm going to ask if you feel that other sins should be made illegal, like adultery. If not, then you're already following the idea of separation of church and state, you're just not applying it to this particular cause.

Regardless of that, I've never even argued with you before so why would you assume that I would resort to namecalling? I'm sure you've argued with plenty of complete imbeciles of liberals just as I've argued with plenty of complete imbeciles of conservatives whose only tactic is to shout louder and call names, but other than saying someone's thinking seems ridiculous or foolish to me, I certainly try not to resort to such tactics, DH.

I'll keep it respectful as long as you do. :)

And just to beat anyone else to the punch, yeah, yeah, I know, tl;dr.

Adressing your list of positives:
1)- Any president would have or at least should have made that call. I am not saying its a negative at all but it thats the best thing he has done, well the military did it.
2)- I am sorry if you disagree but i believe allowing gays to openly serve in the military makes our country weaker. I have served and feel it will cause WAY more problems than help and will break down unit cohesiveness more often than not. I do not care what your experts say- they were probably ORDERED to say it, just as i was ordered not to talk about Monica and Pres Clinton when that ordeal happened. See, the leaders in the military will ALWAYS say what the pres wants- or they get to retire. So ya this is a neg.
3)Again, i would have been for the auto bailout but they put no guidelines on things and lost a huge chance to do good. Instead it helped corporate profits while plants were closing down here in America. Overall, good idea, badly handled and a waste of tax dollars.
4)Last time i checked the tea party was not pres or Rand Paul (thank God for that). I do not see how the economy struggling is a + for Obama. In my view he has handled things very poorly with the economy.
5)not sure who you listen too but a lot of people in the world still do not like us. Also consider the value of buying your friends. Again, a neg for Obummer.
6)All of what you said abotu Iran is BUNK. It is nothing more than stall tactics to allow them time to get a nuke. Then sanctions wont matter. They keep us talking and doing sanctions until they get the bomb. Then that can do s they please. Just like N Korea. Again, very bad handling that puts our National Security at risk.

sorry hit wrong button.

7)We should not have spend one dime helping them overthrow Khaddafi. At least with him we had a stable relation with Lybia and peace in the region. Now the Muslem Brotherhood is taking over and there is no stability. Again, major failure and puts our nation at risk.

8)The only thing this accomplished was making the credit card industry raise their rates on everyone for no reason just because of this. I know cause it happened to me- directly due to this.
9)Ya, i guess the surge Obama was so against must have really worked. Or are you suggesting just the presence of Obama fixed relations in that country and enabled us to leave? I am for us leaving there, i think announcing deadlines as he did was stupid and put lives at risk. Time will tell on this one. As i said i am for leaving there but he did it poorly. So neutral.
10)Tarp is a HUGE negative. Remember it bought up all the bad debt the banks had in addition to loaning them next to 0 interest. Of course they are now making record profits- all their junk loans were bought buy tax payers under tarp. This is a MAJOR negative to the tune of more than a trillion in debt for the US tax payers.


I will not get into health care with you cause its clear you want to cherry pick a few good things. What you fail to talk about is all the negatives- not to mention cost. I do not understand how people think Millions of people are going to get insurance for free. I for tell it to be the biggest failure in American History.

Perhaps those fluffing biggots who can't fight beside a gay person shouldn't be in the army then. They obviously aren't there to fight for anyones freedom. Having gays openly in an army puts you to a point where the rest of the world has probably been for years. It is pretty fluffing sad that an individual should be harassed because of their lifestyle choice which does not affect anyone else. Just because a gay person is around doesn't mean that non gays are going to get a disease. Grow up dude.

I'll keep playing.

1) According to the stories that have been said, both Pres. Clinton and Pres. Bush had golden opportunities to take out OBL and didn't. Regardless of that, as I've said, whoever's president at any given time gets credit. Bush will get credit for handling Afghanistan swiftly and effectively (for the most part, obviously that country is so messed up that nation building there is virtually impossible without simply taking over).

2) I'm 100% with locket on this. You're entitled to think homosexual behavior and/or marriage is immoral. You're not entitled to encode your religious beliefs (or as locket said and I would tend to agree, your bigotry) into law. Also, these soldiers are professional soldiers. If you're in a battle situation and your mind is more on the sexuality of the guy next to you than surviving and winning the battle, then you're clearly not cut out for the military.

3) There are always "missed opportunities" with actions taken by our government. Nitpicking the negatives out of an action that caused massive restructuring (for the better) of the three biggest American auto makers, saving thousands of jobs that would have otherwise been lost is like saying "Damn, three other people besides me won the Powerball, so I don't get the full 100M."

4) My point there may have been confusing. It was simply that I think Obama's handling of the economy has generally been positive and that the long-term reasons and even the short-term reasons for the collapse happened far before Obama's time. I know the stimulus was hugely unpopular and it wasn't as effective as it could have been. My point was that the Republican argument (or rather, the Tea Party argument) was that all stimulus is bad and all these institutions should have simply been allowed to fail. If you believe in a middle ground there, then I'll accept your point that the economy could have been handled better. If you believe in the austerity ideals that have been put out there, then I'll continue to argue Obama's handling of the economy as a positive overall.

5) Of course a lot of people still don't like us, but here are some of the differences between Bush's administration and Obama's (information from pew global)
Percentages indicate percentage of people who view the U.S. favorably. Not every country is polled every year, so the years for these are a big sporadic.

Canada 2007 - 55%, 2009 - 68%
Russia 2008 - 46%, 2012 - 52%
U.K. 2008 - 53%, 2012 - 60%
Germany 2008 - 31%, 2012 - 52%
Israel 2008 - 78%, 2012 - 72% (Just to show I'm not just cherry picking numbers, but rather trying to father many of the most important countries for our foreign interests).
China 2008 - 41%, 2012 - 43%

If we change the question to "Confidence in the U.S. President" the numbers typically are even more favorable to Pres. Obama.

Canada 2007 - 28%, 2009 - 88%
Russia 2008 - 22%, 2012 - 36%
U.K. 2008 - 16%, 2012 - 80%
Germany 2008 - 14%, 2012 - 87%
Israel - 2009 - 57%, 2012 - 43%
China 2008 - 30%, 2012 - 38%

For both numbers, Israel saw a decline, probably due to the fact that Obama has shown more interest in actually trying diplomatic measures and has pushed for freezing Israeli settlements, so this is an understandable drop. At the same time, Obama's generally been still a very positive ally for Israel.

In every other country, the numbers are far more favorable for Pres. Obama than the previous administration, most dramatically seen in the numbers in Europe.

If you don't see how this helps us internationally to pursue our foreign agendas with help from allies, then my guess is you're intentionally ignoring this because it's not convenient to your ideology.

6) From Time Magazine.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/...-weak-and-getting-weaker/
http://swampland.time.com/.../05/the-truth-about-iran/

That's as much time as I have at this point, so I'll try to get back sometime later today to hit 7-10.

Deerhunter:

In response to Bin Laden, I have already posted that George Bush did NOT do everything in his power to capture or kill Bin Laden. We even had him in our crosshairs and he did not attack.

From my earlier post:

http://www.texaskaos.net/diary/3899/

"The Clinton/Gore administration went after Bin Laden right up to point of Bush entered the White House and had the Bush administration taken national security briefings from the Clinton anti-terror team seriously, the Twin Towers might still be standing.

Instead the Bush team, including National Security Advisor Condi Rice dismissed Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, and the Clinton team's warning as paranoia and were literally on vacation when ominous intelligence noise should have terrified them awake. Clinton was accused of being "obsessed with Bin Laden" and, as Republican Congressmen like Tom Delay and Arlen Specter insinuated, of trying to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal."



http://www.salem-news.com/...12/bin-laden-salon-tk.php

"Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.'

The Tora Bora mess:

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/.../doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf

I've also addressed that Truck driver nonsense but that conveniently ignored ;)

What you said about gays serving in the military was ridiculous. You have no proof, just "well I think" and "obviously they are hiding my opinion". Turns out that even Israel has allowed gays to serve in the military. In 2004, they conducted a study and found NO evidence that allowing gays to server lowered military effectiveness.


=====

Good post by Twain. Deerhunter, before you reply to any of our responses, you might want to get some numbers/articles on your side. Your opinion isn't going to cut it.

You guys have obviously never served in the military. First, being in the US military is not a right. Not everyone can or should be allowed to serve in the military. There are TONZ of reasons Gays should not be allowed. Of course you guys go straight to bigotry. You ignore all the other problems or issues. Many are the same reasons why women are not serving in ground combat. The whole point of combat troops it so have the strongest most efficient military force out there. Aside from the physical weakness women have- all the other reasons why women should not be allowed in ground combat apply for gays. Its not a personal thing. I could care less what people do behind closed doors as long as its legal.

Here are a FEW potential problems: First, even at the start of training there can be 40-60 or more guys sharing 4 shower heads. That means often there are 3-4 guys under each one at a time. Now, i am a straight male. Had you put me in a shower with 2-3 girls with me, well, i would get excited and stuff would be happening. This problem only gets worse when you put it into a combat zone. I personally have been in a situation where there were no females around for 6 weeks or so. During that time i was never excited because we had a job to do and nothing to take our minds off it. Then, we walked through an area where 5 mins eariler a woman had passed. We could still smell her. And all i could think about was that. Women in ground combat would be an enormous distraction. I am willing to admit that. The same Must me true for Gays.

The plus of having a straight military is simple- everyone keeps their mind on the job at hand. There are no rape issues. There are no sexual assault or misconduct issues. they just get the job done. When you are in the best shape of your life and go weeks or months without sex you have tonz of bent up energy. If gays were allowed to serve, just as with women, there would be lots of sex going on and problems with it. All of that crap just breaks down the unit. It does NOT make it stronger. This is not an equal rights issue. It is a practical issue. Get over yourself.

You responded with more of your opinions. The facts are NOT on your side. As I pointed out, in 2004 Israel conducted a study and found NO evidence to support the notion that allowing gays to openly serve negatively effects military effectiveness. If what you said is true, then the study would have been otherwise as there are no inherent differences between our servicemen and theirs.


===

But that's the Israeli army. How about our own? Well why not ask the Pentagon. They didn't offer their opinion, or as you would say whatever the boss wants, but they did a STUDY.

http://www.csmonitor.com/...l-of-don-t-ask-don-t-tell

The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" – lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the US armed forces – is "going very well" so far, having no impact on troop morale, unit cohesion, or readiness, top Pentagon officials said Thursday.

Those are the findings of a new, as-yet-unreleased Pentagon report that assesses the first months under the new policy, said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said. He attributed the repeal's smooth sailing to a roughly year-long study the US military conducted before making the change.


Tell that to the service women that are raped (and males are also raped).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...1/dec/09/rape-us-military

"Whether or not the case goes to trial, it is still set to blow the lid on what has come to be regarded as the American military's dirty little secret. Last year 3,158 sexual crimes were reported within the US military. Of those cases, only 529 reached a court room, and only 104 convictions were made, according to a 2010 report from SAPRO (sexual assault prevention and response office, a division of the department of defence). But these figures are only a fraction of the reality. Sexual assaults are notoriously under-reported. The same report estimated that there were a further 19,000 unreported cases of sexual assault last year. The department of veterans affairs, meanwhile, released an independent study estimating that one in three women had experience of military sexual trauma while on active service. That is double the rate for civilians, which is one in six, according to the US department of justice."


====

Before you continue on with another opinionated response, please inform yourself of the facts.

Don't forget Maurice, Deerhunter has served in the military while we're just reading studies written by.... wait.

Regardless of what you think, Deerhunter, it is bigotry when you say gays shouldn't be allowed in the military.

anyway, on the other points:

7) Libya isn't Egypt. Don't confuse the two. According to a news article posted today (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...-election/article4398229/), liberal groups are leading the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. Furthermore, you're actually taking the side of a sociopathic murderous dictator over a democratically elected government? If we're truly all about freedom and democracy, those ideals should be ideals we hope to spread. It seems like every time the United States has sided with some dictator in favor of democratically elected leaders, we've either lost or have been embarrassed/screwed over in the long term, like, for instance, the plan that ultimately led to Saddam Hussein coming to power.

8) The credit card companies were evading the law by doing that. Ultimately that means, yes, they raised their rates, but it also means their practices are under greater regulation and ultimately they won't be allowed to just willy-nilly raise your rates any more. Your logic here is short-sighted.

9) Cite something that shows how it put lives at risk. I'm coming to the end and I've decided I'm not going to do your side's research for you to find out if there's anything beyond some unfounded talk radio speculation. Until you post something to back your side up or explain it to me how it actually risked lives, I'm not buying it.

10) According to the Wall Street Journal (cited via wikipedia), the TARP bailout had less than 1% impact on our GDP that year and ultimately $245 billion was handed out. From what I've found on another cite (http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/refunds), it looks as though $232 billion has been paid back to the government. The TARP program, as I stated before, also was a bipartisan action as it was actually begun by then President Bush and continued by Pres. Obama.

For this last one, I'll admit that there are other articles even from that propublica website that have differnet numbers based on different aspects of TARP and the bailout, so it's possible I might be reading these numbers wrong, but I don't believe I am. If someone (deerhunter or anyone else that wants to take on this cause) wants to see about making sure these numbers are right, feel free.

Possibly because when it comes to jobs it's really not improving.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/...xGgQj2ks/s1600/employment+population+ratio.png

Argue with Mankiw on it. I guess you could call that a recovery is you just assume the new low is the new norm.

You can cite economists who will argue what would, could or should have happened ad nauseum, but the reality is that we don't know.

As dismissive as folks are of the tea party, their bottom line point is one that both sides agree on: the debt-spending path is unsustainable. Eventually we have to make tough choices and those tough choices will come with hefty responsibilities. But the status quo proscratination won't continue to work.

Last night Primary Colors was on. There was a great scene with candidate Stanton talking to a factory of laid off works. He told them it sucks they're laid off, but they have to learn to transition. It's the same principle, different problem.

Here's some interesting reading for you guys: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../08/gJQARBEwWW_story.html

I agree. I don't think that making decisions that might help the economy 20 years from now at the cost of losing jobs and hurting the economy now isn't necessarily a good choice though, IF the economy now can't handle it.

The thing people seem to always ignore is that much of the money going out to all these federal programs are to pay people's paychecks. If you cut funding to federal parks, there are rangers out of work. If you cut funding to the states to help with education, then teachers get laid off.

If the big number we're concerned about is unemployment (which seems to be the one economic number everyone is focused on), then why would we take measures that would actually directly cost people jobs?

I hate to go back to previous administrations at this point because it doesn't solve anything, but ultimately the Republican Congress and Pres. Clinton not only balanced the budget, but actually handed a surplus off to Pres. Bush. Our spending was under control and there were several reform bills pushed through during the Clinton years, like the welfare bill, that have been very positive. Even in one of his failures, he was going after another problem in health care.

During the 2000s, our spending went out of control with 2 wars and cutting taxes. Some of the problems with the current economy certainly go back much further than Pres. Bush, but some of them don't. Because he chose to take a time period of prosperity and just do what's best in the short-term.

My point here may be muddled so far, but here's what I'm getting at: When you're in a crisis, it's not the time to look at what will fix the long-term problems. When you're in a time of prosperity, that IS the time to try to figure out your long-term problems and fix them, because the economy will likely be strong enough to rebound from any minor short-term tweaks that would have long-term effects.

What's right and what's practicable in politics are often two different things. I think you're right here and I think it's not practicable.

In many ways politics mirrors the national pysche. When times are good, people spend more freely and sure they may sock away some. When times are bad, suddenly people worry about spending responsibly, savings rates, etc. It's bizzare and counterintuitive.

As Mayor/former POTUS COS/Congressman Emanuel once said, "never let a good crisis go to waste." Ergo, now, when people are engaged and thriving for change, is probably our best opportunity to address the debt issue.

I think the bureaucracy should be streamlined some more and that's from my personal experience working in it. However, that barely even puts a scratch, let alone a dent in the problem. The elephant in the room is entitlements with an aging society and defense spending with ongoing global operations. Eventually you have to adjust one or both if you want to acheive serious savings. Yet then you run afoul of voters and that's probably the most fundamental flaw in our current system.

The other dynamic to that is the more you expand entitlements, the harder it is to fix the problem. More folks on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc just means that many more angry voters against anyone who tinkers with it. Eventually a wave of politicians will simply opt to increase the tax burden to sustain the entitlement burden and it will just thrive on itself.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you there.

I think a crisis is a perfect time to try to reform some of the systems. Passing the Health Care law could've been seen as a huge victory for bipartisanship, but of course it wasn't (this statement is judgment free. I'm not trying to lay blame on either side here).

Reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be great right now as well, as would going after tougher enforcement of immigration policy.

Unless both parties agreed on how to do it though, neither side will push any such plan because of exactly what you said -- angry voters.

That's why it's too bad that there was so much gridlock the last few years, because if both sides worked together on the plan, it wouldn't be a talking point for either side (Technically, I guess Romney could say "I wasn't involved!" but if his party was a big part of a needed but unpopular reform package, it'd be hard to really campaign terribly hard on that).

One other thing that goes back a bit that I feel the need to address, mostly because I keep seeing it since it's quoted in the very first post on this third page...

Deerhunter said: "The auto industry was a tiny fraction of the bail out."

Of the total outflows of cash for the stimulus (which ended up being a lot smaller than what was passed since much of that money has gone unspent), the auto bailout was 13.2% of the government spending that could be considered "stimulus" spending.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary

There are really three sets of people operating in Congress now--pure ideologues, pure partisans and the in-betweeners. I think the last category has probably the least number of folks, but I was glad to chat with a freshmen last night who said sometimes getting most of what you want is good enough. I was sort of taken aback as they usually say it's all or nothing. Maybe there is a new leaf to be turned over yet. I guess we shall see.

I wasn't too big a fan of the bailouts because I don't think industry, particularly the finance (aka banking since they had reinvented themselves from bank into finance back to bank) sector, took any sort of lesson out of it. A friend in a somewhat related to the industry position told me (im paraphrasing) "the lesson they took was to grow big enough that their failure would topple the system." I fear that some in the auto industry took the same lesson and I know the unions did--it increased their political activism several fold. In the short run there was definitely a case that some spending was needed to stem off disaster, but balancing that against the long run is tough since it appears that we have created an equally problematic and now larger problem for another day.