What did we do to respond to this problem? We fixed the balance sheets of banks. Did this spurn them to lend? No. Who would they lend to and why in this climate? We've done jack nothing to fix consumer balance sheets. This retail season is going to suck. Commercial real estate is going to suck. Housing starts are down again. Today, Robert Reich points out the relationship between the stock rally and the continued rise in unemployment. Consumer balance sheets are getting worse, not better. That means that 70% of the economy is getting worse, not better.

If the Democratic party, with all of the power vested in them, either can't or won't do what's necessary to fix this, where does that leave us? Does the Democratic party, like the GOP, now exist primarily to serve a narrow band of corporate interests rather than the American people? If they do in fact still intend to serve the American people, where is the evidence of this?

Similarly, much of what has gone on the financial sector is technically legal, but I still regard much of it as criminal for the same reason.

Similarly, much of what has gone on the financial sector is technically legal, but I still much of it as criminal for the same reason.

I hope that you're wrong about the SCOTUS decisions. If we're really, truly stuck with corporate personhood and money-as-speech as is, is there any plausible way out of this mess or do we just put the pedal to the metal in a full-fledged race to the bottom? How many Presidential election cycles until we see a true billion dollar campaign? One? Two?

Also, though this is probably obvious, the richer, more technologically advanced nations will have a much easier time re-allocating investments toward the advent and implementation of alternative sources of energy. That isn't to say that there won't be discomfort, but that word will have radically different meaning in the U.S. than it will in places like India and China or, probably worst of all, Africa.

That is assuming that our ostensibly Democratic leadership has any sincere intention of doing something for working people instead of shoveling cash into Wall Street coffers.

The other mistake you make, which is also frequently repeated, is exemplified here:

Hocked to the ears and beyond to Dubai banks, China and Japan, the United States has it's butt blowing in the wind and survives at the pleasure of those creditors. If any of them choose to call the loans, or sell off the their dollar reserves, then what is a now dire situation in the United States may take on the hue of the "good old days."

China will not and cannot "choose to call the loans" as you say. China buys U.S. debt in the form of bonds. The bonds are standard contracts. China can sell these contracts, but there has to be a buyer in order to do this. They cannot simply call their money back.

A big Chinese sell-off of U.S. t-bills is highly unlikely. Why? Because China has a unique motivation in buying U.S. bonds. China is trying to grow its economy rapidly, but lacks the middle class that would support a healthy domestic market for Chinese products. As a result, they need someone to buy their products. That someone is us. China buys U.S. t-bills because it wants to keep the yuan low against the dollar, thus resulting in cheaper Chinese goods for U.S. consumers.

This is a classic mercantile approach, but it has consequences, chief among them being that China simply can't stop buying U.S. bonds without fundamentally altering this dynamic. If they did, the result would not be the collapse of the dollar. The dollar would drop relative to the yuan, but this in turn would cause a correction in our trade imbalance with China. That's a good thing for American workers.

I highly recommend checking out what economists like Paul Krugman and Dean Baker have to say on the matter.

I'm sorry to hear this story, but the answers to these problems lie elsewhere.