It takes some big men to make the least among us carry the heaviest burden, when all things are factored, in supposedly the "greatest nation on earth."

Or all the people already working full time and still need help staying fed. Sh*t food stamps is covering for the rampant 30 year rise in income disparity R&R love so much...it's a f8ckin' corporate handout subsidy to all the employers who don't pay their people enough to feed their families.

The problem is that Dems won't define the debate where it needs to be. Obama will make every attempt to show how reasonable he is, how much he is for all the people, and he and the Dems will work for a middle ground that isn't defined by where most of us think we should be, but by where the Republicans are.  Expect a lot of talk about how it isn't that we don't need to deal with the deficit, or fix entitlements or reform the tax code, it's that we don't need to do it in as extreme a fashion as Ronmey/Ryan want to.

This election will not be, as David Dayen says, about competing ideologies.  He says:

It's a choice between one distinct ideology, and a technocratic center which doesn't reflect the core belief of the party as it has been defined over the years. The part of the debate that believes Social Security needs to be adequate to provide in retirement and not cut from its already puny benefit - that will not get a hearing. The part of the debate that says that Medicare and Medicaid do a better job of controlling health costs than private insurance, and that they should be expanded and joined for a single-payer program, starting with allowing people to buy in to Medicare - that will not get a hearing. The part of the debate that says that in a time of mass unemployment, government must be the spender of last resort to increase aggregate demand and create jobs - that will not get a hearing. This great deception, that the pole of the debate represented by the Administration represents the rightward pole, will only facilitate a post-election move to cut safety net spending, as the "wise responsible middle course."

I don't think that the electoral outcome will give running room for policies to deal with mass unemployment - that seems like a rabbit out of the hat. It seems much more like it will give running room for the policies that would naturally arise out of a two-month debate where one side wants to end a substantial portion of the safety net, and the other side merely wants to cut it in the spirit of compromise as part of a grand bargain.

Because one of the two is going to happen.

Either we cut them now to or we wait for the investors to force our hand.

See Europe.  See California.

The liberal myth is the economy is ever going to grow enough to fund our welfare state.   Either we cut it now or we wait for the market to do it for us.

This election is a choice on which we would prefer.  Now or later.

Now, can anybody tell me how Obama is going to solve the problems?