Sherri Said:

Commit to learning other languages, or go all out learning IT.?

We Answered:

Stick with the IT, in my opinion. You can 'tough out' the work week and learn languages on the side in your spare time, if you enjoy doing that. You will get paid more in IT than as a language person - and you admit that you don't have your languages mastered yet, but you do have the IT skills. Stay with what you know and your future is more stable - even if the job bores you to death.

Richard Said:

Cheney is Human Events "Conservative of the Year"!?

We Answered:

That should come as no surprise. I hear that a skunk and weasel fought it out for a close second.

Betty Said:

What is the most respected service branch within Fed Agencies?

We Answered:

USMC

If you can get a job in their Intelligence branch then that will look excellent when you apply to a law enforcement agency like CIA.

Also you should learn a foreign language if you would like to become an operations officer.

Ella Said:

When our economy ultimately goes bust, will you be happy just to work in one of Obama's forced labor gulags?

We Answered:

Arbeit Macht Frei!

Rick Said:

Are We in the Midst of a Global Economic Collapse Comparable to The Fall of the Roman Empire?

We Answered:

Nothing so mild.

At its "Fall" the Roman Empire just wasn't that important in the scheme of things. Yes, it dominated Europe and North Africa, but it smaller than both India and China, and its fall didn't affect those empires.
http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/other_books…
In economic terms, all of Europe was less than 1/7 the size of Asia:
http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/other_books…
Hence its fall wasn't even visible to most of the world's population.

If the modern global economy collapses, _everyone_ will be affected - a much more parlous state of affairs.

Now as to whether such a collapse is likely is a different question. It seems clear that the current recession is neither a major collapse on its own, nor will it lead to one. And most of the factors you cited (taxes, fall of the dollar, national debt, outsourcing, etc.) are either in the noise or completely irrelevant.

On the other hand, human society is already living well beyond the carrying capacity of the Earth:
http://dieoff.org/page110.htm
http://dieoff.org/page13.htm
and countries such as China and India continue to develop, the environmental deficit will continue to grow.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3834

When this happens to other species, you get a major die-off.
http://www.dieoff.org/page80.htm
This is one possibility for humans too, though one many consider low probability.
http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?o…
Another possibility is that we return to a Malthusian subsistence existence, with a much lower standard of living.

Even in the most optimistic scenario:

1. We will not have major new sources of cheap oil coming on-line in the next few decades just because, even if we find them, it takes decades to develop a new find.

2. Even if we start right now, we will not have major new sources of energy from alternative sources in the next few decades just because, again, it takes time to build at scale.

3. We have an economy that is based on cheap energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_inte…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity,…

So even ignoring anything else (global warming, scarcity of fresh water, soil degradation, etc.) and even we have all the technological advances one could possibly hope for, we can still expect a major change in the world economy and a major decrease in the standards of living.

And:

1. There is no reason to assume truly major technological developments in the field of energy production; we are not building alternative energy sources as fast as we can; all the new oil finds are even more expensive to extract than the earlier finds were so this "next few decades" is, more realistically, for quite a bit longer.

2. Even the most conservative estimates of the effects of climate change suggest that it will be a significant hit
http://greedgreengrains.blogspot.com/200…
which means we could be hitting the all that much sooner.

3. Recent political responses to the climate change and recession issues suggest that getting multi-national cooperation and coordination is not likely to happen.

So an economic collapse comparable to that of the Roman Empire? All too possible.

Jesus Said:

Should the federal government take the responsibility away from local government for spending money unwisely?

We Answered:

Federal highway money can’t be spent on other projects. The funds that are given to the state for interstate reconstruction are not subject to diversion by state and local authorities so your reasoning is incorrect. The Minnesota bridge was an interstate bridge and the federal government pays for the reconstruction and maintenance projects on such bridges.

Morris Said:

Why do they get a pass? The 110th congress has only 7 senators and 51 freshmen Representatives?

We Answered:

You're right. We don't have enough turnover in Congress. One of the problems is campaign finance reform. A better name for this might be the "Incumbent Protection Program."

When relatively unknown challengers are not allowed to raise money easily by tapping a few wealthy friends or a few more upper middle class friends, and must continually raise money in small amounts from a large number of supporters, only the famous or the wealthy (who are allowed to spend their own money) can get elected, and incumbents are automatically favored for re-election.

Go with the George Will campaign finance reform. You can donate as much as you want to any candidate, but you may only do so by check or credit card, (no cash allowed) and your donation must be posted on the campaign web site in at least three days after receipt.

I'd bet this would really shake things up.