(PHOTO CREDIT: Justin Sullivan/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As the White House convenes what it's calling a jobs summit, consider this:

Almost 16 million Americans are out of work, and one-third of them have been unemployed for more than six-months. There are currently six workers competing for every open job. The government releases the November jobs report tomorrow, with unemployment expected to remain at 10.2 percent.

The White House affair is a meeting with business leaders, academics and other experts to come up with ideas on creating jobs.

But Americans have their own ideas on how to get people back to work. A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows 18 percent of those surveyed suggest the best way is to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S instead of sending them overseas. 14-percent say lower taxes, 12-percent say more help for small businesses, and 10-percent say create more infrastructure work.

Other ideas include reducing government regulation, creating more green jobs, providing more stimulus money, and buying American or raising taxes on imports.

Meanwhile, there are some glimmers of good news:

The Labor Department reports that the number of first-time filers for unemployment fell last week to a near 15-month low.

Also an independent private job placement firm shows the pace of job losses slowing to the lowest level in two years.

But the fact is jobs are a trailing indicator and probably won't show any robust growth for awhile - despite other signs that the economy is in recovery. Also, many experts say a lot of the jobs that have been lost will simply never return.

Here’s my question to you: What can be done to create jobs?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Steve from Virginia writes:
The best start would be to restore law and order. Over 8 million jobs could be returned to law abiding citizens and immigrants by making e-Verify mandatory and mandatory cross-checking of the Social Security and IRS databases when employers hire. We could curtail in-sourcing of millions of jobs by requiring employers to prove they can't find qualified Americans before issuing visas. The next best step would be to restore the source of our previous prosperity- our manufacturing base and fair trade practices.

Cruz writes:
Tax all those patriotic souls that sent their jobs overseas and use the new revenue to invest in companies that keep their jobs here at home. I want to see labels everywhere that say “Made in America”.

Tom from Forest Hills, Pennsylvania writes:
Just one thought, Jack: How about a national bond fund that creates jobs to place electricity and cable lines underground and replace old water and sewage systems?

W. from Nebraska writes:
How about we quit spending money in pits like Iraq and Afghanistan and use it to rebuild our infrastructure? I read a story about a $70+ million water treatment plant in Iraq that is barely running because they don't know how to maintain it. As backwards as Iraq is, Afghanistan is ten times worse. Imagine the work that could be created here with the money we've wasted in Iraq and the money we will waste in Afghanistan.

Jasper writes:
The amount of people out of jobs is equal to the amount of people that are illegally in this country. It is a no-brainer.

Paul from Manchester, Vermont writes:
Jack, While I don't often agree with what you say, tonight it sounds like you are on my side. I own a company that employs, at very fair wages and benefits, 50+ Vermonters. The economy has taken a bite out of our business… The government should give all middle class (yes, and even upper class) folks more of their money back by lowering taxes. The more they have to spend, the more they spend and that translates into jobs. Putting money in at the top (by bailing out auto companies for example) does not create folks who can buy cars!

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Remember the argument against cracking down on illegal immigration that went: "Illegal aliens come here to do the jobs Americans won't do?" Well, guess what? Americans are doing them... and in greater numbers than ever before.

Day laborers wait in front of a Home Depot in Los Angeles.

USA Today reports that a growing number of American citizens are headed to street corners and parking lots of home improvement stores to find day-labor work - jobs usually done by illegal aliens.

A UCLA professor of urban planning says it's happening most often in areas where hot construction markets have collapsed - and there are lots of unemployed construction workers without stable work. He estimates that the proportion of American born day laborers has at least doubled in the last three years. Back in 2006, they made up seven percent of the day labor workforce.

Some of the places seeing an increase in U.S. citizens seeking day-labor jobs include Tucson, Arizona, Arlington, Virginia, and Los Angeles.

Experts say the day labor pool is becoming much more ethnically diverse. Whites, African-Americans and Mexican-Americans are all joining the ranks - competing for work painting, laying bricks or landscaping. And it's a trend that will only get worse once unemployment benefits run out and more people are laid off.

Nationally, the unemployment rate is 10.2 percent... and is expected to get worse before it improves. A recent report shows jobless rates increased in 29 states and the District of Columbia in October. Michigan leads the pack with over 15 percent unemployment, followed by Nevada, Rhode Island, California and South Carolina.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when a growing number of Americans are seeking day-labor jobs?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Karl writes:
Jack, Here in Silicon Valley there are a lot of laid-off geeks from IT and high-tech manufacturing out on the same corners. Manufacturing and support jobs have gone to countries with national health care that saves these companies 15 to 20 percent off the top and unless we wake up to that reality, the job migration isn’t over and certainly not reversing any time soon. Day laborer could become our largest work group.

Kelly writes:
It means we have successfully become a third world country! Hooray! The jobs will be re-imported to the good ol’ USA since we'll soon be willing to work for nothing!

Dick from Indiana writes:
Not very much. Let's do the math. The unemployment rate has doubled since 2006 and the number of Americans seeking day labor jobs has doubled. So, as a percent of unemployed, the situation hasn't changed very much if any at all. So I would say this is a very silly question and whoever thought it up should go join the day labor job seekers.

Dennis from Penndel, Pennsylvania writes:
Maybe finally the economy is doing what the government hasn't: stopping illegal immigration! If we Americans are taking the jobs that the illegals were taking then we can be better off! The only problem is most of those jobs are off the books so there is still a lack of tax revenue. At the very least, we have to be pleased that these people are trying to work.

Greg from Houston writes:
What are we supposed to do, Jack? I'm a 47-year-old well-educated man and have been unemployed since August of 2008. My unemployment runs out next month. My wife is still employed. We have a $1400 mortgage and kids in college and high school… We've cut everything there is to cut. I'm sitting here in front of the fireplace with the heat off. This is a national crisis and the politicians seem to be oblivious. If I have to dig ditches to care for my family I will, but at my age with my experience it is just not right for that to happen to me in a nation that is supposedly a leader in the world.

How will your Christmas spending be different this year? (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

With Black Friday right around the corner - retailers are hoping for a better Christmas shopping season than last year.

And there are some glimmers of hope:

One survey shows Black Friday shopping is expected to pick up more than 16 percent. The National Retail Federation says 57 million people say they'll definitely head to the stores this year - that's up from 49 million last year.

Some stores even plan to extend hours on Friday so people have more time to get in on the "door-buster" deals.

A new Gallup Poll shows consumer spending is up 11 percent from the prior week... Even more impressive is the comparison to the same week last year. Spending is down 7 percent–that's the smallest year-to-year decline so far in 2009.

That's something when you consider consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the U.S. economy.

There is also a big difference in how people say they plan to pay for their Christmas shopping this year. The same retail group reports an increase in the number of consumers who say they plan to use cash, debit or check cards. Credit card use is expected to drop by 10 percent.

The reasons include credit card companies reducing consumer’s credit lines and customers’ trying to lower their own debt as the recession drags on.

Here’s my question to you: How will your Christmas spending be different this year?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Shawn from Boston says:
Jack, My wife and I have already completed our Christmas shopping for the year. We have opted not to exchange presents with each other, instead focusing on our daughter. Even though we both have steady employment, with good salaries, we are taking a frugal approach. Many of the items we bought her were purchased on sale or even from e-Bay. You can't be too careful anymore.

James from Seattle says:
Jack, I'm done shopping and paid cash for everything. I also spent 1/4th what I did last year because everyone in my family is hurting and we all agreed; better to spend time together with minimal gifts, than get into debt over things we don't need.

Silas from Boston says:
I'm only buying gifts from locally-owned retailers this year and the gifts will be smaller, more thoughtful. Why spend it in places like Wal-Mart or Target where the profits ultimately go to China? The best Christmas gift Americans can give to themselves is to start trading at local businesses, the TRUE heart of the American economy.

Kristin says:
My time is valuable and I'm not stupid enough to put up with the early hours, lack of merchandise and being jostled by rude, greedy people. We'll be doing most of our shopping online.

Bryant says:
I will no longer use a credit card since they raised their interest rate for no reason.

John from Arizona says:
My wife and I are Arizona state employees. We were both hit with 15 day furloughs last spring. The fear of that happening again will keep our wallets completely closed this season. Spending money just isn't the smart choice right now. Our holidays will be spent with family and friends, and not in stores. That actually sounds really good to me.

(PHOTO CREDIT: JIM WATSON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Americans are mad as hell... and they're keeping both big business and government in the crosshairs. The Wall Street Journal reports that historically the public focuses its anger on either one institution or the other - but not this time.

On the one hand, people are frustrated with the Wall Street failures that led to this financial mess; and they're outraged at ongoing situations like bonus payouts at AIG. But Americans also see too much involvement by Congress and the federal government - accusing the administration of "socialism" and a "takeover" of the economy.

What's interesting here is some don't see government and business as opposing forces, rather they see "a unified elite pursuing one big swindle." For example - the government using hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to bail out banks and automakers.

This anger at both government and business is making it difficult for either Democrats or Republicans to connect with voters. A founder of one "tea party" group says the greatest movement within the tea party is "None of the above," a belief that lawmakers in both political parties aren't cutting it and need to be removed. People really do get it. The question I keep coming back to is: Why do we continue to re-elect incumbents?

Democrats say once their agenda is in place - it will prove they can solve problems and people won't distrust government as much. Talk is cheap. So far the Democrats don't have a lot to show for their control of the executive and legislative branches of government.

Here’s my question to you: At this point, do you have more faith in government or big business?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Brett from Hamilton, Ohio writes:
I have faith in the free market. Big business exists as a direct result of big government.

L.E. from Westminster, Ohio writes:
They act like the same thing – scratching each other’s backs while the rest of us break ours. Neither has any trust left, AIG case in point.

Sierra from Dallas writes:
I trust government to do what is best for business and I trust that business will do what is best for their profit lines. I also trust that neither will do what is right or what is best for We The People of the United States.

Bob from Stillwater, Oklahoma writes:
Government. After all, we are the government. We elect the people who represent us. True, they don't always do what we might like, but we have the option of voting them out.

Jim writes:
They have both had huge failures but government fails more often. I will take my chances with business.

Terry from Florida writes:
Americans rose up and took out the British government and high taxes in 1776. Americans need to do the same thing today.

Jim from Chicago writes:
I have total faith that big business will do what's in their best interest, not mine. With government, depending who's in control, at least I figure I have some chance. Part of something is better than all of nothing.

Jack from Wisconsin writes:
Are they not the same?

Darrick from Cincinnati writes:
The little remaining faith I have is reserved for you and Wolf! Don't blow it please because I probably won't be able to cope!

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

I don't suppose this will come as a huge surprise: Money is the biggest source of stress in most countries. A Reader's Digest survey asked people from 16 countries "What stresses you the most?"… and gave the options of money, family, health or the state of the world.

Money topped the list in 10 of these countries... not surprising since we've been going through the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression.

The nations that worry the most about money include Malaysia, China, Singapore and the U.S. The countries who care the least about money are Russia, France and Italy. In these three countries people were more worried about their family.

This poll finds the second biggest source of stress is the state of the world. People in most nations, with the exception of Italy, aren't too stressed about their health. But in Italy, health was the top issue for men - number two for women.

The poll results also show that men and women often worry about different things.

A senior editor with Reader's Digest says it's not surprising that people in a lot of these countries agree that money is their biggest worry. She says: "We have more in common across national borders than we might realize."

Here’s my question to you: What's your biggest cause of stress and why?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Arlene from Atlanta writes:
Jack, My constant worry is the possibility of losing my job. Many companies are still sending jobs offshore. There's no media attention but it's still happening every day.

Rue from Los Angeles writes:
Jack, I am certainly more concerned with the state of the world than I am about my own personal net worth, but mostly the "world" being primarily US-based politics. Every decade, regardless of which political party is in power, Americans’ taxes go up. Since the creation of the IRS and the Federal Reserve (neither federal, nor any kind of reserve) in 1913, tax rates have gone up and continue to go up. At some point, it has to stop and the government needs to rein in spending, or eventually my children will be slaves.

James writes:
My greatest concern is being homeless. I am in commercial construction, which has been hit hard and I’ve been short on work for several years now. When this mess began, I had close to $80k in savings, but with rent, taxes, and all costs in general rising, I am close to the end. I am 55 and finding other employment is impossible.

Hugh writes:
Managing type 1 diabetes for a 6-year-old. It's a lot more complicated than "just give her insulin." First, how much insulin and when? The formulas don't always work correctly. Exercise is a wild card (but important). Sometimes I have to leave work at a minute's notice. (Glad my boss understands). Sometimes I'm up middle of the night because the medical equipment failed. It goes on and on.

George from New York writes:
My biggest concern is the scarcity of reasons for hope. It’s not that I see the glass half-empty but the fact that I just haven’t received any piece of good news in such a long time.

Bob writes:
I have no job, twins in college, and my nation's Congress is awash in corporate cash so I won't be getting a check-up anytime soon. So of course I'm worried: will Brad and Angelina break up?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

More good news from our government. Friday the White House said deficits would climb to $9 trillion over the next ten years bringing the total national debt to $20 trillion a decade from now.

The government also announced Social Security recipients will get no cost of living adjustments during the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were put into place in 1975. We can find hundreds of billions of dollars for AIG and Wall Street, but we can't give our senior citizens a small cost of living increase in their social security. When does the revolution start?

We're in the midst of a recession not seen since the great depression. Millions of Americans are out of work, unemployment has soared to 9.4 percent. Millions of good paying jobs have been have been shipped overseas never to return. And the manufacturing base that was once the engine of our economy is on life support. We simply don't make "things" anymore.

We are in debt up to our eyeballs to China and other foreign countries as we increasingly look to them to finance out deficit spending. And through it all have you noticed? There's no talk in Washington of cutting expenses or reducing the size of government.

There are unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars for Medicare and Social Security; and no plan for how to pay for health care reform. Add in the drain of millions of illegal aliens and the fact that many states are bankrupt. We're in serious trouble here.

Here’s my question to you: How is the American dream changing?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Simon from Orlando, Florida writes:
Very simply, we are losing our freedoms. A quote by Thomas Jefferson, "A Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who are not." The government is coming down harder on the individual achievers that energize the democracy. The idea of rewarding ability is being replaced by the government's concept of "fairness."

J writes:
The corruption of our democratic government, Republican and Democrat, is deep and renders us unable to effectively address the major problems that confront us. Until we have real reform that deals with the power of corporations to buy off our political "leaders", I fear that the American dream will turn more and more into a nightmare. The founding fathers would be ashamed of what has transpired.

Stacy writes:
My husband and I recently have turned 50. There was a time when we both believed that if we delayed gratification, got an education, and were prepared to work hard we could expect to enjoy a small, comfortable life. Instead, we are struggling to: a) support aging family members who have long outlived their retirement incomes; b) continue to fund college age children for whom a bachelor's degree no longer will even get them employment; and c) watch our own retirement disappear while Wall Street gets bailed out over and over. Good thing we really love each other, because that is, apparently, all we have.

Graham from St. Joseph, Missouri writes:
It is changing from the credit-based, assumed "right" it has been for the last decade, back into the savings-based, hard-earned "privilege" it rightfully should be. It is also going to be more difficult to attain than ever before, and there are going to be a lot of Americans who will soon realize that their chances of getting it are just that: A dream.

JM from South Brunswick, New Jersey writes:
The U.S. is gradually receding from a superpower, first world status, and morphing gradually to second (formerly Eastern Europe) or third world status. Eventually the dollar will lose most of its value. Europe, in concert with Russia, and China (with its Asian neighbors) will become the power players internationally. People will still have some quality of life, and successes, but it will take place against that back drop.

David from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma writes:
The best thing to come out of the economic meltdown is a reality check. Buying homes we couldn't afford, running up credit cards like there was no tomorrow. That was an insane way to pursue the dream. So the balloon has burst, and yet this is a golden opportunity for a great reset. The American dream is still alive and well, but perhaps now there will be a dose of realism and common sense. Now people might learn to live within their means.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The percentage of Americans who say economic concerns are the nation's top problem is decreasing... while the number worried about health care is on the rise.

A new Gallup poll shows 60-percent of those surveyed cite an economic issue - like unemployment, the deficit or the economy in general - as the nation's most serious concern. That's down from 69-percent last month. The current mood is the same as what it was in September of last year - before the bankruptcies and bailouts started.

And - as the debate over health care rages on, 25-percent of Americans now say that is the country's most important problem... that number is up from 16-percent just a month ago.

Gallup says this spike in interest is similar to what it recorded when President Clinton had tried health care reform in the early 90s.

Meanwhile - Although polls suggest more Americans think the economy is improving, many experts are saying: "Not so fast... "

Economists warn that the recovery will be weak compared to periods that followed other recessions. In fact, investors' fears over consumer spending and a decline in consumer confidence sent the markets down by the largest amount in six weeks today.

And, as our lawmakers in Washington try to figure out how to pay for a health care overhaul with a potential $1 trillion price tag - it's worth pointing out that the two issues of health care and the economy are very much intertwined.

Here’s my question to you: Which concerns you more: health care or the economy?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Jeff from Marietta, Georgia writes:
Jack, It’s hard to separate the two. Health care reform will help to energize the economy. If people have more money to spend because they aren't worrying about thousands of dollars in payments to health insurance "providers" – that'll be a great stimulus plan. While it might not completely fix the economy, it's at least a good step forward.

Ryan writes:
The economy can thrive without public health care, but without money, how can there be health care? Hospitals, drugs, and doctors are expensive, and cannot be sustained without funds. Although I am in full support of public health care, I think it's undeniable that without a good economy, public medical services would be near impossible.

Dan writes:
With the deficit at record levels, it should be the main concern for everyone. Adding health care will just increase that deficit (I know, the Democrats are claiming they'll come up with a deficit-neutral plan, but no one should believe that). Let's try and fix our current upside-down spending policies that have only gotten worse under Pres. Obama. Then we can have a serious debate about adding to the spending.

A.C. from Los Angeles writes:
Health care is more important to me because the working poor, millions of them, are being locked out of the system – and it has become a disgrace. We have got to get health care costs under control in order to help our economic recovery.

Rosalynd from Orlando, Florida writes:
Both! Health care reform is as much an issue of economic recovery as jobs and other economic elements. Out-of-pocket costs for co-pays and insurance premiums have increased, so that affects one's bottom line just like food, gasoline, and utilities. If you lose a job today, the benefits go with it, and very few Americans can afford the high cost of a Cobra health plan.

Lori writes:
The economy is making me sick. Wait, I can't get sick – I don't have any health care.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Almost every state in the nation is hurting financially. More unemployed people along with cuts in consumer spending mean states are collecting a lot less in taxes - and that means bigger and bigger budget shortfalls.

Protesters demonstrate against cuts to social services that aid people with disabilities and the poor at the home of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Financial Times reports one estimate shows tax collections dropped by almost 12 percent during the first quarter of this year... with 45 of 50 states reporting declines. Early numbers for April and May are even worse - showing declines in tax revenue of almost 20 percent.

Some are also questioning how effective the federal stimulus package has been - if states are spending billions of these stimulus dollars and still can't close budget shortfalls. There are only two choices when it comes to this: either raise taxes or cut expenses.

Many states have made cuts to school districts, health care, programs for the disabled, the prison system and state employees... California has even been issuing IOUs for things like welfare checks.

The bad news is this may not be a temporary situation. These cuts to state budgets may be the new reality going forward... Almost two-thirds of states are projecting budget gaps for 2011... and at least 15 states already foresee gaps as far out as 2012 - when the federal stimulus money will have dried up.

Here’s my question to you: What government services are you willing to see reduced or eliminated?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Ira writes:
The way to cut spending is to cut the budget for each federal department by a minimum of 10-percent. Every cabinet department needs to bear the burden of that cut. Start by cutting the staff at each agency, including Congressional, Judicial and Executive offices. Cut, cut, cut. The general population has to tighten its belt, so should the federal government.

Remo in Pflugerville, Texas writes:
Jack, Do we need to light up every inch of street, road, and highway? Do we need to cut grass along the highway as well? In my little town, do they really need to collect trash twice a week? Do they need to mow the grass in the park when we are in "extreme drought conditions"? Can't a little common sense be used instead of service overkill?

Karen writes:
Social programs for illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't make sense to me.

Carl in Aurora, Illinois writes:
I would like to see the elimination of farm subsidies and corporate welfare before we start taking services away from those existing on the bottom rung of the ladder.

AC writes:
How about cutting back on mail delivery from six days a week to three? I could do just fine with mail on Mon/Weds/Fri or Tues/Thurs/Sat.

Robert writes:
How about canceling a war or two? There's a service I'd be willing to cut back on – should free up a few hundred billion to give to the states.

J. writes:
Start with the House and Senate. Then work your way out from there.

Nuria writes:
How about the IRS, can we get rid of that?

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

No doubt, tough economic times call for tough decisions and some thinking outside the box.

So in an effort to relieve budget woes, the Governor of Illinois is proposing the early release of up to 10,000 prisoners. The move would reportedly save taxpayers $125 million a year and result in layoffs for 1,000 corrections employees.

It would also put thousands of convicts on the streets. But have no fear, officials say it would only be those deemed by the state as non-threatening, who have less than a year left to serve.

Critics say it's just a scheme by the Governor to scare people into supporting an increase in income tax. But Illinois isn't the only state to consider such a move. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made a similar proposal in California to save that state $180 million by releasing undocumented inmates, among others.

In the past, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Kentucky have considered such plans too, and Mississippi is actually doing it.

Critics argue that public safety isn't the place to slash the budget. Then there is also the issue of whether or not a Governor has the authority to release thousands of inmates whose sentences were imposed by a judge after they were convicted in a court of law.

Here’s my question to you: Is releasing prisoners early a good way for states to save money?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Tom from Dubuque, Iowa writes:
Jack, it may be a good way to save money short term, but long term not a good idea. If they are thinking about the non violent offender, then fine, ask the people of North and South Carolina given the events of last week. Five people dead because a career criminal was released before he should have been. How's that for saving money?

Ryan from Connecticut writes:
Absolutely not, they already have it too good. Some may argue they have it better then some Americans: 3 meals prepared for them everyday, great health care, cable TV, internet, state of the art gyms, and free education. If you want to save money, take all those privileges away. I mean, it is prison.

David from San Diego, California writes:
There are low-risk, non-violent prisoners who should never have been imprisoned in the first place. If it takes a financial crisis to reduce the unfairness in drug-offense sentencing, etc. then it hasn't been all bad.

C. from Birmingham, Alabama writes:
No. Releasing convicted felons will cost the states money when they commit crimes again and they must be put through the justice system again and tried again. The rate of recidivism is far too high to even entertain this option.

Jay writes:
Is this the same Illinois state government that had dozens of innocent people on Death Row, was too incompetent to figure out they were not guilty, and looked dumb when some students did some research and exonerated these men and saved their lives? These are the same folks we are to trust to determine which prisoners are 'safe' to release to save a few bucks? I wonder how many rapists and child molesters will ‘slip through the cracks’, as the spin doctors will inevitably say when some guy they release kills someone.

Mack from Michigan writes:
No it's not a good way for the states to save money, but it's a great way for the states to justify stuffing another tax hike down our throats. What better public relations could there be for hiking taxes than turning felons loose on the streets or cutting off medical care for poor children? This is government arm twisting at its worst!

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

At some point it will become President Obama and the Democrats' recession, not George W. Bush's. If the economy doesn't start to show signs of picking up, Democrats could feel the voters' anger in next year's mid-term elections.

President Obama is traveling a path not unlike the one President Ronald Reagan once traveled and, as my colleague Christine Romans points out, the Democrats could learn something from President Reagan's experience. Both Presidents were wildly popular early on, but unemployment was rising.

In the 1982 elections Reagan's Republican Party lost 26 seats and experts say the scale was tipped when unemployment hit 10-percent. President Obama currently faces a 9.5-percent unemployment rate and now says 10-percent is likely before the year is over. Renowned investor Warren Buffet said this morning on Good Morning America that unemployment could hit 11-percent.

It seems everyone knows someone who has lost their job. While the Obama Administration is busy pointing the finger at Bush, those unemployed Americans who can't find a job will likely be tempted to take it out on whoever is in power when they vote next fall. What remains to be seen is if voters are ready to start returning Republicans to power so soon after the Bush Administration.

Here’s my question to you: Will the voters blame the Democrats for our economic problems in next year's election?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Bob from Kansas writes:
Yes. While I am a Democrat, I will surely blame my Party and my President if they do not utilize this political opportunity that has been given to them by the many populist voters in this past election. Many voters believe that there is really no difference between Democrats and Republicans. The current Democrats are proving the truth of such a generalization.

Willow from Iowa writes:
If things don't start to change, we could be calling my town, Hooverville. Of course, he'll be blamed if things don't improve. That's why we elected him. Unemployment is slowly dropping in Iowa, I read in the paper yesterday. June was much lower than January. So there's hope.

S. from in Palm Bay, Florida writes:
It depends on what happens the month, the week, the day before the vote. I'm patiently awaiting the Democrats passing health care reform of some sort. If they do not succeed, I see trouble for them in 2010.

Jose from McAllen, Texas writes:
Let's not forget that in 2010, the Democrats will have been in power for 4 years. They hold the majority in Congress and it's time they start taking some responsibility for their actions and bad decisions. How long can they keep blaming President Bush for all of their bone-headed ideas and drunken spending? Also, there aren't enough Republicans in Congress to block any piece of bad legislation the Democrats want to ram down our throats.

Mark from Arkansas writes:
By 2010, the era of "George" will be forgotten. Even if the recession starts a recovery, the negative affects will be here a long time. Yes, a lot of the mud will fall on Democrats, because the ones in power are always to blame. It's always been that way.

Andy writes:
Unless the President or Vice President go Republican and have affairs with women, the Democratic Party is in good shape. Americans are much smarter than the Party leadership would ever believe. The only reason the Republican Party still exists is that no one wants a one Party system. We had that during the last administration.