Geeze McLiberal - make up your mind!

Greg thinks that Hoffa is sensitive about the third person thing.

Heh. St. Swithin also misses the third person from Hovde. St. Swithin is no longer amused. St. Swithin wonders where Bob Dole went.

Wonder no longer...

Third person is at least as annoying as first person plural (Scott Walker). ; )

If illeism continues for more than four hours please consult your physician.

Well I guess Eric Hovde didn't completely stray from the form. In the listing for this piece by Eric Hovde, Eric Hovde includes this subtitle: "Eric Hovde releases 8-point "Protecting the American Dream" plan."

I think I'll stay around, if only to correct your punctuation. ; )

Yeah Bren, this blog is only for racist, self-loathing putzs like Alfred.

Pres. Obama doesn't merely hate the preservation of our freedom, he is determined to eliminate it, piece by piece, and he is succeeding in doing so by administrative decree, even without the approval of Congress. One day he says he can't just change laws by decree, next he does it and says he did it because its the "right" thing to do. The timing proves his motive was to pander to a certain class of voters, so he can win in November.

@lolo peeg
How did our education system fail you?
Do you read or just watch TV?
Here's a video for your enjoyment:
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/naomi-kleins-alternative-history-of-present-day-capitalism/
This is based on a book, but not produced by the author, often on Sundance Channel.

What American Dream? and from who's viewpoint?
The American Dream has been eroding since the 1960's.
watch this: http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/naomi-kleins-alternative-history-of-present-day-capitalism/
Then get the book (same title) and Chris Hayes latest book. "Reading is Fundamental"

It's not Top Secret.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev3jS_fDFAc&feature=player_embedded#!

ya think if the patch was toting his plan... they would at least PUBLISH the written word! Not a fan of U-tube... sorry!

Eric Hovde is responsible for the content of Eric Hovde's columns on Patch. Patch only provides the space for Eric Hovde to address all things Eric Hovde.

Candidate Hovde is not answerable to the "American" public, just the citizens in Wisconsin. No secrets here! I am sure you can learn all you want about his candidacy and views.

Please say something to convince me that you are anything other than a tool for the health insurance industry and Big Money corporatists in general... Oh you mean like Obama .. Who the heck do you think wrote the Obama health care law .. The insurance companies Duh!!!! .. There has NOT been a free market in Amerika for at least 30 years ... this is crony capatilism on the verge of Fascisim

Hahaha .. Randy equates free market .. to FREE healthcare for people. Oh but i don't take care of myself and eat like a pig, you the taxpayer should be forced to pay my health care ..

@Johnny Blade...The vast majority of diseases are due to aging. That is why cardiovascular disease and cancer are the leading causes of death in the U.S. Granted that lifestyle diseases are on the rise, but that is a public health problem and are treated as such. Not all disease is based on personal responsibility issues such as you suggest, but on a combination of variables, including genetic disposition. Therefore, your statements are misleading and lend themselves to hyperbole.

No, Johnny Blade, Randy does not equate free market to free healthcare, because there is no such thing as free healthcare. We all pay for it one way or another in the form of taxes, increased costs of goods and services for employer-based health insurance, and higher costs of medical care when doctors and hospitals write off bad debt from those people who can't pay.

Do you, Johnny Blade, pay for your own medical care out of pocket? Do you pay the entire cost of your health insurance policy? How long could you afford to do that if you actually became ill, or when you get older as Lyle has pointed out? Few people who are not independently wealthy can do that.

And who wrote the Obama healthcare bill? The insurance companies, with the help of GOP opposition and some blue-dog Democrats. We needed single-payer or at the very least a public option, but that would have cost the health insurance companies a lot in lost profit.

Complete BS .. Why not give everyone a FREE House, i cant afford a house .. .. what are we gonna do with the people who can't afford a house when they get older ... Where in the Constitution does it say everyone deserves cost reduced healthcare ... It freakin doesn't ... And Cancer is more of a lifestyle diesease not aging .. Stop eating GMO foods, cheetos, soda and all the BS they peddle on you

So you big government statists feel the government should be able to force me to pay for everybodys healthcare .. you collectivists make me sick .. we need real change not more collectivism

Johnny, statistics indicate that the average person requires the most medical treatment in the last 6 months of life (due primarily to age and/or illness). Up until WWII people generally paid for their own health care; afterwards it became a perk offered by employers. When the health insurance industry realized that companies could pay more for insurance premiums than individuals could, prices began to rise (no surprise, the business of business is to make money). Because the elderly are the primary users of medical care, insurers found it more profitable to collect premiums until people needed expensive care, then drop them. Medicare was passed in the early 1960s to ensure that elders received proper care in their golden years.

Because the cost of healthcare was becoming unaffordable by the early 1990s, Bill Clinton tried to get the nation to talk about a national health care plan. It was shot down by special interests and their puppet legislators. Today, U.S. companies must compete on the global market with the added expense of health care premiums. (This might contribute to offshoring.) Millions of Americans cannot afford healthcare at all; millions more fall into debt and/or bankruptcy because of medical expenses not covered by insurance. I broke my leg in 2011. I pay $500+/month for insurance--wasn't covered because of the deductible.

This is precisely the result one would expect when a basic human need (health care) is managed by a for-profit industry.

Bren:

What do we do when the healthcare provider industry realizes that the government could pay more for medical care than than insurance companies could?

The providing of healthcare services is a business, and I read somewhere that the business of business is to make money...

@Bren -- The average person requires the most expensive healthcare in the last six months of life -- unless you lose the cancer lottery and manage to fight it off for several years. And who among us wouldn't try?

I'm hoping to get lucky and die quickly, but we don't get that choice. I don't want my survivors to be left penniless because the cost of a hospital stay has become so inflated. I'm counting on Medicare for that alone.

As with any well-intentioned program, Medicare is subject to some abuse. Over-use by some people (although this happens with younger people who have good insurance coverage too) and manipulation by opportunists. My mother was sold an electric wheelchair she didn't need 'just in case Medicare will no longer pay for medical equipment' when the time comes. The time is just about here, and she's stuck with a piece of obsolete equipment. I think we could save some money in the Medicare program if we got the sharks out of it.

Someone made a comment about cutting Congressmen's pay on Hovde's YouTube page. That's not such a bad idea. If their yearly salary (and that of the President) were capped at the median pay of the US worker, or better yet, minimum wage, we'd see some changed economic policies for sure.

He's got great hair, but when he opens his mouth he makes me embarrassed to be from Wisconsin. I suggest diction lessons. Seriously.

Great idea. We could tie all government sector employee wages to Joe Average. The mayor could make the median wage. The teacher's wages could be tied to the earning capacity of their students. And with minimum wage raised to $174K/year, we all could make as much as Congress. It sounds like a plan, but we may need to iron out a few kinks.

@ randy, You sure are a pleasant dude. Perfectly willing to make a raunchy comment about someone you don't know, and hide behind the anonymity here.

In other words: rewrite history(esp."precious metal standard) ?

Not going to happen.
And Eric will never ascend to government worker. He lacks the Public Servant image, definitely comes across as high-minded elitist.
He made it big, so he deserves more consideration - uh.... no!

That's the problem with these 'businessmen' candidates. They don't quite comprehend that the government can't be run like a business. The non-productive -- disabled, elderly, poor, unemployed -- are citizens who must have representation too, and they can't simply be downsized and cut loose.

Running a government like a government for the past years hasn't really put us in the best situation. There comes a point when you have to run your finances like a business or you are in very deep trouble. You expect the businesses to provide you with revenue but in exchange you can not manage it correctly, or even pass a budget.

Like it or not the rules of money apply to both principles and we the people are expected to manage it correctly.

Right, Randy, . Because the lawyers are doing a bang-up job of things.

I've noticed that, despite the generalization, nobody on the left seems to have too much of a problem with Herb Kohl. He's not exactly the sharpest tack in the box, is in the process of utilizing his political connections to benefit his post-political career focus and doesn't possess a toolbox of skills beyond that of the others you have a problem with.

The real issue isn't that Hovde's a businessman. He's just a lot less likely to support smoothing out the bumps on the road of life to the degree that someone like Tammy Baldwin will, cost to do so be damned.

@Steve -- I prefer the family model to the business model. You have to live within your means, but you don't toss grandma out in the street or let your disabled toddler go without medical treatment just so Dad, the breadwinner, can work fewer hours or afford a membership at a health club.

@Bob McBride -- If corporations and their stockholders are going to increase their profits by laying people off and by paying them less, then they damn well can pony up some taxes to help those people out.

TJ, you're correct about DC being an entirely different world (I have lived in the metro DC/northern VA area). I believe quite a few freshman congressmen/women show up with big goals about cutting spending, then learn about all of the wonderful DC perks for U.S. representatives. These represent top-tier chop opportunities, but somehow these never get touched. Anyone dense enough to go after the perks will find themselves on the outs with all of the representatives who like them.

The Tea/GOP'rs naively believe they are going to clean up Dodge when they land in town; that they know somehow know things that the old buzzards do not. No one cares to be treated as if they are unintelligent, that does not go over well. Everyone knows everyone else in DC, the place is awash with rumor and has a taste for gossip ("If you don't have something nice to say about someone, come sit next to me.") The sad fact is, the buzzards are very happy with the status quo.

Ron Johnson went into office with no idea of how things work. The rumors are that he is abusive to staff and that other Republican staffers were working to get his staff out of there and somewhere else. The embarrassing rumor that he was about to fire his entire staff surfaced and he had to play damage control.

Our government more closely resembles a nonprofit service agency as it is intended to serve its members/constituents, not profiteer. The for-profit mindset is too narrow for the job.

Every business that I have run has both assets and liabilities. Keeping the ratio correct is the clue to success. Contrary to the left's policies, this country can not run with just liabilities.

@Bob McBride -- If corporations and their stockholders are going to increase their profits by laying people off and by paying them less, then they damn well can pony up some taxes to help those people out.

****************

And who, ultimately, do you think ends up paying the taxes when corporations have theirs increased, Randy? Are you gambling that it's unlikely to be you? Don't be so sure.

I realize that, for you, this is all about shifting costs away from you and onto just about anyone but you (re: your support of the ACH and desire to shift the cost of schools from your property taxes to someone else's incomes taxes), but in the long run it's still going to come back to bite you you-know-where - if we don't do something about containing costs at the point of origin.

@McBride -- When some entities have their taxes lowered, other taxpayers end up paying more. I agree with fiscal responsibility, but your side always wants to make the cuts on social spending and leave the military alone. Why? Because military spending is profitable.

I'm fine with cutting the military spending. Your side wants to cut only that, apply the savings to more government programs, and cost shift the rest onto folks other than yourselves.

Did you not come out in favor of shifting the cost for schools from property taxes to income taxes? How does dilution of the source of funding encourage those voting on expenditures to look at things from a cost effective basis? Or do you just not care, as long as the burden is lifted off of your back?

You still have yet to explain how businessman Herb Kohl is anymore knowledgeable or forthright than Hovde or Johnson - other than having gleaned a limited amount of information from being in the office for as long as he has. Did you vote for Herb last time around?

@Bob McBride -- I'm in favor of shifting the school funding back to where it was before it was shifted onto property taxes from income taxes. That seems fair enough. Other than that, yes, they should think about spending less money on frills and actually teaching the kids to read.

I'm definitely willing to take a look at fraud and overspending within the social programs, because it does exist.

But at the very least, you don't see me making money like Diane Hendricks and whining about how much I have to pay.

Once again, Randy, once you remove the incentive to spend less, how do you expect to cause that to occur? As it stands now, we have people voting for ridiculous expansions that, if they had more skin in the game, they'd be unlikely to approve. Not only do I think property tax should remain the source for school expenditures, I'd like to see additional fees charged to those who actually have kids in the schools and assure than any increases related to expenditures be proportionally tacked on to those fees as well.

It's all well and good to say you're for more efficient and effective schooling, but it stops there unless there's a distinct penalty for not actually doing something about it.

As for Diane Hendricks, who honestly cares? Playing on envy so that folks like you support "stick it to them" taxing that, ultimately, ends up costing all of us more does nothing to address the cost issues.

Once again, I'd suggest you attend some of your local board meetings just to see what I've seen there. Maybe if it started hitting a few more people where it really hurts, the du***ss, costly, inefficient decision making would at least be slowed a bit, if not eliminated.

Greg, a nonprofit organization also has assets and liabilities; I believe the fundamental difference is primarily in revenue sources (earned + contributed). Tax revenue funds government. Like a nonprofit it provides services and material goods.

In the nonprofit model, programs are cut when insufficient revenue (contracts, donations, etc.) is received. The conundrum in our government funding issue is that taxpayers provide the revenue that provides services for taxpayers, the importance of which have been predetermined.

The obvious, practical solutions to our problems include 1) Understand why Grover Norquist et al "feel" that, for the first time in U.S. history, direct tax increases must end (I write "feel" because this is not a society-advancing position in my view) 2) Prioritize client needs. (Ex. Economic/national security). 3. Re-imagine taxation as an incentive for corporate citizens to remain U.S.-focused. There is a happy medium between generating profit and keeping the U.S. economy strong. With a little less greed in the mix, that middle ground will be achieved.

There will always be people who don't get the "big picture." Instead of pandering to the political and social fringe (below and above the curve), we need to focus on what's best for the center (working and middle class families), and the rest will follow.

Undoubtedly the special interest groups will have some thoughts on this...

@Bren -

So, the only way you see us advancing as a society is if we continue to grow the size and scope of government, while decreasing individual freedoms and liberties?

Isn't that the exact opposite of the principles upon which this nation was founded?

Mr. Hoffa, how on earth did you derive that idea from my comments? My post was all about reviewing and re-engineering our existing tools. George W. Bush hired more federal employees than any president since Eisenhower. Despite this, Homeland Security is still not what it could/should be. This department also needs to be reviewed/improved.

The problem isn't that government is "too big." We are self-governing, after all. It's that special interests and their puppet legislators interfere in its efficient operation. Stop the earmarks and the ludicrous subsidies (Ex. oil). Voters need to remove corrupted legislators. But as long as there are pockets to be lined, government corruption will continue. All one can really hope for is to dial it back.

@ randy. OK, but the way your party is running the government is flushing the entire nation down the tube. We need to change how the government is run, and get it out of our hair and off our backs.

@lo lo peeg...You seem obsessed with government interference in your life. What is it specifically that government is preventing you from doing?

That's on sorry attempt at reaching voters. :)
@randy1949 - I like the "frills" in education and the property tax paying for 'public' education. We are a society of competition.
I lived in a good school district despite the extra housing expense for my children's sake. It turned out well for my parenting goals.
I must remind people over and over, as we grow old, the level and quality of the younger generations education will effect the quality of care in our old age.
Think future, not immediate outcomes.
We have lost so much, now save the future of America please.
Voters are so less educated today (en mass) that our generation can only focus on the next.
Hoping............

@Mrs. R -- Don't you think that taxation should bear some relationship to a person's ability to pay? Property taxes can hit seniors and farmers unfairly. Do children living in areas of low property valuation deserve less of an education? No, that's why we had federal and state aids to education to even the playing field somewhat.

I'm puzzled as to how I managed to become literate in an era when the property taxes were so much more reasonable. I haven't changed districts either.

@Randy
I don't think I am in your district.
That said, I watched others choose for immediate gratification: new clothes, cars, vacations, hair care, make-up, lots of extras.
I did the opposite. We had a nice sized city garden and I sewed clothes. I wasn't even raised that way. I had an education that included 'creativity' (a frill?).
I wanted my children to have better than I, and they had better and different.
The elderly do pay forward (early on) , so maybe we'd be (oh well) making a new tax law to give them a break.
However, the elderly I knew planned ahead, down-sized and had saved in a safer saving environment.
So, you are saying the Federal gov. education program should be upheld, reinforced and not fleeced by the present sitting governors?

@Mrs. R -- I'm saying two things. Our Governor should not collect our money and 'balance the budget' by keeping more of it and leaving it to the local level to make up. And we should take a very hard look at why we are spending so much more per pupil and getting an inferior result in reading ability, math and science.

My primary and secondary education contained 'frills' like music and art classes, but they happened in older buildings. The tax levy at the time did not cost an arm and a leg.

@Randy1949 -

"Our Governor should not collect our money and 'balance the budget' by keeping more of it and leaving it to the local level to make up."

Umm… in case you didn't realize it, the reason we're having to do that now is primarily because of the debt that prior Governors Thompson, McCallum, and especially Doyle accrued for us. Don't blame Walker for doing the responsible thing, instead, blame those who were spending more than they were taking in that left us with this mess.

Or do you want to just keep making things worse for wage earners by increasing their taxes, while continuing to kick the can down the road for our children to deal with, just so long as it doesn't affect you in an adverse way? That must be what you want, as after all, you supported Barrett, and that's exactly what he continues to do in Milwaukee - raise income taxes and borrow even more money that our children will eventually have to pay off.

So, what exactly is your issue with wanting to raise taxes on our current wage earning taxpayers, who are already the 7th most heavily taxed in the country, and our future generations, that you want to saddle them with even more debt, just so your personal tax burden doesn't go up?

That's kind of selfish, isn't it?

Yes, Hoffa, it is kind of selfish. You Republicans are finally beginning to convert me.

@Randy1949 -

Please, don't call me a Republican - I'm an independent conservative Vulcan (courtesy of Greg).

Pardon me -- you conservatives.

Well then Lyle, it looks like Lawyers,Business People and Community Organizers all fail at government;anyone else out there and available.

@Jay Sykes...Why take my statement to extremes. What I am trying to say is that certain perspectives do not make the best people to govern.

I know more businessmen that know how government works, than politicians that know how business works.

@Greg....What is so significant about whether a businessman knows how government works or not? Equally, why is it so important for a politician to know how business works? Two different things altogether requiring different skills. For one thing, business is not a democracy whereas our political system is a representative democracy. Business is based on profit, government is not; it is based on effective and efficient service delivery. Finally, just because you know how something works doesn't mean you're fit to govern.

"Politicians immediately begin talking about “sharing the pain” and cutting benefits. That is wrong! We should defend the benefits and cut the costs of the
programs in overhead, administration, duplication of efforts and wastes. That is the businessman’s approach to stop the bleeding in a program going bankrupt. Now is the time to let business owner’s show what we can do with government."
This may be the road to effective and efficient service delivery. The politicians have not been doing a very good job.

@Greg...Business has bled this country dry, shipped jobs overseas, created the real estate bubble, created the Dot Com bubble, etc.; and we should trust business to lead us out of the mess they created. Business can't be trusted and they only know how to operate in an environment where it requires operating within a structure absent of democratic principles. Business is used to singularity of utilitarian purpose focused through an oligarchical structure. One characteristic of a dictatorship and oligarchy is that they are very efficient and effective, but it means giving up personal and communal rights.

Lyle, lawyers, scientists and engineers created the situation by which the exodus of jobs from this country was accelerated (Clinton - NAFTA and favored nation status for China - the internet, the tech boom) and American consumers specifically rewarded those businesses that achieved lower pricing by taking advantage of the situation.

Picking out one element of the mix and declaring that those involved in it are incapable of being involved in governance because they're to blame for where we find ourselves today is simplistic thinking at best. You can do better than that.

@Bob McBride...Agreed that I was very simplistic in my comment. However, scientists and engineers are directly responsible for the offshoring. They provide the techology but it is business interests that take that technology and manufacture something. I hold the consumer equally responsible for buying into a market based on cheap goods. Those of you who supported supply side economics and trickle down were the ones pushing for free trade agreements. These were all business motivated decisions and look where we are now, paying the piper.

I don't think we can continue the model of governance that business proposes and people who want to put their trust in business leaders are playing the fool.

Lyle, the free trade agreements were signed off on by a president your side put in office and supported through an impeachment proceeding. Currently, the president your side is supporting has given you this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D169383

Your side, the side of the 99%, the side that rails about corporatism and influence and supply side economics and on and on and on can't seem to keep from making the situation worse itself. The only difference seems to be that with the Republicans, they're pretty straightforward with what they're going to do, while the Democrats tell you one thing to get your vote and then turn around and do precisely the opposite behind your back.

The net results are what count, Lyle. Not whether or not a candidate comes from the business community, the rarified air of academia or the practice of law. You don't have to look very far or think very hard to see that.

Hold your own accountable first. The Eric Hovde's of the world will take care of themselves, courtesy of the glare of 24/7 media attention and the ubiquitous camera phone.

"Business is used to singularity of utilitarian purpose focused through an oligarchical structure."
Talk about a periphery tug.

@Bob McBride...Make no mistake; I was never a supporter of Bill Clinton, NAFTA, and the termination of AFDC. My first meeting with him in 1990 convinced me that he was a corrupted personality. That aside, our national history has proven that over the last forty years that business has gotten the "bit in their teeth" and have been running without anyway to successfully stop. You and I lived through the "rust belt" recession, then the Savings & Loan debacle, followed by the Dot Com bubble, and needless to say the real estate collapse. I honestly don't see how you can defend business's track record and think that leaders that come out of business hold the answers for taking us out of the mess that business friendly politicians and business leaders put us in.

" I honestly don't see how you can defend business's track record and think that leaders that come out of business hold the answers for taking us out of the mess that business friendly politicians and business leaders put us in."

*******************

That's not what I'm defending and not what I think. I'm saying making a blatant statement that people with a business background can't successfully govern or haven't the sensibility to operate in that environment is nothing more than the kind of simplistic categorization that results in nothing but endless nonsensical arguments.

I don't think that business is the be all and end all. I don't think that because one is successful in business they'll be able to govern effectively at a particular level. Substitute educator/lawyer/physician/NPO director/community organizer/career politician or any other designation in there and the statements are equally as true.

Suggesting that it's been the nebulous entity known as a whole as "business" that has caused us to end up where we are is not only simplistic, it's disingenuous and actually harmful when trying to arrive at a way of addressing many of the issues we're now dealing with.

Equality of opportunity - yes, but not equality of outcome.

@JRH...When we truly have equality of opportunity then I might agree with you.

Right now we don't have an opportunity society, but a society for opportunists.

@Alfred Kell...You are so brilliant and your comments are so profound. Thanks for sharing your insights.

Alfred, you mean like this guy that Walker appointed to be his economic development director in the waning days of his time as county executive? http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2010/oct/15/tom-barrett/tom-barrett-says-gubernatorial-rival-scott-walker-/

Yes Alfred Kell. We are much better off with fellows like Scott Walker, whose imposition of furlough on county staff was found to be illegal and is now costing Milwaukee County $ 4 million+ in restitution. That's on top of the $1 million+ that his illegal firing of county courthouse security guards cost (back pay plus $90,000+/month contract to a non-US private security firm-Wackenhut).

Perhaps you prefer ignorance and opportunism to be your guiding light; I do not.

It's a liberal circle jerk. It's all they have left after getting demolished in past elections.

I think he's truly nuts. But it's scary to think other's find him normal

@Steve...Why do you have to be so crude and vulgar?

He could have told people to get a thing-a-ma-jig for their furnace, but that would have sounded really stupid.

Sorry Lyle, but Steve hit the nail on the head on this one!

HuffPo is clearly liberal biased - I once had an account there, but they refused to post over 80% of the comments I made, ergo, I quit trying. Their comment boards are nothing but a complete joke - it's just a bunch of liberals congratulating themselves for being so much more intelligent than everyone else, who they view as being complete morons, much like the Daily Kos crowd. Legitimate news source, it definitely IS NOT!

Here's a beauty from the front page of their comment board on the Hovde story that is wholly representative of the sentiments of the mass that comment there, and exemplifies my point:

"How stupid are you required to be to run for the Senate in the embarrassing state of Wisconsin?"

Amazing how when liberals thought they could win the Wisconsin recall elections, we were the great progressive hope. But now that liberals lost that election, they see our state as an embarrassment - really?!?! Doesn't that make you and other Wisconsin lefties upset that your fellow national lefties now see you as being part of an embarrassment? Remind me again what side it is that's being divisive…

I rest our case!

As I have written before, Steve claims to be a "job creator" and I suggest that he must be an "interesting" sort of boss. He's mentioned this type of activity more than once...

cool story bro

@JRH -- I can't imagine why most of your posts failed to pass moderation at HuffPo. ;)

Yes, HuffPo is the left-leaning version of Patch -- people behaving crudely, for the most part.. There are a few who keep it aboveboard.

I will confess that when even Jon Stewart made us the object of ridicule on June 6, I felt as if I'd learned the lesson to not even try to right things I saw going wrong. The Democratic party has seen the last donation from me

Speaking of Morons and Moronic moves....Hows the loan repayment coming along?

May see some improvement in the mortgage loan mess soon.
At least the Banks found robo signing less productive and now are making more foreclosures a reality. Are you happy about that?
what's your answer to the problem?
I don't know enough to say one way or the other on that subject.
Other's pretend they know more about what is going on than they do.
Amazing talk without true insight or factual, complete information.

The outrageous thing about robo-signing is that it caused some foreclosures on people who weren't even in default. Imagine the financial nightmare of scrimping in this economy to pay the mortgage and losing your home anyway. Pure carelessness and greed.

Pay your house off, stop being a debt zombie and own your own future. Problem solved.

I don't know about you, Alfred, but my house is paid for (never had a mortgage on it) and I've never taken out a loan in my life. Can you say the same? Can anyone in this society say the same other than a very lucky few?

How is he attacking the poor?

By saying he 'prays' the media will stop posting sob-stories about poor people and their economic problems and focusing on what will happen to 'everyone' if his policies aren't followed. In other words, he knows his policies will cause even more hardship for the have-nots, but it's for the good of the 'country' -- people like him and the Chamber of Commerce types he's talking to.

That's one way to spin it.

Hum... The rest of us see solid orange and you call it purple with polka dots.

And "spin" it truly is. Let's close our eyes to others problems, only think of the whole?
There are more of us than them. WE are the "whole country" too. And it is US vs. Them. They wanted "war". Republicans used the 'war' word first and on the house floor (I watch C-Span alot).
Facts and knowledge has been hard to come by, if you're a busy person concentrating on day to day survival.
People don't have time or energy to dig.
I am reluctantly retired (medical disability).
I have been following PBS, C-SPAN, and shows that big corporations don't have a tightrope to string for their political pundits.
The main shows allow a tiny nugget of fact and you have to dig out the story for yourself.
We lost free public airways and the control purely through the greed of politicians acting in bad faith.

Awe, now you did it. Any reference to CC results in a two paragraph rant about how we just want to kill everyone.