Advertisement Some visitors at www.lacrossetribune.com are reading that as confirmation that shady lending practices and a weakening economy are spelling trouble for the average Joe. Other say the average Joe is at fault for trying to live beyond his means.
Here’s what some of them had to say:
Darwinism wrote: “... It was just a matter of time for the suckers who bit on the low adjustable rate mortgages to tank when things get tough. They had no plan to meet the obligations of the TRUTH-IN-LENDING document three years down the road, which outlined what they were really getting themselves into when they signed all those documents at the closing. ...”
CJwrote: “Had banks not made money so easy to get and Realtors overvaluing about every house on the block the past few years, the majority of folks would be in a simple fixed rate loan with an end to it instead of the refinance-every-two-to-three-years cycle they are now caught up in. Why should we have to bail out someone who was ‘sold’ a loan with terrible terms by a lender.”
Seriously Now wrote: “People make mistakes. So what do we do? Is the richest country in the world going to let them die in the gutter? IF the corporate world hadn’t kept a lid on wages for 20 years to keep up profits ... IF greedy medical entities and insurance hadn’t blocked reasonable health care costs to keep up profits ... IF unregulated credit card companies hadn’t jacked up rates to 30 percent to keep up profits ... IF companies hadn’t outsourced EVERYTHING to China and India to keep up profits ... THEN common people would have more money to spend and wouldn’t be part of a recession. So the greedy companies listed above LOST BIG MONEY ANYWAY with the recession due to their short-term goals. Had they been willing to settle for a little less profit, EVERYONE would be OK.”
turbocharged wrote: “Yeah let’s blame this and all our problems on the government! People need to wake up and take responsibility for being stupid and living beyond their means. ... People don’t plan at all for a possible rainy day and the first sign of bad times, they are in trouble. Honestly I don’t think the government should bail ANYONE out and let the chips fall where they may. ...”
blogger wrote: “Yes, turbocharged, we should blame it on the government, as well as the people you describe. The federal government sets the monetary policies that govern things like how easy or difficult it is to get a loan, as well as creating laws governing how lending institutions do business. ... Maybe we should have an administration that knows what it is doing and provides leadership.”
Will Clinton fatigue doom Hillary?
When Hillary Clinton defended her husband’s role in her campaign last week, most of the visitors who commented at www.lacrossetribune.com were clearly suffering from Clinton fatigue.
contrarian wrote: “As a woman and a feminist, this is an example of why Mrs. Clinton should NOT be the next president. Her husband can’t keep his mouth or his zipper shut and she defers to him. We need an independent individual as president — not a puppet of an ex-president without ethics. ...”
just-observing wrote: “Contrarian: I will vote for a woman to as the leader of the free world in a heart beat ... just not this woman ....”
D. Ray wrote: “Bring Bill Richardson back to the race! Anything but this!”
Greenlite wrote: “Bill Clinton’s modus operandi has been ‘the end justifies the means.’ And this is what he is doing with this campaign. ... The real question is ‘do we really want the Clintons back in the White House?’ ”
Michael Welch wrote: “The question ought to be whether Bill Clinton is deliberately DISTORTING Obama’s record and words in order to IMPLY false perceptions. (I think yes.) Did Obama oppose the Iraq war ‘from the beginning,’ even as an Illinois state legislator? Apparently so. Did Hillary vote in 2002 to in effect authorize the war for the Bush administration? Yes, she did. Did Obama vote as a U.S. senator to FUND the war? Yes, under the tired old but immensely effective rubric that to vote against is not to ‘support the troops,’ and NO ‘serious’ candidate in the two parties is going to open him/herself up to THAT charge. Did Obama say Reagan was in effect an ‘important’ president? Yeah. So? He’s correct but as he qualified it, ‘I didn’t say the ideas were good.’ Pollyticks!”
A different Kind of town hall meeting
U.S. Rep. Ron Kind’s phone-in town hall meeting last week, seeded with plenty of invitations and complete with calls screened by staffers, didn’t exactly impress visitors at www.lacrossetribune.com.
Mack wrote: “While Ron has been ‘OK’ on most issues (except voting for an unjust war), he does need to stop playing it so safe or there won’t be much of a legacy. I was surprised to see the word ‘maverick’ used to describe Ron.”
ACE wrote: “Screened calls, just what I thought.”
dean wrote: “Ron and the Dems will reverse all the damage the Republicans have done to this country in the last seven years. I hope they can.”
ryeguy wrote: “I would rather do face-to-face since we can e-mail or write or call Mr. Kind’s office any time we want.”
Sully wrote: “OK, but how many people called and listened for five minutes and hung up out of the frustration of hearing the same old snake oil pitch like I did? Blah, Blah, Blah. Now he has found a way to distance himself from people so you can’t even look him in the eye while he spins his tales.”
Nikki Beaverhausen wrote: “... Nice attempt to make it look like you didn’t stack the deck, Ron, letting that one dissenting voice through. No one can say ‘everyone’ agreed with you now. Boy, that was clever.”
You may reach Tribune online editor Marc Wehrs at mwehrs@lacrossetribune.com or (608) 791-8218.
Michael Welch wrote on Jan 27, 2008 2:08 PM: