Unfortunately Mike, this goes way back to the Patriot Act under the second Bush, the war on drugs and expansion of police powers under Reagan and Bush the first, and the global bankers that hoodwinked Woodrow Wilson with the Fed Reserve. Yes, not just Wisconsin, but a nation of morons that think voting "conservative" or "liberal, if they even vote at all, think the system is going to change based on a vote. Love him or hate him, Ron Paul is one of the few last vestiges of what could change this country. I don't support violence but it would seem that bullets and neighbor versus neighbor is the option that is drawing close fast. Where is Doofa and Dumshtsky weighing in on this? GenXers without a clue, that's where. Silence says it all.

Hoffa, what are you talking about. The last time I checked the banks in Japan are all still private. Perhaps you are thinking of the postal system?

Mitt better quit the LIES!

Ray Lawson ‏@Lawsonbulk

LMAO: Harry Reid: Mitt Romney couldn't be confirmed as Dog Catcher by the Senate. http://read.bi/NoKgA6

Do you have any idea what Willard is going to do, except enrich himself and the rest of the wealthy? If you do, let him know since he has no idea.

@Swithin -

Apparently, you don't know your financial/economic history very well. Google 'japanese banking crisis' and start learning!

@morninmist & Schmitzy -

So you both became super poor under Reagan and the Bush's tenure in the White House and were only able to climb back into the middle class under Clinton and Obama's tenure, eh? Why is your ability to be successful in life so dependent upon the Democratic Party?

Sorry Hoffa. You aren't accurate on Japanese banks or the cause of their recession. The only bank I can find that was nationalized was LTCB. That was because it was totally insolvent and no other bank would buy it. You have put the cart before the horse. The crash of the Japanese banks was caused by a crash of a credit/housing bubble. The crash brought on a recession while the government struggled to bailout the banks and rescue the economy. Does this sound familiar?

Here's what Bloomberg http://tiny.cc/a1mchw says about it:
"The main lesson from 1990s Japan: A bailout of banks is politically unpopular but ultimately necessary to save the economy"

@Swithin -

You don't consider a publicly funded bailout to be quasi-nationalization?

And the good people at Bloomberg are never wrong, are they?

@Hoffa - so now it's 'quasi'? Well I consider a bailout to also be 'nationalizing' when the government steps in and replaces all the executives with new staff and these appointees start making critical decisions about the direction of the company. GM would be an example. When you just hand the banks taxpayer money and leave in charge the idiots who led the firm to disaster I just call that stupid. To me it shows that the bankers were pulling the strings and the pols just danced to the music. So why would I elect a banker as president? Just to complete the takeover?

@Swithin -

Who is running for President that is or was ever a banker?

We should have followed Iceland when dealing with the crooks!!

Scrappy Badger ‏@Badgers_RebeL

Iceland Hires Bounty Hunter to find renegade Bankers (We otta too) http://www.businessinsider.com/iceland-has-hired-an-ex-cop-bounty-hunter-to-go-after-the-bankers-that-wrecked-its-economy-2012-7?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=international | #WiUnion #OccupyMn #OWS #Banqueros #Bankers #USA

@morninmist -

Why did the Democrats overwhelming support the bank bailouts if bankers are so evil? Democrats delivered their caucus on the vote twice. Republicans killed it the first time, and even then, a large part of the Republican caucus still voted against it the second time around, while the Democrats once again delivered their caucus.

So, why do Democrats love and trust bankers so much?

Keith - how is this czar thing working out? I have nothing against the rich at heart or the rich at the bank. But to be appointed in order to be enriched? What will Obama do? Enrich himself at the expense of the middle class and appoint his czars.

Gues what? You are still out of the loop. You get nothing.

What I love about you guys is it has to be personal, because your sphere of consciousness does not extent beyond your carcass.

I don't give a damned about my situation and neither should you. It's the aggregate that counts, and what has been happening under 30 years of Reaganomics has been the decline of America, with numbskulls like Rojo complaining that we don't talk about American exceptionalism.

Ima, you are one person deluded with anger who does not know what you are talking about. Find another activity. You suck at commentating and you only draw pity.

Sounds like a case of the pot and kettle again...

At what point does a President take responsibility for the state of our country? I think at this point George W. Bush can be left out of it.

@superdavefive - you have to be willfully clueless about recent history to make such a statement. The deficit that has Republicans in such a hissy is mainly the result of W's two wars, Medicare-D, tax cuts and stimulus spending - all done with no attempt to balance the budget. The main cause of the recession was the slow erosion of banking regulation from multiple administrations. Republican economic 'experts' under George W supported this deregulation and of course Romney also thinks they are a good idea. Obama is also too cozy with the investment bankers that wrecked the economy, but at least he isn't constantly apologizing for them. I can't vote for someone who pledges to run the economy the same way Bush did.

Have we had an attempt to ballance the budget under Obama? Have we had a budget?

@ St. Swithin - You failed to answer my question: At what point does a President take responsibility for the state of our country? Blaming a man or his political party doesn't solve anything. If you're not part of the solution...

@superdavefive - you clearly asked the question to try to dump all the current economic problems on Obama. My answer to your question is that the president takes responsibility as soon as he takes office. That is not the same as taking the blame for conditions that existed on the day he took over. Obama for his part passed a stimulus package soon after his term began, which stopped the free-fall and started the economy back on the road to recovery. The topic here is basing your vote on the state of the economy. Even though Obama has not been a whopping success on the economy, neither has he driven it further into the ground. Romney, on the other hand, pledges to return to the failed policies of Bush. It would be nice if there was a third choice, but given the two it is clear which one I prefer.

St. Swithin - so with your logic, Clinton had nothing to do with the economy during his tenure.

So, "Go left or go home" is Brens moto.

Bren, good. Then go away.

History shows that spending increased most times a Republican was in the oval office. I am not a Libertarian, but apparently they agree: http://libertarianreview.us/2012/06/06/the-tea-party-republicans-spent-more-than-the-dems-they-replaced/ . There is much being said about President Obama's spending record - which has proven to be the lowest of every president: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/ The mess we were in when President Obama took over was the worst since the great depression, and he has done much to try to clean up this mess. I am trusting that he will continue to make progress if re-elected because he has a decent track record already, has solid plans, & has the interests of all Americans at heart. On the other hand, we see Romney - who has no plans to speak of, no track record to speak of, a history of lying &extreme flip-flopping on nearly every major issue, a compete disregard/ disdain for most Americans (workers,students, the elderly, the poor, and the sick and infirm). This is a man who puts his money offshore to avoid paying taxes, outsources American jobs, puts American companies out of business, derides minorities &the poor (criticizes those in poverty that he put out of work no less) and has shown that he lacks the character &ethics to be president of this country. To choose him because he is republican or simply to "beat" a democrat is ludicrous.

Greg, moto as in movement (e.g. "andante con moto") or did you forget a "t?" ; )

Ima Hippee, I hope that you will always post here. Your understanding of political issues is profound and your insights invaluable to every discussion.

Typo.

Mr. Hoffa, we are to fall for the "This time we'll do it right!" meme once again?

The far right fringe of the Republican Party presents budgets which continue the same failed policies. Obstruction by this same fringe element keeps progress from being made in the government. That last Congressional vote on the Affordable Care Act--wasn't that the 32nd time they did that? Please explain these frivolous symbolic votes in the face of economic crisis and high unemployment.

Please, indeed.

Funny how nobody complained about or questioned the 'conservative' Marquette poll when they reported that Obama is favored by 8 percentage points over a republican challenger...

It's top secret, but i'll tell you if you promise to keep it secret.
A sample of 810 likely voters were reached via land line and cell phone to answer questions between July 5 and 8. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.

@Vicky - from the article above: "A sample of 810 likely voters were reached via land line and cell phone to answer questions between July 5 and 8. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points."

A respondent by definition is someone who answered the phone and participated in the survey.

Heather you blabber mouth....

@Greg - my fault! We must have been typing at the same time! ;)

That's what is so nice about the Patch news sites--they read the news to those who can't (or won't) read it for themselves...