A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

O Announces help for unemployed homeowners

Posted: Mar 26, 2010

Kinda late. So many lost homes already. This is what should have been done in the beginning.

Obama administration announces effort to slash mortgages for unemployed borrowers

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 26, 2010; 10:55 AM

The Obama administration announced new ways Friday to tackle the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed.

The Treasury Department said adjustments to the Home Affordable Modification Program and the Federal Housing Administration program would help "responsible homeowners who have been affected by the economic crisis through no fault of their own" by expanding flexibility for mortgage servicers and originators to assist more people who are unemployed and who have been hit by falling home values.

"These changes will help the administration meet its goal of stabilizing housing markets by offering a second chance" to as many as 3 million to 4 million struggling homeowners through the end of 2012, Treasury said in a statement. It said costs would be shared between the private sector and the federal government, with the federal costs funded through a $50 billion allocation for housing programs under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Banks and other lenders would have to reduce the payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower's income, which would typically be the amount of unemployment insurance, for three to six months. In some cases, a lender could allow a borrower to skip payments altogether under the plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602031.html?hpid=topnews

;

He's merely trying to.... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
draw attention away from the dastardly deed he committed. He bites one hand and caresses another. He's untrustworthy to the hilt. ;)

What a pathetic post, oh and AMUSING - thanks again nnn - you never disappoint

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Come on. This is a good thing. How about - allowing that the President

[ In Reply To ..]
is doing something even you can admit is a good thing and approve of.

If he EVER does a good thing, I will approve.nm - What?

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Obviously-NOT! - ASmom

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

never to late; try to be realistic. - n/m

[ In Reply To ..]
..

Tell that to the people who already lost their homes - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
and don't say it was because they couldn't afford those homes. Some who lost their homes were hardworking Americans who lost their jobs and couldn't find another one in time.

Well, I guess you can't. Nothing positive at - all, no matter what.

[ In Reply To ..]
Oh, well.

You people ...... lol - you will

[ In Reply To ..]
never say a good word about anything. You're still mad about losing the election and you wouldn't be happy unless he suddenly morphed into McCain. lol

Oh? So you really don't care about the people who have already lost their homes? - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
That's what it sounds like to me. I posted the reply because those who crashed first lost everything. No one helped them. Now he's helping those that are close to losing their homes to "shore up the housing market" which is tanking again. I'm happy for those that can get help now, but feel bad for those that couldn't get help.

I feel he should have done something in the beginning, not wait until now.

Of course we feel bad. My point was that - "you" (meanings cons)

[ In Reply To ..]
Can not seem to acknowledge that man is doing something good no matter what. He is helping a lot of people now. He tackled health care because the majority of the homes being lost were due to health care costs.

Come on, I know you can do it. Repeat after me-"It is good that President Obama is working towards helping people save there homes"......-"It is good that President Obama is working towards helping people save there homes"......,-"It is good that President Obama is working towards helping people save there homes"...... It doesn't hurt.

Oops-that should read "their" homes. That is - what I get for being

[ In Reply To ..]
lazy and doing a copy and paste of that sentence.

It is good that President O is FINALLY helping people save their homes. - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
Does that help? After all, I'm the OP.

A lot of homes were lost because of people losing their jobs, which made them lose their health care.

We could go 'round and 'round this all night. I've got better things to do. :-)

Yes, it does help! Thanks BT-that is really all - I wanted to hear.

[ In Reply To ..]
We can argue the "which came first, the chicken-or-the-egg" thing later if you want. I just wanted someone to say something NOT definitively negative and acknowledge that the man is trying to help people. We may differ in how we want him to go about it, but ultimately, he is trying to fix things. Have a good rest of the day! :)

Lots of presidents have tried to fix things... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
Obama is not the only president who's made an effort. However, it's very hard to recognize those efforts when you realize how much turmoil the country is going to be in over this bill. It's hard to be happy when a thief steals all the contents of your wallet, even though he leaves you the wallet.

I don't agree that is what is going to happen, - but the truth is, NO ONE

[ In Reply To ..]
truly knows and will not until it has been enacted and some time passes. Other presidents have tried with different degrees of success.

Regardless of how much time passes... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
the truth is there are those who will be harmed by this bill and the fact that a penalty is involved for those who don 't comply is frightening. I will never trust this administraton because of the way they handled this and ignored the majority and I will always be fearful of what they're capable of.

It's obvious that you are so bitter about having to - pay for insurance

[ In Reply To ..]
that you are eaten up alive. If you don't watch out, you're going to get all kinds of diseases from the stress/anger/bitterness. Then, (gasp) you will need to use the insurance that Obama made sure you have.

Maybe you're just developing that attitude you talk about...not taking care of yourself because now you'll have insurance and you can just go to the doctor whenever you want and take some pills for it....etc. etc. etc. I'll bet that's it! Go figure. :/

Nah...I won't ever use it. It'll be money out the window. - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm not the least bit worried but I am angry about having to buy something I don't need or want.

There's that attitude - again

[ In Reply To ..]
Exactly like a teenager....."nah Mommy, that'll never happen to me".........

If O was forcing... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
all of us to make donations to say...a certain church...we didn't have to attend but we had to make donations because the church did so many good things for the community, then I'll bet there would be an uproar you couldn't silence but, because O thinks none of us are capable of caring for ourselves or paying our own way, he's making a decision that should never be his to make. He's a scary individual.

You just don't realize, or won't admit, that none - of us know what

[ In Reply To ..]
is in store for us health wise. Yes, we take care of ourselves. I take care of myself, I watch my diet, I exercise, I do not smoke or drink, I get regular checkups, I have been lucky and do not take any medications, and....I am pretty darned old.

I happen to know; however, that I cannot predict what will happen tomorrow, and at the best I can do, I am not totally in control of my health. It appears that you think you are and that's the problem.

I hope nothing ever happens to you that will prove the fact that you aren't, but you really should know it without having anything happen.

In all my many many years I have never known; or known of, an adult who had such outlandish ideas about being in control and thinking nothing will ever happen to them. It's just irrational.

Oh, you must not have heard... - the individual mandate

[ In Reply To ..]
was originally a republican idea! O was very against it to begin with. More than one republican was promoting this BEFORE O got elected, and then after the fact acted like suddenly it was a violation of their civil rights.

The simple fact is, if people didn't have to have insurance, they would wait till they got sick and THEN be able to buy it (without that pesky pre-existing condition rule), which would be disastrous on a large scale. Duh!

Actually, that's exactly what people are going to do - wait to buy insurance until they need it - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
which will definitely be disastrous for the country. However, since the fine is a mere pittance compared to the cost of the insurance for the middle class who won't get a subsidy, they're gonna figure out real quick that it's cheaper to go without and then sign up when they get ill. This is another thing the progressives obviously didn't think through in their rush to jam this bill down our throats.

So you think all the folks who have coverage now - are going to drop it

[ In Reply To ..]
and pay a fine until they get sick? And, you think enough of the people who won't buy the insurance and choose to pay the fine will get sick enough to bankrupt the country, and the fines they pay collectively won't be enough to cover the ones that do get sick?

Evidently that is - exactly what she thinks!

[ In Reply To ..]
So now, the fine is a mere pittance?!?!? I thought it was a horrible violation being imposed (or rammed, as they SO love to say) upon the hapless citezens of our once-great country! Which is it? Can't have it both ways. Because, unless you get struck by lightning and die on the spot, there WILL come a day when you need some sort of health care.

But like I said, the pubs came up with the idea....take it up with them.

There will come a day.. - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
when a person will get to the age that, either, a family member or friend may convince him/her that he/she needs a doctor for some reason or another but for someone to say that a person "needs" health care regularly or that he/she will definitely need to see a doctor for something is not necessarily true. It all depends on what a person is capable of enduring. My parents raised 5 children and we rarely seen a doctor I saw a doctor at age 12 in 1964 and again in 1988 and not since. My father never saw a doctor until he was on his deathbed. My mother had health problems when she was in her late 60s. Other than that, there was no such thing as "regularly scheduled doctor visits." They never had insurance and raised all 5 of us without it. Fancy that. When my dad was about 60, he cut the end of his finger off in a fan belt. He went in the house and put a bandage on it and never saw a doctor. Fancy that. No antibiotics...nothing. We (his children) even suggested he see a doctor and he laughed. Health care is a personal decision not to be made by the government. To say a person can't control his/her health is laughable. If we couldn't, why bother to exercise, eat right, get enough sleep, try to prevent cancer by staying out of the sun, avoiding stress etc.? If that isn't practicing control, I don't know what is. If bad health is unavoidable, why bother to practice preventable health care? Why stop smoking, drinking, doing drugs, eating fat and processed foods, being lazy. Let's just all go get our "meds" and party hardy? For tomorrow we die but we die happy and insured. I may be forced to buy insurance...that doesn't mean I will ever use it because it depends on what I, not the government, decide is serious enough to warrant "health care" and so far, since I don't have high blood pressure (I control that), high cholesterol (I control that), I'm not overweight (I control that), I don't have diabetes (I control that) and cancer doesn't really scare me since I personally know of people who have survived it by making lifestyle changes. It might be something that's supposed to scare me, but it doesn't. Therefore, I see it as throwing money away that will be hard for us to come up with in the first place for something we won't ever use it for unless an accident befalls us. The concept that frightens me the most is the fact that the government may "help" me buy something I don't really need and expect me to use it. Most health care (welfare) provided by the government is used by those who have little or no concern about their health and are more than happy to use it and think little about abusing the "gift." In other words, the government doesn't believe there are those of us who do work to stay healthy and not use insurance for meds, tests, regularly scheduled visits, vaccines, etc. In fact, if they "help" with a person's health care, they will expect a person to use it. For those of us who get "help" and don't use it, what comes next? Will the government mandate "regularly scheduled exams?" Will the government expect us to "comply" with doctor's recommendations? Will they mandate all citizens be vaccinated according to doctor's recommendations? If the government can mandate that we all have health insurance, what will stop them from mandating that we use it? Those of us who have auto insurance have and drive vehicles. Not all of us who have health care will use it. What will the government enforce next? I can't speak for anyone else but that might be the thing that would drive me to violence. The decisions that I make about my health are mine to make and not Obama's/Pelosi's. That's why we are entitled to know the risks and benefits of surgery and procedures--so that we can decide if we want to take those risks. When we don't get to decide any more, then the Dum's (Obama toadies), the Pubs, the Son's of Liberty, the Independent's and everyone in between is going to fighting mad. Even those who feel like they just can't live without their meds and surgeries are not going to like it when they're told some of their choices are "mandated."

No one said bad health is inevitable and no one said you can't - improve

[ In Reply To ..]
your chances of avoiding illness. The indisputable fact is, you're not in total control. It's as simple as that. Indisputable, factual, no one would argue unless they were delusional.

There will come a day... - There is a song by The Kinks that goes

[ In Reply To ..]
Paranoia may destroy ya! I think someone may need some meds after all....

If that isn't a paranoid flight of fancy, I don't know what is! This really isn't helping your case any...people tend to discount EVERYTHING you say once you start spewing paranoid nonsense. Plus, like the above poster said, nobody said you couldn't control your own health...just that you can't foresee the road ahead, and that you can't control it totally. Sh** happens, man; it just does. And not everyone is as lucky as you are up till now, even if they did everything exactly as you do. Heredity sucks sometimes.

Well, you should have catastrophic - insurance anyway SM

[ In Reply To ..]
as you cannot control getting into a serious car accident, things like that. Just get a high deducible plan, not too expensive, in case something like that happens to you.

How do you know you don't have high cholesterol? - Just curious

[ In Reply To ..]
x

When large companies find it's cheaper to pay the fine than to insure their employees... - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
THEN we'll see a massive amount of people forced onto the exchanges. See, Obama was lying AGAIN when he said "if you like your insurance, you can keep it."

My employer pays $15,000 for my insurance now, but in the future they could drop the employee insurance plan and pay a fine of $2500 or $5000 per worker and still be ahead financially.
In that case, I'd be SOL and be forced onto an exchange.

I make too much for any kind of subsidy and the HC plan says I'd have to pay anywhere from 8 to 12% of my income in premiums - which is 5x what I pay now! So tell me again why HCR is a good thing for me specifically?

Why would they do that? Why would they - stop

[ In Reply To ..]
paying for insurance for you in the future? This is one of those predictions that insurance premiums will sky-rocket (more than they go up now) and big companies will drop the coverage for all of their employees and pay a fine?

hmmm, wonder what the insurance companies would do about those huge premiums they charge if suddenly everyone decided they couldn't pay them?

Those "huge premiums" you mentioned were approved by the state insurance boards! - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
Maybe you should take it up with them!

Honestly, do you think insurance companies just raise their prices for the heck of it? They are highly regulated and only make a 3-5% profit, yet Obama is determined to make them out to be the bogey man.

And you fell for it.

The reality is....Obama WANTS the insurance companies to fail. Then he plans to ride in on his white steed and save the country with his public option. Then we'll all be equal.

Oh, except for Congress....and their staff....and the unions....and Obama and Joe and their families.

But the rest of us will get the same old health care as everyone else.

Ever read "Animal Farm"?

You're swallowing a bunch of stuff that is - making you

[ In Reply To ..]
really sick sista. You need to take a break.

So you have an aversion to facts, "sista?" - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
You must if you fell for the "Hope and Change" line.

If you ever stop drinking the Kool-Aid, you might want to look up the insurance commission in your state.

Nobody is arguing that other presidents - have TRIED to fix things,

[ In Reply To ..]
but the key work there is TRIED. They didn't get it done, did they?

That's right. Obama did something truly historical. (sm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]

Because of him, those who would mock this bill and think they know so much about their future healthcare needs (or not), he's making it possible for THEIR future/present pre-existing conditions to be covered. Before this bill was passed, the insurance companies would look at someone with a pre-existing condition and laugh.

He also conducted a very successful talk with the Russians in the last couple of days. I don't see anyone giving him credit for that, and he deserves it.

He is also keeping Israel at bay, something that should have been done a long time ago, IMHO.

The Republicans did something historical, as well, and I don't think it will bode well for them in the history books.

Drives me nuts.. "historical" does not mean GOOD. - It can mean just the opposite.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

As in the case of the - Rebublicans, you mean?

[ In Reply To ..]
I agree. No, historical doesn't make it good, and that isn't the basis on any arguments I've seen so far as to why HCR is a good thing. That fact is merely icing on the cake.

It absolutely is, in the case of the Republicans. (sm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]

History will show how they placed party politics above country and stated from the beginning that they're wishing for Obama to fail, that they want "healthcare reform to be Obama's Waterloo."

Well, it turned out to be the GOP's "Waterloo," and their failure to cooperate in running the country should most definitely go down in the history books. Of course, with states like Texas rewriting history in textbooks to fit their agenda, who knows how much truth will reach our great great grandchildren??

Nixon tried but Kennedy stopped him...how ironic. Of course.... - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
according to the NYT story, Rahm had the Dems change the rules so healthcare and education could both be passed using reconciliation. So not only was it a totally partisan bill with only 40% of Americans in support of it, it was passed because they cheated. Lots to be proud of there, liberals.

What Nixon REALLY tried to do. (sm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]

Perhaps the best introduction to the Kaiser HMO and Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan is the summary by Mr. Edgar Kaiser that the less Kaiser does for patients the more money it makes. To get the full context one can go to the University of Virginia and review the presentation Mr. Edgar Kaiser (then Kaiser CEO) made to President Nixon through Mr. Erlichman – the less we do the more we earn. This convinced President Nixon to go forward with the HMO Act of 1973 with Kaiser as the template. The conversation is recorded below within the Nixon Whitehouse Tapes.

John D. Ehrlichman: "On the … on the health business …"

President Nixon: "Yeah."

Ehrlichman: "… we have now narrowed down the vice president's problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser's Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don't think they'll work, but if the President thinks it's a good idea, I'll support him a hundred percent.’"

President Nixon: "Well, what's … what's the judgment?"

Ehrlichman: "Well, everybody else's judgment very strongly is that we go with it."

President Nixon: "All right."

Ehrlichman: "And, uh, uh, he's the one holdout that we have in the whole office."

President Nixon: "Say that I … I … I'd tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it's, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I'm not to keen on any of these damn medical programs."

Ehrlichman: "This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …"

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: "This … this is a …"

President Nixon: "I don't [unclear] …"

Ehrlichman: "… private enterprise one."

President Nixon: "Well, that appeals to me."

Ehrlichman: "Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …"

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: "… the less care they give them, the more money they make."

President Nixon: "Fine." [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] "… and the incentives run the right way."

President Nixon: "Not bad."

The preceding transcription is from the University of Virginia for the clearest possible presentation (pathway discovered by Vickie Travis). Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.

More at http://www.kaiserpapershawaii.org/kaiserpermanentehistory.htm

And I'm sure Obama and Rahm haven't had conversations like this in the White House.... - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
Or do you honestly believe he really, really cares about us little people?

Just because he's a liberal doesn't mean politics isn't driving his HCR agenda. And with his ego, you can be sure we're the LAST thing he thinks about when it comes to accomplishing his plans.

Can't wait to read the books about HIS presidency 30 years later. I'm sure they'll be very juicy!

I believe that he cares much more about the "little people" than (sm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]

you care about them. I come to that conclusion after reading your posts on this board. To you, a "little guy" in crisis is always "irresponsible."

He does not care about the little people...It is a POWER GRAB! - Create a crisis and pounce!!..nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Anyone who doesn't know that healthcare (sm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]

has been a slowly increasing crisis for YEARS now simply isn't paying attention or is being disingenuous.

Mr. "I am not a crook" really liked the idea of making MORE money by supplying LESS service. Thus, the HMOs were created, and I remember people complaining about all the hoops the HMOs made patients jump through, that they denied a large number of claims, etc.

After decades of this, we are where we are today, and Obama is trying to fix it.

Funny that he's trying to fix it, yet he won't have to be on it. Hmmm..... - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
Being a guinea pig isn't my idea of fun. Especially when it's my health and/or life.

Now when the politicians subject themselves to the same plan and pay for it themselves, instead of making us pay it FOR them, then maybe I'll take them seriously.

Until then, sorry, no sale.

Do you always place such blind trust in politicians? Or only liberal ones? - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
That's called partisanship, you know. You only believe your party is right or knows best and the other party is bad, evil, wrong, etc.

You accuse the "Rebublicans" (what a 'clever' term, like 'Demoncraps') of being wrong, but your side never is. Yet we're the "party of no."

Go figure.

Excuse me, but what are "Rebublicans" and why (sm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]

did you accuse me of calling Republicans that?

You're not telling the truth there, Anon.

You posted that today at 9:59 am, Nikki...lol - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
which is why I accused you of calling Republicans that.

Because you did.

Yet somehow I'm a liar.

Too funny....

If I did, it was a typo because I have never heard that term before. (sm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]
My apologies for being so "irresponsible" as to make a human typographical error.

"Rebublicans" doesn't even indicate something negative; it's just a typo. If I really wanted to describe what I truly think about them, I'd be calling them "Repugniwonts," especially after Boehner's statement (and I would have left the "eh" out of "Boehner").

P.S. I found the typo, and I fixed it. Please forgive me for being human.

You also said I wasn't telling the truth, Nikki. No apology for that? - Anon

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

But losing their jobs, and thus their healthcare, - IS ultimately a healthcare issue!

[ In Reply To ..]
If one didn't have to depend upon their employer alone to be able to afford healthcare, it wouldn't have been as much of an issue. They could probably get other menial jobs, but those jobs don't typically (if ever) provide insurance. That is fine if you're like a particular poster on this board who absolutely never has and never will need to go to a doctor, but for the rest of us poor saps....

You know what it sounds like to - me?

[ In Reply To ..]
Like you aren't happy for those who will be helped. You can Monday morning quarterback all you want, but it's just sour grapes.

Talk about spinning and twisting... - Whoo Boy!

[ In Reply To ..]
What a ridiculous conclusion.

Realistic? lol. Might want to talk to Obama about that - his bloated plans sure are not.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

I'm not sure what to think about this. - Trigger Happy

[ In Reply To ..]
We can't keep bailing everyone out here. The bottom line is that if the banks hadn't been forced to give out high risk loans in the first place.....this might not have happened in the first place.

Similar Messages:

May 17, 2013
star-studded concert. This has to be the most arrogant administration ever - as I read in a UK paper today, is this still the United States of America? ...

May 13, 2015
He can't even get the announcement part right. After last week's brotherhood with G.W. on foreign affairs, I think this he is going to be a hoot! ...

Jun 24, 2015
x ...

Dec 19, 2010
x ...

Jan 03, 2014
...against BO reg NSA spying. ...

Dec 03, 2014
Senate and President at the same time (maybe any 2 offices?) The Paul strategists may be trying to find a work around, but that is how it stands. ...

Jul 09, 2014
Glenn Beck on Tuesday announced that he will be bringing tractor-trailers full of food, water, teddy bears and soccer balls to McAllen, Texas on July 19 as a way to help care for some of the roughly 60,000 underage refugees who have crossed into America illegally in 2014. Beck said he will be joined by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), and a number of pastors and rabbis." I listened to his show yesterday and he had point about Honduras and how the Obama administr ...

Sep 20, 2014
I guess I still have a few years before they pull my plug. link ...

May 17, 2013
Do people really not see through this man?? Really? ...

May 16, 2011
Oh dear! I wonder if the people of Israel will think he is their Messiah! Glenn Beck announced on his radio show Monday that he is planning to hold a rally in Jerusalem in August called "Restoring Courage." Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally drew thousands Washington, D.C. in August of 2010, but Beck said that drawing as many to Jerusalem will be more difficult. Beck went to Israel and Jerusalem last week. He warned his listeners on Monday that he thinks disaster is imminent for Israel ...

Jan 05, 2010
Wow, almost all Dems: 1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) 2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) 3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) 4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner 5. Attorney General Eric Holder 6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) 7. President Barack Obama 8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven 10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) ...

Nov 06, 2016
Every American Will Salute With Pride – NYPD ANNOUNCES They Are PREPARING TO ARREST HILLARY CLINTON on PEDOPHILIA and TREASON CHARGES! ...

May 10, 2012
...

Jan 01, 2010
My partner is on SSI and has not worked for years although she is able to work now. I am shocked at my feelings of resentment as I knew fulll well what I was getting into. I was told the house would be cleaned, meals prepared and she would do the errands. It turns out I want to hire my housecleaning service back, I prepare the meals and she runs to the store once a day. She does not understand that her $750 a month does not even take care of spending money for the t ...

Nov 11, 2015
If you need to apply for unemployment in Wisconsin, you have to now pass a drug test--even though you have earned those benefits. This is thanks to former Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker and Republican controlled state legislature. Thanks be to the higher powers that made him come to his senses and realize he was not presidential material. Can you imagine how he would have set the entire country back? Makes me sick to my stomach. ...

Feb 23, 2010
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed for a $15 billion jobs bill Monday by suggesting that unemployed men are more likely to abuse their wives. “Men when they're out of work tend to become abusive,” Reid said as he argued in favor of a cloture vote on the jobs bill. “I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs. Women don't have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the ...

Apr 12, 2010
Coburn and his ilk are poised to replay the Bunning debaucle of last month as the Senate goes to work today on debating ANOTHER temporary 30-day unemployment benefits extension in advance of the larger measure that would extend benefits until the end of the year. Dems are prepared to empower the pubs by ignoring their own Paygo measures, rather than diffusing the pub argument and exposing them for the obstructive hypocrites we all know they are as both parties line up to mak ...

Nov 29, 2010
See link ...

Jul 01, 2010
It was only 9.7% in May 2009, and in December, it was 10.9. This doesn't include those who ran out of benefits. I just can't imagine how many are really out of work here. They stated we have 8,300 people out of work. That doesn't sound like much, but I think our county only has a population of 30,000, and most of them have had to leave the county to find jobs. ...