Debt

davidg wrote: Well, lets see now. You make it sound as though the Republicans experienced a HUGE loss. Not the case. They lost two seats during thier recall, thats all. They also did not pick up the two Democrat recall seats. No change there. Question: Did the Republican's lose control of the Wisconsin Senate? Answer:    No! If Wisconsinites were SO upset, why didn't the Democrats win all of the elections, and control of the Senate to reverse Walkers agenda?? Under Scott Walker's leadership, Wisconsin is now headed toward being a much better state to attract business which means they will also attract jobs. Not sure what you are still giggling at, but, I will take the outcome of those elections and continue to march Walker's agenda through.

Interesting you see it that way. Here are some FACTS for you.


    Organizationally, Republicans were able to get just 3 of the 8 Democrats they threatened with recalls on the ballot. Despite starting later, Democrats put 6 of 8 targeted Republicans on the ballot in heavily-GOP turf – with record signature totals, collected in record time.

    In the 3 districts Republicans were able to generate recall elections versus Democrats, all considered swing districts in Presidential years, incumbent Democrats mopped the floor with their GOP challengers. The closest race appears to be Kim Simac, and Democratic performance improved on Walker 2010 numbers by at least 10 points.

    In the 6 GOP-held recall seats, Democrats went into heavily-Republican turf and ousted 2 entrenched GOP incumbents. Our side came up just short of a 3rd pickup that would have flipped the chamber, narrowly losing a district in which a Democrat hasn’t won since 1896.

    Democratic challengers gained in every single Republican district over Walker’s performance in 2010, averaging a 4% boost in each, and netting more than 25,000 votes statewide in districts carried comfortably by Walker in 2010.
    Scott Walker’s working majority in the Wisconsin state Senate is over. The recall fight picked by Wisconsin Republicans boomeranged on them – fundamentally altering the make-up of the state Senate from a 19-14 Republican majority to a 17-16 advantage. Most notably, the chamber now boasts a pro-worker majority that would not have passed the Budget Repair Bill that touched off this entire fight, given Republican Dale Schultz’s firm opposition to the bill.

    Scott Walker has paid a huge political price for his power overreach. Over the last 6 months, his polling numbers have tanked, both overall and amongst independents. Walker has consistently polled underwater by double-digit margins, eclipsing the 20-point net negative threshold on more than one occasion. We Are Wisconsin’s internal polling has consistently shown Walker is upside down in every single recall district, including by double digits in GOP-held districts, through our final tracking ending this weekend

OverMyHead wrote: ononewheel wrote:     And really your example of Obama"s vacation? If that is where you want to go, look at Bushs record his last term in office. Bush vacation record I know, that didn't come from your source. And that right there is the chief republican argument for everything. The "liberal media" I actually like it when the group of thieves go on vacation, notice how quite this post has gotten, There is no damage being done. I did not complain about the fact that he is on vacation so much as his choice of destinations. Bush at least vacationed at home, we all know the president is on duty 24 hours a day and essentially takes the white house with him. Obamas decision seems either by choice or ignorance to flaunt the fact that he can do what he wants on our dime while so many are suffering. Have you ever read Yertle the Turtle by Dr Suess? Obama has a lot of Yertle in him.

It is quiet around this post, but not for the reason you have stated.

Now....... your argument isn't that he is on vacation, but rather where he is. I too get tired of chasing my tail. If your problem was where he went you, are you telling me you would not have a problem if he went to Disney?

You think when Bush went to Texas so many times, it was not on the public dime. His accommodations no, but flights, security etc. That all was, just like in Obama's case. Are you making the argument the public is actually paying for the accommodations?

Just pointing out the hilarity of the stupidly when it comes to many of the rights arguments about Obama. I personally don't care much for Obama, I did but not anymore.

What exacly is the chart referencing? It does not seem to reflect any of the jobs I have had. Certainly it does not show the two years paid leave the govenment has mandated for the unemployeed at employer expense (Unemploment insurance increases). Why are liberals always more concerned about people being paid not to work than about people working?

phospher wrote:    Why are the people who would actually be necessary to PASS any jobs legislatio­n (the Republican controlled House of Representa­tives) also on vacation? You fail to mention that minor detail.

I get confused on all the talk of "jobs legislation". The government cannot create jobs. Only the private sector can create jobs. So, if you want Congress to pass jobs legislation, then the best way to do that is to:

- Reduce our taxes so we can have more money in our pockets so WE can decided where to spend OUR money, and not let the government waste it.
- Repeal Obamacare
- Balance the budget
- Eliminate our national debt
- Reduce the size of the Federal Government overall by eliminating useless departments such as the Education Department (can't wait to hear the howls on this one:).

What type of legislation can Congress pass to create jobs?

You, my liberal friends, put way too much faith in what government can do. Look what government has done to to people in the inner-cities by trying to shower them with "benevolent" government programs.

Ever hear the term......"Unintended Consequences"?

davidg wrote: phospher wrote:    Why are the people who would actually be necessary to PASS any jobs legislatio­n (the Republican controlled House of Representa­tives) also on vacation? You fail to mention that minor detail. I get confused on all the talk of "jobs legislation". The government cannot create jobs. Only the private sector can create jobs. So, if you want Congress to pass jobs legislation, then the best way to do that is to: - Reduce our taxes so we can have more money in our pockets so WE can decided where to spend OUR money, and not let the government waste it. - Repeal Obamacare - Balance the budget - Eliminate our national debt - Reduce the size of the Federal Government overall by eliminating useless departments such as the Education Department (can't wait to hear the howls on this one:). What type of legislation can Congress pass to create jobs? You, my liberal friends, put way too much faith in what government can do. Look what government has done to to people in the inner-cities by trying to shower them with "benevolent" government programs. Ever hear the term......"Unintended Consequences"?

When the private sector fails to create jobs, the only other option here is for the gov. to create jobs.

it HAS worked in the past, that is sort of where I was going with the FDR post, a page back.

Exactly what the republicans are proposing now, is what Herbert Hoover did. In comes FDR, with the "new deal" and fighting a war we were brought out of the depression.

I just don't understand your comment above "repeal Obama care", were not the republicans for this before it was termed Obama care?
Yes they were.

What does a "balanced Budget have to do with job creation? An explanation of your stance would help me.

My solution to all this mess would be;

make all members of the sentate and congress salaries, 50K
Limited terms, somewhere around 5 years

ELIMINATE ALL donations from ANYBODY to anyone running for any public office. All campaigns would be publicly funded, strictly.

3 simple steps. Easy.

Too many are so bought and paid for, rep. and dem. alike and "for the people by the people" is long forgotten.

I can explain further if need but right now I am at the poker table again. Won't finish until a.m., early.

ononewheel wrote:    I just don't understand your comment above "repeal Obama care", were not the republicans for this before it was termed Obama care? Yes they were. What does a "balanced Budget have to do with job creation? An explanation of your stance would help me.

Repeal Obamacare: Get rid of a huge government mandate that is like a huge wet blanket covering every aspect of our economy. This thing is a fiasco. It is just one more government entitlement that we cannot afford. As you know, we can't afford the ones we already have. You want to see costs soar? This huge boat anchor will do it. It is already having a huge negative effect on employers not hiring. They just don't know what to expect, and are hesitant to hire people if it will end up costing them big. Once this thing is repealed or struck down by the Supreme Court, I think you will see employment begin to improve.

Balanced Budget: Spending more than we bring in??? Not to sure what else needs to be said. The deficeit spending is why we have a huge national debt. The huge national debt is why S&P downgraded US debt. We have to service that debt by repaying it, and the interest on it. The debt is approaching the size of the US economy. Not a good situation.   

Obama & Friends seem to have no interest in tackling this issue, which I consider to be the #1 issue for the 2012 election. Oh, he will talk a good game during the campaign, but do nothing. Hopefully I have brought more clarity to the situation to explain what I mean. Let me know if you have a different/positive perspective on deficeit spending, and having a huge national debt.   

A hugh part of the problem with Obama care is regulations. The bill that was voted on was a concept. The pages are given to federal employees who are now writing the regulations to make it work. The regulations will become law with no congressional vote. In one case just 6 of the 2000 page bill generated 1500 new regulations. Such rapidly changing regulations along with new EPA regs and financial overhall regs are paralyzing the business sector.Plus the CBO has said Obama care will increase the rate of inflation of health care by an additional 1% over its previous rate, placing additional burdens on the economy.

I have been searching the internet and can't find anything about republicans meeting at marthas vineyard.

OverMyHead wrote: I have been searching the internet and can't find anything about republicans meeting at marthas vineyard.

Obama is ruining my vacation

OverMyHead wrote: I have been searching the internet and can't find anything about republicans meeting at marthas vineyard.

Oops.   I guess I did not clearly state what I meant.
Romney came out with a comment criticizing the president for vactioning in the vineyard, when he was hosting a republican fund raising event the same weekend on the same vineyard.

Yeah, I know he isn't the president but come on.

OverMyHead wrote: A hugh part of the problem with Obama care is regulations. The bill that was voted on was a concept. The pages are given to federal employees who are now writing the regulations to make it work. The regulations will become law with no congressional vote. In one case just 6 of the 2000 page bill generated 1500 new regulations. Such rapidly changing regulations along with new EPA regs and financial overhall regs are paralyzing the business sector.Plus the CBO has said Obama care will increase the rate of inflation of health care by an additional 1% over its previous rate, placing additional burdens on the economy.

Republicans were for "obama care" before Obama created it.   

Now they are agaist it because of "regulations". I think it is really because Obama is president. Try creating anything without regulations.

Have you looked at the regulations you have under your current health care insurance?

ononewheel wrote: OverMyHead wrote: A hugh part of the problem with Obama care is regulations. The bill that was voted on was a concept. The pages are given to federal employees who are now writing the regulations to make it work. The regulations will become law with no congressional vote. In one case just 6 of the 2000 page bill generated 1500 new regulations. Such rapidly changing regulations along with new EPA regs and financial overhall regs are paralyzing the business sector.Plus the CBO has said Obama care will increase the rate of inflation of health care by an additional 1% over its previous rate, placing additional burdens on the economy. Republicans were for "obama care" before Obama created it.

"DOH"!!!!!!

Don't bother with skicat2001.. I mean really, don't even bother with him. He adds nothing to these conversations. He's clearly a radical driven by people like Limbaugh and Beck.

But have you guys read this yet? Un-fing real!!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

phospher wrote: But have you guys read this yet? Un-fing real!! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

The fed has got to go. Our govt has no reason to interfear with private business, the problem is they get entagled trying to regulating them and then dont want to look bad when their regulations dont work, so they bail them out. This is not what our govt was designed to do. Companies that cannot figure it out should go under, we will all be better off when the strongest survive.