james, do the arithmetic!

jt- Arithmatic is something Dems have never been good at. Let's see, less jobs equals less revenues. So we'll tax the rich more so they shift the jobs overseas to avoid the high taxes and that will create more revenue? Hmmm...

Try this math: More jobs equal more revenue, so lets not chase the 1% out so can create more jobs rather than send them overseas.

Brian, you need to learn more about supply and demand. What company is going to create jobs, when no one has money to buy goods? Your idea works in an idealistic world, but thats the the world I live in (maybe it is in your fanasty world). The rich will just get richer, and maybe someday down the line when they finally think they have enough money (which is never) they will create more jobs, but don't hold your breath.
What is wrong with everyone paying the same percentage in taxes? If I have to pay X% then why shouldn't everyone else pay the same?

you might want a lesson on supply and demand also. What employer is going to hire people if he isn't making a profit. Because no matter what, the employer is either going to make a profit or move his business where he can, or worse, go out of business. That is the world we live in, the world we lived in and the way a capitalistic society works.

Got to jump in on this; Brian, you clearly don't understand the first thing about business.

It's so simple - companies don't hire unless they absolutely have to. Why pay for labor you don't need? The only, and I mean the ONLY reason any company would hire anyone is because they are forecasting demand that they can't meet with their current workforce. So what creates jobs? Demand.

I'll tell you what employer will hire people when he isn't making a profit - the employer who is forecasting demand that he can't meet with his current workforce. Profitability is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to hiring decisions, provided that financing is available. Low or negative profitability drives firing, of course, but not hiring.

It's hilarious when someone like Brian Dey waxes poetically about capitalism, but clearly doesn't know the first thing how a firm operates. Get some experience in the real world, and then take another run at this issue.

@Taoist -

Perhaps Mr. Dey needed to qualify his statement by referring to a successful business, even though such a reference was apparent to most people. We have to remember that our Taoist is special!

The recipe that you've spelled out is exactly how businesses end up going bankrupt, such as GM and Chrysler.

It would appear that you haven't the foggiest about good business decisions and what drives successful business people. Do you own and run a business? Both Mr. Dey and Hoffa own and manage their own businesses, so we speak from actual experience.

"Hoffa," I won't try to tease sense out of the jumbled mess that is your comment.

As a matter of fact, I do run a successful business. So please clarify; why, exactly, do you disagree with my statement that companies don't hire unless they absolutely have to, in order to meet forecast demand or or open orders? Just because they feel like throwing away some of their profits, to help the community?

@Taoist -

"Profitability is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to hiring decisions."

Businesses hire premised upon demand that generates profit. A business that hires solely on the basis of demand without regard to profitability will end up going out of business very quickly because their expenditures are exceeding their revenues.

Did Hoffa really need to explain that to a fellow businessman? Does your 'business' have any employees other than yourself or direct family members? Hoffa currently employs 3 full time and 18 part time employees. Mr. Dey also has a payroll that he must meet.

Hoffa is just surprised that a fellow business person would not understand such a simplistic concept as the one that Hoffa had to explain to you above!

"Hoffa," disingenuous as usual. If you read what you wrote, you are actually supporting my statement 100%. Businesses hire in response to demand. Without demand, the question of whether a business can fulfill that demand profitably is moot.

I should have specified that CURRENT profitability has nothing to do with hiring, but then again, you should have been intelligent enough to understand that without me needing to hold your hand.

@Taoist -

"Without demand, the question of whether a business can fulfill that demand profitably is moot."

That's the stupidest thing that Hoffa has ever read from someone claiming to be a business person. Hoffa owns and manages a restaurant. I'm sure that Hoffa could exponentially increase the demand for the product and service he provides if he was willing to give it away for next to nothing, say $1 per meal served.

Under your premise, Hoffa would be hiring like crazy, because demand would be through the roof, although, Hoffa would be losing a fortune, operating at a net loss, eventually having to shutter the business, declare bankruptcy, and all the employees losing their jobs.

Demand is easy to generate. Demand that generates a profit - that's what separates the stooges like yourself from the successful business people like Hoffa and Dey!

Wake up and get a clue Taoist!

@Taoist -

Remember when Denny's gave away free meals for a day? Demand was through the roof - they had people lined up for blocks at every location across the country. So why didn't Denny's continue to give away meals for free indefinitely into the future? With such increased demand, they would have been hiring and expanding like mad, right?

Because eventually, they would have run out of money, financing would have pulled out, losses would have piled up, the doors would have closed, the company would have declared bankruptcy, and all the employees would have lost their jobs.

Without profit, all the demand in the world will not save a business from folding. Anyone who merely bases a business decision on demand alone, taking into account no other factors, as you claim is appropriate, will quickly learn that harsh reality!

Hoffa has no doubt that you'll again spin to convince yourself that you were right, but in all reality, your doubling down on your nonsense is in fact exposing you for the hack fool that you truly are!

Hoffa schooled you!

Unbelievable. Hoffa, I'm going to lay this out for you.

"Without demand, the question of whether a business can fulfill that demand profitably is moot." This is a truism.

You are saying that you could stimulate demand for your product by lowering the price. So, you create the demand. The demand comes first.

Now, the question is, can you make money selling at that price? If not, then you don't have a business plan. And, you won't be hiring anyone.

Of course, you won't be asking the question if there is no demand for your product. So, "without demand, the question of whether a business can fulfill that demand profitably is moot."

Seriously, just read what you're writing. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and looking like a fool while doing it.

@Taoist -

You made the comment that demand alone dictated a businesses decision to hire employees, and that profit motive had absolutely nothing to do with that decision. Hoffa has demonstrated how moronic of a statement that was.

It goes without saying that a business needs demand for the product or services being provided in order to exist in the first place, however, usually that assessment is done before the decision is made to actually start the business.

The discussion, started by your attack upon Mr. Dey's comment, was focused on a business hiring employees, and the factors that go into making such a decision.

Your attempt to shift the subject into a more generalized context and make it about formative considerations is disingenuous.

And you never answered Hoffa's question about whether or not the business you own and operate actually has employees outside yourself and direct family members.

@Hoff
Your comment --straight from Faux "news" or Right wing radio (same thing):

scottwalkerwatch ‏@scottwalkerwtch

When #FoxNews @megynkelly says "we'll have a fair and balanced debate", there needs to be a laugh track inserted. @ColbertNation #RNC

@morninmist -

This may come as a shock to you, but unlike yourself, Hoffa doesn't allow the media and/or other biased third parties to think for him.

Hoffa thinks for himself.

"Hoffa,"

I don't trouble myself with answering every irrelevant, tangential question you throw out, in your constant efforts to deflect attention from your flawed logic. However, I'll humor you on this one - the business employs 32 full time employees and six part time employees, plus anywhere from 0 to 30 temporary employees, depending on the season. And, we've been profitable for four of the last five years, with the exception of a year when we broke even. And no, my family's not that large.

I don't know where you're going with your last screed, but I'll try to return your short attention span to my original point, which was that demand for goods or services drives hiring. Why you want to launch into a full pompous nonsensical bloviating blowout over that statement is beyond my ability to explain, other than to observe that launching into a full pompous nonsensical bloviating blowout is something that you seem to love to do.

@Taois

Wow you must have flunked business 101 to state such crappy business "truisms". Demand does NOT dictate hiring. Who says that a business HAS to meet expected demand?

If making the hiring and process changes to meet demand ends up barely breaking even, or isn't worth the hassle, a company won't do it. That is common sense, and is 100% contrary to what you stated.

Goes to show you are wrong on everything - politics, business, etc.

oak creek resident, another confused conservative. You're confused about everything - economics, politics, etc (your sexuality).

@Bren - Common sense for Obama/Biden? The One's platform is more welfare, more food stamps, more condoms, more spending, more borrowing, more deficits, more inflation, more regulations, more taxes, more LGBT, more hope, more change. And don't forget fewer jobs, lower employment, less freedom, less Christianity, less self-reliance. And no plans to fix anything - just pie-in-the-sky platitudes that sound good to anyone unable to think things through. Exactly how is The One going to fix all these problems he's failed to fix so far?

What's this got to do with with (Mo)Ron Johnson, aside from the fact that he is irrelevant to any rational discussion of economics or politics. Perfect example of a 1% poster boy. Claims to hit a triple but married his way onto third base. His major and perhaps only client -- his father-in-law.

Every day he is a total embarrassment to the state. Feingold did all 72 counties. What about this guy? I ended up on a town hall conference call. No guts, no brains, no class. He begs for us to tax the crap out of him - and we should.

He is a taker, not a maker.

Keith - okay, so you are irrationally jealous? You are still looking to spend other people's money? The name calling is unbecoming as well. Grow up.

Ah, Patch's very own "Chrome Dome" is up early this fine Sunday morn. Always nice to start the day pondering Herr Schmitz well thought out wisdom. Hey Keif, early start on the Bloody Marys I see.

Bren, you forgot about your old boyfriend ALEC

It's funny you mention the American's for Prosperity as astroturf. Four years ago Barack Hussein Obama was pulling in more money from Wall Street than his opponent.

Honestly, Bren is so predictable!

Hoffa- Yes Bren is, except she also left out its G.W.'s fault or Walker's.

Here are the job numbers the media is not reporting about the August job numbers that just came out. This is what the media is telling you...and it's true. "The unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%. 96,000 jobs created in August."

Here are numbers they are NOT telling you:

1) 368,000 people STOPPED looking for work in August. Meaning they CANNOT be counted as unemployed. These people have no more unemployment benefits to claim and have realized there are zero jobs out there for them. If you were to re-calculate those numbers and include the people who are no longer looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 12%. This number does not include the UNDEREMPLOYED, or the people who have stopped looking for work over the past 3 years; that number would be an astonsighjing 23%

2) 69% of men are working. Meaning 31% are not. The lowest % of working men since the 1940's.

3) The number of employed Americans is at the lowest number in the past 31 years. An incredible number considering there are more people now in the USA than there were in 1981.

4) A record high of 88,921,000 Americans whom are not in the civilian labor force.

5) Manufacturers have cut the most jobs in August than at anytime in the past two years.

6) The supposed "job growth" each month is LESS THAN the number of people LEAVING the workforce every month. People leaving the work force CANNOT be counted as unemployed.

Some folks seem to have completely forgotten about the Great Recession and the record deficit that Obama inherited. In rough personal terms, what if you had asked someone to manage your checkbook and you had to take it back because of mistakes. You find an extremely large negative balance and also enormous bills to pay, with not enough revenue. Also, family members have been earmarking dollars for stupid things but you are locked in to pay them until you can go to court. What would you do? You still have to feed yourself and your family, you still need to clothe yourself and your family, you have obligations that you have to meet. How do you keep things together? You sit down and make a plan. Does it turn around overnight? Should you just slash the budget and tell your dependents they are on their own? That the relatives with special interests are more important?

Some folks seem to think that a new president enters office with a clean slate. That Obama especially, inherited a wonderful economy and world peace that he has managed to skunk up in less than four years. These people don't even make sense to me.

Anti, ALEC is a special interest organization, thought you knew that. And what does Obama's fundraising have to do with the astroturf Super PAC Americans for Prosperity??

Keith Best, what "media" reported those numbers? Sources, please.

@Bren,

What Ron Johnson and Mitt Romney understand is that we are financing our debt at the unbelievably low rate of about 1.8%, instead of the usual rate of about 5.6%. The rate is set by the market, so when it returns to its normal rate the country will not only have a ballooned debt, but will also have a increased rate more than double the present rate. The result will be a crisis that none of us has ever experienced in our lifetimes.

And were are the Dems on this issue? AWOL.

Luke, it's a shame Congress had to waste so much time on things like 31 votes on the Affordable Care Act instead of convening to address the economy. The obstruction indulged in by Republicans during the Obama administration is shameful and unpatriotic, in my opinion. Romney's planning to bring in a host of Bush 43 advisers as well as stating (at one point, because he flip flops so much) that he planned to enact the Ryan/Rand budget plan, which has been debunked as costing more money in the short- and long-terms. The last thing we need at this critical juncture in the economic recovery is a return to incompetence and more spending. Seriously.

@Bren -

Hoffa doesn't see anyone denying that Obama was handed a sh!t sandwich when he took office. But what you're conveniently forgetting is that Obama knew the state of things before he even won the election.

And Obama promised us that with his leadership and policies, he would fix the economy and unemployment in three years, that if we passed his stimulus that unemployment would drop below 8%, that he would half the deficit while turning economy around, etc.

You constantly hold Walker accountable to his express campaign promise of 250k new private sector jobs by the end of his first term.

So, why don't you ever hold Obama accountable for any his numerous express campaign promises that he has since broken?

Once again, the hypocrisy and double standards of Bren have been exposed by Hoffa!

@Bren,

Other than pointing out that you did not address what I said (because you can't), I want to take this opportunity to thank you for admitting that the Dems put the Affordable Care Act in front of the economy.

Luke, what can be done while obstructionists remain active in Congress? Romney/Rand will just bring back Bush 43 advisers, the ones who nearly pushed the economy over the cliff. No thank you.

Mr. Hoffa, without that extraordinary obstructionism in Congress, we might have been experiencing a better recovery. Yes, both parties try to maneuver each other out of the White House, nothing new there. But when decisions are made that add more misery to America just to advance that goal, I think it's unpatriotic, foul.

Scott Walker, up until the recall election and the summer recess, had a rubber stamp administration backing up every ALEC bill brought before the legislature, yet he's only at about 6% of goal. One elected official had 6 months of a supermajority, the other more than a year. How do you expect more progress from one, with less of a supermajority, and apologize for the other?

"Speaking" of exposure, looks like Mr. Hoffa has been "exposed" for hypocrisy, a behavior roundly denounced by Christ. Ayn Rand would be so proud of you! ; )

@Bren,

You're circling the wrong planet. You brought up the fact that Obamacare got front seat ahead of the economy. Who am I to disagree?

Huge mistake by the Dems. But that's par for the course.

Bren -

Where's the hypocrisy in anything that Hoffa has said? Apparently, you don't understand the definition of that word!

In fact, your entire rant was little more than one giant example of hypocrisy and double standards.

Could you please explain how Congress obstructed the stimulus from achieving below 8% unemployment, as the Obama administration had promised it would? Or how Congress stood in Obama's way of closing Gitmo? And how exactly did Congress stand in the way of Obama halfing the deficit during his first term - in fact, the TeaGOP in Congress was trying to help him accomplish this goal, but the Dems in the Senate constantly stood in the way! And how did the TeaGOP cause Obamacare to end up with an individual mandate? And it was the Congress that prevented Obama from airing the Obamacare negotiations on C-SPAN 3?

Hoffa could go on forever with Obama's broken promises, and none of them were broken merely because of TeaGOP obstructionism in Congress. In fact, the Senate Dems blocked Obama from achieving many of those promises.

You are nothing but an extreme partisan HACK Bren! The fact that you deny this and try to spin yourself away from such reality just exemplifies this point even more.

what facts did johnson have? clinton had facts.

Gear, why do you think the Americans for Prosperity Bus only stopped in Caledonia? I'm thinking it's because it's an "easy" crowd. I'm not a Sensennbrenner fan, but I give him credit for courageously taking questions from citizens in town hall meetings and going to communities in his district where he knows his boots won't be licked. This is a guy who can engage because he has deep understanding of issues. Again, there are aspects I don't care for but he is a Republican of the old guard I do respect. We hear about Tea Partiers making gaffes in Congress (Bachmann), sending letters with ludicrous solutions (Johnson), and going forth with one-dimensional slogans instead of real understanding of process, law, and facts.

I know who I'd rather listen to for recognizing problems and offering solutions. Where are the traditional Republicans?

Yes, the type that researches and writes with understanding of issues. I appreciate that very much.

@Bren -

Was this a joke? You're actually saying that about Schmitzy?

WOW - I'll let McBride handle any further comment on this revelation!

Eh? I appreciate people who write from knowledge and not from the "gut" or the Fox and Friends "news" ticker. What is revelatory about that?

I'm going to assume that there are a few comments missing between George's post and Bren's initial comment, hence the lack of logical continuity.

@Bren -

You really want to use the words "knowledge" and "not from the gut" to describe Schmitzy???

Are you even familiar with his posts?

Interesting how the Fox & Friends news ticker is bad, but the MSDNC ticker and Sharpton, Matthews, Schultz, Maddow, and O'Donnell represent the bastion of logical, rational, and knowledgeable thought!

OK, nevermind - your characterization of Schmitzy totally makes sense now ;-)

We (actually you, not me) voted in Ron Johnson in favor of Russ Feingold, who voted against the Patriot Act and the costly war in Iraq that has saddled us with so much debt...and just now you are starting to regret it. Better late than never. Now he and the Tea Baggers better start to learn to compromise so we can all keep our tax cuts or we are all screwed.

December 16, 1998
WASHINGTON CNN From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

What was Feingold's vote on the military strike?

Feingold was also the only senator to vote against senatorial raises.

Kelly, why would you expect any different from Ron Johnson?

Jason,
When you post on some future blog, that you are always fair and balanced, and I will use your words "Tea Baggers" and "Rich Boy Greedy Jerks For Prosperity" to show that you are as full of it as your buddy Bren and morning Mist and any of the other liberals that post here.
Nice...

@Jason - more proof you lefties have no ability to carry on a rational debate that relies on anything beyond name calling and unfounded slurs. Lefty play book: you don't have to be successful yourself if you can come up with enough stupid names for the successful guys you are jealous of.

6 mpg, hey Jason - that's about 3 mpg better than Obama's made in Canada buses! And you really want to talk about noise pollution from one's mouth - Obama's mouth has already been labeled a superfund site three times over ever since 2008!

JRH, good one.

I hope no one tripped. That astroturf can cause a nasty rug burn! ; )

@Bren -

Are you saying that the people who attended the bus stop rally are nothing more than astro-turf?

I'm saying that Americans for Prosperity and the Tea/GOP are astroturf. I have no opinion of the people who were attracted to the rally.

@Jt Well said.

Who has been " unfairly targeted by governor walker"? Public employee's? Governor Walker took a look at where we were wasting money, and we spent ALOT on excessive public employee benefits.

I'll say it again, many, many, many school districts were able to balance their budget simply by dropping WEA as their insurance carrier!

@jt 'john' -

Is the union brainwashing machine really in that hard of a spin cycle already?

Let's compare tax plans:

Obama wants to:

Raise the marginal income tax rates by more than 20% across the board by allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset on December 31 of this year. That means that starting next year, your federal income tax rate will go up by over 20%.

Raise the short term cap gains/dividends/interest tax rate to 45%, and raise the long term rate from 15% to 39.6%.

Nearly double the corporate income tax rate, despite the fact that we already have the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world.

Romney wants to:

Cut the marginal income tax rates by 20% across the board and make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everybody. And eliminate the loopholes, exemptions, and deductions used by high-income earners. Thus if Romney wins, after your fed income taxes go up thanks to Obama, Romney will lower them again right away.

Eliminate the cap gains/dividends/interest tax for everyone with an AGI of less than $200k/yr, and set a universal rate of 15% for those with an AGI of more than $200k/yr.

Get rid of the federal death/estate tax.

Lower the corporate income tax rate to make us competitive with the rest of the word and level the playing field by eliminating corporate loopholes, subsidies, and welfare.

So, which tax plan is more favorable to the prosperity of everyone in your honest opinion?

Let me get this right. It used to be when you were employed in a government position you were called a public servant. Enter the unions then you were no longer a servant, but the tax payer became your servants. It is good and just that Walker returned it to the right way of thinking.

@Brian Dey....You and your fixation on unions doesn't move the discussion in positive manners. Move on beyond the unions, it's getting wearisome.

Lyle- Sorry buddy, but waking up this morning and hearing that the Chicago teachers are walking off the job only proves that it is kids last, teachers first. My fixation on the public unions will continue until they are gone for good. If you want to support a bunch of spoiled brats who have had it too good for too long, that is your choice. Again in Racine, on election day for the recall, 16 teachers including the union president of the REA took personal leave days to organize students for political partisanship. This was the day before exams. It was much better for them to using students to advance their own agenda, then to help kids who needed help before their exams. Nope, I will be on them until good teachers walk a way from these thugs.

It's not about he money; it's about the respect. The teachers want 25% more respect, symbolized by the 25% increase in money they receive.

Don't you see......it's all about the kids.

@Brian Dey....You are taking your personal vendetta against public unions too far. I know you hold teachers and the unions personally responsible for your latest defeat running for the RUSD school board.

I don't know why you are so concerned about a teachers strike in Chicago. It has absolutely nothing to do with us in Wisconsin.

@Lyle -

I thought that public education benefited society as a whole, no? If the children of Chicago are missing out on educational opportunities because of the selfish act of their teachers, well, isn't such an act harming society as a whole? I thought that teachers were public servants - so who's interests are they serving on the picket line exactly?

Not to mention that these teachers were offered more than generous raises by the City - especially in light of the fact that the City is currently experience 10%+ unemployment.

And then teachers wonder why they've been garnering such a bad reputation lately!

Mr. Dey is absolutely right about public sector unionization. It is something that never should have been allowed to happen in the first place. The workers are already represented by their duly elected public officials.

The two main issues in that strike are 1) more money, and 2) to lower the performance evaluation standards imposed by the Board of Education. How do either of these objectives help the children as opposed to helping and protecting the teacher?

Your wife and two kids must be so proud of the language you constantly use on Patch.

"I am an aggressive progressive and proud of it ."

But Patch does not lean to the left. And you are not where near Jon Stewart, or Stephen Colbert, your more in line with Rachael Madow, or Ed Schultz.

Jason- Seems like Stewart has been very agressive to the progressive. No love lost there.

Spot on!!

Poor Bewildered, still can't understand what I'm saying. Are you seriously trying to tell me that those two bills that got zero votes weren't introduced by Republicans? The White House has said the Sessions bill wasn't their budget, and The Senate Budget Chairman confirms that.

Ah -- another one with no reading comprehension. Johnson implies that even Democrats won't vote for President Obama's budget. What he neglects to mention is the the 0 vote was for a GOP amended version of the budget. He fails by dissimulation.

Maybe you better stop reading the Democratic talking points Randy:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/05/16/breaking_the_senate_rejects_obamas_horrific_budget_990

Stop reading Democratic talking points and fall for a right-wing opinion piece? That rates a LOL.

Randy, Randy: outright lie about 0 vote for 2113 GOP budget version. Truth be told ( something Randy has problems with). GOP budget passed in the House and was voted down 4 times in Senate by party lines. Oh course Dems never offered an alternative.

Bewildered, I'm talking about the Jeff Sessions (Republican) version voted down 97-0 in the Senate and the Rick Mulvaney (Republican) bill voted down 414-0 in the house. So was Johnson. What are you talking about?

And Randy, it's just like the average liberal voter is so well informed about the Iraq War.

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." -President Bill Clinton - Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998

Randy, you are usually so left leaning its hard to take you serious anymore. Talk about misinformed.

For Randy and anyone else playing at home, it's the above link. How bout you read the comments before responding. Works much better

@Brian Dey -- What does the Iraq war have to do with what we were discussing? What a way to cloud the issue.

However, I do know a lot about the history of the mess in Iraq. I remember when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. I remember who sold him those chemical weapons. I remember when the Israelis bombed the nuclear reactor that the French were stupid enough to sell to Iraq. And i recall reading how some people thought the economic sanctions against Iraq were too cruel. But what's your point? All of the above was true when Bush Sr. et al decided not to invade Iraq during the first gulf war. The two justifications for invading Iraq under GW Bush -- Iraq's supposed nuclear capability and its culpability for 9/11 turned out to be not so true.

@Bewildered -- I read the above link. It was to a right-leaning opinion piece that said nothing about the political strategy behind the two GOP sponsored 'Obama budget' bills that were voted down in the House and Senate. As to why the Senate voted down the first Ryan budget -- gee, I wonder?

Poor Randy, caught in his own lie. The numbers are the numbers.." zero votes for Repub budget"....oops , wanta try again. Just check your facts man, and you'll get a little more respect here.

@Brian Dey...You're bringing up the fiasco of the Bush's Iraq War. This subject has been deeply vetted and your still talking the talking points that have long been proved utterly false. As Randy indicated, what in the world does Iraq have with the current discussion. Purely a red herring on your part.

I have to admit that even Hoffa was thrown by the whole Iraq war all of a sudden coming into a discussion about budgets.

Lyle and Randy- The only reason, and I hope you understand what an example is, as an example of how left or right, if the electorate is led to believe something,it is then Gospel, despite what the actual facts are. You guys claimed the Iraq war was GW's fault, even though a Democratic Congress voted for it, a Democratic President recommended it, and that same Democratic President cited the exact same reasons that Bush did. You were led to believe that Bush was to blame, even though your guys said he was doing the right thing, so I guess Clinton is just as much to blame.

@Brian Dey...George W. Bush and the Neo-Cons misled this nation into a needless war in Iraq. Neither the Republicans or Democrats should be proud of the mess that was created in Iraq. I don't quite see how you can still defend your position after all the evidence shows you are defending a fallacy.

No we haven't. Because Congress has become too polarized to pass one. The GOP refuses to 'raise taxes' to pay for necessities, and the Dems refuse to slash the social safety net in order to lower taxes even further. There is no compromise, because it was the stated intent of the GOP to make Barack Obama a one-term President no matter what it did to the country.

Oh yea, and the Dems stated mission wasn't to defeat Bush? Get real !

First two years Obama and Dems controlled both houses of Congress. Kinda blows big hole in your agruement about Congress being too polarized, huh?

Again misinformed Randy states the usual Dem talkining points. Why hasn't Harry Reid put out a budget alternative to the House? Or even tried to caucus?

@Bewildered....The Democrats only controlled a filibuster proof senate for less than a few months. It has gotten to the point in congress that you need 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. Budgets must originate in the House and then go to the Senate. Every house bill that have been submitted to the senate is laced with poison pill legislation. You're dancing the "spin dance" again.

Lyle, I am surprised you don't know that Congress can NOT filibuster a budget vote.

BTW, nice try, Lyle. Especially loved the civics lesson.

But Congress had time to vote 31 times on the Affordable Care Act. One wonders if the Tea Party reps understand what their job as Congresspersons actually is.

@Bren -

The Tea Party people in the Congress are voting consistently with how they said they'd vote in their campaigns which led to their election victories, so it would appear that they are representing their respective constituencies exactly how those constituencies demanded them to by virtue of those election results and the consistency that has been displayed thus far.

Care to try again?

Sure, I'll try again since it whizzed over your head the first time. Priorities? Cooperation? Patriotism before Politics?

@Bren -

So what you are saying is that it is a duty of a member of Congress to vote inconsistently with how they said they would vote during a campaign, thus effectively lying to the constituency that voted them into office in the first place?

That's the problem with America today - liberal lefties expect politicians to cave/fold on their integrity, promises, and convictions.

So Bren, what has the tea party right obstructed that, if passed, would have made things better for all Americans?

@Ima Hippee Senator Tom Colburn{R-OK} announced his retirement earlier this year. He gave an interview in which he describes the current Senate. He says that there are only about 10 senators who really take the budget seriously; the others often giggle amongst themselves privately because they don't take the job seriously. The senate is notorious for not even taking a vote on crucial bills. All they care about is getting re-elected. We need a hire turnover rate this fall so that maybe the remaining senators will actually start doing there jobs.

You do know that the debt ceiling was raised 7 times during Bush 43's administration, don't you? That's why it was ridiculous and self-serving for the Tea/GOP to make such an issue of it during the current administration.

@Bren,

The Tea Party is really upset with Bush too. Right now Obama is their red meat, but Bush is a wrath magnet too.

@Brian Dey....Even if we deserve better than Obama, he's still better than Romney and that should tell you how many deficits Romney and Ryan have. Neither one has any foreign policy experience and that is one of the President's primary roles.

@Lyle,

Romney does not have much experience as a community organizer. He probably also won't bow to Saudi royalty, nor will he think that the language spoken in Austria is Austrian.

Other than that, your argument has a lot of irony,

Yes Lyle it is, and what foreign policy experience did Obama have? Even at the DNC, he claimed that China was our #1 allie; really!?

Condoleeza Rice, James Baker and Henry Kissinger all endorse Romney's foreign policy plans, and all have had successful foreign ploicy themselves. Obama failed during the Arab spring, failed on Israel and failed on Iran. He had zero experience on anything, and it has shown.

What's Obama's policy on Syria?

::Crickets::

@Brian Dey...You and I are using completely different measures concerning foreign policy. The president has nearly four years experience and has been pretty successful. He did exactly what should have been done in the Arab Spring, allowing the parties with the most national interest take the lead.

You can state your opinion about Israel, but it's an uninformed opinion at best. Few Americans understand the internal politics of Israel and the impact that it has on Israel's posturing and actions. No American President, including Obama, will jeopardize Israel's security and right to exist. One of the worst problems that we have in Israel is the interference of the American Christian Right's support of the Jewish Ultra Orthodox and the Settlements.

As far as Kissinger and others endorsing Romney's foreign policy plans, it means absolutely nothing. Kissinger and Baker were absolutely wrong on a number of issues. Baker was prepared to sell out the Israeli's during the first Gulf War. Please don't go meddling in things you have absolutely no knowledge of.

If we were being completely honest about this, the question of foreign policy experience is really a distraction. No one is truly experienced when it comes to their level and capacity to conduct foreign policy at this level. And you really can't make it a requirement for entry, as it's akin to saying that you can't play major league baseball because you have never played major league baseball.

What you have to examine is the capacity to conduct it, or how the candidate did in the minors if you will. I personally think the capacity is there in Romney, and more than it was with Obama when he was first running. What occurs at the upper levels between major corporations can be just as involved as relations between nations (and sometimes just as dangerous).

Now one can ask the question, as I am sure Lyle is considering, as to why you would replace someone with four years of experience at that position, with someone new regardless of their potential, perceived or otherwise.

One, as important as foreign policy can be, that is not the issue that will decide my vote this election. The debt crises we face, in my opinion, is a greater threat than any other consideration.

Secondly, I disagree with Lyle that our current president has been pretty successful in the area of foreign policy. I wouldn't go as far as to say he has been bad in that role, but he hasn't been good either.

As always though, in my humble opinion.

@Luke...What should his foreign policy be on Syria? I have observed how complicated this situation is and there isn't any simple answer or course of direction. Without a clear course, how can the president or anyone else, for that matter, be judged?

Lyle,

How about supporting anyone in favor of democracy? Seems easy enough.

@Hoffa - what is your primary source when forming your opinion on the Presidents Tax Plan?

FreeThought Troy -

That's a good question, as there isn't really a whole lot on Obama's website about taxes, is there?

http://www.barackobama.com/record/taxes?source=primary-nav

Why isn't the President open, transparent, and honest about his tax plan? What is Obama hiding? Unfortunately, because of Obama's reluctance to just put his tax plan out there on his website for all to read, we're forced to piece it together from media reports. What happened to transparency?

As far as Obama allowing the Bush income tax cuts to expire for everyone on December 31:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-01/business/chi-congress-considers-letting-bush-tax-cuts-expire-20120630_1_tax-cuts-tax-plan-american-people-hostage

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/senator-murray-says-democrats-will-let-tax-cuts-expire/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/08/gibbs-obama-100-committed-to-expiring-bush-tax-cuts/

As far as Obama's plan for capital gain tax increases:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/07/19/obama-promised-he-wouldnt-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class-he-lied/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/29/obamacare-would-also-hike-capital-gains-tax/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/obama-s-budget-plan-proposes-doubling-dividend-tax-in-focus-on-the-wealthy.html

As far as Obama's plan to raise taxes on businesses:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/us/politics/amid-tax-debate-a-closer-look-at-small-businesses.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/how-massive-is-obamas-tax-cuttax-increase/2012/07/09/gJQAhbLGZW_blog.html

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-19/obama-plan-means-higher-taxes-on-53-percent-of-business-income-study

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-tax-increase-would-hit-business-owners_648301.html

And let's not forget the taxes that are in Obamacare, which directly impact the middle-class the hardest because the poor are already covered by Medicaid and the rich are already insured, and the fact that Obama also wants to increase the estate/death tax to 45% and lower the exemptible amount, which is also covered in many of the above articles.

Romney's and Ryan's plans are both right on their respective websites for all to read!

The choice is clear and should be a no-brainer based on tax plans alone!

These are all fun and good resourses, but based on your own standards, we are only allowed to use primary resources. This means no matter the vitriol says - including those on these posts, the president intends to reform the tax code leaving all middle class cuts in place. For those earning $250k or above, the tax levels default to Pre-Bush Tax Cut levels. Corporate loopholes are closed as well as those for hedge fund managers and oil companies - direct lifts from the website.

Based on your own standards - Your own standards... we are only to use the primary source: the website. We aren't allowed analysis from media bias. We are to use and trust the primary source. We are to think for ourselves and not be mind controled by the media - less our education fail us.

Based on your own standards - your own standards. We are to disregard all the other sources in your posts.

Let's level the playing field if we are to throw accusations around. I will trust the analysis of all these other sources as long as you can accept the analysis from other sources in regards to the Romney/Ryan Plan

@FreeThought Troy -

When the media references direct quotes from Obama or interviews from members of Obama's administration, such quotes and interviews are considered to be primary source information.

The partisan analysis, spin, and conclusions should be appropriately set aside, and you should perform your own analysis and reach your own conclusions from the primary source facts.

From Obama's website:

"That's why President Obama proposed the Buffett Rule, asking millionaires and billionaires to do their fair share. But if you're one of the 98 percent of American families who make under $250,000 a year, your taxes won’t go up."

Why doesn't Obama explain his proposed Buffet Rule in detail, giving us the effective rates that he's asking for? And last Hoffa checked, middle class people do invest in the financial markets. Hoffa, for example, has a couple Scottrade accounts. Thus any raise in the capital gains taxes by Obama will in fact increase taxes on the middle class people who invest in financial markets.

Not to mention that the individual mandate in Obamacare, which will impact the middle class the hardest, was called a tax by the S. Court in their majority decision, which is a primary source document. Thus, Obamacare itself represents a giant tax increase on the middle class.

Accordingly, Obama LIED when he said on his website that "if you're one of the 98 percent of American families who make under $250,000 a year, your taxes won’t go up."

At the end of the day, Hoffa, you have just proved your own willingness to justify a biased playing field. When you are the one that chooses which sources are primary and reputable, you discredit every word you say.

I may be the world's biggest D-Bag.

But you are still an idiot.

You are an idiot that has no business arguing anything.

You set the rules-stick to them. You can't change them because the outcome makes you lose the argument.

Willard Mitt Romney has set out a tax plan with a bunch of fancy numbers and percentages. Part and parcel for the business man he is. The unfortunate part is when the numbers are crunched, they don't add up. Romney/Ryan tax plan will start eliminating deductions in order to pay for things and they will effect the middle class to a staggering degree. Maybe if any of us have heard what deductions he is talking about, the opinion may change. To date, all we have heard is stumbling double talk and Obama blaming for no apparent reason.

A lot like Hoffa's arguments. Are you part of the campaign, Hoffa? Are you on retainer?

@FreeThought Troy -

Hoffa is not violating any of his own rules. Any direct quotes from Romney/Ryan or interviews with representatives of the campaign are also primary source facts.

"And I've indicated as well that-- that contrary to what the Democrats are saying, I'm not going to increase the tax burden on middle income families. It would absolutely be wrong to do that."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48959273/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.UE61La7iauM

The biased third party analysis that you're relying upon for your conclusions does not fairly assess Romney's tax plan as 1) it make numerous assumptions that Romney has stated are not accurate; 2) it uses a baseline assumption that revenues will need to remain constant or increase year after year; and 3) it fails to consider all the spending cuts proposed by the Romney/Ryan budget.

We've already been through that and you haven't contested those assertions because they are 100% objective FACT.

The only way that we'll ever know if Romney is lying is to give him a chance and let him prove himself.

After all, that's the only way that we were able to find out that Obama was lying about closing Gitmo, ending the wars on day 1, halfing the deficit during his first term, getting unemployment below 8% with his $1T stimulus, shovel ready jobs, no mandate in Obamacare, promising to air WH meetings on C-SPAN 3, etc.

Obama has a record of LIES.

Does the book offer any explanations of why the Democrats and the multinational corporations that own most of the mainstream media would conspire, in what form this conspiracy takes, the form of duping that is taking place, how it is harming our country, etc.?

Ron can't honestly be expected to understand how government works, or business, for that matter. He was handed a company created in the late 1970s by his brother-in-law, Pat Curler, a BEMIS heir, after marrying Pat's sister Jane. That company was based on another company created in 1958 solely to serve BEMIS. So he has no real clue what it's like to build an organization, to have to hustle to meet payroll like other entrepreneurs or small/midsize business owners.

It doesn't appear that he's made any efforts to understand his new job in Congress, either, from his funky letter to the President suggesting that the administration not honor debt commitments (among other things-read response letter from Timothy Geithner here: http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/Documents/DLJohnsonLetter062911.pdf), alienating his own staff (to the point that other Republicans were trying to find other jobs for them in other areas), etc. Not to mention votes like these. Sigh.

@Bren,

You couldn't be more ignorant if you practiced. Ron Johnson was not at BEMIS; he was at PACUR, at which he worked 12-hour shifts along side his brother-in-law as an accountant and working the machines on the shop floor. He arrived a month or two after the company began, as exclusive supplier to BEMIS. Johnson built the company, diversified the company, and eventually bought the company. He is the exact opposite of what you claim.

Johnson was not a token exec, who simply arrived every day and voted "present." He also did not get the job because of his race.

Luke! Did you even read my post? "Talk" about "ignore-ance."

PACUR was created approximately two years before Ron Johnson came on board. He was given an executive position by his brother-in-law, a BEMIS heir. There is no way that the experiences of an executive at a company created by a BEMIS heir to serve BEMIS is going to go through the same types of trials and tribulations as a struggling start-up, there just isn't. It's disingenuous to suggest it, whether it you or Mr. Johnson who is doing so. As another poster puts it, Johnson "married into third base" and claims to have hit a triple.

Bren, have you ever started a business? You keep spewing the same lies about Senator Johnson. You actually have no standards, just partisan emotion.

Greg, here's where some of my information about PACUR is derived: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/101847753.html A little more digging reveals more.

Yes, since you ask so nicely about starting a business.

And you as usual sir, seem to have nothing to add to the discourse except jibes and comments of a curmudgeonly nature. How dull.

Bren, Dull is better than anything that you have to offer. Johnson's company was incorporated on July 21, 1978, he started there 10 months later and was one of two employees. Hardly the executive that you present. The class envy is really sad.

@Bren

Try to focus. Johnson moved to Wisconsin to work at PACUR months after it was started. Both he and his wife worked there just months after it became a company. He was the accountant as well as a shop floor worker, so we would expect the accountant to become a an exec at the company.

And contrary to what you have said, an entrepreneur is not only someone who starts a company from scratch. An entrepreneur is also someone who utilizes the resources of a company to grow and expand it. The Fortune 500 is made up mostly of companies that headed by people that are not the original founders. Ursala Burns, for example, is the CEO of Xerox and has won awards for her entrepreneurship.

That said, Johnson is certainly a successful entrepreneur who has diversified his company’s products, expanded the customer base, and grown the company. He has even been a community organizer, without any shady realestate deals.

Luke, I'm sorry if what I write, based on actual research, doesn't align with what you want to believe.

Here's what I think: if a guy wants a job badly enough to doctor his company website, sure, give him a shot at it. This is a job that is independent of the Curler family.

I'd personally prefer no more content-free recommendations to the Treasury Department and fewer histrionics from Ron "Our last shred of freedom" Johnson. But I understand he's trying to make a name for himself.

@Bren,

Not only does your opinion not match actual research, but it does not match the conventional use of "entrepreneur."

As usual, instead of addressing Johnson's issue regarding the debt being financed at a rate that is bound to more than double if the economy recovers, you launch an attack on his reputation. But that's what we've come to expect from you. Rather than address an issue, you attack the source.

But attacking the source does not affect the truth what the source is saying.

Welcome to Mike, Patch Post Patrol officer. ; )

@morninmist -

This doesn't come as a surprise, as your perpetuation of the stupidity of others has come to define you here on the Patch!

Ooops

Here is the link for the Dumb Johnson post above:

http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/09/dumb-ron-johnson-brought-to-you-by.html?spref=tw

Did Johnson actually say this, "Rights are not granted by government because the government belongs to us?" I hope this was a tongue-twisted attempt to say something else about government being We the People.

Johnson is a parrot for the TeaRepups. Nothing intelligent can come from his biased brain tissues!

@morninmist -

And you aren't a biased shill for the DPW and DNC???

Yeah, right!!!

The right to the fruit of my labor, all of it .. socialist despot moron

@Johnny Blade -- 'All' of the fruits of your labor? So the rest of us get to pay for your elementary education, your roads, your police and fire protection? You have to wonder who's the moron.

@Johnny- Is it your ignorance to any rational thought?

Turn off Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. They lie to you. They know they lie to you. They will continue to lie to you because you gullibly believe every word they say with no independant, common sence, thought of your own.

Randy .. YES All of my labor, income tax is BS, i can see paying for the roads with GAS TAX, sales TAX ... You freakin commies think it is right to use force to steal my labor, Then I am a slave iam not. You can fund all your Fire, police etc thru a tax that is voluntary .. why don't you read the constitution, Income Tax, property tax = unconstitutional

@Johnny - typical Tea Pary Conservative....

Want everything provided to you with no though or reason on how it is paid for.

Johnny - there is no possible way you on your own can support any kind of infrastructure you use on a daily basis. We all contribute to that together - through our democratic government. Anarchy will not protect you, no matter how much you think it will.

No wonder the debt sky rockets under Conservative Presidents.

Well, Johnny, it's pretty obvious you didn't really avail yourself of the public education. I think we should all fund the space program so you and all your fellow rugged individualists will have a place to go to look out for number one and no one else.

Kindly return to polishing your flintlock.

Amen Mike .. But the Sheeple keep grazing, only when the food is gone will they awaken

Using your analogy, oak creek resident, the Bush tax cuts would represent reducing that $80k salary/revenue (going to part-time hours?). The two unfunded military actions increased debt. Saving the economy from collapse also increased expenses, as did keeping millions of newly displaced workers and their families alive while the issues are being resolved.

So if your financial responsibilities are $120k, how do you pump up that $80k intake? Most of us would get another job/increase revenue. We'd also look to see if we can renegotiate some of our $120k in responsibilities. That's why there's talk about letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire, that's why the Obama administration is looking at efficiencies in Medicare (you know that Tommy Thompson supported legislation that keeps the government from negotiating med-related prices?).

From where I'm "standing," I haven't heard one sensible approach from Republicans on resolving the financial issues. That's why I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take the GOP seriously. We are dealing with real life here, real people, real Americans, real problems. Talking about limiting government as if it is Jabba the Hut instead of US and our voices is as seditious as it is mendacious. We need more voice in our government, not less. Special interests are just that. Everyone's voice deserves to be heard.

Here yah go AWD. Took good ol' boy Tommy 5 days to apologize for camp's bigotry!

America United ‏@Progress2day

5 days later, Tommy Thompson apologizes for his campaign’s attacks on Tammy Baldwins sexual orientation http://bit.ly/NYBSv8 #wiunion #wisen

Five days later, Tommy Thompson explains his campaign’s attacks on Tammy Baldwin’s sexual orientation (UPDATED)

Five days after his Senate campaign’s political director sent out an email purporting that Democratic Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin lacked “heartland values” because of her sexual orientation, Republican “Tea Party Tommy” Thompson offered an explanation for his campaign’s attacks on Baldwin.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tommy Thompson said Tuesday that it was a mistake for one of his aides to send a disparaging email and Twitter messages about Democratic opponent Tammy Baldwin dancing at a gay pride event.

The email and tweets were sent in advance of Baldwin’s speech at the Democratic National Convention last week.

“I thought it was a mistake, I’m sorry, and he’s apologized, I believe,” Thompson told reporters after a luncheon of the Milwaukee Rotary Club. “He shouldn’t have done it.”...

Hey @Man...
Even the FAR Right is not happy with Mitt and his big mouth!

Politico: The WSJ's Peggy Noonan critical of Romney’s response 2 the death of US Libya diplomat http://ow.ly/dFqVX #p2 #wiunion

Top Conservative Cat ‏@TeaPartyCat

That awkward moment when Mitt Romney criticizes the President with a lie and not one elected GOP official will back him up.

Don't you guys like cuts???

Ask ACORN - breitbart.com is the MOST dis-reputable news sorce. I thing the Weekly World News has higher journalistic standards