I think it would be very inaccurate to call the crowd protesters. People were largely supportive and excited to catch a glimpse of the president's motorcade, but mostly just hoping the prez could help them.

I should clarify...there were definitely a lot of people demonstrating and calling on the president to create more jobs. But not "protesting," in my opinion.

Walker gets the boos and Obama gets the supportive crowd. SWEET

http://www.waow.com/story/16943037/protesters-at-obama-event-chant-for-walker-recall

Protesters at Obama event chant for Walker recall

Posted: Feb 15, 2012 1:35 PM CST Updated: Feb 15, 2012 1:35 PM CST

MILWAUKEE (AP) - Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker isn't joining President Barack Obama at a Milwaukee event, but about 100 Walker protesters still showed up chanting for the Republican governor's recall.

The protesters Wednesday also held signs calling on the president to create more jobs and end the war in Afghanistan.

Obama is visiting the Master Lock Co. factory, praising the company for bringing back about 100 jobs from overseas.

The protesters stood across the street behind yellow tape. One man called out that 100 local jobs is a good start, but he said the area still needs 99,990 more.

Others chanted, "Recall Walker," and one woman called him a coward for reversing his decision to join Obama at the factory. Walker cited an illness, but did greet him at the airport.

That elephant was brought to you by corporate greed was brought to you by companies moving overseas, compliments of corporate greed with the help of tax breaks -- the very thing that the President was talking about.

I saw that he had stomach flu. Got it from HuffPo here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/scott-walker-obama-stomach-flu-_n_1278992.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Right . . .

I'm gonna suggest that, possibly, he anticipated the protestors that seem to follow him everywhere and thought it better not to encourage them to show up and muck up what was a positive event.

Or he had the flu.

Yes and he suddenly got better the next day. The truth is he's running from reality. He can't handle the truth.

Those from that area that are still in business should be made to pay additional taxes because they moved out to the NW Industrial Park, New Berlin or the Falls back in the mid-late '80s/early '90s?

Eh? I meant home to the U.S., "insourcing."

I know what you meant, Bren. It's just that it doesn't apply to the empty factories in that area.

It wouldn't be a good idea. As much as it would be appreciated, this is a people's movement and his presence would only distract.

I don't think federal employees are unionized. He'd have a hard time countering Act 10 w/o addressing that.

"his Mosque (sic)"??? huh??

Well JRH
Overall, the US economy is picking up a bit while the WI has tanked these last 6 months. I will stick with Obama pony. YUP.

Cheers

@morninmist -

If Obama is working so very well, then why are his supporters begging him to focus on jobs? After all, if he was indeed working as well as you believe him to be, then they'd already have jobs by now, right?

But let's compare Walker to Obama, solely on their respective records, shall we:

Walker's first year - net job creation of 13,500.

Obama's first year - net job loss of 4,200,000.

Yeah, I guess if you like job loss, then Obama's your pony all right :-)

Jobs could have grown faster if the GOP would have gotten out of the way and allow a larger stimulus. For you political amateurs who think the Democrats had a majority up to 2010, the GOP was also helped out by gutless blue dog Democrats.

The GOP's program is to prevent Obama's reelection and us and the economy got in the way.

Faulty reasoning. Tale of two leaders. Obama's first year was coming off of the Bush's disastrous economy followed by two years of job growth. Amnesia Jimmy?

Those jobs in Wisconsin happened BEFORE 1% Walker's budget went into place. The 13,500 grew as a result of the Doyle economy.

Are you blaming the GOP for your "gutless, blue dog" brethren, Keith?

The Dems did have a majority up 'til 2010. The fact that you guys couldn't get your ducks in a row is your own fault, not someone else's. You're really taking the blaming and excuse making game to new extremes with this one.

Hoffa: same old lies and distortion. It ain't working with your talking points. Give it up man.

"Obama has done an impressive job of halting the recession..."
What planet are you living on?
Take a look at Greece (not the movie), unless we stop spending like there is an endless suply of money- we will be there sooner than later.
How is that hope and change working out for you?
A lot of people are hoping they have enough change to buy dinner.

Obama is now spending more money than the GDP, that's impressive to you?
You can tax the "rich" at 100% and it would run the government for 120 days. Then what do you do?

The president had a chance of allowing thousands of jobs to be created, and he said no to a pipeline.
He had a chance to control our debt and he said no
He had a chance to reduce regulations and open up the free market and he said no

Yep, them pesky republicans and all their nos.

Obama is spending money? Did he order up two wars and pretend their $1.4 trillion costs wouldn't have to be paid for? Did he turn Clinton's surplus into a deficit by giving $1.8 trillion in tax cuts to the rich? Did he sign $180 billion drug benefit that was not paid for? $224 billion for TARP, $773 billion for the 2008 stimulus -- that was Bush too. All of this goes on the tab before Obama ever sits down at the table. Then, as a finishing touch, the restaurant bursts into flame just before Bush waves goodbye. Obama has to put the fire out and pay for damages, plus everything Bush ordered -- all while Republicans throw food at him and call him a big spender. But he's doing it, with true class and serious cool. We will reelect him -- and hopefully replace as many Republicans as possible with people who prefer progress.

Yes, we were SO fortunate to have $1.61-a-gallon gas! Of course, during Bush's last summer, gas was over $4. Can you remember what made the price drop like a rock by November? Anyone? Bueller?

@Mark -

Clinton never experienced any real surpluses. The only way Clinton achieved a surplus was due to his $1T+ raids on the SS fund. This was already covered on other Patch boards.

The only modern President to successful run a real surplus and actually pay down some of your national debt, as opposed to contributing to it, was Jimmy Carter.

BTW - I see that the 'blame Bush' rhetoric of Obama is still popular amongst the Daily Kos crowd. But I really thought at this stage in the game that you guys would have come up with some new material by now. Disappointing.

When you're on solid ground, you don't have to keep coming up with new material (e.g. "Look over there! It's a war on religion."). Here is the CBO chart: http://bit.ly/xHaaYv Note where the light blue line briefly rises above the dark blue line. That's Clinton, not Carter. His Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was designed to -- wait for it -- reduce the deficit, and it worked. All the Republicans screamed and shrieked about "the biggest tax increase in history," and not a SINGLE Republican in the House or Senate voted for it. Al Gore had to cast the deciding vote. But it worked. The Reagan/Bush deficit was erased by Democrats. Far from wrecking us, we had the strongest economy in history, and the rich got richer too. Nowadays Newt Gingrich -- who shrieked the loudest back then -- takes credit for it all.

@JRH -- "Clinton never experienced any real surpluses. The only way Clinton achieved a surplus was due to his $1T+ raids on the SS fund. This was already covered on other Patch boards."

Indulge me and cover it again, because to do that, President Clinton would have had to convert excess Social Security money into direct revenue rather than borrowing it from the trust fund and 'investing' it in T-bills.

"When the Social Security program loans money to the U.S. government, the government can also spend this money on other government programs. This increases the national debt because the government has spent the money it has borrowed from Social Security. Some politicians have referred to this action as, "Raiding the Social Security Trust Fund."
http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

* When the Social Security program loans money to the U.S. government, the government can also spend this money on other government programs. This increases the national debt because the government has spent the money it has borrowed from Social Security. Some politicians have referred to this action as, "Raiding the Social Security Trust Fund."

Yep, keep blaming Bush for Obama's failures. I though Obama was going to part the sea and fix all of these things? Instead the man makes things much worse.

Don't worry, you won't have to keep making excuses for this failure after November.

@Randy1949 -

The 'investing' argument is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Clinton wouldn't have been selling T-Bills to the SS fund if he had all the money that he needed and wanted to spend in his budget already sitting in the Treasury's general fund, would he have? And aren't T-Bill's actually nothing more than an IOU from the federal government - I think they are.

In other words, the only way you can create debt is by spending money that you don't actually have in your pocket. While the SS money was there, it was supposed to have been segregated under the program's original intention and design. You yourself have argued that SS is an investment as opposed to being an 'entitlement,' as we all expect to get back out of the program that which we paid into the program, correct? So in order to fulfill that 'promise,' those 'borrowed' funds that were used for other non-program purposes by Mr. Clinton, which would ordinarily meet the accepted definition of a 'conversion,' would eventually have to be paid back, right?

So how is this any different than borrowing money from China, or anyone else for that matter, just so that you can spend more than you currently have on hand?

Pretty simple.

@JRH -- http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

That chart is pretty persuasive. But if Clinton was actually taking in less in taxes than he was spending, then how in heaven did GW bush think it was a good idea to lower taxes and give some money back in the form of rebates?

Craig, didn't know Obama was Prime Minister of Greece. Their problem is massive tax avoidance.

For all of you tempted to pin the deficit on Obama, remember he had to deal with the trillions going into the two wars and the upper income tax cuts.

BS on the 120 days. Lies from Zombie Ryan -- whose days are numbered. Repealing the tax cuts would balance the budget.

Wish all you want Jimmy. We are still dealing with massive Bush residue, which also includes the mess from unregulated markets causing the housing market crash, not minorities buying houses. Fortunately most of America agrees.

@Kieth: I mentioned Greece because that is what ignoring spending does to you. Regarding the housing market crash. This actually started under Carter, a well intentioned way to get minorities to become homeowners. Almost every administration since Carter expanded on that including Clinton who allowed jumbo loans. When self employed hairstylists are trusted to state their income as 100k/year, and the higher stakes of McMansions are included- it becomes a doomed system. Bush even warned us about it for 3 years.

Keith: Didn't Obama promise to end those two unfunded wars in his first year? How is that promise working out? We were involved in Egypt when we should have stayed out of it, they were afraid of messing with us. Unless we are very careful, we may wind up dealing with Iran next.
We need to bring all of our soldiers home and put them on the Mexican border.

The notion that the financial collapse was caused by unqualified borrowers -- "minorities" -- is racist nonsense. It was caused by unregulated investment firms that took the warning labels off iffy mortgages, mixed them all up an in blender, then poured them out as quality investments to their customers -- even while betting against these derivatives themselves. This is extensively documented history which can be looked up.

Now, after Bush bailed these banks out with TARP, Republicans want to remove the minimal Dodd-Frank regulations enacted since the crash and go back to that financial free-for-all.

@Mark: Go back and re read my comment. In no way was it racist. In fact I pointed out that other adminsitrations expanded on a good plan put in place by Carter. How is that racist?
I actually praised Carter. Had it not been changed, that system would still be working well today.
It was the subsequent administrations on both sides of the aisle that turned it into a monster. Bush saw the writing on the wall and took no action other than to talk about it. Again, Jumbo loans were what was the tipping point. All wrapped up in a pretty CMO, with no accountability for who owned what mortgage. Sloppy record keeping forced a bailout.

Craig, you're shifting the blame from the investment firms to the borrowers, and that's absurd. You specifically singled out "minorities" -- and okay, "racist" may be harsher word than I should have chosen -- but you are nonetheless pinning the Great Recession on racial minorities. The fact is that the Fair Housing and Community Reinvestment acts apply only to banks under FDIC jurisdiction which, according to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, accounted for just 6% of all high-cost loans. Minority borrowers are just a convenient scapegoat.

@Mark -

" It was caused by unregulated investment firms that took the warning labels off iffy mortgages, mixed them all up an in blender, then poured them out as quality investments to their customers -- even while betting against these derivatives themselves."

Actually, the blame would lie at the hands of the ratings agencies and not the investment banks, as you claim, wouldn't it?

And how exactly does Dodd-Frank in anyway regulate the ratings agencies? That's why Dodd-Frank is nothing but pure bs.

James, I can't keep looking things for you. Subtitle C: http://bit.ly/xTonDq

"I actually praised Carter. Had it not been changed, that system would still be working well today.
It was the subsequent administrations on both sides of the aisle that turned it into a monster."
I also pointed out jumbo loans being the tipping point; once big money was involved, it turned to crap.
How am I blaming minorities?

well said , the GOP have know new ideas , they just what to take us back to the same old same old that did not work then and will not work in the future , it will take 10 years to fix what bush has done , you can not give out tax breaks when your in the middle of 2 wars , that is what drove up the def. you never here 1 tbagger complain about that do ya . Obama 2012

That's really good of you Steve - you're a true patriot.

I just wouldn't be holding my breath while waiting for that to happen if I was you :-)

Hey Steve
Ring up Walker--he needs some good business advice.

Walker knows what he is doing. Keeping state government off my ass and making sure I am not burden with ever increasing taxes and fees. He knows I am the job creator, not himself.

That plane looked expensive, good thing we have plenty of money to pay for it....

“He would say he wants something done now or Congress should pass this bill now and people actually took up the chant ‘right now, right now, right now,’” she said....

***********************

That's a tad creepy.

You site the journal sentinel article? Yeah, that's not biased. Wait, from what I read here, it makes him sound like a giggling buffoon. So maybe it is accurate. Amusing stories, while the seriousness of people with no jobs linger outside. Giggling about jumping on 94 to go home, yet he went to Cali, while Iran threatens to close the channel. Disconnected as usual.

I think the article is from the Racine Journal-Times. I wanted to see if the rest of it was as insipid as the parts morninmist decided to feature, but it appears it's either no longer up or the link was hosed. If I didn't know it was about TPOTUS, I'd probably have assumed it was some tween describing a Justin Bieber appearance.

Yes, the president has a keen sense of humor, but everyone knows he's also a deadly serious man. Sometimes he can be joking along with the national press and making a laughingstock of Donald Trump -- even while he's also secretly having Bin Laden killed.

Mark: You do remember Al Gore questioning Ollie North about who is this Ben Laden guy? You do remember Bill Clinton had the chance to take him out, and instead took a pass?
And when we finally got him, it was inside a country who claimed to be cooperating with us, a country who we pay to be our friend?
Despite that fact, we haven't stopped paying for friends in the Middle East.
That's really smart.
Yet we do not build a pipleline from Canada.
That's really brilliant.

Craig: Oliver North did not testify about or mention the name Osama bin Laden during the Iran-Contra hearings. See Snopes: http://bit.ly/zFVtNT -- and FactCheck.org points out the North himself has debunked this "ridiculous hoax": http://bit.ly/wVztcL

Similarly with the nonsense about Clinton passing up a chance to kill Bin Laden.
Snopes: http://bit.ly/zw6gIU -- FactCheck.org: http://bit.ly/xGpKcV

When Obama vowed in a 2007 speech that he would act against terrorists even inside Pakistan, conservatives called him "crazy" and "frightening": http://bit.ly/yPl1PG

What any of this this has to do with the Keystone XL Pipeline, I will leave up to you to explain. But I would suggest that with just a little bit of simple research, you could save yourself some embarrassment and perhaps replace some of your misunderstanding with facts.

@Mark Czerniec -

Hmmm… laughing off his failed nearly $1T spending spree with the public / taxpayer credit card by stating "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected," is hardly something that I would call funny. While you may consider that to be a sharp 'sense of humor,' I see it as a perversion of the public trust.

Reversing a loss of 750,000 jobs a month into a gain of 240,000 jobs a month is not what I consider "failed."

Mark: You are right.
Snopes confirmed you assertation this was false.
Funny I seem to remember the video when it never actually existed. My Bad.
I mentioned the XL pipeline because I think it would be in our best interest to have oil from our hemisphere on the world market. Thus, reducing the output from those countries who want us dead.
It may not be the end solution, but it is a start at cutting the head off of a tail wagging monster.

@Mark -

If it wasn't a failure, then why did Obama feel the need to say what he said and actually laugh about it in the process of saying it?

I guess I just don't understand the liberal sense of humor.

Yup, just you.

Yep- JUST YOU- so sad your party has conceded the presidency.

he is not taking credt for it he is just stating that we need to do more of this , you cant be that much of a fool to understand this right , you just want to hate , thats fine just let us fix all the problems and you keep hating

Keeping wishing mau. 1% Walker's massive cuts to public employee salaries is leading to a collapse of the Wisconsin economy.

Keith please pay back the $35k you took from the Village of Shorewood so we can continue to keep our hardworking employees employed! thank you sir.

Except he wasn't taking credit for it. You're just making that up. His remarks are right here: http://1.usa.gov/xjJIAi

He was applauding Master Lock's move, and using it as an example of what he is proposing should be rewarded.

Not to descend into knee-jerk jingoism, but Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is still alive. How is that in any way inept?

Master lock is back in Milwaukee because they learned that you get what you pay for in your workers. The quality of the product suffered by outsourcing. Big manufacturing will eventually learn that lesson -- that Wisconsin workers are intelligent and hard-working -- but not before a lot of suffering will have been caused by that search for the bottom line.

One reason Master Lock is back is that they were able to set up a two-tier pay scale. Another reason is that they were able to increase productivity here by utilizing technology that compensated for the difference in labor rates to the point that it was economically efficient for them to bring the jobs back. So there's a little more to it than just some sort of desire to bring the jobs back here. It had to be economically feasible. To the degree that that continues as a result of continued technological efficiencies or an increase in the cost of doing business over there, you can expect to see more situations like this.

The myth that all outsourcing is the result of greed rather than survival, hopefully, becomes apparent through moves like this. It doesn't make sense to replace it with another myth that suggests companies are doing this solely because of concerns about the quality of work coming out of China as it relates to the quality of work done here. China and other nations have made enormous leaps in a short period of time. They're not up to our level yet, but to suggest that that's a stagnant position and won't change over time is as foolish as was the thought, back in the '90s when this first began to take hold in a big way (and that's still parroted in some circles today), that we as a nation can provide jobs of a quality nature without a strong manufacturing base.

@Randy1949 -

I'm glad that GM is still alive, but I don't like the way in which he did it - nothing but a massive crony capitalism handout to his supporters and backers in the UAW. The right way to save GM would have been a straight up interest bearing loan with no hanky-panky, just like Carter did with Iacocca and Chrysler back in '79. Not back-room deals and crony shenanigans - especially seeing as how he promised all of us change from that kind of crap. Instead of change, we ended up with far worse. Not to mention that Carter's bailout of Chrysler was a complete success as every penny of those loans were paid back with interest and well ahead of schedule. Under Obama's bailout, the taxpayer is left getting hosed for billions.

If that's your definition of success, then please - give me back Carter!!!

James, you do realize that the $13.4 billion rescue loan for American automakers -- including Chrysler -- was announced by President George W. Bush on December 19, 2008, right?

It is quite pathetic that of all of the companies in the US, Barack Hussein Obama comes to inner city Milwaukee for the insourcing of a mere 100 jobs? Think about it, they are stretching and he is certainly taking credit for it.

@Mark -

Yep, and just like Carter, under Bush it was just a straight up loan with no hanky-panky crony shenanigans.

The UAW (for GM) and Fiat (for Chrysler) didn't come into the picture until Obama got his hands on it, did they? Not to even mention Obama's appointed car czar, which attempted to run both companies in a quasi-nationalized fashion. I don't seem to recall a czar being a part of Bush's rescue plan, do you?

Again, change for the worse!

I seem to recall Ford didn't take the bailout. I think they survived and are still in business. Wouldn't that be considered a success story?

Not only did Ford survive but it thrives. Governments make bad bets on companies and technologies, just ask the Japanese. The government should be involved in basic and long term research, not propping up failing companies.

Now, we should not have allowed GM to go under. The auto industry and everyone who supplies it would have been in a world of hurt. And our economy at large would have been in a world of hurt as auto mftring is a substantial percentage of our economy. It just should have been done with loans rather than having the government own a piece of GM.

What exactly IS the arrangement between GM and the gov't?

James: So in your imagination, Obama appointed a car czar?

The Obama administration 'Car Czars' are/were Ron Bloom, Steven Rattner and/or Ed Montgomery according to my 'imagination'...

Imagine that: A Car Czar
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/22/house-votes-to-end-car-czars-tenure/

And as the article points out, "czar" is invented journalist slang, not an actual thing. Ron Bloom was one member of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, and not even one of its co-chairs.

Spud or potato it is the same damn thing.

Fine -- then George W. Bush had an AIDS czar, a bioethics czar, a bird flu czar, a birth control czar, a copyright czar, a communications czar, a foreign aid czar, a democracy czar, a cyber security czar, a domestic policy czar, a drug czar, a faith-based czar, a health IT czar, a homeland security czar, a manufacturing czar, a mine safety czar, a food safety czar, a public diplomacy czar, a reading czar, a regulatory czar, a policy czar, a science czar, a counterterrorism czar, and a weatherization czar, among other czars.

What's the point? Is it better to have no one in charge of specific projects?

According to this, Obama has appointed 38 czars so far. It seems to be a pretty well accepted term...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

But what is the issue? Does it prove Obama was born in Russia? Are there too many czars, not enough divas? Should there not be people who are responsible for particular missions of an administration? Bush had 30-some czars, Obama has 30-some czars -- why is it suddenly a controversy now?

I think the point of it was that Obama has appointed a guy to run the car companies in a 'quasi-nationalized' fashion...

But actually no, it was not just a guy. The original "czar" plan came from the Bush administration which approved the original bailout. The Obama administration abandoned the "czar" idea and went with a task force -- and yes, it's splitting hairs to differentiate between one person making decisions or several. The reality is that decisions have to be made by someone. These automakers, calling their own shots, were about to go bankrupt. Now that taxpayer money was being used to keep them alive, it's only natural that taxpayers should have a voice in the course corrections. It's not like Obama used tanks to take the companies over. They came to Bush broke. We would have no auto industry today without that bailout.

“You could have written off this company, this industry, and this country.” -- GM CEO Dan Akerson

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399030n

wrong , we have lost jobs for 6 months now under walker , he will be gone soon enough

If I recall correctly, the car companies still went through bankruptcy after the government bailout, just as they would have without government intervention...

No, Don, what I meant was that greed was not the only reason, not that it's never the reason. I think the degree to which greed is the reason is overstated, unless you're willing to include in your definition of greed consumer "greed" which results in competition between retailers who then force pricing structures on manufacturers (of consumer goods, obviously) that result in wholesale pricing that's unachievable domestically.

I come in contact with numerous small-medium size manufacturers that, literally, have had no other option than to move production and, sometimes, even distribution off-shore - unless folding up the tent is considered an option. The "myth" is that all these decisions to move production are made in executive offices by folks intent on fattening their own pockets is just that.

Thanks, Bob.
(How do I get this to post below your post? I wish we had a reply to reply to reply...function.)

Looks like it's in the right place, Don. I copied, edited, deleted the original and reposted (as I do frequently because I can't seem to preview it properly in the little comment box), so that's probably what caused your reply to appear before what you were replying to initially.