Sensenbrenner is just another mouth-breather that will find himself kicked to the curb in the Democratic Party MANDATE ELECTION OF 2012 THAT WILL RETURN DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULE TO ALL 50 STATES AND IN THE CONGRESS !

Midwesterners are the most logical people in the country when truly focused on an issue. Without the platitudes and jingoism of the reactionary Tea Party there is a real dialogue going on. The rest of the country is watching and learning from you. Stick to the recall, many of us are sending monetary support.

Sensenbrenner couldn't possibly care less. It doesn't matter how many times I've tried in letters or in person to explain the death spiral, he's not bright enough to get it.
I'm self-employed and I've gone from real insurance with copays to a $10,000 deductible in six years for the same monthly premium. How can anyone start a business these days when you can't afford insurance for yourself much less any potential employees? Again, Sensenbrenner couldn't possibly care less. He's made that blatantly clear, which is why I can't stomach being in the same room with him.

I have just subscribed to The Nation magazine and on the cover of the first issue that I received was "ALEC Exposed". I am usually well informed to what makes the Republicans tick but when one of the HP posts gave the link to the ALEC expose, I knew that I needed to pay more attention to this article. ALEC, IMO, is one of the most dangerous groups out there. The Koch brothers are everywhere but what alarmed me was their agenda to change the social structure to their way of thinking! The Governors in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, and South Carolina are governing from the same playbook. This includes the Union busting issue, abortion, controlling the voting rights process, and immigration. These people are very dangerous and I hope that the DNC is aware of them and has answers to counteract their push to defeat all Democratic candidates in the 2012 elections. I am going to be more proactive this time around to make sure that the voting process is legitimate and is not influenced by smoke and mirrors. In the movie Zeitgeist, reference was made that capitalism is very dangerous to our Democracy because the corporate culture wants to bring about the New World Order and abolish the Constitution and judging by the actions of the Republicans governors, it is proof positive that they are not about the serving their constituents but about serving their corporate masters Lastly Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell are members too!..nuff said

Most people who support the recall are not union members. Next time, bone up before you comment.

In addition, what ever Walker did in the past two weeks had nothing to do with these jobs appearing, seasonal or not.

Since when is a 'power' the same as a 'duty'?

Being granted the 'power' to raise taxes doesn't make it one's 'duty' to raise taxes. It can be argued that the Republicans are doing their constitutional duty to reign in deficit spending rather than keep raising taxes.

@ Comon (sic) Sense

Your post is one of the most condescending, misguided and delusional one's I've seen in a long time. How dare you tell me and all the other hardworking Americans that the rich deserve more than we do. The middle class in this country has every right to reward itself with benefits that we as a nation can afford. We have every right to provide for those less fortunate as well. It is quality of life issue. The taxes were cut for the rich on the pretext of encouraging job growth which it failed miserably to do because their wealth has nothing to do with job growth. We are discussing personal incomes and they pay less in taxes than I do. I am a solidly middle class person whose family has been in this country since the 1600's. I pull my own weight and don't you dare speak to me or other Americans like we are the scum of the earth.

no where in this post do i see that it is their duty to raise taxes but i do see the word uniformed which means we all should pay the same amount of taxes not this 40 that pay nothing and use more of the welfares than the so called rich.

Hey Keith, are you a professional commentator? I notice that you cruise around crapping on everybody's comments you don't like. Do the Republicans pay you to do this or are you just a poor Republican with an ax to grind?

Reading Jacklyn Arzio's comment makes me realize why I'm NOT a Democrat. The Republicans have issues also but NOT THE ANGER. I'm sure you don't have children, are probably NOT married and are very liberal. I am 70 years old, am a professional and still work full time. I Have children, grand-children, and great grand-children. Some of which have learned to work the system, FREE food, almost FREE housing, FREE medical care and whatever they can get FREE. They work SOME to support their HABITS. My concern is what happens when over 50% of the registered voters don't work - legally - and vote as a BLOCK like they have done in the past several elections. They will DEMAND their RIGHTS be fulfilled by taxing more those who do work.What happens when the RICH move to another country, with less taxes? We have seen what happens to cities when the RICH Leave for greener pastures. They become BATTLE ZONES. We have alot of problems and they are NOT really being addressed by 90% of the politicians. We need to create GOOD JOBS and END OUR GIVE AWAY PROGRAMS.

Hi American in Georgia - How is that Atlanta teacher cheating scandal? Teachers cheating? For money? Throw the criminal slackers out!

No Imahippie, its direct cause is "No Child Left Behind" an unfunded republican mandate from your former master. It is happening everywhere, even in your district. Perhaps you should attend school before you make such inept comments. It will require a little in depth thought on your behalf to understand. Not something expected of the average tard.

Georgia,

Sure, go straight to excuses - blame the personal actions on someone else. Take no responsibility. Must be the fault of someone else.

As for school, sorry, I would never put myself or my kids through MPS. There is no in depth thought there.

As for your name calling (tards), you lose. You lose any credibility - you are flat out reprehensible for any name calling. It has no place in debate, renders your position weak and invalid.

Well, now, do you want an official who is financially responsible, or not? Do you want to pay millions to upgrade the main sewer system in Milwaukee, or do you want people to take the SLIGHTEST amount of personal responsibility and inconvenience themselves in the most minor way to accomplish the same goal? Listen, if you want your taxes going sky high, by all means, fix the 2-3 overflows per annum with a sewer upgrade. If you want to be a bit frugal, listen to Sandy and do your dishes and laundry after the storm moves through.
The Girl Scout in me just rolls my eyes over the resistance to common sense solutions.

You bring up the same old "he took a budget surplus and turned it into a 5 Trillion deficit" and then accuse me of posting 'talking points'? Do you think I'm saying that we only need to control deficit spending when the opposition party is in office? This out of control spending thing is certainly not a recent problem, but we are now spending way more (as a percentage of GDP) than at any time since WWII, and it has risen very sharply in the past couple of years.

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

Maybe you have forgotten that during those years, besides 911, we had a DEMOCRATICALLY controlled congress & senate!

C T
12:50pm on Monday, July 25, 2011

Maybe you have forgotten that during those years, besides 911, we had a DEMOCRATICALLY controlled congress & senate!

I've forgotten nothing, the out of control spending began with Bush starting two wars off budget, Medicare Part B off budget and the huge tax decreases to the top 5% of the wealthiest Americans. I can tell you that Michelle Bachman loves Government money, her husband operates off of his medicare customers and she receives farm incentives NOT TO GROW CROPS as if she were a famer. It is Republican Greed that caused this mess not the Democrats in Congress.

C T said:
12:50pm on Monday, July 25, 2011

Maybe you have forgotten that during those years, besides 911, we had a DEMOCRATICALLY controlled congress & senate!

CT, I've forgotten nothing, the out of control spending began with Bush starting two wars off budget, Medicare Part B off budget and the huge tax decreases to the top 5% of the wealthiest Americans. I can tell you that Michelle Bachman loves Government money, her husband operates off of his medicare customers and she receives farm incentives NOT TO GROW CROPS as if she were a famer. It is Republican Greed that caused this mess not the Democrats in Congress.

Cowdung I went to the site and your post is exceptionally disingenuous. What they said was: Washington's spending has recently been higher as a percentage of the nation's economic output than at any time since World War II. But by the same measure, Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.

That's right the lowest taxes in 60 years and the momentous debt Bush left Obama to clean up is what caused this problem.

■Income-tax receipts are down sharply since the Bush tax cuts. That figure was down to 6.2 percent of GDP last year.
■Spending for the military and for homeland security has risen substantially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
■Non-military spending also has continued to rise. President George W. Bush pushed through an expensive prescription drug benefit for seniors in 2003, the largest expansion of Medicare in its history. In the financial crisis of 2008, Bush also pushed for and signed for a massive banking bailout. In early 2009, President Barack Obama pushed for and signed an expensive stimulus measure, and after a long fight in Congress he signed another expensive plan, the health care law, in March of last year, aimed at expanding coverage for millions who lack health insurance.

"income-tax receipts are down sharply since the Bush tax cuts. That figure was down to 6.2 percent of GDP last year. "

I guess you missed the big increase in revenues shown on the graph starting around 2004. The Bush tax cuts were increasing revenues before the recession hit...

I'm in full agreement that spending continues to rise--that's the big issue here...

Ricky, now why did you have to compare Mr. Sensenbrenner to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot? Come on now. You know when you cannot articulate your debate and regress to calling him an idiot - you lost your position. The shame. For you to compare those three to anyone in any way with our Wisconsin political spectrum is beyond the pale - regardless of political affiliation.

I'm not sure why we are still talking about GW Bush, but I'll play along...

Take another look at the red line on the first graph in the Factcheck article I linked to. Yes, it was trending slightly upward during the Bush years, but compare that to the sharp rise that happened early in Obama's presidency. Note the huge gap between the red line and the blue line that we have now--this one of the reasons that it's such a huge deal now, and it wasn't such a huge deal before. The other, is that the height of the red line has never been greater aside from during WWII...

Why is it that the Republicans wants to pretend that they didn't have control of both houses and they spent like crazy...sure all of that changed in the 2006 elections but Bush had spent all of the surplus and was working on increasing the Deficit which meant that by Oct of 2008 which was raised to cover the 700 billion for the stimulus, it was already at 11.315 Trillion..I did the research and here are the numbers under Bush!

P.L. 107-199
June 28th, 2002
New Limit: $6.4 trillion
Increase in Limit: $450 billion

P.L. 108-24
May 27th, 2003
New Limit: $7.384 trillion
Increase in Limit: $984 billion

P.L. 108-415
November 19th, 2004
New Limit: $8.184 trillion
Increase in Limit: $800 billion

P.L. 109-182
March 20th, 2006
New Limit: $8.965 trillion
Increase in Limit: $781 billion

P.L. 110-91
September 29th, 2007
New Limit: $9.815 trillion
Increase in Limit: $850 billion

P.L. 110-289
July 30th, 2008
New Limit: $10.615 trillion
Increase in Limit: $800 billion

P.L. 110-343
October 3rd, 2008
New Limit: $11.315 trillion
Increase in Limit: $700 billion

Compare the 'spending like crazy' during the Bush years and the 'spending like crazy' now. She sharp uptick in the spending line under Obama looks rather scary to me...

that's right the problem is poor people just aren't motivated to get rich, which is why we need to give bonuses to billionaires.

The percentage of income from capital gains and other loopholes actually has the percentage of taxes that the wealty pay much lower than the working class stiff. And those tights you have defended by our militarty is done by the middle class and those people that have "squandered" opportunity because they were born into a bed not as nice as yours.

Shame on you. You sir must not be a christian. Another one of those worship to look good but lets not learn about the true teachings of Christ. Typical Republican.
Jesus said:
...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

With your attitude you better enjoy that money now and hope that this afterlife stuff is all a bunch of hooey.. *LOL*

Even with the lower tax rates that you are claiming, the top 10% of earners pay 55% of the taxes...

Oddly enough, before GW Bush's "tax cuts for the rich", the top 10% of earners only paid 50% of the taxes...

Cowdung:
Why don't you quit while you're ahead. Of course, the "superrich" pay a larger percentage of all the tax revenue. They have all the money!! And with all that money, they promised us jobs. Where are the jobs? The Republicans, which must include you, said for 30 years that there had to be tax breaks for the rich to provide more jobs. Where are the jobs? Obama even extended the Bush tax cuts through 2012 (and if he hadn't there wouldn't be a debt crisis problem now) but -still- those rich guys aren't hiring? Why not?

Why don't you explain how it is a good thing that wealth is this concentrated. Show me a site that proves how the number of jobs is going up because of this concentration of wealth.
http://www.lcurve.org/

I'm thinking that the jobs will be here shortly after Obama leaves office. We need someone like Scott Walker in the White House so businesses will have a better idea of what their future costs will be and be able to budget effectively. The way it is currently, businesses are afraid to commit money to adding staff. There's just too much uncertainty with Obama.

@Steve,

Rich vs Greed. Many people assume that if someone is rich, then they must be greedy. Being rich is not a sin! Being greedy is...Greed is a deadly sin...yes, I am a Christian. And God helps those, who help themselves...alas the opportunity point in my previous post. You also make the assumption that I have lots of money. Money doesn't equal richness or wealth. Money is simply a tool. Richness and wealth can be purchased/built with money. IE...Farmers are rich/wealthy with assets, yet many of them don't have much money!! They provide jobs to their business as well as the industries that purchase what they grow or produce. Are these farmers bad people?

And finally....shame on YOU! If you call yourself a Christian, you should offer a prayer for my eternal soul, not laugh about it...

How many years are you going to blame Bush for TARP and ignore all the other spending increases we have been seeing? At what point should we start to care about what Obama is doing (and/or failing to do)?

GW Bush tried to address the shortfalls of Social Security--remember when he was accused of 'inventing a crisis'?

I would gladly take my SS contributions and add them to my 401(k) plan. I'd get a much better return for my money...

It's great that you can hang on to the past as strongly as you do, but the issue today revolves around the debt limit and the balance between spending and revenues. Yelling that Bush spent too much money a few years ago isn't going to make our current imbalance any better or any more sustainable.

Bush -did- invent the crisis. The same stupid crisis that Obama thinks he has to make a compromise on reducing SS benefits. The same stupid Social-Security-is-a-ponzi-scheme-going-broke crisis the Republicans have been peddling since Reagan. The Trust Fund can pay out 100% of benefits until about 2035. We have 20 years to come up with a fix, but BUSH-TOOK-THAT-MONEY-AND-PLAYED-WAR with it.

Social Security is an INSURANCE policy. Its benefits are suppose to be guaranteed. You can claim your 401(k) does better but you cannot GUARANTEE it.

And you keep thinking that the past is past and so has no relationship to the here and now. OK, then here and now, for whatever reason you want, raise the taxes on the super-rich (those who make more than $1M/year); re-regulate Wall Street; defund the pentagon.

Now you're going to hang on to your past and give me those lies about how Reagan reduced taxes and the economy boomed. You're going to hang on to your past and tell me how we had to go into Iraq because Saddam caused 9/11. Your going to hang on to your past and tell me how you can get a better return in your 401(k).

You are a hypocrite.

Every financial adviser seems to say the same thing--"assume that Social Security will not pay anything for your retirement". Yes, I'm thinking that my 401(k) has a much better chance at supporting me during retirement...

Perhaps Galveston county Texas can serve as a decent model of how we can get away from Social Security...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm

My several financial advisors are not telling me that Social Security won't be there. Of course, one of them is Morgan and we all know they are one of the 'banksters' who stole all the mortgage money.

I have more faith in Social Security being there than my 401(k). Mostly because of the childish antics of the TEAparty.

Your Galveston article is 6 years old. Aside from the fact that I'm not sure they can pull out of Social Security any longer (laws changed, but perhaps I have some misinformation on that, in fact probably) I recall 2005 as being a fairly good economic year because Bush was still dumping money into the economy that he was borrowing (remember his wars were 'off the books").

The only current article I can find on the Galveston plan shows that the Galveston plan is -not- guaranteed. The county was going to not contribute, but then changed its mind.
http://www.khou.com/news/neighborhood-news/Galveston-County-to-give-more-to-retirement-plans-again-112181799.html

And a Social Security Administration analysis shows that in the '90's Social Security had a better rate of return. But more importantly is that one might be comparing Apples and Oranges when talking about benefits. The Galveston plan allows you to invest in an Annuity (an insurance company) which may be for life, but does not have to be. SS your payments are guaranteed by the US government.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf

We'll see how that 'guarantee' by the US government actually plays out. That 20 year 'out of money' timeframe is just about right for me not to collect any benefits for my retirement...

SS is a ponzi scheme about to reach its end. There is are NO funds sitting in your account. The line item on everyone's paycheck deduction goes to SOMEONE else!! If you ever get a statement from the SSA, that amount is simply an IOU. As soon as the # of SOMEONE ELSE's goes up disproportionately more than paycheck deductions, that is the problem. It's been a known problem for a very long time. I think the Paul Ryan plan handles it the most sensible way possible. Don't change anything for anyone 55 and older. 54 and younger have to adjust retirement age appropriately and slowly phase out the system with personal accounts(IRAs, Roths, etc...)

CowDung:
SS is solvent until 2036.Thats 25 years which means money from current participants will be included which will take SS's solvency beyond 2036..If Bush had privatized SS..It would have lost either all or most due to the crisis of 2008. I am on SS and my money market account has lost money twice since 1987. If you didn't read my post above I am going to post the Bush increases one time so you can get off of this denial trip and realize the truth!
P.L. 107-199
June 28th, 2002
New Limit: $6.4 trillion
Increase in Limit: $450 billion

P.L. 108-24
May 27th, 2003
New Limit: $7.384 trillion
Increase in Limit: $984 billion

P.L. 108-415
November 19th, 2004
New Limit: $8.184 trillion
Increase in Limit: $800 billion

P.L. 109-182
March 20th, 2006
New Limit: $8.965 trillion
Increase in Limit: $781 billion

P.L. 110-91
September 29th, 2007
New Limit: $9.815 trillion
Increase in Limit: $850 billion

P.L. 110-289
July 30th, 2008
New Limit: $10.615 trillion
Increase in Limit: $800 billion

P.L. 110-343
October 3rd, 2008
New Limit: $11.315 trillion
Increase in Limit: $700 billion

You guys...
You denigrate the Social Security "guarantee" of retirement income while at the same time YOU guys are the one who are working to destroy it. (When you should be working to shore it up.)

So you're going to depend on your corporation to "guarantee" your annuity? Like the United Airline Pilots, or Continental Pilots who had their pensions turned over the the Pension Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) at a fraction of the benefits that UAL and Continental were suppose to pay.

Or you're going to depend on one of the "banksters" to guarantee that annuity? The same guys who torpedoed mortgage holders.

I'm sure they'll consider your posts to this site before they deny you benefits.

Yes, depending on the government sucks, but it sucks much less than all the other options.

Believe me, a million dollars may sound like a lot of money, but it isn't even close to enough to maintain you through your retirement -- unless you retire at 70 and commit yourself to suicide at 80, then you -might- be able to spend $100,000 a year, if you ignore inflation/deflation/market collapse etc.

That's the whole point of Social Security. If your other resources run out you should still have enough to live.

Don't be as dumb as CowDung. Or perhaps that's just the Republican way. The rich pay more in taxes because they -own- everything. Only 400 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% of America (politifact). The poverty level for a family of 4 is $40,000 so they will qualify for Earned Income Credit.

But let us compare Social Security (FICA) taxes. The top 20% pay under 5% of their income, but the remaining 80% of us pay more than 10%.

I am so tired of you guys claiming that I'm a socialist when you have no understanding of what that word means. All you know is that it is a "bad thing" and so you're willing to accept fascism and virtual serfdom so you won't be accused of being a "Socialist".

If you're going to throw around big words like Socialism, at least have an idea of what it means.

Taxes for the wealthiest 5% are lower than at any time since the 1950s, and real wages for the middle class are lower than they were since the 1970s.

Government social engineering, instituted by Reagan and continued by every president and Congress since then, has been redistributing wealth from the middle class up to the ultra-wealthy. We get poorer, and the people in the yachts and corporate boardrooms get insanely richer with what they take from us.

Let's go back to the taxes we had under Clinton, when we had the longest and strongest economic expansion in history. Heck, I'll even settle for the taxes under Reagan. They were more fair than what we have now. When Democrats suggest going back to Reagan-era taxes, Republicans scream "socialism!" I never knew that Reagan was a socialist.

Forgot one thing: it's been about 60 years since Republican darling Joe McCarthy was shamed into obscurity, but the Republicans continue their red-baiting. It's turned out that Republicans have no shame, after all.

tunghoy
google union rally, communist party usa, and tell me what you find.

Procketman:

How are you figuring those tax rates for FICA? It seems to me that most people pay 7.65% (1.45% Medicare, 6.2% for SS). If one is self employed, they end up paying double that rate...

Those rates can be found in the Tax Policy Centers web site. Look it up for yourself. I'm tired of giving out links to information people ignore.

Your question tells me that you have no idea that FICA contributions are capped for incomes above about $106,000 tells me you cannot add.

So while one might pay 7% on $106,000 if I make $212,000 one would only be paying 3.5% And for those who make $1,060,000 the rate is only 0.7%.

Removing that cap would be one of the ways of insuring the Trust Fund remains solvent beyond 2035. Just one way. There are others.

Bottom line, if you don't care that your Social Security payments are being stolen (by both Republicans and Democrats) then why are you bothering to make any ill-informed comments on these pages at all? "Rush got your tongue?"

Where did your "more than 10%" number come from?

I told you. And I also said you should find it yourself. What's the matter, to lazy to look it up? Can't spell "Tax Policy Center"? Can't interpret a table of numbers?

Tax policy center? Why can't I go to SSA.gov?

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

Funny, Tax Policy Center seems to agree with my SSA link--7.65% is not 'over 10%'...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=227

Hey CowDung, figure it out yet. You aren't still forgetting that self-employed folks pay twice as much? They aren't all in the top quintile.

OK CowDung, I see you can't find it.

I'll spell it out for you:
The effective payroll tax for each quintile in 2007

Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest
8.8 9.5 9.4 9.5 5.7

And just for you, the top 1% had an effective rate of 1.6%

But you think because you found the rate that is charged to employees that you have the "right" answer. You think I'm lying to you don't you. Or you think I've cherry-picked the data. Whatever. You'd rather believe the crap that Rush or Beck tells you. Screw you and the Republican Fascists you rode in on.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=456&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

PS. Even after tonight's speech, Obama is -still- the most effective Republican President since Eisenhower. He is in on the actions to destroy Social Security and Medicare. CowDung, you should be really, really happy.

James,

How about these for starters:

The police acted stupidly!
I have visited all 57 states!
There will be no debt-limit increase!
The fence is now basically complete!
Guantanamo will be closed in one year!
I did not take money from oil companies!
I did not know Jeremiah Wright was radical!
I will Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009!
We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil!
I will have the most transparent administration in history!
My wife did not mean what she said about pride in America!
The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime!

You are so full of ....
Social Security -IS- a safety net. The Republicans want to destroy it. Unemployment -IS- a safety net (its actually insurance which they pay for) but the Republicans have destroyed it.

You've been listening to too much Rush.

Under the Republicans only a very small percentage of people have money, and they tell the rest of us to f... off.

Republicans claim they want everyone to be wealthy, but they don't care how you obtain that wealth. Ask Mitt Romney where he got his money. How many jobs did he eliminate? You didn't know? Now who's the fool?

David Rogers--
I despise Obama and his policies and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Don't try to rewrite history. Obama has spent more than every president from George Washington to George Bush. Yes, Bush spent too much, Obama quadruppled that. No matter how many times the debt ceiling was raised before, the debt never came near $14 trillion....until Obama.