What many of us thought after the elections...

Hemmer's blog should be in the New York Times ! My family came from Socialist
Fascism . We have pointed out for years the direction we as the USA , have been
proceeding . In my early years I was giddy to see the USA fail . I laughed as I saw
the welfare state get bigger , the school standards fall , and the mounting debt that
the USA has had growing for some time . The reason was that even though I lived in
the USA , I still did not see myself as one, with US Americans . More recently I
connect more and more with the USA . I have made a 180 in my assessment of our
country . Today I am appalled that we voted in this corrupt President (the o) . I am
scared that Hemmer is correct in her assessment . I do not laugh at the USA
failures, as I did back when I moved here . The only saving grace is that I have
made enough of my life here , that I will be able to leave far easier that others who
have not lived anywhere else .
Now is the time to stand up and turn this country around before it is to late .
(Hopefully that it is not to late)
As for the fiscal cliff . It is not a physical cliff , For when we go over it ,it will not
be a definite doom . It does show how sad our country has turned out . Hopefully it
will not be to late for the Conservative ideas that can/will save US !!!

".... $4.00 gas is the new normal and a guy whose entire career has been about fixing broken entities."

And at that price, the USA is well on its way to become a bigger producer of oil than the big sand box in the middle east.

No more Oil wars.

No more spikes and line ups due to embargoes.

No more US soldiers dying to protect foreign oil fields

No more money flowing out to buy but staying in to invest.

Less money needed to be spent on defence in the middle east sand box.

and for this everyone pays just a bit more got a gallon of gas ( which is still 50% less expensive than the same in Europe)

how can anyone argue against such a great achievement?

Only Republicans can.

Amy...great topic! Unfortunately, all libs can do here is attack you, me, any other conservative who knows and understands the truth and what happened on Election Day. I and others have tried to expose the ignorance of those who voted for Obama. When I ask questions or show them their lack of knowing much, if anything, about Obama and why they voted for a guy with the worst foreign and economic policies maybe ever, they either attack me or run for cover. Yet these liberals think all this is good for our country. When liberals are asked as to how will raising taxes by $80 billion (pays for 8 days of Obama’s spending) help grow jobs, not one has responded. That entire tax hike will lose about 1 million jobs and increase our debt.

How will Obama’s $16 trillion in debt (using Obama’s last 4 years as the benchmark) that will now grow to over $20 trillion and will require a very large % of our tax revs just to pay the interest, grow our economy at 3% or higher? It’s not going to. One would think even the stupidest person on earth would now some of this. Even those college kids whose grades are underwater should have some knowledge of econ 101 and how Obama’s policies is why college kids can’t find work.

To listen to so many who defend all this is impossible to understand. None of these libs give any answers or factual points or data to support why Obama is allowed to ruin this country through his failed foreign and economic policies. After what just happened, we will never see an honest liberal democrat run for office again. All Hillary has to do is follow Obama’s path: put more voters on welfare and food stamps and make sure they are not exposed to our great free-market economy. Add in another completely dishonest campaign like Obama and his cronies did, and you are guaranteed to win in 2016.

"When the wolf is at the door (and he's coming, yelling 'Allahu Akbar') we're going to find out that there is no one out there to come to our rescue."

This is just plain stupid and racist.

"Unfortunately, all libs can do here is attack you, me, any other conservative.... "
As one, along with Amy, who has made their entire career attacking (mainly consisting of playground name calling) anyone who disagrees with them, you should have no problem with that.

"...who knows and understands the truth "
Ahhh. A mighty truth shall be ours alone, and it shall be our sword, eh?

As I previously pointed out, the author decries that "he was wrong" (which he was, but not quite the way all his pearl clutching and crocodile tears indicate), but never asks why he, and other like him, were the last ones to figure that out.

Mgarber...80% of your comment, as like most others, is just cut and paste. Since facts, like the ones in Amy blog are many, can you at least debate with better vision, clarity, and ideas?

You helped put this guy in the WH. Yet no one, you included, will try to defend and refute the many truths and facts surrounding Obama’s failed past and current policies. As so factually detailed in the blog

MGarber: I think the author clearly points out why he was wrong about the election results. Like many of us, we never believed for a minute that people would be willing to vote again for a president who presided over four years of misery for the country - making things far worse, not better, in the process. Obama has been worse than Jimmy Carter. Many Americans, myself included, never thought people would vote this clown in office again for another four years of misery.
However, there was something we never figured in - a change in the electorate of the country to a total "entitlement-me-me-me" mentality. People didn't care about the country - they cared about what they can get - and Obama is Santa Claus. They didn't want the freebies to stop or be reduced - and (egads!) - have to rely on themselves rather than the government to provide for their lifestyles. Very sad for our country. Lazy, dependent, selfish. In addition, Obama & Co. played into people's fears (like creating the phony "war on women" in which Romney was portrayed as desiring to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen - far from true, but it worked on the ignorant voter. If Romney wasn't busy with setting women back a few decades, he was busy pushing granny off the cliff in her wheelchair by doing away with Medicare - another falsehood, but one that ignorant voters bought into).
What we have now is the "ask what my country can do for me" crowd rather than the "ask what you can do for your country" crowd. And the 47% who sit back will watch the rest of us bust our humps to provide for their entitlements and lifestyles, until the strain (and taxes and lack of incentives anymore) get to be too much.
Then we'll all be reliant on the government and enjoying the shared misery of socialism!!! Yippee!!!

I just received this email from my friend Bill…This is exactly why Mitt Romney said that 40 some % of the people are too dependent on the government. They have learned to work the system.

A Ford Dealer's Report - From Tom Selkis' (Latham Ford) Facebook - True story yesterday at the dealership.

"I'll try to make this as short and to the point as I can. One of my salesmen here had a woman in his office yesterday wanting to lease a brand new Focus. As he was reviewing her credit application with her he noticed she was on social security disability. He said to her you don't look like you're disabled and unable to work. She said well I'm really not. I could work if I wanted to, but I make more now than I did when I was working and got hurt (non-disabling injury). She said the gov't sends her $1500.00 a month in 1 check. And she gets $700.00 a month on an EBT card (food stamps), and $800.00 a month for rent.

Oh yeah, and 250 minutes free on her phone. That is just south of $3500.00 a month. When she was working, she was taking home about $330.00 per week.Do the math and then ask yourself why the hell should she go back to work. If you multiply that by millions of people, you start to realize the scope of the problem we face as a country. Once the socialists have 51% of the population in that same scenario, we are finished.

The question is when do we cross that threshold if we haven't already, and there are not enough people working to pay enough taxes to support the non-working people? Riots??

GWB: Sigh. Please stay on topic. As I stated in my previous blog, the "comments" section is not designed to attack a former blogger to livinglakecountry.com.
By the way, you are wrong. Mr. Hayett was never forced to "relinquish" his blog. He left of his own accord to take a break. Who knows, maybe he will be back in the future.
If you do not believe this, contact the folks at livinglakecountry:

Editor-in-Chief: Scott Peterson (262) 361-9130
Managing Editor: Debi Eimer (262) 361-9135

Otherwise, stop your obsessing over Mr. Hayett and lying about why he is no longer blogging.

Now - stay on topic.

On the question of Iran’s nuclear program: this article presents it as though electing Mitt Romney as President would mean no nuclear Iran, while President Obama will just let it happen. I thought we wanted to move forward after the election, but apparently not.

On Iran, President Obama's record was to tell Israel that we're keeping a military option on the table and won't let Iran get nuclear weapons. He worked with the rest of the world to strengthen economic sanctions on Iran as another incentive to stop their nuclear program.

Mr. Romney's position was that we should have tougher economic sanctions on Iran and keep military options on the table (with more saber rattling than the President).

Iran's oil trade has been essentially cut off, starving their economy. This was possible with the cooperation of the rest of the world, while more severe sanctions could have been less effective, as many nations would have sat it out. Mr. Romney said he agreed with the President, but the sanctions should have been more severe. Could we get more severe sanctions with wide buy-in? It seems doubtful.

My understanding of the consensus about the Iranian nuclear program is that military strikes could set it back, but not eliminate it. Past strikes have led the Iranians to move facilities underground, where they are harder to hit. Also, attacking the facilities gives the Iranian government more support among their people, reducing the pressure to end the weapons program. This means that short of total annihilation of Iran's infrastructure, we need to convince them to give up the nuclear program.

To sum up my point, there wasn't a huge difference in the Iran policy between the President and Mitt Romney. There are rational reasons to believe that the President's policies are more likely to succeed. They're also less likely to land us in a war in Iran, which we don’t need.

Jim, you can claim that your loosely backed-up opinions about the President are facts. You can claim that I lack the facts when I make reasoned arguments against you. You can make a bigger deal of some weaknesses of the administration than they are. You can claim that when you change the subject or deny valid points made against your positions, it is the same as disproving them. But even a cursory examination of this blog or the archives of your blog (I haven't checked if they're still available, but that's not the point) will reveal that people have argued against you. Sometimes without name-calling.

You seem to believe that by repeating enough times that an opinion is a fact, you will make it so. You will not.

Funny thing there Hayett, I've checked both the dealer's FB page and the Selkis' FB page and there is no such thing posted that I can find. I've also sent him an email to ask if this was true.

We shall see.

Peter123...the problem with libs is that they, like you have proven, can't tell the difference between ones opinion vs. a fact. I back up my facts. Sorry the truth hurts

Was it this fact in Amy's blog that you didn't like or wish to debate?

"Never in a million years would I have supposed that America would support a president who left his (our) people to die at the hands of our enemies overseas without lifting a hand to help, then lie about what he watched in real time for over two weeks, then lie about the lie for another month

Pete...this fact? "I thought Americans would never sell their liberty for the sake of trinkets like cell phones or even big shiny lies like 'free health care'.

Or this fact?

"We were offered the clearest choice we've has since 1980, where we had malaise and a misery index on one hand and a shining city on a hill on the other. Back then, we chose the city on the hill. This time the choice was between a man who says 7.9% unemployment and $4.00 gas is the new normal and a guy whose entire career has been about fixing broken entities.

Mr Curry was/is wrong about most everything, the guy isn't to bright is he?

Speaking of hogwash...

What I find most disturbing that you believe this hogwash.

"Maybe when the rest of the world realizes that we have no intention of ever
paying back that $16,000,000,000,000.00 (and counting) that we borrowed from
them..."

Where did Mr. Curry come up with the idea that the entire $16 trillion is foreign
owned.

He is wrong again, less than half is owed to foreigners.

ex . I find it revealing that you assume it hogwash ! Just like when we told you that
the o lied and people died . Do you see it yet ?
I like this one :"Pete you can claim that your loosely backed-up opinions about the
President are facts. You can claim that I(other side) lack the facts when I(we) make
reasoned arguments against you. You can make a bigger deal of some weaknesses
of the (anti) administration than they are. You can claim that when you change the
subject or deny valid points made against your positions, it is the same as disproving
them." Funny how pete's comments fit better when turned towards him !!! lol...

So here's the response I got:

"The story is true as told to us by one of our salesman. I cannot vouch for any commentary over and above the actual story....Please delete my name & dealership name from any forwards as responding to all the e-mails and phone calls is becoming a full time job:)



Thanks for your consideration & Merry Christmas!

Tom"


But what does not jive in all of this is that any disability claim is based on previous income prior to the injury. There is no way a person who's take home was $1485 or so per month would end up with $1500.00 per month as a payout. to get that amount based on say 75% of take home, she would have been bringing home over $2000.00 per month. Most disability plans pay less.

Carl...prove what is worng. Try so with out your opinion for a change will you please?

Extoes...you too. Pinpoint the facts I brought up to your pals. Would you like for me show them to you again? Justcroll down to my posts with the facts.

jman99: Oh my goodness. You have waaaay too much time on your hands! Good grief. Have you nothing better to do on a Packer Sunday (the Pack won, by the way!) then "investigate" on one of Jim Hayett's comments? Geez. It's kind of creepy...

Carl Hicks writes: "Mr Curry was/is wrong about most everything, the guy isn't to bright is he?" At least Mr. Curry is brighter than someone who writes "to" when they need to use "too" in a sentence...

The PDLS's want it not to be true so badly that the writer just wants you to go away
! What happens with this ? Like always this is how the PDLS's squash the truth . They
attack the people who see what happens . Then they make it so they lose their jobs
and force them to be quiet ! So later on the PDLS's stand up and say "See ! He took
his comment down . Or See he does not back up his comment !" All it proves in
reality is that normal people do not want to be singled out and possibly forced to lose
their jobs . Over what ? The media will just down play the truth to the point that
nothing is fixed . But it allows the PDLS's to decree "a win" !!

"jman99: Oh my goodness. You have waaaay too much time on your hands! Good grief. Have you nothing better to do on a Packer Sunday (the Pack won, by the way!) then "investigate" on one of Jim Hayett's comments? Geez. It's kind of creepy..."

Why is it "creepy'? Is finding out the truth creepy to you.

I guess it must be.

Here's a hint for future reference, Jim:
When you start a sentence with "I thought ..." such as " "I thought Americans would never sell their liberty for the sake of trinkets...", it not really a fact.

OK, you probably actually had a thought; goody for you. But that doesnt make the thought a fact.

Jim,

I've made points about the claim that voting for President Obama was choosing to get a nuclear Iran. You've chosen to ignore that... to ignore the fact that the United States has leverage to pull with foreign states, but can't unilaterally make decisions for them.

Benghazi we've already discussed. Check Amy's blog post "A New Word" for details. Although the response from the administration was embarrassingly inconsistent, there weren't two weeks of inconsistency. And I'm not sure what you wanted done as it was happening. I guess what I'm saying is that it's terrible that it happened, but Mr. Curry's descriptions of it come from the Romney campaign talking points, not reality. There are congressional hearings. Hopefully that will tell us more about what happened.

On the trinkets, you're making unsupported claims about others' reasons. That's an opinion, not a fact. Are these more likely to continue now than under a Romney/Ryan administration? Yes. That doesn't make it the reason people voted for Obama.

I can't speak for others, but I voted for Obama because, among other things, the time for austerity in government is when the economy is going well. Then you can have a surplus without killing the economy (like we did in the late 1990s). The credit rating downgrade that you blame Mr. Obama for was directly ascribed by the ratings agencies to the gamesmanship (by the Republican House) associated with the debt ceiling negotiations, and I had no interest in rewarding the Republican Party for that. There are other reasons, too. Also reasons I didn't want to vote for Obama, but on many of those I didn't agree with Romney, either.

WFB, naturally I recognized you and Jim would see it that way. I know I'm not going to convince Jim of anything - he apparently hasn't noticed that I (and others) have made arguments in the past.

As Alfred E. Neuman used to say from the covers of MAD magazine: "What Me Worry?"
Looks like Barry O. is really concerned about the so-called "fiscal cliff." Enough so that the Obama's are planning a $4 million dollar three week vacation to Hawaii...

See: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/residents-alerted-to-obamas-hawaiian-holiday-plans/123


A small blurb: "With the staff, special forces, local police presence and equipment, the President's visit adds up annually to at least a $4 million vacation courtesy of the Hawaii and federal taxpayers."

Ah, a president who is really concerned about the well-being and fiscal soundness of America...who cares about the middle class....what garbage!!! The narcissist-in-chief cares only about his own well-being. Screw the masses. And believe me, in the years to come, we will all be screwed. Just wait till Barry takes over our 401K's to share...

And to think that this clown actually got re-elected! Imagine for one moment if George W. Bush took a vacation like this at such an economically dismal time, with many out of work, and higher taxes, etc. looming on the horizon. Remember how Bush got chastised for even golfing during a war??? And eventually put down his clubs? Yet, Barry has out-golfed Bush during two wars and continues to golf...(press doesn't care, nor do the Dems - no big deal. The Dear Leader deserves a break after all his hard work!!! The hypocrisy is priceless.)

Ah, but the Obama Fan Club (media) will write glowing stories on how cute the Obama's are in Hawaii. How fun and cool they are. What they will neglect to report is the bumper sticker on Obama's limo - "Let Them Eat Cake."

Peter123...trinkets? This is not fact? "I thought Americans would never sell their liberty for the sake of trinkets like cell phones or even big shiny lies like 'free health care'.

Obama even knows that it was his entitlement mentality that got him reelected. You’re one of the few who does not. And what about the economic mess? How will Obama’s tax hikes and adding more to the record debt and deficits he created going to grow this economy to a 3+% rate? You do know we need 3% GDP+ growth to move us out from under this mess. From reading your opinions, maybe I should assume you don’t know any of this.

And the longer Obama keeps pushing his social and entitlement agenda, the longer millions and millions of Americans will suffer from the lack of jobs and growth. How you liberals keep ignoring those FACTS is beyond me.

Peter123...once again, you only expose the facts that you only have liberal talking points to go on: "The credit rating downgrade that you blame Mr. Obama for was directly ascribed by the ratings agencies to the gamesmanship (by the Republican House) associated with the debt ceiling negotiations, and I had no interest in rewarding the Republican Party for that."

Obama is the leader. Like you said some time ago (under that other name), that it was Bush's right to veto as pres. over the $350 billion stimulus Pelosi and co passed during Bush's last few months in office. Sorry Pete, no one to blame but Obama. He had full control of both house and senate when the debt and deficits were rising. Obama could have so easily worked out the deal the Repubs had, as they do again today, but Obama backed out each time and sent us off a cliff. The pres. is supposed to lead Peter. And from out in front. Not behind. What part of that do you not understand?

And to vote for Obama over nukes and Iran only underscored my facts that too many libs like you had no clue about Obama's failed policies both here and abroad. But you will feel the pending economic crisis even more over the next 4 years. Unless the Repub and a few pro-America senators start to stand up against our anti-American pres. you are so giddy over.

I love it when all you can do to argue against me is point out a typo :D

The Narcissist-In-Chief continues on his path of self-glorification...during the anniversary of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus. Guess what Obama does? Well, the self-centered, arrogant jerk actually has his own pic taken in the bus. This would be oh-so-funny if it wasn't true...

See: http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2012/12/02/president-obama-honors-rosa-parks-anniversary-picture-himself

Gosh, it is just mind-boggling that so many idiots and selfish people voted this clown in for a second term. What are we in for? How much more damage can this country sustain at the hands of this socialist puppet?

What is great is that jman wanted to prove Hayett incorrect but again Jim was
factually correct while the PDLS's were just throwing opinions !! lol...

Carl Hicks: Typo? No.
Besides, your comment missed the point of the entire article, but I didn't want to point that out in addition to your grammar-challenged comment. You just didn't seem to understand the blog. It was written tongue-in-cheek. You know, kind of sarcastic. Try re-reading and get back to us.

Or better yet, maybe you'll understand these words - they are a bit simpler than the post from Mr. Curry.
From Benjamin Franklin: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Even more on target, from Mr. Franklin: "This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." Ah, the religion of ignorance - as demonstrated by the last election when the clueless voted themselves "things" forgetting what this country is all about. Sad.

I am really tired of hearing righty whiners saying the American dream is dead.
You sound like six year olds who didn't get what they wanted for xmas.

This is hilarious!!

"Goodbye, recovery.
Goodbye, energy independence.
Goodbye, religious liberty.
Goodbye, liberty and justice for all.
Goodbye, America dream."

The
No need to substantiate anything, any speculation made by a conservative
automatically becomes "fact". Apparently for no other reason than a conservative
said so.

I have never seen such a spectacle the republicans and right-wing conservatives .
have become chicken little; running around screaming "the sky is falling".

"What is great is that jman wanted to prove Hayett incorrect but again Jim was
factually correct while the PDLS's were just throwing opinions !! lol... "

The only thing Hayett was factually correct about was the source, and that's it.

None of the story itself has been proven as being "factually correct" and at this point is nothing more than hearsay.

"Guess what Obama does? Well, the self-centered, arrogant jerk actually has his own pic taken in the bus. This would be oh-so-funny if it wasn't true..."

actually it is the White house photographer Peter Souza

http://lightbox.time.com/2012/10/08/pete-souza-portrait-of-a-presidency/#1

who takes the shots. He follows the president around, every day of the presidency taking pictures.

This has been going on for 50 years ( or more )
http://www.pbs.org/programs/presidents-photographer/

As for sitting in the same seat that Parks sat in would have very special significance for him: it was one of the first actions taken to cause his presidency.

To see him sitting there, as POTUS, looking out the same window on the world and imagining what she must have seen and felt that day is most touching.

I would never expect you to understand such a thing because of who you are.

So what you are saying is the article is a joke?
Silly me I thought Mr Curry was being serious.

Jim,

Regarding the entitlements, I recall people attacking the Democrats two years ago for cutting Medicare. A big part of the complaints about Obamacare were because it made changes to Medicare (aimed at slowing down health care cost growth).

It's an interesting point you make about needing 3% growth to get out from underneath all this debt. You're absolutely right, we do need to grow. To that end, any changes in spending and taxes right now should be aimed to promote growth. Do the big companies wait to expand because they're not making enough money? Because taxes are too high? No, it's because they don't have enough demand - they couldn't sell it if they did expand. The big corporations are sitting on record profits and huge cash reserves waiting for a need to use it. They wait to repatriate profits from overseas because in the past, there have been tax holidays on that. No reason to bring it home until they need it or there's a tax holiday, right?

Regarding Iran, it was the article by Mr. Curry which suggested that a vote for Obama was a vote for a nuclear Iran. I pointed out reasons that's ridiculous, and you moved the goalposts. No.

For the point about the Republicans holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage, you say there's no one to blame but Obama. I'm confused. He had the choice between the deal reached involving the supercommittee (leading to the so-called "fiscal cliff), a veto (causing us to reach the debt ceiling and shutting down the government), or declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional and ignoring it. What would the true leader you're suggesting have done? Or is it because they didn't raise the ceiling enough when the Democrats were in control? I'll agree with you on that point, but they expected everyone to act as adults. Oops.

Wow jman proved my point !! " None of the story itself has been proven as being
"factually correct" and at this point is nothing more than hearsay." Now take the time
to read my comment on how PDLS's will down play what was done ! lol...Almost
word for word on how PDLS's ignore opposing comments to make themselves feel
better !!

"So what you are saying is the article is a joke?
Silly me I thought Mr Curry was being serious. "
Its sortof like a corollary to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law.

I don't think that I said the article was a joke in any of my comments. I have no clue how Carl Hicks reached this conclusion.

Again, yet another reminder to GWB is in order (from my earlier comment):
-----
"GWB: Sigh. Please stay on topic. As I stated in my previous blog, the "comments" section is not designed to attack a former blogger to livinglakecountry.com.
By the way, you are wrong. Mr. Hayett was never forced to "relinquish" his blog. He left of his own accord to take a break. Who knows, maybe he will be back in the future.
If you do not believe this, contact the folks at livinglakecountry:

Editor-in-Chief: Scott Peterson (262) 361-9130
Managing Editor: Debi Eimer (262) 361-9135

Otherwise, stop your obsessing over Mr. Hayett and lying about why he is no longer blogging.

Now - stay on topic."
-----
C'mon GWB: You - and other lefties who comment here - need to stop this strange obsession with Mr. Hayett and his blog. All you have to do is contact the two folks listed above and ask them if Mr. Hayett stopped blogging of his own accord. Very easy. Pick up the phone. Ask if Mr. Hayett stopped blogging because he decided to. When they answer "yes" you will know. End of story.

"Do the big companies wait to expand because they're not making enough money? Because taxes are too high? No, it's because they don't have enough demand - they couldn't sell it if they did expand. The big corporations are sitting on record profits and huge cash reserves waiting for a need to use it." -Peter132

How simple Peter. I love your generalization that there are "Big companies" with "Record profits" that are "waiting" for demand. Successful companies anticipate demand so they can have product ready for it. The companies that wait are not successful and certainly are not sitting on record profits as you put it. Unfortunately the current economic outlook driven by the past 4 years of failed policy is as bad as ever and without any anticipation that the "leader" that maintains anemic growth despite record deficits intends to change his ways, we will stay here indefinitely.

Pin this on "Big companies" all you want but without promise of anything other than higher taxes and more spending, they have no reason to anticipate growth and their lack of production translates into thousands of small businesses in their supply chain that also have no demand ON TOP of higher taxes and the burden of more regulation and costs via ObamaCare.

Obama shares your disdain for capitalism and it shows. The bright side is that investing opportunities are simple with Obama at the helm - Buy Gold.

Mucho,

If I hadn't specified big companies, I would have heard from Jim about how it's tough in small business. I could have talked about the banks which aren't lending. I could have talked about Google or Apple or Microsoft or GE or many others, which had enormous profits during 2011, but didn't spend them to expand because there was no growing market to sell to.

It's not the job of big business to hire. It's not the job of big business to grow the economy in general. It's the goal of businesses to make money. Is it demonizing big business to recognize that their interests don't always line up with the interests of the American people? I brought that up the idle profits to counter the standard line the tax burden hurting businesses which would create jobs. It's demand that's missing, not an excess of taxes and regulations.

It's the responsibility of government to promote an environment where responsible business can thrive, as that helps the people thrive.

"I didn't think I said the article is a joke in any of my comments. I have no clue
how Carl Hicks reached this conclusion."

I believe he "reached this conclusion" after reading this comment of yours at
6:53pm on Dec 2, 2012.

You just didn't seem to understand the blog. It was written tounge-in-cheek. You
know, kind of sarcastic."

So no doubt you will now claim that there is a clear distinction between a
sarcastic tounge-in-cheek article and an article that is a joke.

Two phrases stand out in your last comment.
They are; "I didn't think..." and "I have no clue..."

"And believe me, in the years to come, we will all be screwed. Just wait till Barry takes over our 401K's to share..."

Ahhhh.. another "2nd trem prediction" of total satanic/islamic/communistic doom? Just put it on the pile along with all the other insanity, and now http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/right-wing-conspiracy-theory-barack-obama-third-term.

Do you *really* want to know why "their side" got more votes????
(Pay close attention, and I'll put this as politely as I can) Because "your side" is not too credible.

"It's the responsibility of government to promote an environment where responsible business can thrive, as that helps the people thrive. " - Peter123

While the T's and C's of that statement are arguable, Who campaigned on that vs. who proved their ineptitude on doing that for 4 years?

What part of higher taxes on anyone assists in doing that? What part about a $2500 cost increase for a middle class family to cover ObamaCare "helps the people thrive"?

Any reasonable person looking at Obama's budget "solution" last week knows he is playing politics and is as far from promoting compromise as possible. I see no problem with allowing the solution inplace to take effect. It was a bi-partisan agreement that Obama seems determined to enact so let him have his way and see where we are all at this time next year. It beats the $2trillion deficit he proposed.

Mr. Curry, allow me to recommend an excellent Wisconsin cheese, Pleasant Ridge Reserve - made in Dodgeville, to go with your w(h)ine.

Excuse me; I appear to have misquoted Amy. My apologies.

She did not say "I didn't think..." that is my misquote.

What Amy did say was "I don't think..."

Again my apologies for misquoting you Amy.

Statistically garber . 1/6th voted for and against the o !!! the same % , If you were
not able to figure that out .
I have noticed now that the Lefties are reverting to attacking the blogger !! Some
how they do not realize that they are not able to refute what Hemmer wrote . So
they jump to their usual attacks , of word usage and the such !!! lol... Grow up guys ,
start thinking through what you believe be for you attack others for your lack of
knowledge .

"...they do not realize that they are not able to refute what Hemmer wrote."
Its indeed hard to refute stuff like "Just wait till Barry takes over our 401K's to share..." other than to put it on the (steaming) pile of other predictions, and wait and see.

BTW, the "O" got a little more than 6%, and the other guy got a little less than 6. If you were not able to figure that out.

Mucho,

Are you suggesting that the initial offer needs to show compromise? I thought it was the responsibility of the opposition to come in with a counter-offer. Compromise happens after both sides have made their initial offers, trying to find common ground... something both sides can accept. And if you're happy with the austerity coming our way, why do you care if Obama is presenting something which you don't find reasonable? Then you win both ways - if it's terrible (like it will be), you can blame Obama. If it's not, then the deficit drops and the federal balance sheet is improved.

Higher taxes allow the government to pay the bills long-term, which creates a stable economic environment. Because deficits during good economic times are irresponsible. Deficits caused by responsible spending to keep the economy moving when the private sector is slowed down are not irresponsible. See the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes for details.

The increased cost for Obamacare is justified if the health insurance coverage leads to people not being bankrupted by medical bills or dying because they can't afford long-term or preventative care. Or if it helps rein in health care spending, which is the biggest problem for our long-term fiscal situation. Which it has some measures to do. Will it succeed in these points? Remains to be seen. But looking at the cost without looking at the benefits is disingenuous.

peter-

Obama is a legislator not a leader. Suggesting that the President start out with a ridiculous plan so he can "negotiate" down to a reasopnable one is a game for Congress.

He got re-elected. As a leader he should present a plan that works and take it to the people. Instead he would rather posture and then blame the other side. Pretty pathetic.

Socializing Health Care does nothing to lower costs. Look around at other countries. It simply throttles usage via rationing. Making my rates go up $2500 per year to cover my family as the FICA rates go back up at the same time the Bush tax rates get jacked up is going to hit the economy hard.

Obama is positiioning himself for someone to blame and it is a sign of his inability to lead. Again, he got elected so it's his call what he wants to do with his power. It is just a shame that he hasn't got the courage, skills or desire to lead.

Peter123: Obama has offered nothing in the way of "compromise." Again, as we have seen before - it is his way or nothing. He didn't offer - or lead with any ideas - any solutions to the fiscal crisis. He presented tax increases and that was it - with a "promise" of future spending cuts to come. As a matter of fact, his offer included SPENDING INCREASES aside from the tax rates going up. It was a ridiculous offer. (Charles Krauthammer even said that Robert E. Lee was offered a better deal after he lost the Civil War.) Anyone believe Obama will follow thru on his promise? No.
Just as Obama's last budget proposals have been met with laughs and thrown out - by all Dems and Republicans alike - so is this "fiscal cliff" deal absurd. Obama hasn't offered ANYTHING. As a "leader" he is pathetic. And in a few days Obama and the family will be jetting off to Hawaii for a three week vacation on the taxpayer dime. $4 million bucks and counting... Ah, the life of Obama. The Obama family motto is "Let Them Eat Cake." He could care less about the dangerous fiscal state our country is in. He could care less about all those who are unemployed - and those who will be facing unemployement once Obamacare is fully implemented. He could care less about huge tax increases all across the board. He could care less about curbing reckless spending. See, the guy is a socialist. He wants to bring this country down. So we go over the "fiscal cliff" - what does he care? He'll get what he wants. The United (or should I say "Divided") States be damned.

"And in a few days Obama and the family will be jetting off to Hawaii for a three week vacation on the taxpayer dime. $4 million bucks and counting... Ah, the life of Obama."

Well how much less would it cost if he vacationed in Wisconsin? Is it a significant amount?

Most folks do go "home for the holidays" and Hawaii is his home is it not?

If Romney were now President, and he vacationed in Utah, would the cost be about the same, or would the cost be higher because of all the kids and grand kids?

Garber read it again it is 1/6th !!!!! That means 4/6th of the population did not vote
!!! Again you refuted my comment with out fact !!!

@ unknown commentor: "Home for the holidays?" I thought the Obama's made their home in Chicago...
As for their vacation - it is 50% longer than the one they took last year. As for your Bush comparison, at least Bush usually vacationed in his own home, not costing the taxpayers millions of dollars in an entourage..

@GWB: Governor Walker took 54 personal days - most of which were spent raising funds and addressing the "recall efforts." Quite unusual circumstances. If the childish unionistas didn't throw a hissy fit and try to undermine the will of the people with the recall, I don't think Walker would have needed 54 days to defend himself, ya think? Aside from that, what's funny is that all the articles I've read from the lefties concerning Walker's time off, they cannot give any information on how many "days off" Diamond Jim Doyle took. (One article said that Doyle wasn't the "most transparent" when it came to divulging such info...LOL)...

I see no mention of Bush.

""And in a few days Obama and the family will be jetting off to Hawaii for a three week vacation on the taxpayer dime. $4 million bucks and counting... Ah, the life of Obama."

Well how much less would it cost if he vacationed in Wisconsin? Is it a significant amount?

Most folks do go "home for the holidays" and Hawaii is his home is it not?

If Romney were now President, and he vacationed in Utah, would the cost be about the same, or would the cost be higher because of all the kids and grand kids? "

Where is there any mention of Bush?

"@ unknown commentor: "Home for the holidays?" I thought the Obama's made their home in Chicago...
As for their vacation - it is 50% longer than the one they took last year. As for your Bush comparison, at least Bush usually vacationed in his own home, not costing the taxpayers millions of dollars in an entourage.."

Hemmer, what Bush comparison?

@unknown commentator and jman99: GWB referenced Bush in his comment: ". You know, like I did when I was president. Speaking of taking a few days off to whack some weeds or, whatever..." Sorry I attributed it to the "unknown" individual...

What is so funny is the total irony coming from the left in comments on this site. ANYTHING Obama does is justified.

Take a long vacation on the to Hawaii on the taxpayer dime when the country is suffering - no problem!

Put up 54 Christmas (oops - Holiday!) trees in the White House (50% more than last year, at taxpayer expense, of course)... (See: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/120312-635425-fiscal-cliff-talks-stall-as-obama-white-house-erects-its-own-tree-grove.htm)

Continue the wars in the Middle East - no outrage, no problem from the same lefties that were so against the wars when Bush was prez (by the way, where is that leftie darling Cindy Sheehan? is she camping out in front of Obama's home, since he did drag his feet, but eventually OK'd a surge in Afghanistan long ago? whatever happened to her anti-war protests and the media adoration of this one individual?).

Play golf whenever? - no problem. Heck, Obama is working soooo hard he deserves all the breaks he gets!

Appear on every comedy and/or late night television show, demeaning the office of the president in the process - no problem! Hey, Obama IS cool! Don't forget it!
What a total about-face from when Bush was president.
My goodness, the irony from lefties is priceless, as usual.

Seriously Hemmer, whoever this was, asked some valid questions which you have failed to answer.

Why don't you answer them, since you brought the topic up in the first place?

"I thought that now that FINALLY some of the disturbing truths about our first black president had come to light, voters would reject a man so dangerously at odds with the American experience."

Obviously the author (Mrs. Curry) is not black and considers only the "white" "American experience as being valid. Obama's American experience is pretty mush the same as any other black American's experience. Way different. Mrs. Curry vacations with her mommy and daddy in Paris a and puts up wit immeasurable hardships:

"I loved my stay in Paris but I was ready to be home.

I missed my family, my husband, my house, my bed, my tap water, my office, my life and my city. I missed my car, my grocery store, my shower and speaking English. I missed my tv set and my ipod. I missed the park out my front window. I missed the lakes. I missed the space. No one in Paris has a big back yard. Or even a small one.

But it was lovely beyond imagination. Everyone should see Paris at least once.

I believe I will go back someday. "

And forced to shop!

"As one who doesn't like shopping and in fact can only stand it for about an hour, I was impressed.

We were able to get into Gucci without a fuss and the sales lady could not have been nicer. She acted as though it were well within the realm of possibility that we were actually going to buy something.

Several of the shops have doormen who unlock the front door to let in the individual shoppers. You gotta love that!"

http://www.casualsundayswithmrcurry.com/

56 posts about vacations?

I can't believe you post such racist stuff and and are allowed to get away with it.

Forgive me for not knowing this but what o relatives live in Hawaii today ?

Ha! you've got to love Mrs. Curry's predictions:

"I'm enjoying this campaign like I've never enjoyed one before in my life! I wish it could go on forever and not just because when it's over one of these jokers will be president. Here's how I see it;

"The good news is that Hillary is going to take the nomination away from Barack Obama.
The bad news is that only John McCain will stand between her and the White House.
The good news is that John McCain can probably beat her.
The bad news is that then he'll be president.
The good news is that McCain is not a narcissistic, phony, megolamaniacal, pathological liar."

There's you brain trust Hemmer.

"Forgive me for not knowing this but what o relatives live in Hawaii today ?"

His half sister and her husband and family live in Hawaii.

Amy,

There's a difference between feeling something is justified and believing it's not the outright catastrophe that you do. When the President does some things I don't approve of and some things I think help the country, am I supposed to think he's terrible just because of the bad parts?

Unsupervised drone strikes attacking people without benefit of a trial - bad. Failing to introduce regulations to reduce risk when bailing out banks - bad.

Should I vote against Obama because he's not closing out the wars quickly enough when the opposition is banging the drums of attacking Iran? I wasn't a fan of the military action in Libya because I thought we would get tied up in another war (Fortunately, I was wrong). Should I have voted for Mitt Romney for that reason? Jill Stein? Gary Johnson?

I'm not sure how you justify bringing up entirely new points while claiming people here are defending them. Were the Christmas trees mentioned in an earlier blog post? Have any of those here commented on those trees until you? I see nothing to suggest that.

Please stop attacking people with things they haven't said or even implied. And please let me know if I do something similar to you. There's plenty for us to disagree on without fabricating more.

Hi-Ho Big-O - It's off the cliff we go.

Obama wants the lid off the debt ceiling permanently, indefinite unemployment pay, $200 Billion stimulus, $1.6Trillion in tax hikes and only $600 billion in spending cuts?

It's worse than even he promised.

So he has a half sister in Hawaii , What about his and Michelles family in Illinois ?
Did they not live there ? If you picked up from a community ,and presently own a
residence there . Would you not go there ? More family . Your home ? Your friends ?
They were just in Hawaii . What about family (most of them) ? Wou,d it not be more
a family event if you brought the lone family to the majority of them ? I am troubled
with how this seems .

Funny how the media did not look in to vacations taken by Doyle until Walker was in
!!! Yeah that is unbiased media alright .

GWB: Things are "looking up" because of socialism? How warped is that? And let me remind you and other lefties that when many of us were saying that Obama was leading us towards socialism, the left and Dems said that was a lie. Now you say it's true - and we should be celebrating? Huh? (And I don't think one "Thanks God" for socialism, as in most socialist societies the majority of people are atheists and the government is the "religion.")

And from the Gallup poll cited in the leftie article you provided a link to comes this:

"Bottom Line

As most politicians and many in business have learned, the choice of words to describe a concept or a policy can often make a substantial difference in the public's reaction. The current research confirms that assumption.
"Socialism" is not a completely negative term in today's America. About a third of Americans respond positively when they hear the term. Some of this reaction may reflect unusual or unclear understandings of what socialism means. Reaction to the term is not random, however, as attested by the finding that positive images are significantly differentiated by politics and ideology."

See, GWB: All this Gallup poll was about is "terms." Word choice. When people hear a term - how positive or negative they feel about it. It wasn't about whether or not people support socialism over capitalism, etc. So your temporary glee thnking more people want a socialism society may be over nothing, GWB.

"and only $600 billion in spending cuts?"
???ONLY??? $600 billion in spending cuts?. You *DO* reaize that $600 billion represents the ENTIRETY of non-defense non-mandatory spending????

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42636

Garber you seem to not understand the difference between trillion and billion . For
that matter billion to million !! Do you realize that if you sold everything in the USA
other than the people ,What that amount comes to ? That includes
cars,land,buildings,Everything except the people in the USA ! What is that amount
garber ?

"What is that amount garber ? "
I dont normally feed the troll, but:
* OK; tell me the amount.
* What does that have to do with anything?

"That includes cars,land,buildings,Everything except the people ..."
Livestock??
Sports Teams??
Copyrights??
Frequency Spectrum??
Art??
Patents??
Twinkies still on the shelves??

MGarber - The $600Billion is "later" - like 5- 10 years out, if at all and is precluded with triple that in new spending and increased deficit. It's a lame shell game that buries today's youth and kills new jobs and taxes the middle class. Other than that - It's peachy.

Georgedubayaya - You want to go to the Bible - Well,...

"The poor will ALWAYS be with us" and Jesus fed thousands of people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. Obama should start with that economic strategy.

MGarber: From the AP regarding the $800 billion in cuts proposed by the Republicans (and Mucho is correct, the cuts are over a 10 year period):

"Of the plan's savings, $200 billion over 10 years would come from changing the way the government calculates inflation, which would slow benefit increases in programs from Medicare to Social Security and raise taxes by slowing the annual rise in tax brackets. Republican aides said that it will be unpopular, but that it is the right response to deficits still topping $1 trillion.
The Republican plan also called for $600 billion in cuts to federal health care programs, including an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare and increased means testing to shrink health benefits for more affluent seniors.
In all, the Republican offer would reduce the deficit more than the president's, which predicted about $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years."

Until spending is curtailed, nothing will change. Raising taxes on the wealthiest among us (who already pay the greatest portion of the tax burden) will do very little to address the 16 trillion in debt we already owe. Raising taxes - the "end all" solution for Dems, does NOTHING to address the fiscally irresponsible behavior of our government.

I think my cat is a socialist!

GWB: The Gallup Poll looked only at terminology. What impression a "word" made on less than 1,000 people. Many people - as the poll admitted - did not understand what the word "socialism" means. (Heck, with all the gobble-de-gook about "social justice" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), the uninformed/ignorant individuals (of which apparently there are many in our country judging from the results of the recent election) could look upon anything with the word "social" in its make-up and think - ah, that sounds good!)

Let's use an example to explain. Let's use the term "freedom fighters." People hear that and think positively - like it sounds good. I do believe that people would think positively about such a term. "Freedom fighters" sounds like people fighting for their freedom (hey, isn't that what we are doing today in our own country - by trying to defend our rights from the current occupant of the White House???, but I digress...)
Little do they understand that when the term "freedom fighters" is defined (as "terrorists") they may think negatively about it in the future, knowing what it actually means.
So I wouldn't get too excited about so-called conservatives foaming at the mouth to turn the country into a socialist nation. (And again I have to ask, what happened - when we were saying Obama was leading the country towards socialism, we were called liars - nut jobs - etc. But now it's true? According to GWB: "Appears that the black Messiah's message of 'hope and change' is finally taking root. Than(k) God!"
Hope + change = socialism!!! We knew it all along. Thanks for finally admitting it, GWB.

Good one Carl. I have seen cats at work. Not sure I'd call them socialists though -> They are opportunistic freeloaders that seek shelter and food from those that are better off than them. Their contribution to the arrangement is the sense of providing companionship and fulfilling the recipient role of charity for their host. Once their host can no longer supply basic benefits, they often stray to where the grass is greener. In some circumstances when their host expires and they cannot get out, they will instinctually resort to eating their host to the bone for their personal sustenance until they can escape.

Wait. I guess you were right after all.

My cat will sit and stare at me through squinting eyes, like...like he is plotting
something.

"Let's use the term "freedom fighters." People hear that and think positively - like
it sounds good."

Sounded just fine and dandy to Iran/Contra Ron:

"The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan
freedom fighters"

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/278.html

Sorry, GWB. I wasn't talking about the Reagan years. Besides, in 1983 (from your link) "terrorism" was not what it is today. The Taliban wasn't considered a terrorist organization, and they were not waging war against America or attacking outside of Afghanistan. They were fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan. A different time, a different place. America had not experienced the terrorist attacks nor waged wars against terrorists. The word "terrorism" was really addressed and defined in 1987 and 1988, when the world began to see acts of terror springing up.

I was referencing Obama and how the terrorists of today - that we are waging wars against (or trying to, even though we tie the hands of our soldiers with ridiculous "Rules of Engagement" that put their lives at risk...) are called "freedom fighters." Real terrorists.

From Terrorism: Politicians and Victims (see: http://terrorismpolitician.blogspot.com/2011/08/obamas-failed-anti-terrorism-policies.html):
"The Obama administration has admitted to some of the rebels being former Al-Qaeda terrorists, but still calls them Freedom Fighters, even though before the so called Arab Spring they had been called terrorists who were our sworn enemies. But that was then and this is now."