Who do you support for U.S. House in Wisconsin (District 1) in 2010?

Here are the facts
Democrats have had
1- 60 votes in the Senate
2- A super-majority in the House
3- Control of the White House.
But they still blame the republicans for every thing wrong in the country.I will be voting for Paul

Kirk wrote:

Paul is a great rep. and listens to the voters in Wisconsin

and he listens to the rest of the American people, we are no different in what we want here than the majority of Americans wants. Jobs.

fetch almighty wrote:

<quoted text>and he listens to the rest of the American people, we are no different in what we want here than the majority of Americans wants. Jobs.

Your right we need more jobs not more taxes. When the Democrats too control og the House in 2006 the unemployment rate was 4.7%.Now it is closing in on 10%.If this was the summer of recovery I don't want to see what winter has to offer.

Dee Lay wrote:

<quoted text>Your right we need more jobs not more taxes. When the Democrats too control og the House in 2006 the unemployment rate was 4.7%.Now it is closing in on 10%.If this was the summer of recovery I don't want to see what winter has to offer.

Summer of recovery and the Fall of America if we don't get these liberals stopped. Let's just hope Winter is a winner on turning things around.

Despite how integrally tied the current crisis is to this bill enacted by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Jimmy Carter, no major media outlet other than Investor's Business Daily and National Review Online mentioned it during last week's market meltdown.

Going against the grain was a highly-informative editorial by IBD Thursday (emphasis added, h/t NBer Gary Hall, photo courtesy About.com ):

To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.[...]

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.[...]

In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

That's how the contagion began.

With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...

Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, coming to power in the wake of financial crisis and in the midst of a deep recession, acted on this theory. Oddly, Obama deferred almost entirely to the congressional leaders on the details of the legislation. Don't you worry about the small stuff, he seemed to feel; history is on your side.

They passed a $787 billion stimulus package which, not accidentally, increased the baseline budgets of many agencies – a permanent expansion of government. A third of the money went to state and local governments, to spare public employee union members the ravages of the recession that were afflicting everyone else.(Unions, which mostly represent public employees, gave Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle.)

They passed a health care bill that was the most unpopular major legislation passed by Congress since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. That law, which allowed settlers to decide whether to allow slavery in these new territories, resulted in the disappearance of one major political party, the demotion to minority status of the other and led to civil war. The effects of Obamacare will not be so dire, though some longtime Democratic officeholders may think so on November 3.

proud progressive wrote:

Paul ryan is the worst representative Wi has had since Mccarthy

Repealing the President's tax cuts to pay for Social Security would reduce economic growth, make Social Security an even worse deal for workers than it is already, and fail to address the growing problem of entitlement spending. Beyond these shortcomings, repealing the tax cuts would not even fix Social Secu­rity's finances.

The Bush Tax Cuts

In 2001 and 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law two tax cuts that saved taxpayers hun­dreds of billions of dollars: the Economic Growth and Tax Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Reduction and Reconciliation Act of 2003.

American companies responded to the tax cuts by employing more workers and investing in more capi­tal equipment, beginning almost the moment lower taxes became law. The unemployment rate peaked in June 2003 at 6.3 percent, began dropping in July, and has since held steady at around 5.5 percent-lower than the average unemployment rates for the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) accelerated sharply in the third quar­ter of 2003 after the tax cut was enacted and since then has remained above average.

In short, the President's tax cuts boosted the econ­omy, accelerating growth and increasing employ­ment. Almost 3 million jobs have been created since the 2003 tax cuts.

Under the Bush tax cut plan, 92 million taxpayers would receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,083 in 2003. Taxpayers in the lowest tax brackets would receive the largest percentage reduction in their taxes. Estimates from the White House project that:

•46 million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716.
•34 million families with children would receive from an average tax cut of $1,473.
•6 million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of $541.
•13 million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384.
•23 million small business owners would receive tax cuts averaging $2,042.
•3 million moderate-income families would see their income tax burden eliminated entirely.
Example:
A family of four with an income of $40,000 would see their federal income taxes fall from $1,178 to $45 under the President's plan.

Want to see your taxes go up vote for the democrate!!

This one's not even close, Ryan all the way

Who's running against him anyway?

Funny thanks for the laugh