Lyle, How shallow your comment on the Democrat controlled Senate. They have been obstructive and compromise is definitely not a part of their vocabulary or work ethic. Candidly, it's quite obvious that the Democrat party has been hijacked by an arrogant, lying, deceptive, disingenuous group of elitists! They feel that their way is the only way and in fact really are the one per cent. If they win, they will control the power and wealth not unlike the communist party of Russia. The rest of us will be the all alike peons!

@Daniel S....Where did I indicate directly that the economy is doing fine? I think that to throw out all regulation to increase our recovery is the wrong approach. Bryant has been a critic of any type of regulation. He continually wants to blame political forces and exempt business for the slow recovery. Business is dependent on meeting consumer demand and if demand is down or slow, so will be the recovery.

"Throw out all regulation" is hyperbole, Lyle.

Daniel- Your question needs to be directed at Barrack H. Obama as it is directly from his mouth, not mine.

@Lyle
The government not only created the situation that allowed business to act foolishly, as the entire housing market was pointing in the direction of collapse, the government told us institutions such as Franny and Freddy were doing great. The government told us the SEC was motoring the business operations of these companies. We were told that getting more people that could not afford houses, into houses was the correct course for our economy. All of the things the government told us were wrong. Did businesses have a hand in the collapse? Yes. However, they were guided by the hand of an over powerful government.

Both Parties were to blame as neither did enough to stop what was happening. As Bryant points out, the democratic solutions were additional government regulation. The problem was the bad business practices that created the recession already had laws on the books. Hence we did nothing to solve the real problem and instead added more government onto an already bloated federal government. This is why we have seen no real improvement and some economists concerned about a second recession.

This was a government created and exacerbated problem. Business must live within the limits as established by the government. So instead of loosening restriction you would rather take the money from the business and have the government spend it, which has never worked to bolster an economy in the long term.

@J.B. Schmidt....The "Great Recession" is the natural outcome of pursuing supply side economic principles. For supply side to be successful in the short run requires the following:
1. Deregulation
2. Free trade agreements
3. Minimal regulatory supervision

From the time that supply side was introduced under Reagan, 1981 the government has been primarily under Republican control.

President: Republicans - 20 years, Democrats - 10 years
Senate: Republicans - 18 years, Democrats - 12 years, Shared - 2 years
House: Republicans - 16 years, Democrats - 16 years

Since the Republicans have controlled the government for a greater period, then it is logical to assume that the Republicans should take the majority of responsibility for the economic mess of the "Great Recession". Under Republicans the greatest degree of deregulation has occurred and a relaxation of regulatory enforcement. Remember, Obama didn't make the recession but inherited it from Bush. In conclusion, you can't continue down the same path that put us into this mess and that is exactly what the right wants to do.

@Lyle
1) Are you trying to tell me that we had less government regulation in 2009 then we did in 1980? (Pause as I wipe the tears from my laughing)

2)Free trade fails when liberals attempt to artificially inject equality into the business market via taxation. Free trade does not cause jobs to leave the country, taxation and regulation do. Free trade (when not impeded by liberals) allows our country to make the things it does best and trade with countries that make others products better.

3) Would Barney Frank defending Freddy and Franny as they failed be your example of minimal supervision? Or maybe the Democrats controlling the congress the 2 years prior to the recession and doing nothing be an example of minimal supervision?

Your list of numbers is meaningless because the R or D behind your name has nothing to do with the policy you support, plenty of Republicans have voted for bad liberal legislation. But, yes; republicans would more likely favor capitalism and free market as you have stated.

In my post I said both parties share this downfall and I have never blamed Obama for the recession. However, he owns its recovery or lack there of. The same path? You mean overspending like we had under Bush? Or do you mean the addition of entitlements like we saw at the end of the Bush years? Funny isn't that Obama's pattern.

@J.B. Schmidt....There certainly was more regulation beginning in 1980 and there was in 2009. In addition, except for H.W. Bush, Reagan and W both stripped many of the regulatory agencies of enforcement resulting in turning a blind eye. As far as taxation as being the problem, that just proves you have little understanding of how the macro economy really works. Just as the federal government didn't become smaller under Reagan, but actually grew. The focus of expenditure changed to support things like a 600 ship navy, "star wars", etc.

The beginning of wealth shift of the middle and lower classes didn't begin until Reagan and only accelerated under W. The loss of jobs offshore began in earnest under Reagan and grew almost unabated during W.

You certainly have a short memory and a selective grasp of history. I also agree that the Democrats are up to their necks in complicity of the mess, but it's been the Republicans setting the agenda for 30 years.

@Lyle
Please provide proof that federal regulations have decreased between 1980 and 2009. While yes some areas of government were deregulated your blanket statement is completely bogus and contradicted by your following statement regarding the growth of government under Reagan. I don't see an instance where government grows without the addition of regulation.

As for the loss of jobs overseas, can you prove that was a net negative on the economy. Since even into the Bush administration we had 5% unemployment (basically full employment), wouldn't the negative effects of a job sift to other countries result in less jobs? Couple that with the fact that our median income increased between 1980 and 2010, wouldn't that mean we got rid the jobs America didn't need and made our overall economy more efficient.

As for taxation, do you honestly want to say that companies don't locate based on their tax burden. If our tax burden weren't the highest in the world, but maybe near middle, those free trade agreements would work more to our favor. Instead, the dream of socialism as your altruistic escape from the boogie man of inequality would rather punish the companies at the expense of the country.

this guy puts it best - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg

Bren you forgot to mention your boyfriend ALEC.

ALEC won, Bren lost ...

►make Barack Obama a one-term president. ◄

Will

►get the economy moving again◄

"The Tea/GOP's stated goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president."

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

Not to be outdone, the Fubar/DNC's stated goal is to make Barack Obama a two-term president.

Shocking, in both instances.

José, when ALEC is germane to the topic I'll certainly bring it up. ; )

C. Sanders, I'd say Wisconsin lost. Sore winner? ; )

Steve, thanks for demonstrating some of the skills that make you a "job creator." Your cut-n-paste abilities, wit, and precision use of pointers/markers are to be congratulated. ; )

Bob, winning the election is the normal goal for every party from Green to GOP. However, when it becomes the only goal, to the detriment of progress and people's wellbeing, then we have a problem.

"However, when it becomes the only goal, to the detriment of progress and people's wellbeing, then we have a problem."

I certainly hope that the Dems learned that lesson after all the re-do elections they pushed for...

Cow, I supported the recall because I believe keeping Walker in office would/will be far more costly, financially and in terms of harm to vulnerable populations in our state.

Walker's identified errors as Milwaukee County Executive nears $6 million ($4.1 million in back pay for illegally furloughed workers in 2010, $750,000 in back pay for illegally fired County Courthouse security in 2010, $1 million+ for Wackenhut security privatization contract, cancelling the Blue Shirt contract in 2002/2003, precise amount of cancellation penalties unknown but likely up to six figures). Walker also left for Madison with a $55 million deficit. With a larger billfold to play with and no County Board of Supervisors to play "dad" it was/is logical to expect this folly to continue and on a larger scale. If so, it will all come out, eventually.

So you are saying that the reasons you wanted to recall the governor had nothing to do with anything that he has actually done as governor...

Let me just add this additional piece to Walker's Milwaukee County Executive resume: his association with individuals who may/have been involved in illegal activities during his time in office, 13 currently cited/charged in the ongoing John Doe investigation. During the recall election, claims were being made that investigating staff were leaking information, but it turns out that the source of the leaks were from attorneys representing Timothy Russell and Darlene Wink. Emails were sent to Charlie Sykes and Daniel Bice. Here's the story from MJS: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/prosecutors-says-attorney-for-doe-defendant-leaked-information-s35ti7m-160388765.html

Cow, in my opinion Scott Walker was/is completely unqualified for the role of governor because of deficits in education, experience, and character. His behavior and actions immediately upon becoming governor fully justified my grave concerns. The recall process offered the opportunity to rectify a grievous error, remove this unqualified and incorrigible individual from office and replace him with someone committed to serving our state and not a special interest group.

Bren that horse is not just dead, it's available in convenient 4 oz squeeze bottles in the adhesives department at Home Depot. The majority just didn't agree with you and when that happens, no amount of attempting to justify your position is going to change anything. You already got one more do-over than was necessary. You're going to have to find something else to obsess about for now.

Bob, while it would be convenient to Tea/GOP for me to have a high gullibility level and opinions that can be swayed solely on the basis of election results, it just doesn't work that way, any more than the John Doe investigation will go away because $25 million can successfully turn a gubernatorial recall election.

I don't consider patriotism an obsession, I consider it a responsibility. As a member of a family that has lived in this land for 382 years I take this responsibility very seriously indeed.

Suit yourself, Bren. I was just offering a suggestion as to how you might avoid coming off as a self-absorbed sore loser. Most of your cohorts have accepted the defeat for what it is, are cutting their losses and focusing on the future.

Bren, did you actually read that MJS article? It said "two disclosures came from attorneys for one of the defendants." And those two were based on "political gossip on the street".

You just get too excited about silly little things!

Anti, "bitter" is a frivolous sentiment experienced perhaps when one loses a game. The current situation in our state is no game. Concerning your suggestion that Walker is "running this state better than his predecessor," I would counter that Walker's successor did not inspire a recall effort and did not polarize our state. These are epic failures for an executive who is elected/hired to represent an entire body of constituents. Further, more budget cuts are anticipated to take effect in July 2012. Let's convene after that to determine the situation.

Disturbing to read in today's MJS that New Berlin may lose up to a third of its teaching force because of reactions to Act 10. Not the financial aspect, but because of the loss of that sense of personal and professional value that promotes employee retention. Another failure.

Reading is fun for mentals, Bren. This is from the MJS.
"She argues it's not about Act 10 -- the controversial law signed by Gov. Scott Walker that removed most collective bargaining for most public employees -- now that every district now has Act 10 in place.

"I think it's a misconception that it's all about money," said Werner. "It's about if you can ask us for input. All of these other districts around us talk about staff input."

They are not losing any teachers, if you get past the headline and use your non liberal thinking cap you realize they are leaving on their own will. They will be replaced if needed..

More budget cuts?! Good bring them on. Obama is spending more money then we will ever be able to create.

What about the numerous districts around the State that saved so much money that they were able to hire more Teachers, reduced class size and lowered taxes.

I love selective understanding.