Billboards

Billboards

The most interesting billboard [to me] in West Bend is near Hwy 33 and 144.  It has previously displayed messages ranging from

and for several months before [and humorously, at least for me] afterwards it showed

Most interestingly now (sorry, no photo), is a simple billboard that states

"Governor Walker's reforms are working.  Visit reforms.wi.gov to learn how."

While I'm sure this is a private billboard and public money has nothing to do with it, it's quite interesting to me to think that reforms.wi.gov, which is of course publicly funded, is being used as some form of advertising.  Is there some legitimate fear that one of the reddest counties in the state are losing their, ahem, faith in the Governor's policies and results?  The lawns here appear to be peppered with support just the same as the lawns in my neighborhood are peppered with protest.

I don't really look forward to June 5th.  I don't expect either candidate to win by a large margin, and the state seems very polarized about Walker.  I frankly fear either outcome.  It's unclear if Barrett would or could make a difference based on how the populace has either embraced or divorced itself from our current Governor.

Who honestly believes that we'd be better off as "an all red state" or "an all blue state"?  We are a state of millions of different individual opinions that need to be heard equally.  This shouldn't be a sports match where there is a winner and a loser.

[no subject]

Legislators represent corporate interests, because that's who funds their campaigns.  Candidates use that money to make TV commercials that lie to us.  Then, when we stupidly elect them, they screw us, enacting legislation for the interests that really got him re-elected.  I'm looking at you, almost every representative, Republican and Democrat.

My favorite boogeyman genius Norquist thinks that the proper role for the president of the US is to be rubber stamp.  Check the last paragraph in this link.

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/187333-norquist-cain-9-9-9-plan-more-dangerous-than-current-code

So in summary the GOP thinks the proper role for election of representatives is gerrymandering, voter suppression, rubberstamping.  And people are foolish enough to keep voting for them.

Once people, blue, red, purple, whatever, finally admit that democracy in the US is a joke, because we've allowed those with money to collect all of the power and laws, we can move on to either fixing the mess [reversing Citizens United and enacting campaign finance law is essentially a revolution at this point] or accepting enslavement.

Empower citizens in other nations to stand up for a living wage and a healthier environment.  You cannot fight a multinational in a single country or even on a single continent.  OWS needs to spread -EVERYWHERE-.  Defund banks, use credit unions.  Support farmers, invest money locally.  It's really not rocket science.

-----------------

"The good news is the next Republican president only needs a forefinger and then pen and the capacity to hold a pen, he doesn't need to come up with ideas," Norquist said. "We have a Republican House, we will have a Republican Senate, they will fix the tax code and send them stuff to sign. He can fly around in a cool big plane and hang around the White House and he can sign the legislation that [House Speaker John] Boehner and [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell send him, and we'll be fine."

Then one foggy election eve ...

I find myself interested, hopeful, and at the same time ambivalent about the historic recall elections occurring tonight.

A change of helm may make Wisconsin's citizens feel more involved in the process and their own destiny, but I ask; now what?  How do we really fix the serious economic problems we have?

We can't just roll back all of the legislation.  We can return taxes to a more sustainable level, but that won't solve any long term problems.

Nearly all of us share at least one common goal; to provide to those who depend on us and to make sure the next generation is no worse off than the current.

Personally, I am concerned for many things.

That when my son enters the workforce in 20 years he will be competing against older americans for which retirement is no longer a feasible option.  It's conceiveable that social security and health insurance programs [if they exist at all] will be paying out 50 to 75% of what they pay today [adjust for inflation].  Shrinking wages and rising unemployment means more people living paycheck to paycheck and fewer Americans will have access to save in individual retirement accounts.  Just because I -might- be financially doesn't mean that all of those earning less than me will be.  Aren't we supposed to care about what happens to our fellow man?

I am concerned with the overall lack of tranparency in most elected officials regardless of party, and the reductions in liberty that both have promoted

I am concerned that we are willing to allow our leaders to turn our collective backs on society to perpetuate the economic model we have, one that is clearly not working well and is distorted by pay to play politics and campaigning.

We can't just eliminate programs without providing an opportunity to earn these things on their own in the so called free market.  What sort of jobs are needed as technology continues to produce automation and efficiencies of scale?  We cannot turn back the torrent of technology.
 
How do we balance resources, population, and consumption?

I don't know the answers to these things.  I know all things are finite and self correcting, including economic growth, so is tying the necessities of life [food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, water] to it a smart thing?

I would actually be sympethetic to the situation in London if they were looting necessities of life.  I'm not saying it would make it "right", but LCD TVs are not necessities.  My TV is from the 20th century.  I manage to survive day to day.

Some will always act outside accepted societal means.  I believe people are free to channel their energies into a negative or positive matter.  Are there scalable ways to deal with those who choose the negative path without suspending liberty for all?

Is GOP infighting on the debt limit really about the future of the GOP itself?

Why won't the GOP take the 3 parts cuts to 1 part revenue deal?  From what I understand the tax hike doesn't kick in until 2013.  If the GOP takes the white house and keep the house and senate, they could just do whatever they wanted [like in Wisconsin!] and roll back the tax hike in 2013 with legislation.

If the tax increase goes in, and the majority of voters are FURIOUS about it just like the Tea Party says they are, who are those FURIOUS voters going to vote for in 2012?  They sure as hell are not going to vote Democrat.  So what's the problem?

I think the problem is that classic GOP [vs the Tea Party running under the Republican Party name] fears facing Tea Party candidates that are even -MORE- radically right in 2012 primaries and losing.  It only takes 51% of voters in one of the existing parties to hijack that party and go whatever direction they want to go.

The Tea Party 'sweep' of 2010 proved what we already know; The US has a two party system.  Had the Tea Party ran as a third party they wouldn't have had GOP majority in the house and senate and they couldn't try to u-turn the country based on a populace of 20 to 30% of the voters.  The GOP knows they are in a symbiotic relationship with the Tea Party and have no clue what to do.

The only other outcome I can come up with is that if the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy are allowed to expire that the majority of Americans will have a positive view of Obama, they'll re-elect him for 4 more years and boot the GOP out of majorities in the house and senate.  By not allowing the revenue increases it makes the Democrats look bad.  But using the same voting logic, do you really think a Democratic voter that wants the tax increases to help balance the budget is going to vote Republican/Tea Party in 2012 if they succeed in not getting revenue raises as part of the package?  Fat chance.

Where are the recent, significant public polling results about support for expiration of the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy?

Chocolate rations have been increased from 100 grams to 80 grams.

Rant Cornucopia follows

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

So now revenue neutral means raising revenue?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/us/politics/04budget.html

I've got an idea for helping to strengthen social security; collect taxes to fund the program instead of legislating a 2% tax cut?  McCain, I thought you were better than this.


//////////////////////////////////////

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/03pay.html

Seems like the CEO's have wised up and realized that deferred compensation is a bad idea.  Maybe they know the stock ship lollipop is about to hit the iceberg..  Too bad state workers didn't figure it out.

Funny, I missed my 23% raise.  According to the NY times the average American worker got a 0.5% raise.  I've had a 5% pay cut since 2009.  This year brought news that I could be in the unemployment like in two years.  More than likely the job I do will be outsourced out of state or country.


///////////////////////////////////////////////

“I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable,” Mitch McConnell, 2011

“the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”  Mitch McConnell, 2010

Sounds bipartisan to me.

"President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit. He can't have both.". 

Well, so much for bipartisian.

“Why are we continuing down the same path when it is not working?” asked Mr. Scott, the freshman class leader, who said that freshman Republicans have the long-term fiscal health of the nation in mind.

Dear Mr Scott.  $4 trillion cut over 10 years is not serious?  Sorry that only 3 Trillion came from cuts and 1 Trillion came from revenue increases.  If you could do math, you'd still see it was a net gain for the GOP of 2 Trillion.

Boehner doesn't "hope" they can work their way through this.  The way -they- see it, the worse shape this country is in, the better their chances in 2012. 

It appears the GOP couldn't care less about the consequences of widespread unemployment, depression, chaos or even militias groups forming in the U.S.  Otherwise they'd just up the limit like they did from 2000 to 2008.

If the GOP wants a US-wide Christian theocracy, single party dictatorship, or whatever, they could wait until 2012 and give it a shot. 


//////////////////////////////////////////////

This is what happens when an extreme third party decides to run in a two party system as one of the existing parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Minnesota_state_government_shutdown

In Minnesota, the GOP controls 56% of the Senate, 54% of the House, and wants 100% of the control.  Wisconsin GOP is furious about our recalls, running fake democrat in primarie to buy time to install voter ID and gerrymander the poll maps, yet of the 53% of the people that voted in Walker in Wisconsin [before any of the far right nonsense started], I refuse to believe that 100% of them thinks that my rep should have ZERO voice.  I have to believe it's the same in Minnesota. 

WI has a GOP Governor, House, and Senate, so the Democrats in our state basically might as well not show up.  That's about how much input the other 47% of the state has right now.

Return of the rant

Will 2011 will go down in history as the year that the GOP lets the US default and cause a global depression? 

Among first OR second world countries we have the -third- lowest revenue compared to GDP.  Only Mexico and Chile are lower.  Wow, we sure are taxed to death.  Not.  I guess the Tea Party and the GOP wants to rename the entire country New Mexico. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

Partisan politics has gotten so pathetic in this country that the GOP has to attack Obama just because he is "not one of them".  Obama's policies are moderate fiscally and socially, unlike the current GOP agenda.

Let's compare Medicare Part D to "Obamacare". 

Medicare Part D: largest totally unfunded corporate handout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D#Criticisms

"Obamacare": funded from Medicare cuts, corporate handout.

Obamacare is a corporate handout?  Hell Yes.  By requiring folks to carry insurance in the private sector.  A Government takeover of healthcare you say?  That would have been a mandatory single payer system, not a single payer -OPTION-, which is what we really needed.  That's right, I'm one of those 'under 40 nutcases' that thinks the law wasn't liberal -enough-.

I -can not- believe people would want to repeal the ability for people with pre-existing conditions to get health insurance.  Really, what is wrong with you?  Remember, do unto others and payback is a b**ch.  Clearly this has voters confused as they have been trained to attack those who are not on their team.

Bush drove up the debt 4 to 5 trillion dollars and left the economy in the toilet at the end of his term for this moment.  Wars, Medicare Part D, tax cuts for those who need them least.  Where were you then, Tea Party?  Oh, that's right, you weren't funded by Billionaires yet, because the GOP was still in control and executing their plan to "Starve The Beast".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Grover Norquist, you suck.

The 2000 to 2008 presidency was all about getting this country to the brink of bankruptcy.  MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!  This $**t was planned all along.  Hell, that 70+ year old Senator d00d from Vermont figured it out.  What's his name, Colonel Sanders?

The GOP worked so hard over the last eight years to irrevocably damage the US permenantly.  Raising revenue now could ultimately mean all of their hard work of hating on non rich people was for naught.

Sorry Barack, I naively thought that bipartisanship was possible, too, but clearly it's not when the other side wants 100% of their way and 0% of yours.  Obama needs to start kicking ass, taking names, or risk alienating his base. 

All Trump Edition

Trump is an angry billionaire with a big ego who is will acquainted with personal bankruptcy.  He's not the right choice for the GOP unless the GOP wants to lose.

Seriously, is Trump here just to make Palin look sane?  Because it's working.  I see what you're doing there, pushing the needle so far to the right that it changes the definition of center.  Nice try.

Hasn't Trump figured out that if we tax the imports of those Chinese motherfu**rs [his words, not mine] 25% that umm, maybe in addition to just raising the price of everything 25%, they'll just call our debt?  Then what Trump?  Do we bomb them?

Ohh, did I mention that alot of Trump empire branded goods come from China?  What a hypocrite.  Anything for a buck?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/29/us-trump-expletives-idUSTRE73S5PC20110429

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-labels-state-made-china/story?id=13472355

PS, quit it with the moving target sideshow.  You're really embarrassing yourself, the GOP, and the US.  If you actually care about this country focus on real issues and real solutions.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obamas-birth-certificate-targetstrump-birthers----and-the-media/1

Trump's history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_trump#Career