Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more) Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

Ron Johnson is not a politician. It is painfully obvious that he is not used to media scrutiny. He has the unfortunate habit of saying some slightly sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek comments that liberals and those in the media find horribly offensive.

If you take [Johnson’s] comments in full, it seems that he is pointing out that with the new 2,000 plus page health care bill and the 2,000 plus page financial reform bill - together with the prospect of cap and trade and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts - the business climate in the US is far less predictable than a repressive communist nation.

…. True, Johnson said it a bit clumsily. No, it wasn't the best analogy he could offer. But he makes a good point. When we pass legislation that is thousands of pages long without reading them - like Russ Feingold did with both the health care and financial reform bills - we create incredible amounts of uncertainty. Right now, business owners have no idea what is going to happen.

…a publicly traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize share value, and that can mean accepting tax credits, abatements, and outright subsidies from the MEDC [MI Economic Development Corp.]. These business leaders may very well realize that the state would be better served as a whole with across-the-board tax reform — and that the MEDC has had several instances of scandal — but not taking advantage of tax credits offered does not help their corporation or its employees, save perhaps for the unfair advantage it provides them over existing competitors.

As I and others have pointed out, it takes tax revenues away and gives it to others.

A drop in the bucket, wouldn't you say Dean, when compared to the "porkulus" that Feingold supported. And that was far more money by an astronomical factor than was the government loan that Johnson's company received. If I'm not mistaken, that loan was at interest, wasn't it? So I I use your somewhat leftist reasoning, the government actually received money from Johnson's company (to produce products that were exported to China, by the way) rather than gave tax money to the company.

Now, can we discuss Feingold's tertiary factology, mudslinging and marginal truths about being in any way, shape or form, "an independent?" The only hope Feingold has of saving his hide in November is for him and his disciples to go as negative as possible as fast as possible. On the facts, his record is pretty much indefensible.

Duke (Mon Sep 06 10:06:04 2010)

Duke, I agree that the IRB loan was not significant, but face reality, it was government money.

As to Feingold, could you be more specific than simply refering to "porkulus"? If you mean the stimulus, it was too small, it helped but more needs to be done.

>>>Here’s the situation: The U.S. economy has been crippled by a financial crisis. The president’s policies have limited the damage, but they were too cautious, and unemployment remains disastrously high. More action is clearly needed. Yet the public has soured on government activism, and seems poised to deal Democrats a severe defeat in the midterm elections.The president in question is Franklin Delano Roosevelt; the year is 1938. Within a few years, of course, the Great Depression was over. But it’s both instructive and discouraging to look at the state of America circa 1938 — instructive because the nature of the recovery that followed refutes the arguments dominating today’s public debate, discouraging because it’s hard to see anything like the miracle of the 1940s happening again....From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. Over the course of the war the federal government borrowed an amount equal to roughly twice the value of G.D.P. in 1940 — the equivalent of roughly $30 trillion today.

A little history as provided by Krugman....


Dean Weichmann (Mon Sep 06 10:30:22 2010)

Ron Johnson is a cruel joke. If he is the Republicans best shot bring it. He is the consumate foot in mouth take it back non-politician. Flip Flop, Flip Flop. If taking it back were an attribute he is the posterchild.

billie (Tue Sep 07 07:46:59 2010)

In the article you refer to calling Ron Johnson a Communist you took the headline and that's it. The article had quotes where Johnson had effusively praised the Chinese Communist government for their pro business climate. One of the potential problems with a Businessman as a high level elected politician is that many business people haven't a clue as to the role of government. The role of Government to defend the country, to provide for good roads and infrastructure, to promote good education ,to protect the helpless is all part of our heritage and that of the western world. Contrast that to the Chinese who he sees as such a role model. Vast areas of environmental degradation, whole swaths of forcibly relocated people to make way for a dam or highway, virtual slavery encouraged in many of their factories, total disregard to patent and trademark standards. But oh yes, so good for business. That's the problem with politician who run as "businessmen" they promote nothing except what is good for business. Obviously Johnson is not a Communist but his remarks sure as heck show he admires the Communist state dominated approach to economic growth more than our own. That's a fact, in his own words. You should print Johnson's quotes here for all to see.

dave allen (Tue Sep 07 07:56:37 2010)

Funk? You mean by electing another senator who will be on the McConnell leash? The same guy that played a major role in getting us into this funk? I don't know if we have an independent running, but if we do....

Jack Lohman (Tue Sep 07 07:57:16 2010)

You're just plain wrong Dave. Johnson was attempting to make a statement about the impact of uncertainty in the U.S. business environment. Read the links. Do your homework.

Jo (Tue Sep 07 08:11:54 2010)

It's a first in my lifetime (I'm 30 years old) that I've had the oppportunity to vote FOR someone and not AGAINST someone else. This is inspiring.

Ron Johnson, Mark Neumann, Reid Ribble (unfortunately Ribble's is not my congressional district). Real people. Men who are real MEN and aren't afraid to be themselves, be honest, stick to principle and the Constitution, and without regard for the "political consquences" of doing so.

I look forward to the primaries coming up, and it is my sincere hope that these three candidates are on the ballot come November. It is high time for citizen representatives to take the reigns back from career politicians -from BOTH party establishments.

I am 100% behind these three men.

Andrew Ellis (Tue Sep 07 08:32:20 2010)

>>>Americans must be courageous – be adults and discuss, disagree about this stuff like adults.<<<

Jo, I agree so much that I think this bears repeating again.

I should not point it out but I will to make the point. Duke's use of derogitory terms;"porkulus,tertiary factology, mudslinging and marginal truths" is immature. The same could be said for his claim "his record is pretty much indefensible" without any specific example. What does he find objectionable? I suspect that the major problem for some is that he calls himself a Democrat.
In my opinion his record is exempliary, no one is better. That is not to say I agree with him all the time.

Dean Weichmann (Tue Sep 07 09:47:14 2010)

I have to agree with your sentiments, Andrew. I'm also 66 & 2/3 percent with your candidate preferences, and I don't live in Ribble's district either.


Duke (Tue Sep 07 09:52:33 2010)

Dean - come in for a landing, and stop the name calling! Let me give you a few VERY obvious examples, since you insist:

The "derogatory term Porkulus" - you see no pork in the so-called stimulus? Take off the blinders and look again.

Tertiary factology - a fancy way of saying Feingold is grasping at straws (like you are) by making the claim that Johnson accepted government money, when he was treated like any other business that has to apply (and qualify) for a government loan at interest. That's like saying you were "bought off" by a bank because they gave you a mortgage.

Mudslinging and marginal truths - ummmm,,,. wasn't it Feingold that claimed Johnson wanted to "drill for oil in the Great Lakes?" I would perhaps be more correct in calling that a marginal lie.

If Feingold's record was defensible he'd be talking about it, instead of trying his best to trash Johnson.

Sorry Dean - your horse is heavily handicapped.


Duke (Tue Sep 07 10:05:04 2010)

Duke, please forgive me for name calling.
As far as Pork, by this you mean money that goes to a legislators district sometimes without justification. I am sure that it happened and will happen again. I wish that our legislators would act more in the interest of the country as a whole rather than their own home turf. Are you blaming Feingold for all the pork? Does it ever occur to you that this is a problem endemic to congress?

Johnson did accept government money, so what? It is not a big deal. I accept government money, I am a farmer and without it I could not compete. Just take off your blinders.

Feingold disappointed me with that ad. There was a kernal of truth to it but I think it was misleading. I think he should run on his record. It is regretable but it seems that negative ads are effective. That only reflects on our own gulibility as voters.

Dean Weichmann (Tue Sep 07 11:47:56 2010)

Uncertainty? Yes, it would be nice is the papa state told everyone exactly what was expected and when and what to think and when. I am surprised that Johnson would use China as an example of certainty. It is easy to be certain when you are a state dominated society. It is easy to run a business when your labor is captive and when you don't have to live up to the same standards as your competitors. Of course our economic policies have some uncertainty in them because we are a Democracy and subject to a lot of input and change and deliberate division of power. Like I said before business people don't have to have a good understanding of the Constitution or our heritage to run a business. (the Chinese do quite well business wise without that understanding). But to be a politician who is supposed to represent the people, preserve and protect the Constitition of the United States he/she sure as heck needs to think differently.


dave allen (Tue Sep 07 12:27:16 2010)

On the Citizens Against Govt Waste site they have Feingold listed at zero pork.

Jack Lohman (Tue Sep 07 13:33:45 2010)

Interesting on Feingold...

Feingold Earmark Amendment Fails ... Yesterday, an earmark reform amendment to the stimulus bill introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold was defeated 32-65. The amendment was largely opposed by the majority Democrats and members of the Appropriations Committee.

Senate Appropriations Chair Daniel Inouye, in opposition to the amendment, stated that it represented a shift in power to the executive branch by requiring congressional approved, but not authorized, projects to be subject to supermajority votes.

“This amendment is an attempt to undermine Congress’s power of the purse,” Inouye said, “Under this amendment, congressionally directed spending items that are not specifically authorized could be stripped from legislation.”

Jack Lohman (Tue Sep 07 13:43:09 2010)

---

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend