I only hear the Rush highlight of the day just before 6:00 AM on WISN.

He said fine, not improving. Followed by we need more public sector jobs and a larger government paid for by the private sector.

He did try to modify his statements later after it became clear it was a politically bad statement. His first statement gives more insight to his thinking than the damage control later. It may be he so badly wants to bail out the private sector unions to prevent states from being responsible that he failed to think it through. Given his constant disdain for the free market, I would suggest it is clear he does not like the private sector outside of the crony capitalist system.

Bren, It seems to me that most media is biased today, particularly the very left leaning, MSNBC for example as well as the many blogs that are out there. As to fewer public employees, hooray and thanks to the Walker administration for reducing the bloated public sector which grew immensely under dear old Doyle's administration.

The "1 %" is always doing fine, but how many more would be in the 1% or how many have left the 1% since this president's economic failures?

Companies that are not making profits are not companies very long. With such high unemployment stating the private sector is doing fine followed by that we need to grow government and need more public sector jobs is telling. This was not a mis statement or anything taken out of context.

Of course corporations are making record profits. If you make more money than the previous year, you make a record profit every year. Isn’t that kind of the point?

Bren - How are you comparing these evil profits? What years are your basis? I can report a loss last year and this year report a $1 profit. RECORD PROFITS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! omg omg omg lets light the stake and burn down my house.

Richard, the media is biased. Look up statistics on media impressions for both candidates in the last few presidential elections. The major media is owned by organizations like NewsCorp, GE, AOL/Time Warner, etc. Their primary purpose is to make money. GE has picked up the moderate/liberal market and markets successfully to that group. Yes, partisanship exists, but it (I believe) has little to do with politics. That's just a tool to make money.

Steve, you need to track Wall Street and corporate profits prior to, during, and post-recession and see the inaccuracy of your statements. Productivity is up, with fewer people doing more work and unemployment high. If a company can keep its labor costs down this way, it will do it.

I believe this has been called a no-growth economic recovery. Labor costs are a big part of that recovery. athec44, it's interesting that record profits are being made in an economic recession, is it not?

Steve, you are the one who asserts that profits are evil, not I. I do believe that there was a time, not long ago, when company leadership regarded employees as human beings, not opportunity costs.

Look at education for example, the fact is that on average if just the suggested changes to pension and healthcare changes were made the average statewide savings would equal the cut in education funding. Although some may have needed more and others less. If we add in the massive savings from either switching away from WEA Trust or negotiating a better deal it would allow almost all districts to cover the lost funding. In districts like MPS that behaved irresponsibly signed contracts were forced due large layoffs due to bad school board leadership. In Menomonee Falls they reduced staff somewhat ue to declining enrollment. MF also had a $1.7 Million structural deficit from the Doyle education cuts that came without the tools to effectively deal with them. I suspect many other districts had similar issues and were faced with more cuts to benefits or staffing reductions. Any way you slice it, weather they chose to not make use of the tools available or irresponsibly signed a contract it would be the fault of poor school board leadership if the cuts hurt services. Also some cuts were good, for example having high school teachers add extra teaching classes reducing staffing needs. Outside of education many local governments eliminated full time jobs and contracted the work to lower cost private services. These kind of losses are good in the long run if we can provide the same level of services at lower cost. The goal is not to provide jobs but rather services for lowest cost.

By the way both Bush and Obama screwed up the handling of AIG. But then both were in with Goldman Sachs so it is not surprising. Goldman Sachs bet big money with AIG and when it went down it successfully got it's casino (AIG) bailed out so it could get paid $12 Billion. So excuse me if I am not impressed with saving a few million in bonuses while losing billions. Although to be fair the last bailout money was given to AIG in first few months of Obama's term so AIG is mostly a Bush mistake. We can agree Bush Stimulus was a failure also. Now we need to learn in a country approaching a debt crisis continuing spending on wasteful projects is insane.But then again Obama is not running against Bush.

Ok, Dave Kube, I'll bite....explain your comment with some examples: " because the multibillion dollar pharma companies know that there is no money in curing any diseases so they work with the big food food companies to promote poor foods that are destructive to our health in order to keep us dependant on there drugs".

@ Jay...Even though I was merely using these points to elude to point in the poiltical arena, I will answer your question briefly in order to stay on topic...One does not have to look any farther than wheat or whole grain products. The big food companies have known for years the euphoric effect that wheat has on the brain so they put it on everything just to make you want more food. The more you want, the more you buy...supply and demand my friend. however, with all the hybridization of the wheat, not one time did they stop to ask if the product they are now calling wheat had any adverse side effects to the human body...like auto immune disease and heart disease...And just like any big corporation, the pharma companies care about only one thing, the dollar, not the people. So they would rather see you dependant on their drugs than to eat better food for your body type and actual "cure" many your own ailments through diet. A couple of questions in return, why do food companies put wheat in tomato soup?...Why do you need wheat products in soy sauce?...Now add High Fructose Corn Syrup to the mix (or Corn Syrup as they want to call it now)...unlike the commercial says...your body DOES now the difference between table sugar and corn sugar...one reason...fructose...and how your body breaks down the molecular bonds...Big Food companies promote products that are health risks for us in the first place and the pharma companies know that poor health means more drugs to sell...2 + 2 =...

@ Jay...If you like to read...there is a great book that explains this in more detail...The author is a local doctor that works at the Franciscan Heart Hospital "Dr. William Davis" and his book is called "Wheat Belly"...It explains nutritional information, political and the corporate mentality of big food, pharma, and government. Great book. Enjoy...

@Dave Kube...Your connection is a little convoluted, is there anyway of making a more direct connection, perhaps with citing some sources? It is an interesting concept.

Yes, Dave Kube, if you can provide some more sources I would be very interested in learning more. There are also questions about the connection between high fructose corn sugar in many processed foods and increases in childhood obesity and diabetes.

But that would make him a Republican, who only worries about himself or herself and doesn't look at all the poor people around them. And he is not a Republican.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the office of the President of the United States commanded respect, even for members of the opposing party. Civility, decorum, a sense of history in the making. The gold has been covered in brass.

I think the Governor's office once had the same thing. There the gold was covered in urine and tape.

Was there documented proof of urine and tape, Greg? Or the $7 million invoice for "repairs?"

Yep, how about documentation on that brass.

@Alfred...LOL, did you ever work in the public sector?

Are you really that stupid, gullible, or willing to wipe this guys ass every time he has to retract a statement?

I don't mis-speak often but when I do all I can do is say "I'm sorry, I meant to say..." What else can one do?

Since Obama doesn't have the usual presidential vices (real or rumoured womanizing, drunkenness, etc.) "conservatives" must manufacture crises. GOP, send these radicals back to the far right fringe where they belong. Stop allowing them to speak for the true conservatives and moderates in your party! Please, for all of our sakes.

Obama would appear to be exactly right that the main drag on the jobs recovery is on the state & local government side, not the private sector.

While I'm at it, the article claims that "Like most Keynesian’s [Obama] clings to the theory of spending your way out of a recession, despite this having no track record of success."

How does the author claim the Great Depression ended, if not through government spending? Let's put the New Deal aside for a moment since he seems to want to ignore it. Was it World War Two? Remind me, what was government spending like then?

If the author is so against Keynes then he should also be criticizing Bush for signing the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

"Last year when proposed a new stimulus using the same failed ideas from his earlier stimulus attempts, I assumed he proposed a plan so stupid that it had to be rejected."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/08/news/economy/obama_stimulus_plan/index.htm No assumptions are necessary whatsoever.

"Clearly government is a taker of wealth not a maker of wealth."

Facile thinking. The implication being that the nation will be wealthier if we only got rid of almost all the education, all the police, all the firefighting equipment and most firefighters, all the courts, all the prisons, all the roads, half the healthcare, all the restrictions on polluting the air and water that others have to use, all the restrictions on contaminating their food.

If you think those have nothing to do with the wealth of the nation, you need to actually bother to make a case rather than regurgitating Limbaugh.

Better yet, let's all work for the government. Washington D.C. is the one area of our country that was not affected by the recession.

The author claimed that "Clearly government is a taker of wealth not a maker of wealth" - in the case of firefighting, as a private service it doesn't work and wealth is destroyed because either a private firefighting service can choose to go out of business by covering adjacent properties for free, or else be unable to stop a blaze from spreading to its customers' properties. Collective firefighting is an investment with great returns for society.

Why is the WWII comparison "foolish" as a rebuttal of the "[Keynesianism] has no track record of success" claim when it does *exactly* that? Is up down these days? What is your position, that Keynesianism used to work but doesn't any more for some reason you haven't told us yet?

I guess you and I do not agree on the definition of wealth. I am on-line with the definition of wealth that was implied by the author.

What makes you say that? Don't you think that education is worth anything? Is the nation not wealthier because of collective firefighting? Collective defense?

Why are these not examples of government creating wealth?

Education on it's own is worth nothing, it is what people do with it that can generate wealth.
Can you put a monetary value on collective firefighting or collective defense?
To help you understand, wealth is what makes the left hate Mit Romney.

@Greg...What are you blathering about. Education is not only for generating wealth. Education an end unto itself. I am a lefty and I don't hate Mit Romney. Mit's wealth is what it is. Being wealthy doesn't make him better or worse than anyone else and least of all it doesn't make him smarter or dumber.

"Can you put a monetary value on collective firefighting or collective defense?"

Good question; the latter is easy though: if there were no collective defense there would be no United States and all US dollar-denominated currency would be worthless. Which isn't to say that the military should get a blank check, just that at the very least we need it to have sufficient resources to defend the nation's borders; that it should exist.

"To help you understand, wealth is what makes the left hate Mit Romney."

I always thought that had to do with his two faces each taking a different side of practically every issue?

Lyle, I said it "can generate wealth", or it could consume wealth.
The Mit Romney reference was to clarify the definition of wealth for Geo, it's a fair bet he's a Romney hater. You have to admit, the left does seem to have an obsession with his wealth. When I use the term "left", it is not all inclusive, and there may be certain exceptions. If I was referring to you Lyle, I would say "the uber left". :)

I am blathering about:
con·text [ kón tèkst ]
1.text surrounding word or passage: the words, phrases, or passages that come before and after a particular word or passage in a speech or piece of writing and help to explain its full meaning.

"The Mit Romney reference was to clarify the definition of wealth for Geo, it's a fair bet he's a Romney hater."

Then I infer from this that you are poor, having squandered any wealth you had by taking bad risks, since while I think Romney is a sorry excuse for a Presidential candidate, that is a world apart from hating him.

Back to the original point, defining wealth in terms you yourself say are indeterminate ("When I use the term "left", it is not all inclusive, and there may be certain exceptions") is not especially useful.

I stand corrected. Geo is not a Romney hater, he just thinks Romney is a sorry excuse for a Presidential candidate. Now we can continue to avoid the actual subject, by continuing to challenge the definition of every other word, in this blog.

"The Mit Romney reference was to clarify the definition of wealth for Geo, it's a fair bet he's a Romney hater."
"Then I infer from this that you are poor, having squandered any wealth you had by taking bad risks"
Tolley, What are you on? How do you connect these things?
I infer from this entire conversation that you have earned little in your life and you blame others for your failure.

Clearly it's not obvious how I connect such things, so here it is: you decided to lazily use a stereotype (and for no apparent reason at that), betting I would fit into it. You lost. You are into making unnecessary and bad bets as a byproduct of lazy thinking.

You still haven't gotten back to me on why the WWII comparison is "foolish" when it utterly rebuts the "[Keynesianism] has no track record of success" claim of the author.

I won't continue the discussion on your first point, you have taken that subject to the point of stupidity.
As to the second issue, you are technically correct, but I think you again missed the point, in your quest to be argumentative. The "despite this having no track record of success" would best be applied to current economic conditions. And Obama claimed he would repair the economy or be a one term President. The track record has shown that spending us out of a recession has not worked (currently). The WWII reference was foolish for the reasons stated above and because economic and world conditions are so different, that the comparison can not really apply.

@Greg...One of the reasons that the Europeans are heading back into recession is that they choose austerity measures rather than stimulus measures. Every economic downturn since the Great Depression have been softened by the government stimulating the economy, even Reagan's "Rust Belt" Recession of the early 1980s. He stimulated the economy with defense spending to name one. Now what conditions are different now in comparison to economic downturns of the past?

You don't see any economic differences between WWII and now? I would say pretty much everything has changed.
As far as spending goes, Europe is Europe we are not Europe. We have been spending on 2 wars, every social program possible and we even bought a car company for the unions. How's it working so far?

@Greg: aarrrgh, even simpler then: taking your statement and running with it far further than it will go is *exactly* the same as "Geo doesn't agree with me, so he's a Romney-hater".

"As to the second issue, you are technically correct, but I think you again missed the point, in your quest to be argumentative. The "despite this having no track record of success" would best be applied to current economic conditions. " - the claim in the article was wrong, period. At least you have stopped trying to defend the indefensible even if you are still trying to couch it as something else.

Now, if you wish to make the claim that instead of Keynesian stimulus having no track record of success, it has no track record of success in a modern economy, then you need to at least address the obvious counterexamples, such as why the apparent success of e.g. the Chinese Keynesian stimulus of 2008-2009 shouldn't be counted. Ideally provide some examples of comparable modern economies with and without Keynesian stimulus in the face of a recession.

As for "How's it working so far?", check out http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001 - the United States been growing private sector jobs at Bush-boom rates for the last two years. You can claim that to be a coincidence if you like, but then you need to at least offer some alternative explanation.

I bet you buy stuff you don't need, just because it's on sale.

I never said anything about privatization of public services.
I don't drink and have no reason to be in bars, but I work for a living so I understand the concept of taker of wealth vs. maker of wealth.
I get my news from many sources. I am more of a History Channel or Speed Channel guy.

@Greg....Wealth is a relative concept. I don't know why people are so consumed by the notion of wealth or committed to attaining wealth. The accumulation of resources (economic wealth) beyond the point of personal consumption, either present or future, becomes something else altogether. The Catholic Church used to classify such pursuits as committing the "deadly sin of greed". However, I think pursuit of wealth is not purely greed, but a means to establish worth, status and power. An important question to ask is if an individual who pursues wealth can also be a moral human being. I think, that most who look at wealth with disdain, do so with a suspicion of how the wealth was accumulated and maintained. Who has suffered in the process of creating such wealth.

Coming out of the Protestant Reformation came the notion of living in a state of "Grace" or being part of the G-d's elect. Material success was an indication of being a member of the elect. This was infused and assimilated into our national values by the early colonists and has remained to this day. So the question I pose to you is this: if you accumulate wealth are you closer to G-d than someone who doesn't? Although I'm not a Christian and I could be wrong, but in my reading of the gospels, Jesus and his disciples were not makers of wealth but consumers of wealth depending on the handouts and charity of others for their survival. In fact, Jesus regularly condemned the rich and elevated the poor.

This is the comment ""Clearly government is a taker of wealth not a maker of wealth", being relative or God, have nothing to do with it. Who is blathering now?
Geo called the authors concept facile thinking. I think that he, and now you, have missed the boat, in an attempt to be profound. Take it for what it is worth, government and it's services cost us money. There are quality of life issues, but that was not the context of the statement. This is another "depends on what the definition of is, is" moment. It's not that complicated.

@Greg...As usual Bryant makes broad statements with out condition. If you want to discuss the cost of services, whether provided by government or the private sector, it is a cost. Government provides the service profit free, hence they don't generate wealth in Bryant's definition. On the other hand private service providers must make a profit in order to stay in business and to produce wealth. No matter which pocket you pay out of for the service, private or public, your still paying. So Bryant's argument about producing wealth or not is irrelevant. For example, privately owned and operated turnpikes exist to provide a service but at a profit, whereas public freeways provide the same service without an individual use cost. What is the better service?

Good luck with that, toots.

Eternal hope ain't gonna keep the rain out.