Please provide a link that shows 1.9% uninsured.
I find it is just over 4% and Wisconsin is just under 10%, so we are talking about <6%. Wisconsin could have taken care of that without the healthcarte system being turned upside down.

Larry, you know well that ObamaCare and the RomneyCare are not the same. And ObamaCare is costing me an extra $3,000/year than before is started.

BTW, you may have the third highest income, but don't you have one of the highest cost of living and tax systems?

Greg, I'm not so sure Larry C knows much about Massachusetts. He is posting from the Belmont Shores-Naples Patch in California.

"He has done nothing for us at all. "

I think the problem has been identified - right there! The problem is yours - I want politicians to STOP doing so many things. It was never meant to be that way - the Ponzi-scheme, wealth transfer mechanisms put in place by Roosevelt and Johnson have doomed the American Empire to eventual and complete economic collapse.

LBJ's Great Society has devolved into into a culture of breeders who only view their spawn as meal tickets. Thug-life is the dominant culture. The Boomers demand "Lifestyles of The Rich and Famous" paid for by others. Government at all levels loot their tax base by abusing their tax authority - destroying jobs and businesses.

Social Security and Medicare are taxes by law, discretionary welfare programs as entitlements. They must end because they are unsustainable inter-generational wealth transfer mechanisms. It's time to free the slaves from the Democratic Plantation of cradle to grave Nanny State - both the productive and the non-productive who the productive support. It's coming. Remember that as Health Care is rationed - Good Health will be Priceless.

Why is Mr. Ryan in office? He has done nothing for us at all. Is that in contrast to your favorite ex senator,"I'm nobodys Senator" Kohl. Talk about a mushroom on a log!

Hey Kenoshaguy,
When Mr. Ryan speaks about "Trillion" dollar deficits every year under Obama, and the growth of the debt to $16 "Trillion " dollars with the potential growth under Obama to $20 "Trillion", understand what a "Trillion" is. First of all, this kind of spending in unsustainable. Ryan is trying to save us taxpayers.
But know a "Trillion" is a 1,000 Billion Dollars. Obama continues to take this country over the fiscal cliff.

@Keith Best....It is high time for you to go back to school. You seem to be mesmerized with numbers with lots of zeros behind them. You want to place the debt at the feet of Obama without doing a reality check first. Debt will grow whenever revenue is outstripped by demand. The debt growth is clearly a result of unfunded spending created by George Bush, while at the same time cutting revenues. Just plain stupidity.

@Lyle

It's almost not even worth responding to such drivel, but here goes:
Revenue is higher now than when bush entered office. In fact, it rose despite his tax cuts, as Coolidge, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and others have learned. Bush spent tons of money... Obama has spent more. No one here is talking about Bush except you. Own your failure of a president and quit making excises for him, or the progressive machine in general. When the government runs out of money while using the same tax rates, it's not because they aren't stealing enough. Is because they're spending too much.

Simple math.

No wars, no prescription benefit, no hurricanes, you'd STILL have us in a deficit right now.

Simple math.

Sick of the lies.....

Lyle, Obama raised the baseline by 800 billion thanks to the porkulous package. That was supposed to be a one-time thing. Unfortunately, stupid spending by Democrats know no bounds, and it has been codified. You own this. I agree Bush overspent. But never by over a trillion a year. He is a piker compared to the One.

And if you don't mind, I'll sooner believe the experts referred to in the story before I believe your tired arguments. Ryan will pass another responsible budget, and Obama and Reid will likely kick the can again. To all our detriment.

How can Obama sleep at night????? He's ripping off the middle class taxpayers!

How can Obama sleep at night??? He's ripping off the middle class tax payers!!!

Kenoshaguy, Paul Ryan has been fighting for YEARS to get spending under control and make Social Security/Medicare solvent for the long term. Of you don't know this, you just enjoy the purple kool-aid a little to much.
All Ryan has asked for is a dialog, and this is what he gets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIrltAkTf38

Lyle wrote: "...Debt will grow whenever revenue is outstripped by demand. The debt growth is clearly a result of unfunded spending created by George Bush, while at the same time cutting revenues..."

So in plain English, when you spend more than you take in, you create debt. Where you err Lyle is assuming that revenue is the problem, when in reality it is spending.

Check out Table 1.1 under the OMB Historical Tables web page
( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals )
YEAR-------REVENUE-------SPENDING-------SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)
(in millions of dollars)
2000-------2,025,191-------1,788,950---------236,241
2001-------1,991,082-------1,862,846---------128,236
2002-------1,853,136-------2,010,894---------(157,758)
2003-------1,782,314-------2,159,899---------(377,585)
2004-------1,880,114-------2,292,841---------(412,727)
2005-------2,153,611-------2,471,957---------(318,346)
2006-------2,406,869-------2,655,050---------(248,181)
2007-------2,567,985-------2,728,686---------(160,701)
2008-------2,523,991-------2,982,544---------(458,553)
2009-------2,104,989-------3,517,677--------(1,412,688)
2010-------2,162,724-------3,456,213--------(1,293,489)
2011-------2,303,466-------3,603,061--------(1,299,595)
2012-------2,468,599-------3,795,547--------(1,326,948) (estimate)

Notice both spending and the deficit have gone up under B.O.
And Bush 43 was fighting two wars during his eight years.

@Edward Willing...How do you justify two unfunded wars, which transcended from one administration to another. The other issue regarding expenditure is the significant increases in spending and reduction of revenue connected to the "Great Recession". If John McCain would have won in 2008, the national economy and government would have experienced the same net result. This issue is clearly bigger than anyone administration, but the Republicans in the House and Senate essential shut the government down for the last two years.

The Tea Party Movement is in a shambles and Ryan is using the weekend's gathering to keep alive his run for the White House in 2016.

Lyle, now you have gone from the debt being created under Bush43 to trying to justify it with the recession and two wars. That may have explained the first year, but what about the next three?

By the way, the recession was brought on by Democrats refusal to listen to warnings of instability:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbIb75JdwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC88oox9TBo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-T9Iryuwi0

Lyle- What the hell are you talking about? The Republicans in the House and the Senate shut down the government? Excuse me, but were we on the same planet the last two years? How do I put this lightly... Hmmm. - You're full of crap!

I believe it was the Republican House that produced budget after budget (remember what those are Democrats?) in which Harry Reid refused to bring to a vote, or even present a compromise bill. or wait, failed to produce a counter-proposal so that the bills could be caucused. The House Republicans, led by Ryan, passed bill after bill on reforming Social Security and Medicaid and the tax code. The Democrat Senate, led by Sir Harry Reid, again did nothing. Bill after bill passed by the House, didn't die in the Senate, they died in congressional purgatory.

@Brian Dey....I think we have been living on different planets. I see the TEA/GOP as being obstructionistic and you see them as being productive. Net results, their unwillingness to leave ideology behind and their failure to compromise has caused the deadlock. Guess what, the election is over and its time to get back to working on compromise solutions.

Lyle:

How can you blame only one side for the deadlock? It seemed to me that neither side was/is willing to stray from their ideological demands...

Lyle wrote: "I see the TEA/GOP as being obstructionistic and you see them as being productive. Net results, their unwillingness to leave ideology behind and their failure to compromise has caused the deadlock."
Lyle, it all depends on your perspective. If the purpose is to steal from productive Americans to give to those that don't want to work, then yes, the TEA Party and GOP are obstructing that process. If your purpose is to get the economy moving again and provide more jobs, then the Democrats are being the obstructionists.

"Guess what, the election is over and its time to get back to working on compromise solutions."
Compromise requires BOTH sides to give up some ground. Republicans just compromised on the Bush tax cuts. When are the Democrats going to give some ground?

@Richard Head....Niall Ferguson is a contrarian who pines for the lost colonial empires. He has a notorious record for getting things wrong. Anyone who has followed him knows that as an adviser to John McCain and Mitt Romney, his counsel was completely wrong. He is noted for using others research and his last original work was on the Rothchilds. To claim he is the final word and a perfect prognosticator is in error. To use him to shore up and support Paul Ryan's position is an exercise in futility.

@Lyle - unlike you, our local self-proclaimed expert on everything and anything - with absolutely -ZERO- credentials except an overinflated ego and the status of "a legend in your own mind", Professor Niall Ferguson actually has credentials and the ear of very wealthy and influential people.

"Niall Campbell Douglas Ferguson (born 18 April 1964) is a British historian. He is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is also a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, University of Oxford and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His specialty is international history, economic history, particularly hyperinflation and the bond markets, and British and American imperialism."

"Ferguson's books include Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World and Civilization: The West and the Rest, all of which he has presented as Channel 4 television series.

In 2004, he was named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. Since 2011, he has been a contributing editor for Bloomberg Television and a columnist for Newsweek. As of 2012, he is working on the official biography of Henry Kissinger.

... and has been a vocal critic of Barack Obama.

That says it all - you, Lyle are a Homemaker living in Shorewood, an unreliable source, and will do anything to advance your agenda.

@Richard Head....What good are credentials if you are significantly wrong. Credentials doesn't make one right. Ferguson is to the right what Paul Krugman is to the left. I respect what Ferguson has done intellectually, but I don't necessarily agree with him and I think he has incorrect suppositions. He is famous for his "what if" scenarios, but that is theoretical history. Using history in that manner is not a good foundation for future policy and action.

Remember the RECALL!!!

Greg, I do remember the recall. I also remember the results.

The number is reported as "roughly 300 people" in the second paragraph...

Donkey, aside from you being wrong, why bring race into it? What I saw were hundreds of concerned patriots. You could have learned something. Well, probably not.

@ Donkey Punch

The Race Card - the same old tired play engaged in by those in charge of the Democrat Plantation when they cannot rebut something with a logical, rational, or intellectual argument. You can recognize Democratic Planatation Runaways by:

"Any person of color claiming to be a Republican, Conservative, or member of the Tea Party is suspect and should be insulted, berated, abused, and returned. BE ON THE LOOKOUT. Runaways often speak in an uppity manner about rights of the individual, personal responsibility, the greatness of America, and other such nonsense....

http://racine.craigslist.org/pol/3545274632.html

Swing and a miss.
Do drug dealers pay income tax? Nope. Do they pay sales tax? Yep. Do rich people pay more income tax? Yep. Do rich people pay more sales tax? Yep. Do poor people pay tax on food? Nope. Are they being screwed if they pay more tax on a TV? Who cares.

Unless they can figure out a way to tax wealth, the most effective way at soaking the rich is through increasing the sales tax. Wealthy people tend to have the ability to manipulate their 'incomes' to get them to a low tax rate. It's much more difficult for the rich to hide their purchases and avoid paying sales taxes.

"Pay their fair share" is a one way street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU

@patchreader 123....What response are you looking for? I don't remember you making a direct inquirer. If you did, please restate your inquiry.

Do you still believe yourself to be non-partisan?

As you may have realized from our discussion under the State of the State article, I am a fiscal conservative. In that regard I don't care whose hand is on the plate, if you are handing me b.s. don't call it pumpkin pie. It's possible to be fiscally conservative while supporting social investments. In the current economic environment, stimulus spending could be considered a form of social investment. If people are making money they spend it, pay taxes, and the economy hums. The empowerment of people. I believe it is also a hallmark of the true conservative that there is expectation of and demand for open, transparent government. That means, in my definition, and as a fundamental belief, that the infiltration of special interest groups muddies the water, so to "speak" and should be limited. Why should one small group have more say in government than the majority because they have more money. And yet. Cutting the size of government isn't the answer, reducing the influence of special interests on our legislators is. Then government would appear more logical in its operations, which is what I believe fuels the call for smaller government. Decisions are made that benefit a few at the expense of the majority and that doesn't make sense in the big picture.

That's why I have an affinity for Libertarianism. The Tea Party is Authoritarian, not Libertarian.

You claim to oppose special interest groups, yet still voted for Obama (while failing to call him out for the constant stream of lobbyists visiting the Whitehouse). Interesting...

Maybe you could enlighten us with the specifics on the lies.

Didn't think so.