Well, Judy, redistricting is always “devastating” when it is your ox that is gored.

Judy is really concerned about Social Security. She's concerned that you may continue to get it. She's voted for laws that will eventually end it and Medicare.

She votes against closing loopholes for companies that locate in the Caymans to avoid taxes. Or subsidies for her patrons, the oil companies, while you pay $4 a gallon for gas.

She voted against unemployment for those who haven't been able to find a job in TWO YEARS, but she was glad to vote for $800 billion in tax breaks for billionaires and millionaires. She voted against health care subsidies for kids of the working poor, called SCHIPS.

Judy is the only person at congressional hearings who seems to be able to sleep and simultaneously question witnesses. They always rephrase the questions anyway.

By all means, vote her in again, even though she's "devastated." Maybe she's devastated at having to serve some real people, gosh, maybe even some of a different color, rather than merely the bankers on the east end of Hinsdale.

If you do vote for her, be sure to write in and let us know how you feel after she and her Wall Street pals have stripped you of all your remaining assets.

At Boehner's direction, Judy voted against Wall Street regulation reform (Dodd-Frank), the Unemployment Extension Act of 2010, Stimulus Aid to the States (for jobs, education and Medicaid), and the Small Business Jobs & Credit Act. Now, after her lockstep voting in support of the House Rs' recent debt ceiling frolic (which S&P's downgrade followed within days, specifically citing party intransigence as a reason), Judy has suddenly discovered that "bipartisan cooperation is going to be needed if Congress is going to solve the debt crisis." Incredible hypocrisy.

Thanks a lot, Judy, for being part of the reason that "this is a really interesting time in our lives." After 12 years in Congress, you are living proof of the proposition that "(i)n a democracy, people get the government they deserve." If we re-elect you yet again, ...

Frank and Joseph, you guys must watch a lot of MSNBC, because you have the Democratic Talking Points down pat. I'm not sure which planet you have been living on the past 3 years, but here is some news for you: The Dodd-Frank bill is NOT Financial Reform - it does nothing about Fannie or Freddie who are at the root of the financial collapse. The Stimulus Bill.....yeah, sorry guys, that was a failure. The proof is in the results. Maybe you should both expand your horizons beyond the liberal media....because guess what, making $250k/year doesn't make you a millionaire or billionaire. The top 1% already pay 40% of Federal Income taxes, and the top 5% pay more than the bottom 95% combined, and out of that bottom 95%, some 47-51% paid NO Federal Income taxes at all between 2007-2009; even when you factor in payroll taxes, over 30% pay NOTHING to the federal government, because they get back more in tax credits than they pay in - those people do NOTHING to support the system, collect social security and medicare for FREE when they retire. So, the next time you actually meet one of those BILLIONAIRES making $300k/year, you should say 'THANK YOU'.

Jay talk about talking points ha ha is that Fox news or Rush Limbaugh spewing out of your computer/mouth? You do know that the tax cuts would remain for the first $250,000. in income and only the income above that number would get taxed.Its like 30.00 for every thousand dollars after 250,000. Social security and medicare are based on what someone paid into the system you dont get something unless you paid into it your claim is ridiculous and yes low and no income people cannot support the system so guess what the rich are going to have to give up their tax cuts to help out cause us middle class people are about fed up! so I say toughen up to those $250,000. in income people and up... they had a chance to spend and stimulate and create jobs with the money they saved but instead chose to invest overseas I have no sympathy for the "Rich" they have had their tax breaks for 11 years and whats it done for this economy? When will you people wake up and realize it really is voo doo economics furthermore your entitled to your opinions but the facts are the facts the stimulus worked it should have been waaaay bigger thank GOD for Obama things were turning around and starting to really uptick till the do nothing republicans came in January since then its been stagnation and gridlock ...no wonder this economy is faltering Gop promised they would focus on jobs and all we got was whining and bellyaching about the deficit Now is not the time to pull back and not stimulate this economy .

Debra, I never cease to be amazed by the simple minded among us. You can't even differentiate between talking points and facts. The information I cite above is compliments of the IRS, I'm sure you've heard of them, though not likely you've ever had to write them a check. You have no idea how the entitlement programs work, do you? As for the tax breaks to the 'rich' - their taxes were cut the least. Extending the 'Bush tax cuts' as you would call them 82% of those 'cuts' went to the people who you consider 'not rich' as opposed to 18% going to the 'rich'. How much more should the rich pay to provide a society for everyone else? As for the economy, you do understand that 'tax cuts' stimulate the economy, correct? You also know that repealing the 'Bush Tax Cuts' will cause tax revenue to 'decrease' - you don't have to believe me, just ask the CBO, they published it just this past week. As far as 'uptick', you'll have to provide some 'facts' because there is very little in the economy that is looking positive, and most of that blame falls on Obama and the Democrats, but you probably have no idea what caused the economic collapse in the first place. (I'm already laughing at the anticipation of your reply about 'deregulation' and what not).

"the rich are going to have to give up their tax cuts to help out cause us middle class people are about fed up!"

Not going to happen. If anything, the cuts for the bottom 95% along with all the tax credits should end so that everyone pays their fair share, not just your so called 'rich'.

Jay give it up Fact. Tax cuts do not trickle down. Talking point Reagan raised taxes six times bush 41 raised taxes clinton raised taxes Fact Clinton had the best economy and surpluses Bush 43 gave largest tax cut ever and even before the wall street meltdown had a sluggish economy. I don't need your pompous numbers to tell me what gets the economy working I have lived it and seen it.

Schoolyard name-calling (see Jay above) doesn't really help advance the debate, and isn't what we pay our elected geniuses to do for us. MIndless partisanship (see Jay above) is part of why we're IN this jackpot. Vote the rascals -- including Judy -- out.

Peace out.

people who cannot defend their issues often resort to name calling and character assassination ... When you stop giving respect you will lose respect.

Debra - I used facts above to defend my point of view. You used talking points from MSNBC and the White House. You talk of 'stimulating the economy', though I doubt that you understand how that even works, since you're simply parroting what someone else has said. You claim that Clinton had the best economy, but that's simply not true either. Back that up with some stats please.

Jay where did you live in the 90's? Most people will tell you they did well under clinton I could cite all kinds of stats but you will just deny and argue Google The stats yourself

Jay, I suggest you Google NPD, DSM-IV (1994) or the European ICD-10.

That being said, http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf, as far as at least one area is concerned, we were better off under Clinton. I would be happy to cite more if you would like.

Debra, I know how frustrating it is. I'm sure he means well...I'm also sure he firmly believes the Tea Party is a "grass roots movement".

Jennifer, why don't you simply google: Bush vs. Clinton Economy. An yes, although I've never attended any Tea Party events, it is a grass roots movement. It has no funding, no leadership - if it doesn't fit your definition of 'grass roots' they you should probably ask for a refund on that college tuition.

First, some context. When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, he was dealt the greatest hand since Phil Jackson became coach of the Chicago Bulls with probable future hall-of-famers Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen already on the team. The U.S. economy was already expanding, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union seemingly meant that defense spending could come down–which encouraged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to cut interest rates. Then Clinton got a Republican Congress in 1995 that was also eager to bring the budget into balance.

and since you decided to post something from 2004, let take a look at how the Bush Economy in 2004 compared to the Clinton Economy in 1996. This would only be fair because Clinton had the good fortune of the fiscal responsible Newt Gingrich's congress in his 2nd term, and Bush had the free spending Nancy Pelosi and Heir Reid run debt machines.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/b3898028_mz001.htm

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/04/18/bush-vs-clinton-the-economic-verdict

Jay, you asked a question regarding former President Clinton, I answered with a cited source. I even offered to supply more sources. Instead, you attack, ignorantly and arrogantly, my education when, in fact ,you know nothing of my education nor my socio-economic status. Much like you have attacked many other posters on this thread. I ask you, why do you feel the need to do that? And once again, I ask you to Google NPD.

The right has the Koch Brothers... the left has George Soros. It's no secret that money has the power to sway elections on both sides of the aisle in America.

She told the crowd that Speaker of the House John Boehner said it was important for members of Congress to be out meeting with constituents. Yes , a true champion of the people his $2000 a plate fundraiser held in Ruffled Feathers , a gated community .

Hank, I guess you don't have a problem with our President jetting to Chicago on the taxpayers time to attend a meeting, the attending a $38,000 per seat fund raiser with all sorts of Hollywood and Wallstreet darlings - I guess those 'millionaires and billionaires' don't mind that he wants to increase taxes on corporate jets, etc. Boehner has never claimed to be a 'champion for the people'; however our Teleprompter in Chief does 'pretend' to be all for the little man and the middle class, yet he spends all his time with Hollywood and Corporate big wigs, takes their money and returns in kind with favors. If you can't see that, you're in the same league with Jennifer.

ok, Jay, so if you find you can't beat someone down, you will take your ball and go home. Clearly shows what kind of man you are. You must be very impressed with yourself. Once again, Jay, I urge to to Google NPD.

You're a one track pony with that NPD stuff, aren't you. If I wanted to learn more about Barack Obama's pshche, I might just do that.

First off, really Jay, Google NPD because you fit the profile and I'm sure those around you would be appreciative of your new found knowledge. Second, when you can spell psyche then we'll talk. In the meantime, I have found that unless you can brow-beat someone, you really have no no skin in the game. Plagiarizing, mean-spirited, Fox talking points, arrogant talk...that's really all you have to offer? You are like the squeaky wheel. Or the kid who always picked last. When you post something intelligent, maybe I'll stop.

I see the crazy tea party has made its way to Jay's house...

Also, "Jay" if you're so confident in your opinions, use your full name like the rest of us...

(*** crickets ***) hmmm ... bully got quiet?

Want facts re: budget/deficit by Administration? Read these charts (skip the article; it's the NYT, which would only draw more GlennRush drivel) based on data from CBO - congress' own numbers analysts, who called out BOTH parties' phony figures in the recent debt ceiling dance. These FACTS clearly show who did what to the federal budget.

Facts. Data. Numbers. No Phil Jackson/Soviet Union/Grassroots spin verbage. Just click the charts and read the figures. Go see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

Then, remembering that Judy has voted lockstep party-line since she was elected to the Senate in 1998, maybe read the original article above and see how she's recently discovered that "bipartisan cooperation is going to be needed if Congress is going to solve the debt crisis."

Also, please wait a few minutes for the insightful "intelligence/education/brainsize/ability to follow logic" insults to fly again.

Hank, just so you're aware: I can only monitor commenters on my own site (and even that's difficult to do when the volume is so high—I'm just one person). This story was shared across sites, so I don't know if certain people are registered under Naperville. False names are not allowed, and we will do our best to address the situation.

Mike - agree w/ your points. (1) "Blame" is irrelevant to me, except from here forward. We need reps who will work together to address these very complex issues; party affils are irrelevant to the Solutions, which is why the current gridlock is so frustrating: R's sit in "no taxes of ANY kind", while some D's sit in "no cuts to 'social spending'. I believe both ends must bend to a solution. Call me a "compromiser".
(2) I don't see viable alternatives yet to our current 2-party political structure; no 3d party Nader, Perot or anybody else can crack the money barriers. Sad to say, I personally think demanding better from what we've got is the best chance we have. (3) Saw an interesting pitch for business to step up since government can't/won't:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=828994&f=28&sub=Columnist

Food for thought, but it sounds pretty scary to openly let a shadow govt of unelected rich people drive our economic policy (though, arguably, they do today through our current campaign funding rules. ;>). At least it would be one way to break the logjam, though. I can dream ...

Nick -- I must agree the TPers started up a necessary dialogue. When we ("The People" ;D) gave them the keys, though, their simplistic approaches became painfully obvious and inadequate. Me, I WANT a govt that holds a safety net -- at some level. I WANT police, fire and national security protection. I WANT a funding mechanism for infra and education; it's how we got competitive in the past!

re: importance of infrastructure spending to our national competitiveness -
go see:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/16/uk-usa-economy-infrastructure-idUSLNE77E04E20110816

The arguement on taxe's is simple.Tax all the those who make over $250,000 at 70% ,that will make a huge dent in are nation debt = 3% that is it ! They un American's want to destroy are wonderful,great,caring nation .Using this argument is patheic ,and usless.Unless you are a complete idiot.Having the American Dream is one to succeed ,and dream to be wealthy .A dream ,and the drive should never be taken away from anyone,and for those who have no dream or drive it's their fault not the one's who give it their all.Not everyone will be wealthy,but to dream a dream is well worth it .Can i ask one question on the so called being rich? Does anyone who hate's the rich or complain about everthing ever buy a lotto ticket? I bet almost all the 99ers probably did no facts on this ,but they should do a New York Times poll on that question.Work to live ,not to pay taxes.