UPDATE: ProseBeforeHos weighs in on this cartoon and points out the hypocrisy of the Senate Republicans who filibustered unemployment benefits as fiscally unwise (cost: $34 billion) but all voted for extending Bush’s tax cuts (cost: $200 billion per year, or a grand total of $2.2 Trillion if extended the proposed ten years).
Abortion Bush Campaign Finance Cheney Climate Clinton Congress Conservatives Corporations Corruption Deficits Democrats Drugs Economy Education Election Elections Energy Environment Fox News Gays Guns Health Immigration Lies McCain Media Middle East Obama Palin Protests Racism Religion Republicans Romney Spying Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party Terrorism Terrorists Torture Trump Unemployment War
69 Comments
Change the GOP to Demo and you might have something 😉
@IMSHANDON
Right, because the Dems are the one’s fighting the jobless benefits. get a brain idiot
HAHAHA!
Each side blames the other as a matter of convenience at the time. In reality, I firmly believe that there is, as a whole, enough blame to go around.
For anyone to say it is JUST the Dems or JUST the Reps… is foolhardy.
Jobless Benefits and other such social programs account for around 30 percent of the national debt while the top 20 percent of citizens pay around 72 percent of taxes. just look up the numbers on the two before you judge. I did.
So what you’re saying is that you CAN’T skew statistics to back any opinion?
Heck, I’ve been unemployed for about a year and a half and I think that the unemployment benefit extensions are getting a little out of hand.
I was trying to throw some facts into an ambiguous conversation. The interpretation is up to you and your political opinion. I don’t know how anything is going to play out, but I think its best to look things up before just blindly joining in with the chant of the masses. The information is out there, and if my facts were wrong I would welcome anyone to step in with corrections.
Allow me to make a better, more tortured, less funny, but more correct analogy. a very large boat is slowly sinking. there are pumps, run by a steam engine, there is a limited amount of coal on the ship, putting the coal in the boilers to run the pumps of the economy is tax cuts, and throwing the coal overboard to reduce the weight of the ship is “stimulus” spending on makework jobs and pork barrel projects.
rofl @ Solidarity. If you were truly interested in throwing some facts into the fray, how about not bundling all the social programs into your stats, but just the relevant (and currently contentious) percentage of jobless benefits being debated?
How is the way you framed your stats *not* a political game on your part?
Is that because unemployment accounted for slightly less 3.5% of total federal spending in 2009? But that wouldn’t support your political views very well would it.
Pot, meet kettle…
Neither side is infallible.
the Dems & Reps in office these days are all shit. ALL OF THEM.
Stop having kids and all our problems will go away in 70 years.
As long as we’re talking statistics: The Top 20% pay 72% of taxes, but they also have 98% of the money.
Why does anyone believe others (the “wealthy”)have to give up their money to those who are not wealthy? Tax cuts go to those who are paying the bills. They earned their money. Why should others have claim to it?
That’s an easy question to answer, “Johnedwardsbaby”. Because anyone who has actually earned (really earned) a bunch of money knows that there is no way they could have made that money without the support and help of the government. The police force that keeps the strong and powerful from just taking what they want and makes it possible to run a business. The money that we all use. The rules that create markets with a level playing field for all businesses, whether established and well connected, or small and new. The roads that we all use. The fire departments that save all of our lives and property. Social security, so my employees don’t have to spend all their time taking care of their aged parents. FEMA, that cleans up after natural disasters. Schools so that we have an educated work force. Universal telephone service so we can communicate. People who create standards for food so we don’t get sick when we eat. Agencies that keep our air and water clean.
Do you really want to live in a country that doesn’t do any of this? If so, maybe you should move to Somalia.
In addition, in countries where there is opportunity for everyone, rich or poor, then everyone does better. Not just the poor, but the rich too. In countries where there is a smaller disparity between the rich and poor, the rich are happier and healthier. Money might be able to buy some happiness, but only so much.
I have started several companies in my life and made enough money to be comfortable. I love my country, and I want it to be a good place to live. I don’t want to hide behind barbed wire and have to hire armed guards to protect me and my family. I feel it is only fair that if I succeed, I should give back to my country and make it a better place. Some of the richest people in the world (William Gates, both senior and junior, Warren Buffett, and George Soros) have said the same thing.
I’m not advocating socialism — I believe in capitalism and that people should be rewarded for hard work and taking risks. But everyone should have the same opportunity — equal access to education, to health care, safe roads, protection from crime and from fires. As our founding fathers said, a fundamental right is the pursuit of happiness. It is not the job of the government to make us happy, but to make it possible for us to pursue happiness.
And finally, you are dead wrong when you say that tax cuts go to those who are paying the bills. ExxonMobil paid nothing in federal taxes, while making billions in profits. Many other large multinational companies paid zero in taxes. What really ticks me off is my tax money going to subsidize big businesses. We totally subsidize oil companies, banks, and many other businesses. Some of these companies aren’t even owned by Americans. And local governments give tax breaks to huge companies like Wal-mart. This is wrong.
Just because someone has wealth does not mean that it is solely accredited to their own efforts, some genetic predisposition, or some divine/arcane circumstance. Wealth comes on the backs of others and uses the resources of the commonwealths. If you create and sell a product, you have to have to have people to do the work. You have to have people to buy the product. You have to have roads, ports, airports in order to transport those products. One can go on and on, with pros and cons.
Those with wealth use the resources of the commonwealth disproportionately more in comparison with the average person. They hold more “power” as a direct result of that wealth and thus a greater responsibility in keeping the system working. Surely in this depressed economic atmosphere, where the 98% of the non-uber wealthy cannot purchase or use services as they normally would or desire to, one would think that the period before the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, where their wealth greatly increased along with that of the lower 98% (even as moderately as it was), proved to be a very lucrative and content time for most.
Hardcore Conservative policy, especially relating to societal contribution, sent not only the US into near implosion, but much of the industrialized world. There were many factors within Conservative policy that contributed, but the largest contributing factor has been the tax reductions on the wealthy. This is a statistical fact born out in report after report, commission after commission (please feel free to look at the reports at the GAO website, articles in the WSJ, or just look at the graphs if you don’t have the patience to read the reports).
Even with the tax levels RETURNED to their previous levels before 2001, they are still overwhelming and historically lower than any other period in history before that point. The hemming and hawing going on about 2% of the population that receives as much if not more than it gives is amazing in that it will not affect the greatest majority of the people making a fuss. It is as ridiculous as the grousing about the estate tax (or so politically referred to as “death tax”).
Stop looking through the lens of us versus them, my team against yours and start looking out for the best interests of yourselves, your families, your communities, and your government.
@Iron Knee – I agree we need to stop the subsidies on big business. We also need to stop the tax breaks for many of our so called “non-profits”. In the city where I live they constantly debate property tax issues because nearly 1/3 of the city’s property is owned by non-profits that are exempt from paying tax. Many are large hospitals and sprawling college campuses. Otheres clearly just want to get around tax laws by creating a church in your house and paying no property tax.
Concerning taxing of the wealthy, as Obama said “At some point I think you’ve earned enough”. I think at some point the wealthy have paid enough taxes. With proposed luxury taxes in the HCR, and discontinuing the Bush tax cuts, increases to capital gains taxes, the highest tax bracket will be close to 45% (around 50%, when you add state, fica, medicare). Isn’t that enough?
I truly believe everyone should pay some federal tax, not be owed money even though they paid no tax. If you didn’t pay any tax, you should not get a refund, which is another subsidy.
Everyone should contribute (just like church), even if it’s only $10.
Unemployment is less than 1% of the deficit. One of the best ways to stimulate the economy. No wonder the GOP hates it. But really its a ploy to make Obama look weak. But its really weak politics from the NEW NeoCon.
taxes are something we will never escape. We all want safe schools that will educate our children, smooth safe roads to drive on, traffic lights to work, fireman and police and the coast guard when we need them. Parks and street lights and clean safe water are wonderful too. We could have saved a trillion dollars by not invading Iraq, not looking for wmd which did not exist and not destroying the infrastructure of a country that did not pose any danger to us and also as a plus by not putting American soldiers in harm’s way.
A tax cut represents not taking away someone’s property by force. That is only justifiable if the one doing the taking is the actual owner. Unless you are proposing something that is unjustifiable (and unjust), what you mean is that the government is the actual owner of everyone’s property, the product of their work. So the government owns the product of everyone’s work?
Ironic that the first black president would get so many people to embrace slavery again…
taxes don’t contribute to the deficit. too much spending does. let’s just cut all spending by 75%, and we’ll be fine. either way, no one on earth should need “unemployment benefits” for 99 weeks, let alone more. swallow your pride and take a job you hate, just like self-respecting people who don’t want to be a drag on the economy.
So, as I read your page today, this post happens to be at the bottom of page one. So it is here I will leave my comment.
To the Webmaster…..
I found your page by accident and the pages’ title and subtitle caught my attention so I stuck around and scrolled through the first page.
I’m not sure how I managed to get to the bottom though. You’re just another liberal hack.
To Chelseags…..
So true. They have 98% of the money. Do you know how the OVERWHELMING majority of them got all that money? They EARNED it by WORKING for it, and maybe even giving you a job in the process. But for whatever reason, people like you only see the P Hiltons of the world.
You may hate or envy them for that, but the fact is that if you took all the wealth of this nation and divided it up evenly among the citizenry….within a few years the very same people would have 98% of the money once again.
To Iron Knee….
So….these folks who earned a ton of money did so only with the help of govt, huh? Let me say this as a business owner. The last thing I want to hear from someone knocking on my door is that person saying “Hi, I’m from the govt, and I’m here to help.”
Sorry, but the police force is not a federal agency so they dont belong in this discussion. And they do not protect me or my property either. I protect my own property with technology- and a gun if the bastard shows up at the wrong time. Police only show up after the fact. Fire depts are not federal either. And as for schools, they SHOULDNT be federal, but thats another debate.
You come across as though you dont think there is equal opportunity in this country. I agree, but only to a point. You see, there once was a time when there really was equal opportunity. But lazy liberals decided that that wasnt so, so slowly but surely over time, they enacted new laws to help the poor and the “less fortunate.” And since then, the gap between the rich and poor only grew wider. Maybe youd like a shot at explaining this to some of us.
BTW….I couldnt care less what you, Bill Gates, W Buffet, or anyone else wants to do with their money. Thats your business. But I DO care that you want to legislate what I do with MY money. How much above and beyond what you were required to pay did you send in last year with your taxes? You do know that there is a line item for this right?
So tell me who doesnt have equal access to education in this country? For Christs sake we let illegal immigrants into our frickin schools!
Who doesnt have equal access to healthcare? Oh wait. Thanks to Obamacare, no one, right? Geez, I hope you dont really believe that.
Have you ever thought that possibly, if ExxonMobile wasnt faced with the costs of compliance in this country and the tax burdens of this country, they might have actually EARNED some money in this country instead of earning it all overseas? Then maybe WE can collect some of those taxes instead of foreign govt’s? Oh wait. You think they earned a LOT domestically but used funny accounting to “fix” it right? Maybe so, but who wrote those loopholes and “outs” into the tax code? Thats right. Its your very own imperial federal govt. But I digress…this too, is another debate all together.
To SMY….
Correct. You need resources. And said resources get paid for their work. If I do not pay them fairly, then my competitors will, and I will fail in the end. Its as simple as that. For some reason, some people dont see things so clearly.
So with that said…I say, have it your way. Go ahead and tax the rich. Tax em HARD. They’ll tuck their money away into tax free accounts instead of investing it and expanding (you know, as theyre doing now). Then, your unemployed neighbor, or possibly you, will still be unemployed a year from now.
While you ponder that, please explain to me why each time a tax cut happens, tax revenues go UP.
To Dennis Sweat….
Unemployment benefits stimulate the economy? Did you come up with that one or do you just enjoy hearing N Pelosi speak? If this were true, then why dont we all do something to get ourselves laid off? Imagine how explosive the economy would be then! WOW!
Where do you think these “benefits” come from? Obama’s stash? You see, in order for govt to pay out any money to anyone, it first has to REMOVE that money from the economy. Do I need to explain it any further?
To Maura….
You should apply as a monday morning QB commentator at a sports network.
I wont go deep into this. Instead I’ll just suggest that you go to Youtube and look up videos of Democrats who fully supported going into Iraq solely due to WMDs. Specifically people like H Reid, H Clinton, N Pelosi, C Dodd, etc. Probably a bunch of your heros. Then come back and tell us if you still support these people.
To everyone…..
Regardless of who you support, our federal govt is PLENTY big enough. If you dont believe that, then youre beyond help and are bound to be a societal leech for the rest of your life. I encourage you to vote out ANY member of congress who has been there for more than two terms= even if you typically agree with how they vote. Find someone else in your party and support new blood in Washington. Those who are there now, are a part of the problem, NOT the solution.
I am not against taxes. Theyre necessary. I AM against HIGHER taxes though. The govt is big enough.
Peace. Unless I get an email whenever someone replies, I likely wont be back.
The cartoon is a lie. All you Democrats fall for the lie. You have fallen for the Democratic Party Mantra. Hatred and greed. The hatred part: Hate the rich, big oil, the pharmaceuticals, big business, big medicine, and insurance companies. Have you ever stopped to think that all the Democrats in Congress who bitch about the rich having to much are all at least millionaires themselves? Do they hate themselves so much for being rich that they want to take our money away from us so we don’t have to suffer with the responsibility of having any? The greed part: You poor miserable masses, you can’t help yourselves. Let us give you everything you need. You poor misguided criminal illegal’s, vote for us and we will make sure you get citizenship. The rich have too much. Vote for us and we will take it from them and pay for your life long benefits. You can’t possibly make your way in life without the governments help. You don’t pay a dime in income taxes, but Uncle Sugar will give you a tax refund anyway. After all the rich are paying for it. The major problem started with Lyndon Johnsons “Great Society.” That one single program completely destroyed generations of people in this country.
The cartoon only tells half of the story. Yes the GOP is against extending unemployment benefits. I wonder why? The truth is the GOP only wants the benefits to be PAID for and not added to the deficit. Earlier this year Congress passed legislation that nothing would be spent that could not be paid for. Pay for the billion dollars cost and the GOP will back the extension. Are any of you capable of watching the news and paying attention to what is really happening or are you all just talking out of your butts?
Since the passage of Obama’s Pay-as-you-go-plan, the Democratic controlled Congress has not paid for any expenditure.
In Obama’s own words;
“It’s pretty simple. It says to Congress, you have to pay as you go. You can’t spend a dollar unless you cut a dollar elsewhere. This is how a responsible family or business manages a budget. And this is how a responsible government manages a budget, as well.
It was this rule that helped lead to balanced budgets in the 1990s, by making clear that we could not increase entitlement spending or cut taxes simply by borrowing more money. And it was the abandonment of this rule that allowed the previous administration and previous congresses to pass massive tax cuts for the wealthy and create an expensive new drug program without paying for any of it. Now in a perfect world, Congress would not have needed a law to act responsibly, to remember that every dollar spent would come from taxpayers today – or our children tomorrow.
But this isn’t a perfect world. This is Washington. And while in theory there is bipartisan agreement on moving on balanced budgets, in practice, this responsibility for the future is often overwhelmed by the politics of the moment. It falls prey to the pressure of special interests, to the pull of local concerns, and to a reality familiar to every single American – the fact that it is a lot easier to spend a dollar than save one.
“That is why this rule is necessary. And that is why I am pleased that Congress fulfilled my request to restore it. Last night, I signed the “pay as you go” rule into law. Now, Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/18/remember-that-pay-as-you-go-law-the-president-wanted-neither-does-he/
Obama is a liar. The media are liars. The cartoonist is lying.
Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Congress approved increasing the federal debt limit by $1.9 trillion, to $14.3 trillion, enough to prevent lawmakers from having to raise it again before November’s midterm elections.
Lest you all think I am partial to the GOP; I really am not. I don’t think the GOP is any better than the Democrats. Both parties suck. But the Democrats are in control of both houses and therefore responsible for our current problems.
Americans seem to be in a state of denial that their economy has peaked and is unlikely to grow in real terms anytime soon. Welfare measures like unemployment allowance are sustainable only in an economy whose outlook for the future is good. This is not the time to extend welfare measures, it is the time to cut them down. But being in denial about future means clamouring for more and more welfare measures as the economy continues to tumble. Increasing taxes to pay for welfare in the current economy is going to be counterproductive. Borrowing is not an option either, you don’t want to really find out that there are no takers for the US government bonds any longer. There is really no choice but to accept the reality that for most Americans the future is going to be worse than the present and all Americans equally responsible for the state of affairs.
nobody cares about anything any of you are saying, this is a hilariously pointless argument just like this very fleeting temporary and superfluous political and social dilemma
The economy does not work like this comic implies and there is a mountain of evidence disproving the simplification shown here.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some sort of jobless benefits though. However, it’s very hard to determine who really needs temporary or permanent welfare.
For instance my cousin (who comes from a wealthy family) is on unemployment and he’s applying for a disability. Because I have known him my whole life, I KNOW HE’S JUST A LAZY BUM, and has an extreme sense of entitlement. But the government doesn’t have this information.
Just to interject some reality:
Leading economists say that jobless benefits help the economy, because that money goes directly back into the economy, increasing demand, and therefore, creating jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy tend to end up in savings, bonds, stock, etc. They do nothing to increase demand or create more jobs, just add more to the people who already have.
The wealthy now pay a lot fewer taxes than just about any time in our country’s history. The more you get from society, the more you should have to give back.
The government’s job should be to protect its citizens. It should be there to help us, not help people who do not need it.
Yes, there are people who take advantage of the system. There ARE lazy people out there collecting benefits. Does that mean we should punish those who are looking for work? Who ARE disabled? Who NEED help? Or should we just help those who are wealthy? These people cheat the system too, ALL the time. Or haven’t you seen the news in the past two years?
With all due respect, I think the cartoonist failed to see that the federal spending is the real issue, be it on the war, unemployment, etc…
In all reality, taxing the wealthy less doesn’t raise the deficit. It lowers the deficit less. There is a difference. Imagine a tip jar; if there is a wealthy man who doesn’t tip, and a normal man that takes money from it, who’s to blame for there being so little in the jar?
If we stop the war, the drug war, unnecessary social programs, corporatism, and streamline education, we might have a chance at not being like present day Greece in fifty years.
Just to clarify, this cartoon is not attempting to explain the economy or advance a specific ideology (although I’m sure many of you would like to over-read into it and disagree). It is merely poking fun at the apparent hypocrisy of the GOP wanting to cut jobless benefits while simultaneously supporting tax cuts for the wealthy. Simple question: which one affects the deficit more?
Stan, most economists are good for one thing- explaining tomorrow why what they predicted today didnt happen. Something tells me all these “leading economists” you hear from are full Keynesians.
So unemployment benefits are good because they go back into the economy? Where the hell did the money come from then? Do you not realize that in order for govt to give anything to anyone is first has to REMOVE that money from the economy?
And you really think tax cuts for the wealthy (however ‘wealthy’ is defined nowadays) goes into savings? Do you think ‘hiding’ their money is how the wealthy got that way? Or do you think they took good risks and made proper investments with it?
And you act like saving money is a bad thing. So what if he deposits it in a bank or he invests it? If he puts it either into a commercial or a savings bank, the bank either lends it to going businesses on short term for working capital, or uses it to buy securities. In other words, he invests his money either directly or indirectly. But when money is invested it is used to buy or build capital goods—houses or office buildings or factories or ships or trucks or machines. Any one of these projects puts as much money into circulation and gives as much employment as the same amount of money spent directly on consumption.
And before you give me the garble about banks dont need cash in order to lend, I already know that- so save it. And the fact that youre presumably so comfortable with that fact is disturbing.
Anyways, in short, NO…unemployment benefits DO NOT Help the economy. They merely prolong how long it will be before it crashes again.
Liberals are just masochistic people and cant help themselves from biting the hands that feed them. Either that or theyre so stupid that they simply dont know who it is thats really feeding them.
Im so frustrated by all this. There needs to be a third party. the moderate party. that way maybe things will actually get done
40% of Americans pay no tax. Truth hurts. This ‘toon is dishonest.
Hey kids, can we tone down the personal attacks in here? This is a humor blog, and when it isn’t being humorous, it is trying to let people discuss things in a calm and thoughtful manner. So please, can we avoid name calling and the simple repeating of talking points? If you want to make a point, please include a link for further reference.
Matt, we’ve had discussions about how we need a moderate party in this country. Alternatively, I’d love to see political parties reduced in importance since they seem to be driving candidates (especially on the Republican side) to extremes. For example, I was originally a little wary about open non-partisan blanket primaries but the more I look, the more I’m liking the idea. Washington state switched over and California is voting on switching over in November. The parties are against it, of course, so we’ll see…
Ganapati, there is no reason why we can’t continue to have a strong economy. But we have to stop being so greedy and interested only in instant gratification and start building for our future.
Mickey, are you saying that you use no government resources in running your businesses? And the economic evidence is against your claim that the gap between the rich and poor grew wider because of the liberals. The “New Deal” not only increased the wealth of everyone, it also reduced the gap between the richest and the poorest. It is only after Reagan (and Thatcher, etc.) dismantled this that the gap between the rich and poor started to grow again.
And ExxonMobil made plenty of money in the US. Their profits have never been higher. And they still don’t pay any federal taxes. We totally subsidize the oil companies. And yes, “our” government wrote those loopholes in the tax code (well, oil company lobbyists, who wrote Dubya’s energy bill), but that just means that I should demand that be changed.
And Daniel, why is it that people keep voting for liars? So, is there something we can do about it? Let’s see some constructive discussion in here. What can we do about these problems? Yes, change comes slowly, but it is change none-the-less. What can we do to change the world for the better?
Yes, I’m saying that if govt ceased to exist I wouldnt notice it at all from a business standpoint. Actually, I would notice it because I would sell more product if govt ceased to exist. I’m not saying ALL regulation is bad, but I am saying that ALL regulation hurts somebody somewhere. Every single time. Now, there are rare occasions where the good outweighs the ad of regulation…but make no mistake, ALL regulations hurt someone.
I’ll most certainly do as you ask and provide a link if I can find it again showing how the gap has only widened between the rich and poor each and every year save for one year in the late 90’s since the new deal was passed.
And please explain why is it that if you go to towns, or neighborhoods all across this country, those that have been “helped” the most by govt are always the ones that are the most crime riddled, drug infested, filthiest places in the country.
Not only has the gap widened money wise, but it has also widened wealth wise. Some people, yourself included, it would seem, dont understand the difference between money and wealth.
I would love an explanation on how giving people unearned money increases their personal wealth and how it increases the nations wealth as a whole. Seriously. I REALLY wanna hear that explanation.
Wanna know whats really funny about your comment JohnnyVegas?
The MAIN reason over 40% of Americans pay no income taxes is because of G Bush and his tax cuts. But our current administration wants to do away with them.
If they do away with those tax cuts, it’ll raise taxes on the rich by a little less than 10%. But those in the lowest two tax brackets will see their taxes increase by roughly 50% and 87% respectively.
Many people dont realize that BUSH’s TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY also cut ALL tax brackets. I capitalized that phrase because those are the words the administration and the media love to use. They never tell us the rest of the story.
Anyone who thinks the rich have always “earned” their money should read this new report: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/business/23pay.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1279922310-HIZRoSYzXUsHsz2kuBhl6Q
The banks that were rescued by TARP paid out more than $2 BILLION in bonuses to their highest earners, but around 80% of that was not merited. In other words, they didn’t earn it. Why anyone should be paid a bonus when their company is being saved using taxpayer money is beyond me anyway. I’ve started companies that went out of business, and nobody paid me any bonus, in fact I lost money.
Mickey, if government ceased to exist then what would you use for money? Gold? And corporations are chartered by state governments, and they shield you from liability. Would you want to start a business in Somalia, where the government has collapsed?
As for the gap between rich and poor, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient — there is a graph near the bottom that shows that the gap between rich and poor in the US was relatively stable from 1950 until 1980 and then started rising and is continuing to rise.
I live in a city where people are very involved in the government, and the government does a lot: building mass transit, enforcing strong land-use laws, and so on. For example, we were the first state to require deposits on bottles and cans, and that definitely helped us avoid being “filthy”. We also have a law that requires all businesses downtown to have retail establishments on the first floor, which has resulted in our having an active vibrant downtown, rather than one that is deserted after 6pm. So I have no idea of what you are talking about. Yes, there are good laws and there are bad laws. For example, a few years ago they changed the health laws to make it easier for people to sell “street food” from carts, and this resulted in an abundance of food carts with fantastic food. So sometimes reducing regulations helps things too. Maybe I’m just lucky enough to live in a place where the government works pretty well.
For more evidence against your claim that government involvement always makes things worse, see http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html — yes, Forbes, that famous hotbed of socialism. They rank countries in the world by how well the people who live in the country are doing. The first five on the list are Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands; places where government plays a very active role. The US is number 14 (right after Panama and Brazil). And no, a big controlling government is not always the answer — China is at #125.
And we give far more “unearned money” to rich people than we do to poor people (see the link at the top of this comment — $2 billion in bonuses!)
screw tax cuts, change that gator to ‘Military Industrial Complex’ and now we’re talkin’
No one said the rich have ALWAYS earned their money. Of course there are the P Hiltons of the world. Be that as it may, I dont hate her for the fact that she hit life’s lottery. Many people do, however. And lots of those haters are the same people who want to let the Bush tax cuts expire since the rich folk will only save that money and not do anything with it anyway- which contradicts their reasons for hating people like P Hilton, who obviously spends her money wildly.
This comment may not apply to you personally, but it applies to a large majority of those whose beliefs align with yours. So lets face it….YOU SIMPLY HATE RICH PEOPLE. You hate them so much in fact, that you dont even care what Washington politicians do with the money that they steal from the rich. So what if they waste it. Just as long as they stick it to the rich guy, haha! Its pathetic.
I agree that higher ups in any company that was bailed out dont deserve a bonus. However, it may have been part of their contract that certain bonuses were guaranteed. Of course being a supporter of this administration I’m sure you dont care about that- especially after what happened to shareholders of GM.
If you dont like the salaries and bonuses of company CEO’s then yo uhave two options. You can purchase shares and use your votes to remove them, or you can boycott the company. These people’s jobs are to protect the shareholders. If they do a poor job, they will be ousted. If they do well, they will be rewarded. But either way, neither you, nor I, and especially the federal govt is in any position to determine what is “merited”.
And why do you so easily overlook what it took for them to achieve that job in the first place? That took a lot of work. A lot of education. And a lot of good decisions.
And why do continually mention TARP, and leave off AIG, Goldman, GM, etc.?
As far as govt ceasing to exist, no youre playing semantics. I said fro ma business standpoint I wouldnt notice other than I would sell more product. Why does a business need to be chartered by a state govt? Why does the state need to be involved in every single transaction between two willing parties? Why do I need the state to sanction my doing business with a willing customer? And how exactly does govt shield me from liability?
Regarding the gap, the bottom line is that it is wider today than it was 80 years ago. Why has the govt miserably failed at “fixing” this in eight decades? I know the answer, but I wanna hear yours.
A Forbes article telling me how good or bad we have it in this country compared to others is by no means proof that ALL govt regulation doesnt hurt somebody, somewhere. Maybe their politicians are simply a little more honest than ours are, and maybe the populace’s overall work ethic and national pride is a LOT higher than ours is. Also, none of the questions pertained to politics the way I see it.
Heres my philosophy, and I think youll agree with it FOR THE MOST PART. Rich people got that way by making good decisions in life and by continuing to do the things that made them rich. Poor people got that way by making bad decisions in life and by continuing to do the things that made them poor. Your current situation in life is the cumulative total of ALL the decisions you made throughout your life, including some that were made as a young child.
With that said, do you honestly believe you will improve a poor persons situation by giving them unearned money? Unless theyre truly starving, there is ZERO chance that you will do them any good. However, “giving” a rich person more money is more likely to have a more positive impact on society because he will use that money more wisely. Either way, NO ONE should be GIVEN money.
“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth–the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil? -Francisco D’Anconia’s ‘money speech’ in Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.
Republicans: “We’ll only borrow money and pay interest to the wealthy to give tax cuts to the wealthy.”
Socialism is a flawed premise entirely. It’s a good theory, but it misses one major point:
Socialism (which ultimate blends into a communist system at 100% integration) restricts businesses, taxing them, large and small. International businesses are the only way to pull money into a country, and they will go only where they thrive.
Yes, people argue against Capitalism, saying it increases economic disparity, and yes, which is why it would lead to problems in a closed system. But our current system (The US) is not closed, it is interacting with many other systems.
Thus, unrestricted capitalism encourages businesses of all types to base themselves here, bringing money into the economy. Yes, it mainly brings money to the rich, as capitalism does, but the rich are taking money from a different system and putting it in ours, meaning it eventually goes to the poor.
Disparity increases, but so does overall economic power.
Taxes should be brought to a minimum if we want to come out of this without turning into a 3rd world country; without money, we have no influence.
If you encourage business, the jobs come back. You can’t deny that. If you try and centralize all industry, production, etc., the only result you’ll have is non-competitive business that struggles to provide for the nation’s people, let alone become able to provide internationally and bring profit into the country.
Socialization is the work of wealthy countries, who can afford to piggy-back the poor. We are not in that position, and if we have no way to bring in wealth (the only other alternative being exploitation of our own resources, which environmentalists won’t allow), then we’re logically going to get poorer, and then the rich will be poor and the poor will be reduced even further.
Good post Clifford until the last paragraph.
Socialism is not the work of wealthy countries, and it has nothing to do with whether a country can “afford” to piggyback the poor. We have had several periods in this country where the economy was booming. Using your logic (using it the way you presented it, at least), we maybe should have tried going socialist during those times since we could afford it. I doubt that thats what you meant to say.
Its like the saying goes…. in capitalism, there is uneven sharing of the wealth. In socialism, there is equal sharing of the misery.
Of course, Margaret Thatcher had the best quote of all….”The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
But at least in capitalism, the poor have an opportunity to not be that way. In socialism, no one has a choice.
I think its only a matter of time before the golden geese in this country stop laying the golden eggs for the govt. They already are in my opinion. With every bit of inflation, with every tax hike, and with every new social program…. more and more people are able to make a rational comparison between their salaries and what they could get by freeloading off the govt. And obviously more and more are able to correctly assess that its in their best interest to live off the govt. Anyone who says they wouldnt quit their jobs tomorrow if they knew the govt would pay them 5 or 10% less to sit at home, or even the same amount, is a liar.
The problem with paying people not to work is it discourages them from seeking gainful employment. As long as the gub’ment has a dole, there’s no incentive to improve oneself.
Mickey, you’re an idiot…I thought you weren’t coming back?? What a crock; tax cuts for all of us eh? 98% went to the top 2% of income. That’s equity?? As far as the wage gap between rich & poor going up….I suggest you check the Princton review where the highly respected, NON-partisan editor wrote a book going back to the inception of our country. In EVERY election; the gap increased when there was a republican president and it decreased when it was a democratic one. As for your callous disregard for people less well off than you; just hope it doesn’t happen to one of yours. Perhaps you’ll have a child that has learning disorders and cannot fend for themselves. Oh, I know, you’ll take care of yours. What if there is no one for that person? I’m sure you feel they get what they deserve. You sound just like the rest of the teabaggers that yell about entitlements and spending; where were you in 2009?
cutting taxes to the employed will put spenders in the position to spend thus fuel the economy, giving people who put themselves above getting a job deemed above them is just rewarding bad behavior. time to take psych 101 again stoopid head.
Gawd, I almost hate it when a post of mine gets popular. Again, can we keep the discussion civil in here? No name calling, no repeating old boring talking points. If we can’t all just get along, I may have to start thinking about cutting off comments on this post!
Fools. This is the ancient divide and conquer tactic. There is nothing but superficial differences between these two parties. Think about it. Ask yourself, what kind of person spends millions of dollars not on helping anyone or feeding the hungry, but to put themselves into a position of power?
You’re an idiot. Tax cuts for everyone, not just the wealthy. The Wealthy just pay the most so they are cut more. Half people don’t even pay taxes so there is nothing to cut. How about some of the people on jobless benefits try and get a job instead of living off it (Not that all do this, but way too many do).
Yet tax revenues increase with lower taxes…
Yet dittoheads keep repeating that tax revenues increase with lower taxes, even though it is a baldfaced lie, and just repeating it doesn’t make it any truer. Even Dubya’s economists admitted that lowering taxes doesn’t raise revenues. See https://www.politicalirony.com/2010/07/14/when-at-first-you-dont-succeed-lie-lie-again/
Tripp, doesn’t it bother you that you are being an absolute tool, repeatedly kissing the ass of the person who is stealing from you?
Most of the comments here completely miss the point of the cartoon. The point is not whether or not tax cuts for the rich are justified or if they help or hurt the economy. The point is the completely hypocritical stance of the Republicans who say that they are opposed to extending unemployment benefits simply because they increase the deficit by $34 billion, while extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Republicans support, increases the deficit by $200 billion. If you’re going to proudly proclaim that you are a deficit hawk, it might help if you would actually be one.
Statistics show that morons arguing on the internet cause the federal deficit to climb higher than anything else.
Stop arguing about a cartoon you fools.
I GET IT BECAUSE THE GOP IS THE MAJORITY PARTY IN CONGRESS AT THE MOMENT
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
I encourage everybody to read this article to help assuage the ignorance present on this thread.
Also, the lower 40% of taxpayers don’t even pay their income taxes.
Wow, Michael, I started reading that article. They averaged 2 lies per sentence (and that’s only the lies I could spot). And no references to back up any of their claims. According to them, the economy is doing fine, there is no federal deficit, and tax cuts pay for themselves. They are either liars or just plain stupid. Not even Bush’s economists believe that tax cuts paid for themselves. See https://www.politicalirony.com/2010/07/14/when-at-first-you-dont-succeed-lie-lie-again/
Do you really think the homeless and the unemployed are going to give you a job?
Amazing!
Marvin,
Do you really think the homeless and the unemployed are going to take away my job by moving it overseas?
Amazing!
I’m amazed that out of all these comments, no one has noted that by far the biggest, most obscene waste of taxes is the military budget, which takes up over 50% of all spending, and the wars.
Which way to the WalMart?!
Give me an effin break. Who in the hell do you think is going to bring our economy back? Obama and his socialist friends? Hell no, it will be the rich {$250k a year small business owners and yes the multi-millionaires too}. Oh and I am unemployed and not taking a damn penny from the rest of you. It’s call American Ingenuity….look it up.
So Lesot, Bush gave the rich TWO huge tax breaks in 2002 and 2003, and why, that sure created lots of jobs … well, maybe in China and India! That’s your idea of American Ingenuity?
While I appreciate good political humor, this cartoon is representative of political bullshit.
It’s a lie to present our budget crisis in this light.
Eventually we’re going to run out of rich people’s money to bail us out. Entitlement to other people’s money? I don’t think so.
I like turtles
This really is pretty far from the truth. The tax cuts for the wealthy don’t really impact the economy much, and the rich are overtaxed. However, there are way too many people that do not work and get money for doing nothing. Many are not even looking for jobs and are instead, practically stealing from the government. The wealthy however, are working, and if they are not, they also are not collecting welfare. People practically don’t work for a living now-a-days.
Just because you keep repeating Republican talking points (“the rich are overtaxed”), doesn’t make them true. We spend far more on welfare for big corporations and the rich in this country than on the poor. The majority of multinational corporations pay no taxes and many (like GE) even get subsidized.
By wealthy that also includes businesses, and when you tax them, they employ less, or outsource labor…. sooo id rather more people have jobs. The dems have driven so many businesses out in my state of IL, and the population has dropped because people are leaving for jobs. Thats the us when the dems are in control.
I find it amazing that there are people who troll the Internet with nothing better to do than promoting a series of false claims.
Jason D – your comment is, unfortunately neither supported by facts nor by common sense. Businesses make decisions to maximize their profits, so their shareholders and owners can receive the greatest wealth. That’s literally what we hired their management to do. The impact of business taxes is a very small part of the decision process. The costs, risks, and challenges of getting resources and competing in the market dwarf the impact of taxes on those kinds of decisions. The costs of relocation, having to find new workers, having to retrain them, are so large it takes years (in many cases, decades) to recover the amount that a business would “lose” to slightly higher taxes.
That said, any well managed company will work to take advantage of every loophole they can. If we incentivize them to move jobs offshore, or to pay executives huge bonuses at the expense of making other investments (which is exactly what we the Republican business agenda does) then they will. If we change the incentives to hire more workers in the US and put more money into research, development, and infrastructure investments in the US, then they will do that as well.
Not to mention that if we need to make ends meet and there will be a lot of pain to make that happen (and there will be) there is absolutely NO REASON to exempt those that will barely feel it from the solution.
Bottom line – if anyone is making more than $1,000,000 a year in INCOME they will not notice a few thousand extra dollars in taxes to help keep the bridges safe, the streets policed, and their own country safe. $1,000,000 in income usually means a total net worth in excess of $10,000,000, and returning the tax rate to the Clinton era would almost literally be a rounding error on their wealth.
All that said, I point you to Patsy6’s comment (#50 on this thread) – the point of the cartoon, and this post, was to show Republican hypocrisy in trying to cut aid to the unemployed while simultaneously preserving huge tax cuts for people that don’t need them. It is hypocritical. And if the Republicans were serious about actually solving the nation’s problems they would put EVERYTHING on the table, and work towards an implementable solution that combines keeping taxes as low as possible, while intelligently reducing spending (including military spending) and re-engineering the things we do need (including the social safety net) to work more effectively. And if the Democrats were serious, they would do exactly the same thing.
Our economy is like a giant poker games in which the winners continue to garner the chips and concentrating them in fewer and fewer hands. The result is that those without chips (consumers)who want to participate in the game are forced to borrow chips from those who have them (the wealthy) further increasing their wealth. As a result the lousy economy is due to insufficient demand. Consumers – who are 70 percent of the economy — can’t and won’t buy because they’re running out of cash. They can’t borrow against homes that are worth a third less than they were five years ago, and most consumers are bad credit risks anyway because they’re losing their jobs and their wages are dropping. They also have to start saving for the kids’ college or for retirement, which will cut their spending even more. Modern American corporations are “hovering” over America and will always look for the best economically viable and profitable county to use for its own best interest.
All of this is well documented fact. The truth is in human nature…those that have the ability to become wealthy will do what is needed no matter what the bar is, the bar becomes a cost of doing business and the problem in America is that the medical insurance costs are born by the corporations instead of the society in general so our corporations compete handicapped having to bear those costs. Obama wanted to make healthcare costs more affordable and remove this crippling cost from corporations. But alas, those companies are also part of the wealthy class too and …..well need I say more?
One Trackback/Pingback
[…] […]