Comments (22) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   senorbullwinkle said, 4 months ago

   Like 60 years ?

2. 

   dwyant said, 4 months ago

   Rather than rich constituents, it should be “Americans” – all of us are sick of being turned into socialists!!

3. 

   iamthelorax said, 4 months ago

   You can’t be turned into a socialist, any more than you can be turned into a Mormon; You either are or you aren’t.

   Anyway, I’ve never seen socialist countries push this much money this fast. I don’t know exactly what this level of spending is called, but I don’t think it’s “socialist”.

   I think this is simply a president who wants to push all of his controversial projects quickly while he still has the political clout to do it.

   He has to do it fast, because all of these things are expensive and harder to live with than people think they will be.

   It’s like cough medicine; Always give your kids the second spoonful before they really have time to taste the first one.

4. 

   DrCanuck said, 4 months ago

   The rich WOULD say that……

5. 

   parkersinthehouse said, 4 months ago

   hey, what about social security, medicare, medicaid? socialism since the 30s or 40s.

6. 

   GNWachs said, 4 months ago

   First they came for the Jews…

   The only people who will pay more are the rich…
   Next the only people who will pay more are the almost rich…
   Next the only people to pay more are the middle class…
   Then they came for me.

7. 

   ezdeb said, 4 months ago

   Oh, the stupid! It burns!!! GNW, please note there is no middle class left. The rich are much richer now, tho; over a trillion dollars in personal investment and savings got handed to the rich during BushCo’s 8 years of economic clearcutting!

   IATL: “You can’t be turned into a socialist, any more than you can be turned into a Mormon; You either are or you aren’t.”
   Geez, can you BE any more misinformed? I can’t convert to Mormonism? I can’t study socialism, change my ideas on things and become a fan of socialism? Perhaps you are mixing up sexual identification with frontal brain processes. This is a mistake many Republicans make.

   DWyant: Not just the rich, but ALL Americans are sick of having this president jam his Nazi/Socialist/Affirmative Action agenda ideas down our throats!! It’s been 6 months and we are ready for anarchy!!! Please, President Obama, for the sake of our country, please attack Iran or NKorea! Then republicans can settle down and be comforted again that our national debt can soar in a productive, war/defense manner.

8. 

   wbr said, 4 months ago

   parkerinthehouse said, about 1 hour ago

   hey, what about social security, medicare, medicaid? socialism since the 30s or 40s.

   so what if you are under 45 you will not get ss ,medicare

9. 

   GNWachs said, 4 months ago

   ezdeb: Oh, the stupid! It burns!!! GNW, please note there is no middle class left.

   you really should not make statements so easy to disprove

   “Middle class is a broad range in New Jersey,” claims Governor Jon Corzine. “Median income is $67,000 so, it’s clear that people who are in that range are in the middle class…..We are very attentive to the middle class whether you define it as $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or $150,000.”

10. 

    ezdeb said, 4 months ago

    Well, if the New Jersey governor says New Jersey has a broad middle class, I guess that’s all I need to know for a national statistic! I love the part where you can define the middle class as $50,000 – $150,000 – well, if we have to, we can re-define the middle class up to a million/year, but GNW, the “middle class” has an actual economic definition. Oh, never mind.

11. 

    iamthelorax said, 4 months ago

    ezdeb, grow up a little. Everyone else here seems to be able to disagree like adults, try it sometime.

    I am not a Republican, not even an American. And no, there is no invisible hand out there forcing people to become socialists.

    If you have an actual opinion about current events as they relate to the political cartoon, try voicing that opinion instead of waiting for others to do it just so you can attack them with childish and rude comments.

12. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    to ezdeb: We are a nation of 50 states. Each state is different. If you take all the incomes and mathematically find the median you have defined middle class. You may not like liberal Democrat Corzine’s definition but it is close enough for government work.

    BTW, a range of $50,000-$150,000 seems reasonable. Don’t you think are any American families who earn $50-$150/year?

13. 

    ezdeb said, 4 months ago

    I’m still trying very hard to relate lorax’s “invisible hand” response to my question.

    Anyhoo, as they say, what’s the price of apples in New Jersey got to do with the price of fish in Iowa? Here is the U.S. Census info for median income in the U.S. state by state.

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/4person.html

    Please note that liberal governor Corzine’s New Jersey’s median income is over $90,000. Mississippi’s, however, is only a bit over $47,000. As you can see, a person in New Jersey who makes $150,000 might be upper middle class, but in Mississippi, that’s a wealthy person.

    Also, please remember that median means average. Many people in all states make less than that figure, many make more.

14. 

    HOWGOZIT said, 4 months ago

    It is just the King Baroke putting the
    Rx back in Marxist

15. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    ezdeb;

    It is difficult to have a discussion with you because I can’t understand what you are trying to say.

    I say we are a nation of 50 states and you disagree by saying NJ and Mississippi are different. That is exactly what I meant when I said our being a nation of 50 states. So of course each state has a different range for middle class.

    My guess is Corzine is correct and you not so correct but I haven’t looked it up.

    BTW median does NOT mean average. Mean means average. Median means there are just as many families earning more as there are families earning less. Classic definition of “middle” class.

16. 

    bgarner said, 4 months ago

    When you consider that W gave 42% of his tax breaks to 1% of the population and put the country into massive deficit after five years of surpluses doing it, maybe its time for the “have mores” to give something back. They were the ones who ran the system into the ground. It was not the 80% of the population who saw their incomes stagnate or fall over the last generation.

17. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    bgarner, not sure you will see this. But I pose a question no liberal has ever been able to answer. 1% of the population pays 42% of all the Federal Income Tax. If W just gave a flat tax break corresponding to exactly what was paid in, indeed the numbers you quote would not only be accurate but fair.

    I hereby appoint you God. How would you structure a tax cut knowing as you just found out that the lower 46% of all American tax payers pay ZERO Federal income Tax? You may say well lets not cut taxes but once you make the JFK decision to cut them how else can you possibly structure a tax cut.

18. 

    nomad2112 said, 4 months ago

    Maybe they should wait until they have a clue.

19. 

    ezdeb said, 4 months ago

    GNW, again: You leave out payroll taxes, paid only on the first $106,000 of income. State taxes, social security, etc, all are a disproportionate percentage of the lower 90% of the workforce’s earnings.

    I guess the inequity that the rich experience must really make them worry by the end of the month, huh?

20. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    When FDR passed social security he told us all that it wasn’t a tax. Was he wrong? But you have cleverly avoided discussing the main question. How could you cut income taxes and not disproportionally effect the “rich”?

    Medicare taxes have no upper limit. Would you raise the benefits for anyone who paid in more than $106,000 for Social Security? Or is this just another tax everyone but me.

    You read enough to realize both Medicare (very very near term) and social security are going bankrupt. Would you cut individual payments there or decrease expenditures??

21. 

    ezdeb said, 4 months ago

    Social Security’s problems can be fixed entirely by accounting changes; SS bankruptcy is not a realistic danger.

    I guess my answer is that FDR’s programs were, and are, complex things. To call them just a tax is simplistic. We reap many benefits from paying, as a nation, for SS. “The rich” will shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burden. This is because they benefit so greatly from the advantages that wealth gives in our system.

    All wealth comes from the use of some resource or other, whether you paid for that resource or not. It’s OK that we all pay what we can. Remember the widow’s mite? The rich can give more.

22. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    ezdeb: “It’s OK that we all pay what we can. Remember the widow’s mite? The rich can give more”

    ---

    May I summarize your statement above with this pithy phrase?

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Seems that is exactly what you are saying.