Michael Ramirez for October 06, 2013

I want the government funded, too. I also want a first class ticket to New Zealand, a 3 BR home overlooking the Rocky Mountains, and a new Corvette. But guess what: I can’t afford it, and I have to tone down my desires and expectations to meet my financial means. That’s what Congress (both parties) needs to man up and do for the federal government. And it ain’t gonna happen without negotiation.

Amazing Ramirez should have depicted Boehner, with Cruz and a dozen other Repubtard “rhoids” popping out. idiot.

First of all, Dana Bash is a liberalAny proof? She was very supportive of McCain, so she could be mainstream neoconservative. That would explain her treatment of Ron Paul.http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/07/17/cnns-bash-cited-mccains-afghanistan-plan-as-pro/144073

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless –http://freebeacon.com/reid-why-would-we-want-to-help-one-kid-with-cancer/

GOP position: No funding for Obamacare.DNC position: Funding for EVERYTHING or nothing.

Why is the only the GOP position described as extremist? Why is it that the only “solution” is for the GOP to cave on ALL its demands? I understood that “negotiation” meant each side needs to give in a little.

Aren’t you glad you don’t live next to “trusted mechanic”?

Good to see you again Doc. I enjoy the fact that you post questions instead of rants; I missed chatting with you on other subjects.I will answer your question with another question. Why is it our responsibility to pay for that cancer treatment? Not to be too Orwellian, but why do I have to care about some child who is hundreds or thousands of miles away? They have parents, don’t they? That being said, I feel it is our moral obligation to care for the sick and downtrodden. The problem is where moral intersects with financial. It sure as hell isn’t my financial obligation to care for the sick and downtrodden. And I think that’s where we’re running into the gridlock in Washington.On the Republican side of things, all posturing and preening aside, they are saying people don’t want this, and we can’t afford it. It being the PPACA. And come tax time 2014, when the penalties are starting to come out of people’s taxes because they aren’t carrying insurance… you’ll see even more unpopularity. So they are placing the popular opinion that we shouldn’t have to have insurance, and many people like me who feel we shouldn’t have to pay for it. Don’t feed the bears animals applies here. It’s perceived as a heartless position, but it’s the most viable solution for the longevity of the organism (The US Populace).On the Democrat side of things, again posturing and preening aside, they feel that morally we have to provide this for people regardless of the cost. They feel that a healthy society is more productive, and we owe this to everyone. They look at models across the ocean and even to the north and say, “It works there, why not here?” You and I have chatted on this in the past.So how do we bridge the gulf between these two very diametrically opposed positions? Is there a solution that keeps us morally satisfied while financially secure? Honestly, I don’t think so. It’s like living in a house with someone who loves to spend and who loves to save. They will ALWAYS be arguing over money. If the couple survives the test of time, it’s usually because both people come to an agreement. My wife and I are in that boat. She loves to spend, I love to save. So what do I do? I give her a chunk of cash that’s hers to fritter away as she pleases, and the rest is saved. And we have been together for 13 years now. But what’s been happening in Congress is like having them so entrenched that each person refuses to give. I will only save, and I will only spend cannot survive. Or worse yet, the I will only saves gives to compromise, and the I will only spend person ends up spending more. That is what we’ve been seeing these last 5 years. This shutdown is simply this entire situation coming to a head. There’s no money left in the checking account, we have all our credit cards maxed out, we’re down to Ramen noodles, and the “I want to spend” person is still demanding steak and lobster. Who here is being selfish? And why is the person saying, “You can’t have steak and lobster” being demonized?Would ANY of our households survive using the financial shenanigans going on in Washington?

Well you can’t change the fact that Harry Reid said, “Why would we care?Another lie from Ansonia. At least ConserveGov has the integrity to get quote right.

Bash also praised McCain & was married to a guy who ummm… bashed Obama.I don’t fault her for asking a question in a way that got under Reid’s skin. It obviously did. His response was rubbish, but Ramirez & others here are twisting his words.Why won’t Boehner put the clean CR bill up for a vote? He says the votes aren’t there, so it’s risk free, right?

How many children with cancer are the Teapublicans helping by refusing to pass a continuing resolution and fund the government?

Dana Bash could help one child with cancer herself. Is she?

It’s very difficult to have an intelligent discussion with such misinformed people, so I’ll go elsewhere. Right-wingers are so easily misled. Ramirez’s cartoon is not a fair representation of what Schumer and Reid were discussing, but he is so wrapped in hatred for Obama, many of his cartoons are close to being outright lies. The Trusted Mechanic has reproduced the interview right here. They’re called “context clues.” Have you people not been to school?

And that’s what we’ve talked about before. America is a dog-eat-dog country, and any time you have a helping hand offered to the “downtrodden,” you always have people there to exploit the system. Look anywhere in the welfare state and you know that’s the case: We all know the 30-some million people who are on food stamps don’t all need it. Some do… some desperately do. But many don’t. When you see someone drive up to the office in an Escalade (and yes, this has happened) and grab their welfare/food stamp check, you know there’s abuse going on there.You have people getting cell phones, housing assistance, electricity assistance, et al who truly don’t need it. Depending on the state, some make upwards of $9 or $10 an hour on handouts. If you game the system, you make bank. So in our perverse system, it’s better to live off the system than it is to go out and find a job.I could go on, but I think we both have the same point: Canada is a very communal country, and America is very individualistic. That’s why a national one-payer system will never work. People will abuse it for no other reason than because they can. That’s why the argument that “it works everywhere else,” doesn’t work here. Because America is unique unto itself (in both good and bad ways). What the PPACA was doing was hammering a square peg into a dodecahedron hole. That’s why it rubs so many people (like me) the wrong way. It’s Europe. It’s Canada. But it sure as hell isn’t America. As to the premium dollars of insurance companies? Going from personal experience in its sister industry (the Auto insurance industry), I can tell you that profits account for about 3-7%. Expenses and claim payouts make up the rest. Yes, the profits seem massive (millions or billions of dollars), but that’s because of volume, not because of percent. Same as the oil companies. Yes, they make gobs of profit, but it’s pennies at a time multiplied by billions of units.There’s a solution to be had, but we need to figure something out instead of stonewalling each other. All that does is encourage people to dig their heels in further. And that’s exactly what we’ve seen going on in Washington today.

I completely agree with your comment. A country’s philosophy usually is an indication of how people feel about their country. The poor in America do not feel like they are a part of the overall plan. The wealthy think America is Heaven on Earth. In my view, a country’s philosophy of “We’re all in this together” is better than “Every man for himself.” I learned about Canada too late in life. If I had been able to afford to travel in my early life, I’d be living there now. Wraithkin: Everybody gets taken care of in Canada, and people don’t go bankrupt because of a medical disaster. That, to me, is a better system. I can live with “agree to disagree.”

Doc, I could see that working but for one problem: Special interests. It’s the reason the educational system here is plagued with problems despite the volume of money thrown at the school programs. Here in Wisconsin we’ve doubled our output of money but have not seen one iota of change in the results of the kids. The big question that looms is where did that money go? The simple answer would be to argue that it went into teachers’ salaries, pensions, health benefits, Union coffers, etc. But I don’t know if that’s truly the case. But no-one bothered to look into it because it was “for the sake of the kids.” If we had a government that was a good steward of my tax dollars, I wouldn’t be opposed to programs like what you’re suggesting. An efficient use of my tax dollars for the benefit of others will never really receive much resistance from me. But our government is notorious for waste, fraud, and favors. The political culture in Washington (and even some state capitols) is less about the constituents, and more about how they can get re-elected. It is morally and socially bankrupt, and a program like you are suggesting wouldn’t work because of that.My pessimism all boils down to trust in government. I’m sure you trust your government a hell of a lot more than the average American trusts theirs. I know I don’t trust my federal government any further than I can throw the collective lot of them. I know they all have agendas. I know they are pandering to their bases to get them whipped up into a froth. Look at this shutdown as the example. Republicans are saying less outlays (at least on programs they don’t like), and Democrats are grandstanding and saying they won’t budge on anything. That’s not doing the will of the people. That’s theatric politics. And when I hear the Democrats saying, “raise revenue (aka taxes),” I ask “for what, and what will you do with it?” And the answer I always get from my own research is so they can take that money and simply hand it over to another group to get themselves re-elected. That’s not enriching the lives of others, that’s simply enriching themselves. Both sides are guilty of it, and it’s poisonous to the whole country.