Comments (21) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Ken Warren said, about 1 month ago

   This cartoon makes me sad, because it is so true.

   The Republicans play to (and play with) their base.

   The Demoncrats ignore their base, and keep trying to win over people who will never vote for them.

   The Demoncrats have a huge majority and have no need for the Republicans, yet they keep conceding to them.

   Can you imagine what the Republicans would have done with such a majority? Unions would be gone, the Bill of Rights burned, there would be a 100 foot wall around the country, and anyone makeing more then a million a year wouldn’t have to pay taxes because, well because if they are making that kind of money they must be the right type of people and deserve not to pay taxes.

2. 

   oldlegodad said, about 1 month ago

   Ken with minor exceptions, I could live with that. But then I’m old and remember when the ‘publicants had that kind of majority. Did it happen?

3. 

   d_legendary1 said, about 1 month ago

   Since the old man is senile let me answer those questions:

   GM is gone and so are the unions so yeah unions are dead.

   Half-way burned so work in progress.

   100 ft. wall has been built, yet they managed to still get here. Yes.

   “Taxes? What’s that?”, said dollar bill McGuire as he rode off to the sunset in his limousine.

4. 

   ANandy said, about 1 month ago

   Going, Goin’, Go, Bye.

5. 

   ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

   Wait a minute, I smell a rat. The premise of the cartoon is not accurate. I’m a liberal base kinda person, and not only is the base strong, but survey after poll after survey shows that a majority of Americans support healthcare reform, financial regulation, etc. It is only a small but vocal far right minority, screamed on by Glenn Beck types, that think the president’s support is eroding.

   The cartoonist has no basis for the toon, except his wishful thinking. Really weak.

6. 

   charlie555 said, about 1 month ago

   ^Again, everyone wants health care reform. The war is over socialism. Conservatives don’t want it; liberals do.

7. 

   believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

   ^ it’s not socialism, nor is it government run healthcare. That’s a tired straw man to maintain status quo. It’s not nationalized healthcare like the U.K., either. I’d like to think both conservative and liberal Americans would like their fellow citizens to have access to healthcare. But that would make me naive.

8. 

   motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

   It’s very simple: let’s provide a nonprofit (but moneymaking, so it would pay for itself) insurance program to all otherwise uninsured Americans. This would do nothing to existing insurance plans or companies except provide a little much-needed competition to make them raise their game – if they can do better, then the public option would not be used.
   NO ONE is obligated to take it.
   The government is NOT invading healthcare, it is providing a alternative, which, if anything, is LESS than what it already provides government employees.
   Studies have shown that it IS possible to be “revenue-neutral.” (There are already nonprofit insurers, right?)
   Now, what’s so wrong about that? Answers are not allowed to use the word “socialism,” and must include some reasonable facts or stated beliefs that bear some relationship to the rational…

9. 

   ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

   Can’t use the word demoncrat either. : )

10. 

    pbarnrob said, about 1 month ago

    Next time your house catches fire, call the fire insurer to send their adjuster to put it out.

    No?

    You call the fire department, a civil socialist enterprise of the community. It works (unless the whole forest behind your place is on fire, then you get help from all over, same deal.)

    That’s what we need to put in place; Medicare For All. Of course we’ll pay for it, we always do. But we won’t be paying ridiculous profits, that’s the difference. Look up “Medical Loss Ratio”; that’s how insurers figure it, benefits == loss.

11. 

    ezdeb said, about 1 month ago

    pbarnrob, good point, but it’s been made before; righties on these threads just ignore the fact and move on to another upchuck of generalized hate.

12. 

    Ken Warren said, about 1 month ago

    Ignore your car and it evetntually breaks down, ignore you base and eventually you are baseless.

13. 

    cdward said, about 1 month ago

    He’s not ignoring the base, but he needs to be stronger. What he needs to ignore is the GOP – become deaf to them and do what’s right. pbarnrob has a good point, and I’m completely with motive on the public option.

14. 

    PlainBill said, about 1 month ago

    Obama is trying to govern by consensus.  The Republicans tried to govern by dividing the country and succeeded  in tearing it apart and destroying the economy.  Current polls show Obama’s approval rating is rising, further enraging the far right wing.
    
    

    This chart should be instructive. http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Graphic-shows-federal-debt-held-public-percentage-GDP/photo//091016/480/04269eb7be854e6ca8f67ae79aff135e//s:/ap/20091017/apon_bige/usdeficitdanger

    Note the pale line at the extreme right. That’s what we would be headed for if the Republicans were allowed to continue Bush’s policies.

15. 

    cdward said, about 1 month ago

    Bill, very instructive.

16. 

    NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

    Thank God. The Liberal Base didn’t make too good a choice to begin with. Maybe they’ll sink more capital into his failed measures and destitute themselves once and for all.

17. 

    believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

    plainbill, thanks for the link. hadn’t seen that yet.

18. 

    motivemagus said, about 1 month ago

    Agree, great link. Here’s a short form of it: http://tinyurl.com/ygswfyr

19. 

    churchillwasright said, about 1 month ago

    That chart is fairly worthless. It is not, as the headline would have you believe, a chart of the Federal deficit. It is also not a % of GDP to deficit, as it’s description implies. In fact, Yahoo makes no distiction between deficit and DEBT at all. It is about DEBT, and who holds it, the public or someone else, as a % of GDP. So for one thing, the editors at Yahoo don’t know the difference between DEBT and DEFICIT. They may be related, but they are not the same thing, and their terms are not interchangable.

    Another example of how this is deceptive: if Obama triples the debt (again), and that debt is 100% owed to say, China, and not the American public, that line would go dramatically down. From reading the headline, and it’s description, and glancing at the chart, you would be inclined to think that is a good thing. It is not.

    Another way to look at the chart: if the GDP and the deficit stayed the same (and it’s not– Obama has the printing presses going 24/7 [and there’s that difference between debt and deficit again]) and we were somehow able to shift all the debt owed from China (for example) to the American public, the chart would show 100%. The $ amount would remain the same, but we would hold it ourselves. While not good, it would be better. But the chart would make you think it was worse.

20. 

    believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

    ^ the source is the Congressional Budget Office, as is clearly shown, not Yahoo.

21. 

    churchillwasright said, about 1 month ago

    The source of the chart is the CBO; the headline and commentary is AP (not Yahoo, I stand corrected on that).

    Please re-read my comments, and tell me where I’m wrong (aside from my two asides in parenthesis– I know you won’t agree with them). I’ve added to my analysis, and we’ve overlapped comments.