Gary Varvel by Gary Varvel
- June 14, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Tom Toles by Tom Toles
ViewsAfrica by CartoonArts InternationalAbout Gary Varvel
Gary Varvel is the editorial cartoonist for The Indianapolis Star. His cartoons are nationally syndicated through Creators Syndicate and have appeared on CNN and in Newsweek, The New York Times, USA Today, Washington Times, National Review, World magazine and Sports Illustrated.
© 2009 Creators Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (38) Jump to Comments Form
dtroutma said, 5 months ago
This is “our” Aral Sea, and our economic policies of the last 25 years are what drained it. Even GHW Bush recognized the impacts on posterity, then turned a blind eye.
fennec said, 5 months ago
^agree totally.
lightartsteacher said, 5 months ago
The democrats, of course were NOT RESPONSIBLE for any of it. Am I right? O NO! And be sure to mention GHW Bush each time you are forced to look at or respond to the mess in our government today.
dtroutma said, 5 months ago
I left out Newt and the “Contract on America” that further caused the problems. It wasn’t just they guy in the big office that messed things up, in several “administrations”.
Obamascares said, 5 months ago
Agree, with the jackass party it’s always Bush’s fault.
danielsangeo said, 5 months ago
Joyce: So, if I break someone’s arm and they are in pain for a long time afterwards, it’s their fault, right?
danielsangeo said, 5 months ago
ANandy: When they realize that turning around does NOT mean “socialism”.
nomad2112 said, 5 months ago
You’ll notice that the $700 billion has already evaporated under the desert sun.
nlnap19
said,
5 months ago
lightartsteacher: great point. GWB becomes a mantra to be repeated until dems find their happy place.
danielsangeo said, 5 months ago
nlnap19: How about we wait until we see if Obama’s plan actually works before saying he failed?
nlnap19
said,
5 months ago
danielsangeo: You sound like a reasonable person and normally I would agree with that sentiment. Perhaps we need to throw trillions at (too big to) failed institutions and maybe it prevented further failures (always hard to know what did NOT happen) but I am most concerned (among many grave concerns about many things he is doing) that hyper-inflation from printing trillions of dollars will be the ruin of us all.
HOWGOZIT said, 5 months ago
Correct daniels–Baroke is doing the best he can–that’s the biggest problem. See he fired someone else today!
fennec said, 5 months ago
Howie, you must know that no one has the answers. We have to try different approaches until (hopefully) we find ones that work. This means being able to change how you’re doing things when the outcome is not that desired. We do this in scientific research and in fact scientific revolutions are achieved by being able to change paradigm when anomalies turn up…as they always do. It’s called progress.
danielsangeo said, 5 months ago
“Perhaps we need to throw trillions at (too big to) failed institutions and maybe it prevented further failures (always hard to know what did NOT happen)”
Or, it could cushion the blow to the rest of the economy takes when they DO fail.
“I am most concerned (among many grave concerns about many things he is doing) that hyper-inflation from printing trillions of dollars will be the ruin of us all.”
We have three options:
1) Go into so-called “hyper-inflation”
2) Cut services which will, in turn, cause a death spiral
3) Raise taxes.
Conservatives don’t want 1 and 3.
TrickyPickle said, 5 months ago
As an outsider, I’m not seeing to much of a difference in American economic policy with the new administration as opposed to the old. So I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. Of course, I’m not horribly well informed here and will not pretend to be. In terms of the too-big-to-fail argument, I still haven’t had that defended to my satisfaction yet. It seems to be wrong as far as I can see. Anyone want to take another whack at explaining it to me?
DrCanuck said, 5 months ago
Hey, TP; outsider in what sense?
In a general sense, “too-big-to-fail” means that if a particular company goes down, many other companies that support it go down too, domino effect, until large swaths of the overall economy are lost permanently and, possibly, the entire capitalist economy collapses. No one can say for sure that this would happen, this is unchartered territory, but better to be safe and to prop it all up.
HOWGOZIT said, 5 months ago
Sorry fennec–not in Baroke’s case
wbr said, 5 months ago
dan you did typo i have corrected
1) Go into so-called “hyper-inflation”
2) Cut services
3) Raise taxes which will, in turn, cause a death spiral
williebud said, 5 months ago
Thanks for the “Hope and Change”, Bo. Now RESIGN!
Right_On said, 5 months ago
Can’t go full speed when you are still loading the ship with all your new acqusitions, Prez.
Jode07GoComics said, 5 months ago
The only change Big Government gives US is what’s left in our pockets.
Bluejayz said, 5 months ago
I guess we could always go back to Regan’s voodoo “Trickle Down” economics and wait for our economy to magically heal itself. Better living Through Capitalism.
All of you Obama nay-sayers, you do realize that fully 70% of our national debt accrued during the Regan, Bush & bush administrations, don’t you? Nah, that’s an inconvenient truth that you’ll never admit to.
And Big Government got bigger under each of the last three Republican administrations.
hank197857
said,
5 months ago
tricky, if it’s too big, it should fail. as water seeks its own level and nature despises a void, the economy will emerge stronger and better.
nomad2112 said, 5 months ago
Bluejayz - What do you call throwing 700 billion at the banks without oversight while hoping it “trickles down”? Reganomics.
cabrobst said, 5 months ago
Where is the cartoon showing how our grandchildren will be the ones paying for military buildup and wars that were not needed? That’s where the real deficit spending lies!
HOWGOZIT said, 5 months ago
give it a rest cabro==military is needed
DrCanuck said, 5 months ago
….how else could America control its empire and impose its will on the rest of the world?
cdward said, 5 months ago
Yes, Howie, and we need five times more than anyone else…
Right_On said, 5 months ago
No CD, you need 3 times more, not 5. Having a 3 to 1 battlefield advanstage SAVES US LIVES. Going 1 to 1 gets you a fair fight. War is not fair!!
And doc, you say how free Canada is, but you know you are part of our Empire. Just admit it.
DrCanuck said, 5 months ago
Write_off: yup, you now have a 3 to 1 advantage if the entire world were to attack you. Are you expecting that?
You pay a trillion dollars A YEAR to arm your forces sitting around in Germany, Britain, Japan, Korea, Canada, and a hundred other points around the globe doing nothing, buying the very best of guns, bombs, ships, planes et al. that NEVER get used, sit around and rust, and are replaced the following year with newer armaments. Year after year. While the investor class that makes the armaments gets fabulously rich off the American taxpayer. Who ignorantly repeats “Ah, but we NEED the army.” For what? In case the world attacks you?
Universal health, something FOR the taxpayer, would cost only 10% of that. 10% of that would give you decent schools and universities. 10% would fix social security, or all the roads and bridges in the country.
But your Big Business masters have told you you don’t need it. And you obey.
DrCanuck said, 5 months ago
Sorry, folks; lost it there for a minute.
Stupidity does that to me.
Right_On said, 5 months ago
Doc, did you serve. I did. I drove the rusted vehicles. I used the rusted weapons. I rode in an infantry vehicle that still had bullet holes in it from a conflict NINE YEARS PRIOR!
Your talking points are all wrong. China’s military is MUCH larger than the US. We have the technological advantage, which is why we can maintain a SMALLER force.
That force in Korea? We are outnumbered 15 to 1 there!! If the North decided to attack, our forces would be wiped out in a matter of minutes. Of course within a short period of time, we would come back and destroy the North, but we would have to deploy more forces to do it.
I like your 10% theory. Unfortunately, that only works for bank deposits. 1.6 trillion is not 10% of 1 trillion. You aren’t a professor of math, I hope …
You have the LUXURY of not needing a military in Canada, so you can spend your money on health care. So which superpower will defend us when we spend all of our money on health care and welfare? Or do we just give more Cairo speeches, grip and grin with dictators, bow to foreign kings, and pray we don’t get hit?
DrCanuck said, 5 months ago
China spends 10% of what American spends on its military. Having more people in uniform is hardly the point.
And OF COURSE you had old, rusty equipment. That was my point. You’re not under the illusion that the idea of the budget is to take care of the SERVICEMEN? That’s wasted profits. The idea to get tons of money into the bank accounts of the arms manufacturers with big ticket items. Heck, the servicemen are expendable; lots more where THEY came from.
Yup, you served. You served the arms manufacturers and their profits. Congratulations.
KelleK said, 5 months ago
Right on, RIGHT ON! If I’m going to pay taxes I sure as HELL want to make sure we have the BEST military. They are the ones who are going to keep me and the rest of America safe!!!
I spent a year with my husband while he was stationed in Korea. From my perspective it didn’t look like they were “sitting” around. Believe me about Korea, they want us there! And where’s all this NEW equipment the military is supposedly getting????? My husband’s A-10 was built a decade or more before he was even born!
nomad2112 said, 5 months ago
Right_On - I can guess your age now. You must have been in during the Carter years.
churchillwasright said, 5 months ago
DR.SHAMUCK: China pays their workers a buck a day. How do you know how much China spends on its military?
DrCanuck said, 5 months ago
Common knowledge to anyone who watches or reads the news.
Right_On said, 5 months ago
Nomad … worse. Clinton.