Register for a FREE GoComics account and get this plus any other comic strip delivered to your Personalized
Comic Page, Daily. With a free account you will be able to build a Comic Page filled with the Comics you
want to see each day.
With the largest collection of Comics and Editorial Cartoons online there is plenty to choose from. Upgrade
to a GoComics Pro account (Only $.99/Month) and have unlimited archive access to decades of comics.
The Commander-in-Absence is waiting to sign the big piece of paper that will spend trillions more dollars and take in billions. More borrow-spend to steal-borrow-spend-repeat.
“Everyones’ taxes got cut, Jase. And now everyone’s will rise.” If the deficit is a problem (and Many think it is) what is the problem with letting the bush tax cuts expire. The tax cuts did more harm than good. That (tax cuts) is the borrow and spend mentality. The big argument, seems to be, currently, where to cut, how much and who pays for it.
Ok 1opinion, I’ll explain to you what the problem is with letting the bush tax cuts expire.
Let us assume that there is a limited amount of money available in the economy. Businesses earn their money by providing goods or services. They do this in order to earn a profit. That profit is then spent or reinvested in the economy, causing other businesses to grow. When the government taxes people it removes money from them, decreasing their ability to spend or reinvest and decreasing the ability for the economy to grow.
When the government takes money from people it may say that it will “invest” the money, but they always take a percentage for administrative overhead. In the portion of the government I work for they typically take about 40% of all incoming money for that. That means that only 60% of what is taken in is actually expended on what was promised.
By cutting taxes, the money can be invested by businesses and people directly and more efficiently.
Now there are certain functions of government that are necessary to a functioning society. Police, courts, national defense, etc. But by and large government is not an efficient means of growing the economy.
Also, when the government borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends, it takes on obligations to pay back that money. Such spending rates cannot be sustained. It will eventually force the government to do one of three things.
1 – repudiate the debt. This will destroy the value of the dollar as an instrument for investment and make further borrowing impossible, as no one will trust the US Government to meet its obligations.
2 – Devalue the dollar through inflation. This is the most likely senario. By use of qualitative easing billions of additional dollars, backed by nothing, will be added to the economy, thereby reducing the value of all the existing currency. In December of 1918 it cost two paper reichmarks to purchase one Goldmark, gold coin. By November of 1923 it cost 115,607,000,000.00 reichmarks to purchase that same goldmark. Imagine what this does to people living on fixed incomes. $50,000 a year sounds like a pretty good income, until a cup of coffee starts costing you $10,000.00
3 – Cut your spending to less than what you take in. This is the hardest thing to do for democrats. The will never reduce their spending because spending buys them votes. But it is the only means that actually reduces the debt.
Now the senate democrats keep rejecting the budgets that the house republicans send to them, demanding that the republican specify exactly what cuts are to be made so that they can then claim umbrage and say republicans want to kill granny, destroy the environment, and maim puppies.
Actually the house sent a budget to the senate in August. What is supposed to happen is that if the senate does not like the budget, they are to ammend it, pass it in the senate, and then return it to the house for their consideration. harry reid has not let a budget get to the floor of the senate since January of 2009.
As far as I am concerned, the democrats in the senate have failed in their constitutional duty to the country to provide a budget. No moneys should be spent without a budget that has been voted on by both houses of congress. If they can’t or won’t do their job, then the president should declare the congress as having vacated their responcibilities and call for new elections in which the current crowd of congress critters are ineligable to run.
Start with a whole new slate of people willing to do the peoples business.
“Let us assume that there is a limited amount of money available in the economy.” That is a false assumption. . “3 – Cut your spending to less than what you take in. This is the hardest thing to do for democrats.” Again you proceed from a false assumption. The republicans continually lower taxes, increase spending and borrow to make up the difference. The deficit was in decline until Reagan’s administration lowered taxes and his numerous increases did not cover the spending. Clinton, the democrats and republicans worked out a deficit reducing deal which the following Bush administration called a surplus, lowered taxes and started the steep rise in deficit spending.
““Let us assume that there is a limited amount of money available in the economy.”
That is a false assumption.” We live on a single planet with a finite amount of resources, so there is a finite amount of wealth that can be generated from it. Now, we could print $1 trillion bills, but they won’t increase buying power.
You made the false statement that Republicans lower taxes. Both Reagan and George H.W. Bush (two of the three most recent Republican Presidents), raised them.
Despite this, deficits jumped sharply under both Presidents and even more under George W. Bush (who initiated two massively expensive wars at the same time that he cut taxes: something unprecedented in world history).
Theophilous Joiner said, “When the government takes money from people it may say that it will “invest” the money, but they always take a percentage for administrative overhead….”
So that money just goes out of existence? Or do the adminstrators spend it on goods and services which stimulates the economy?
“You made the false statement that Republicans lower taxes. Both Reagan and George H.W. Bush (two of the three most recent Republican Presidents), raised them.” I stated Reagan lowered taxes and then had tax increases. I added nothing about GHWB. As for money, that is a human construct and has been increased and decreased in value over time.
According to veteran Ohio cartoonist Stahler, the most satisfying part of his job is "those days when I can load my ink cannon with fodder faster than I can fire it."
Small World by Tom Briscoe
Scott Stantis by Scott Stantis
Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)
Cinci Steve said, 5 months ago
Umm, Where’s that Commander-In-Chief guy? You know, the guy that’s supposed to be leading our country?
Mahalo
Ms. Ima said, 5 months ago
The Commander-in-Absence is waiting to sign the big piece of paper that will spend trillions more dollars and take in billions. More borrow-spend to steal-borrow-spend-repeat.
magicwalnut said, 5 months ago
@Ms. Ima
Hey, Ima, what’s YOUR credit card balance? Got a mortgage? Paying off a car loan?
Jase99 said, 5 months ago
And yet you never had a problem with the “fiscal conservative” approach of cut taxes on the wealthy, borrow, spend, and repeat.
ossiningaling said, 5 months ago
I’m, just surprised to see the Republicans depicted as helping save the US. I’d have expected them to be shown pushing the Democrats over the cliff.
1opinion said, 5 months ago
@HOWGOZIT
“Everyones’ taxes got cut, Jase. And now everyone’s will rise.”
If the deficit is a problem (and Many think it is) what is the problem with letting the bush tax cuts expire. The tax cuts did more harm than good. That (tax cuts) is the borrow and spend mentality. The big argument, seems to be, currently, where to cut, how much and who pays for it.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
The cartoon need as Tea Partier standing behind them with a hammer and chisel.
Stipple said, 4 months ago
The cliff was a joke, the solution was a bigger joke, and the cartoonist finds it amusing.
.
In a morbid way the posturing IS amusing.
Molon Labe said, 4 months ago
@1opinion
Ok 1opinion, I’ll explain to you what the problem is with letting the bush tax cuts expire.
Let us assume that there is a limited amount of money available in the economy. Businesses earn their money by providing goods or services. They do this in order to earn a profit. That profit is then spent or reinvested in the economy, causing other businesses to grow. When the government taxes people it removes money from them, decreasing their ability to spend or reinvest and decreasing the ability for the economy to grow.
When the government takes money from people it may say that it will “invest” the money, but they always take a percentage for administrative overhead. In the portion of the government I work for they typically take about 40% of all incoming money for that. That means that only 60% of what is taken in is actually expended on what was promised.
By cutting taxes, the money can be invested by businesses and people directly and more efficiently.
Now there are certain functions of government that are necessary to a functioning society. Police, courts, national defense, etc. But by and large government is not an efficient means of growing the economy.
Also, when the government borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends, it takes on obligations to pay back that money. Such spending rates cannot be sustained. It will eventually force the government to do one of three things.
1 – repudiate the debt. This will destroy the value of the dollar as an instrument for investment and make further borrowing impossible, as no one will trust the US Government to meet its obligations.
2 – Devalue the dollar through inflation. This is the most likely senario. By use of qualitative easing billions of additional dollars, backed by nothing, will be added to the economy, thereby reducing the value of all the existing currency. In December of 1918 it cost two paper reichmarks to purchase one Goldmark, gold coin. By November of 1923 it cost 115,607,000,000.00 reichmarks to purchase that same goldmark. Imagine what this does to people living on fixed incomes. $50,000 a year sounds like a pretty good income, until a cup of coffee starts costing you $10,000.00
3 – Cut your spending to less than what you take in. This is the hardest thing to do for democrats.
The will never reduce their spending because spending buys them votes. But it is the only means that actually reduces the debt.
Now the senate democrats keep rejecting the budgets that the house republicans send to them, demanding that the republican specify exactly what cuts are to be made so that they can then claim umbrage and say republicans want to kill granny, destroy the environment, and maim puppies.
Actually the house sent a budget to the senate in August. What is supposed to happen is that if the senate does not like the budget, they are to ammend it, pass it in the senate, and then return it to the house for their consideration. harry reid has not let a budget get to the floor of the senate since January of 2009.
As far as I am concerned, the democrats in the senate have failed in their constitutional duty to the country to provide a budget. No moneys should be spent without a budget that has been voted on by both houses of congress. If they can’t or won’t do their job, then the president should declare the congress as having vacated their responcibilities and call for new elections in which the current crowd of congress critters are ineligable to run.
Start with a whole new slate of people willing to do the peoples business.
Cinci Steve said, 4 months ago
@Molon Labe
Very well put.
Justice22 said, 4 months ago
Is that Grover Norquist that the ellyfunt is holding?
1opinion said, 4 months ago
“Let us assume that there is a limited amount of money available in the economy.”
That is a false assumption.
.
“3 – Cut your spending to less than what you take in. This is the hardest thing to do for democrats.”
Again you proceed from a false assumption. The republicans continually lower taxes, increase spending and borrow to make up the difference.
The deficit was in decline until Reagan’s administration lowered taxes and his numerous increases did not cover the spending.
Clinton, the democrats and republicans worked out a deficit reducing deal which the following Bush administration called a surplus, lowered taxes and started the steep rise in deficit spending.
Eryx
said, 4 months ago
@1opinion
““Let us assume that there is a limited amount of money available in the economy.”
That is a false assumption.” We live on a single planet with a finite amount of resources, so there is a finite amount of wealth that can be generated from it. Now, we could print $1 trillion bills, but they won’t increase buying power.
You made the false statement that Republicans lower taxes. Both Reagan and George H.W. Bush (two of the three most recent Republican Presidents), raised them.
Despite this, deficits jumped sharply under both Presidents and even more under George W. Bush (who initiated two massively expensive wars at the same time that he cut taxes: something unprecedented in world history).
Most people born since 1970 know these facts.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
@Molon Labe
Theophilous Joiner said, “When the government takes money from people it may say that it will “invest” the money, but they always take a percentage for administrative overhead….”
So that money just goes out of existence? Or do the adminstrators spend it on goods and services which stimulates the economy?
1opinion said, 4 months ago
@Eryx
“You made the false statement that Republicans lower taxes. Both Reagan and George H.W. Bush (two of the three most recent Republican Presidents), raised them.”
I stated Reagan lowered taxes and then had tax increases. I added nothing about GHWB.
As for money, that is a human construct and has been increased and decreased in value over time.