Jerry Holbert by Jerry Holbert

Jerry Holbert

Comments (23) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    More ludicrous, and whiney, every day.

  2. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, almost 4 years ago

    So taxing the “rich” will help the 30 million people unemployed?

  3. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 4 years ago


    Big debt. Three choices: raise revenues, reduce spending, both. If you raise revenues, raise them based on the sector of the populace that will be hurt the least while still benefiting from the investment. Whether that’s making sure that GE pays at least one dollar in income tax, or “taxing the rich”, or eliminating the tax deduction for dancing lessons for your horse, there are lots of places one can look. Reducing spending reduces jobs, as well. So, if you can offset this by raising revenues, it helps to soften the blow to the weakest sector of the population. This will do more to stimulate job growth than to do absolutely nothing, which seems to some to be the only acceptable answer.

  4. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    @I Play One On TV

    You do know that many times people have suggested cutting programs that are wasteful, ineffective and sometimes thinly disguised fraud. Politicians adamantly resist such efforts because it ultimately affects constituents and they don’t want to make people face the realities of what we need to do to balance our economy…

  5. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, almost 4 years ago

    @I Play One On TV

    “Big debt”.

    Do you really think the Dems would use the increased tax revenue to reduce our debt? REALLY?

    If they are willing to make spending cuts AND include language that ALL increased tax revenues from the top 1% would go toward debt reduction, then I think most Republicans would compromise. I highly doubt the Dems would do that tho.

  6. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, almost 4 years ago

    @I Play One On TV

    Raising taxes will reduce revenue, this isn’t about money, it’s about fairness.

  7. uh-oh

    uh-oh said, almost 4 years ago

    Never happen.

    Ya play the greed is all to the left card.

  8. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago

    There’s good comments here. A few aren’t helpful but most are good. My own thoughts on this matter have been oft seen under similar toons as this so…
    Let me throw this bone out for gnawing purposes. It’s an idea presented by a man whose name I forget.
    Let’s nationalize the debt. Over the decades, many nations overseas nationalized US companies and resources and many other sought and received debt forgiveness for monies owed to the USA from times of war or politcal upheavel in their own nations.
    And now, I’ll just quietly walk out of the room. ;)

  9. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 4 years ago

    Thanks for all the feedback. Of course I’m aware that there are wasteful stupid programs, and that some of them will be defended to the ends of the earth by politicians who do not wish to serve the people they represent.

    I would also like to believe ConserveGov is correct in saying that if the dems would reduce spending in addition to selectively raising tax rates, the repubs would compromise. I have seen little to make me believe that the R’s have any intention of compromise under any circumstances, but I hope I’m wrong.

    As far as people saying “fair share”, this has been debated over and over on this site, and nothing I can say will be different from what has already been said.

    I feel I am assumed to be someone I’m not, as many Americans do. I am a social liberal, meaning that as long as no one gets hurt (unless they want to), adults should be able to do whatever they want without me telling them how to live their lives. I am a fiscal conservative, which means I recognize you can’t spend more than you make without getting into trouble.

    I am also practical, which is anathema to most politicians. I do not subscribe to any particular political party, but I recognize things for what they are. Democrats are disorganized, and often will take positions that are absurd, just because they are different from Republicans. But, again, they are disorganized enough that it’s hard for them to do too much harm individually. I see Republicans as being very organized, and very endgame-oriented, willing to do whatever is necessary (including trashing our economy, keeping us as miserable as possible to blame Democrats, downgrading our credit rating, and threatening to stop government unless private individuals and corporations get favorable treatment). I see them as more dangerous than the Democrats. Also, if government wants to spend, it should tax to pay for it. Borrowing to pay for it got us into this mess, yet that is the Republican mantra.

    Best answer is to determine what doesn’t need investment, and to stop it ASAP. Cancel Star Wars, bring our troops back from the Middle East: don’t wait for 2014, it won’t be any better for the Afghanis no matter how long we stay. Bail out the wage-earner and punish the bankers, instead of the other way around.

    I am sure that most posters on this site are more willing to and are more capable of fixing our economic mess than anyone who has the power at this time. This is more sad than anything else.

    Again, thanks for all the input.

  10. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 4 years ago

    I feel so sorry for the rich.

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 4 years ago

    @I Play One On TV

    I agree with much of what you have to say, including your comment that you can’t spend more than you make without getting into trouble. But on the other hand, there are times and reasons for going into debt. When you buy a house, you take out a mortgage which usually means you’re going to be in debt for twenty or twenty-five years. It would be stupid to take on that kind of debt if you had no reasonable prospect of paying it off, but for most people a mortgage works out fine. A lot of people go into debt in order to get an education. The idea is that your earning power will be sufficiently increased by getting an education to justify going into debt. Likewise, there are times and reasons for a government to go into debt. A lot of people believe (I think on good grounds) that it’s reasonable for a government to go into debt in times of recession in order (a) to protect people who are hurt by the recession and (b) thereby to keep the economy afloat while it recovers. In good times, pay down the debt. In bad times, stimulate the economy.

  12. SwimsWithSharks

    SwimsWithSharks GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Clinton balanced the budget. Dubya gave huge tax breaks to the risk and broke the bank. Let’s undo Dubya and stop getting into stupid wars. The rich will still be rich, and the rest of us can stop funding their corporate welfare.

  13. ARodney

    ARodney said, almost 4 years ago

    Raising taxes will reduce revenue? That’s what Newt Gingrich said under Clinton. It proved to be wrong then (suprise! More revenue meant more revenue), and there’s no reason to think arithmetic has fundamentally changed since those days, unless of course you’re conservative and unable to learn from experience.

  14. spyderred

    spyderred said, almost 4 years ago

    The Koch Brothers just bought Michigan and Wisconsin, and in both cases attacked working people. And you think they need protection? From what? The excesses of greed?

  15. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, almost 4 years ago

    Very good Professor. Btw The Dems do like it when more of our money Rains down on them.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (8).