Lalo Alcaraz by Lalo Alcaraz

Lalo Alcaraz

Comments (29) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    And they’re all ‘for the good of the country’.
    And, in an astonishing coincidence, they all protect the interests of the wealthy.

  2. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, almost 4 years ago

    Dems don’t mind because they love higher taxes.

  3. Mick Hardy

    Mick Hardy said, almost 4 years ago

    Notice, the Dems are NOT talking about any spending cuts, only raising taxes!! Think about it, you voted him back in!!

  4. Darren Blair

    Darren Blair said, almost 4 years ago

    @Mick Hardy

    I think people just presumed that the Dems actually had a plan beyond tax hikes…

  5. Tomgn

    Tomgn said, almost 4 years ago

    Santa Boma to the rescue

  6. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago

    Dems do not love higher taxes, but since the Dixiecrats left the Dems to become Republicans, most Dems do like social justice, fairness for the middle class, protection for the old, young, and poor. In the last 48 hours, I have heard 4 Dems saying that medicare and medicaid will become insolvent if nothing is done within 12 years and all 4 wanted those programs reviewed and revamped. All 4 were against making major changes to the SSN system since Americans pay into that fund and had congress not raided those funds years ago, it would still be solvent and self supporting. Kind of like the pension funds prior to 1998 when pension fund managers were given permission by lobbyist motivated legislators to gamble with the retirement funds of millions of Americans.
    I am sorry Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to remain as the head of their party in the House and Senate. Fresh faces might have meant fresh opportunities. It certainly would have gone a long way toward ending some of the bad blood of the previous 4 years.
    Republicans arent’ talking about spending cuts either, unless they are entitlements protecting young, old, and poor people. Republicans still want gold mining companies to underpay for gold harvested from federal lands. They want oil companies to continue getting subsides. They want big box items for the military that the military doesn’t want or need in today’s battlefields.
    Reagan, Bush Sr., both raised taxes. Bush Jr was convinced by people he trusted that a war with Iraq would be over in less than six months, the people would love us, and we’d make money from oil contracts with them. Instead, it lasted 9 years, Republican owned companies like Halliburton committed enormous waste and fraud, and from 2003 to 2008, there was no amount budgeted to conduct our 2 war fronts.
    A Conservative Government doesn’t deprive people of needs, ConservGov. It does conserve resources. It makes changes to policy and infrastructure to reduce unexpected, but inevitable, disasters resulting from weather, or man made disasters. Obama is the first American Presdent who, in his first run for office, said it was time for the USA to set money aside in the budget to address disasters like Sandy, the droughts, the firestorms out west, and industry caused disasters like the BP oil rig that did so much damage to the Gulf Coast.
    A Conservative Government is not a restrictive cruel government, it is protective. A conservatory protects.
    But no one likes to pay for waste and fraud when they pay taxes. And it’s not very conserving to pay for waste and fraud.
    & Happy Holidayze

  7. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Notice, the Dems are NOT talking about any spending cuts, only raising taxes!! Think about it, you voted him back in!!

    Last time we were at this point, Obama offered a compromise to the Republicans of $10 in budget cuts for every $1 in raised taxes. The Republicans refused to compromise. Our credit rating dropped as a result and Eric Cantor netted a tidy profit on his investment in a hedge fund that shorts treasury bonds.

  8. ODon

    ODon said, almost 4 years ago

    Very well said C

  9. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, almost 4 years ago

    Reagan raised taxes.

  10. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 4 years ago

    The proposed increase in taxes nets 82 billion a year.
    what exactly does $82 billion in new revenues each year buy? Not much. Here’s a top 10 list of what $82 billion pays for:

    8.5 days of federal spending ($3,540B annual budget)
    Food stamps for about one year ($81 billion)
    The budget of United States Postal Service for just over a year ($70.6 billion annual budget)
    The US intelligence budget for about one year (75.4 billion annual budget)
    The costs of Hurricane Sandy recovery for New York and New Jersey (current est. $71 billion and growing)
    Just 4 months interest on the debt ($258 billion in 2012)
    Just under one tenth of the 2009 “stimulus” (about $830B)
    6.6% of our Social Security/Medicare costs in 2012 ($1231B)
    7.5% of the deficit ($1.1 trillion) – essentially prevent one month of borrowing per year
    One-third of the annual new cost of Obamacare coverage expansions (about $240 billion annually by the end of the decade)

    Now no one sid that raising taxes would fix the problem (hahahahahahahaha…sigh) but notice that Obama wants to go ahead and raise taxes but table any cuts until next year…maybe.

    Prominent democrats say that entitlements should not be on the table when and if these talks occur.

    I hope that the republicans can stick by their principles and refuse to pass anything without cuts. Let the cliff dive happen.

  11. CasualBrowser

    CasualBrowser GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    “…lower tax rates actually generate more revenue…”
    So, if the formula is:
    Less taxes = more revenue…

    …then the smaller the tax number the greater the revenue number…
    …therefore, if the tax number is reduced to zero, then the revenue number should increase to infinity.
    Somehow, I don’t think that economics is as simple as you claim H.

  12. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, almost 4 years ago

    Actually, according to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the tax rate has NO effect on revenue, so you are partially right. However, historically a lower tax rate on the top earners has coincided with a higher unemployment rate, while a higher rate coincided with a lower unemployment rate. One theory is that those who save the most with a tax cut (ie. the 1%) hoard money during a period they see as temporary, to come out ahead when taxes go back up. When taxes are higher, the best way to make money is through increased production, therefore hiring more workers is beneficial. Kind of like leaving kids in the room with a bowl of candy: watch them closely and they will take what you say they are allowed. Leave them alone in the room, the candy jar is empty by the time you get back.

  13. pirate227

    pirate227 said, almost 4 years ago

    Wait! Let’s try tax cuts for the rich… again.

  14. spyderred

    spyderred said, almost 4 years ago


    1. The people of this country rejected these arguments in November. Get over it, elephants.
    2. All of the things you itemize protect or assist the people of this country – who are the ones paying the taxes. The elephants would use all tax money to further provide corporate welfare and to protect the hyper-wealthy. How can that possibly be justified other than through hatred for anyone who is not a billionaire?

  15. STLDan

    STLDan said, almost 4 years ago


    I hope they do too…then they will be voted out in 2014 and the end of thier dispiciable party will be at hand. I was once a Republican before the religious zealots and so called social conservatives hijacked the party. Now I just want them to go away and start from scratch. Its coming…soon….

  16. Load the rest of the comments (14).