Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Recommended

Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Yep, with a matter of one second into the New Year, your taxes will go up $4,000. If a new farm bill isn’t drafted a gallon of milk will go up to $6-8 a gallon. All under Obama’s watch. The buck stops with him. Might as well, he’s taking every buck you make. So much for looking out for the middle-class…

  2. Cinci Steve

    Cinci Steve said, over 1 year ago

    @PianoGuy24

    It’s all about “revenge”.

  3. Mike31g

    Mike31g said, over 1 year ago

    Don’t understand the first two comments!
    TheTimes newspaper in the UK (slightly right of centre in its philoshophy) had an article of Friday suggesting that both American political parties were willing to go over the ‘fiscal cliff’ as they both believed that the american public would place more of the blame on the other party.
    Clearly the threat of the ‘fiscal cliff’ was not working as intended, as it was supposed to be so extreme that it should force both parties to reach a compromise. It would appear that the politicians themselves are more concerned with their own careers than looking after the population they were elected to represent. Hence I propose an alternative solution (a political cliff if you like); if a compromise budget is not acheived by deadline day then a) None of the politicians currently in office are permitted to run for President in the next 10 years; b) There is a re-election of every member of the House of Representives one month later (1st of Feb), with none of the current representatives allowed to stand.
    With their careers all at risk the politicians might start negotiating with the intent of actually acheiving a compromise!
    yours
    Mike

  4. Stipple

    Stipple said, over 1 year ago

    @Mike31g

    Go away, this spot reserved for those who find the first two comments most profound.
    .
    Much more to come and sense is not appreciated, in fact it will be ridiculed.

  5. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago

    @PianoGuy24

    All the latest pols show that some 60% of Americans will blame the Republicans in the House of Representatives for going over the
    fiscal cliff. Some 25% will blame President Obama for the problem. And the rest will blame both political parties, or have no particular opinion.

    As 69% is far better than the majority that re-elected President Obama, then I would say that your post is at best misleading, and at worst a down right lie.

    If this number of people remember in 2014, the Republican Party may very well cease to exist!!

  6. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago

    @Robert Landers

    I don’t think pianoguy was commenting on what the American sheeple believe, but on what he believes. To reiterate, Romney promised to slash everyone’s taxes and the price of gasoline and also balance the budget using Romneymath, a branch of mathematics so profound no PhD mathematician or economist can understand any of it.


    But the voters elected Obama, so we won’t get any of that miraculous Romneymath. So blame Obama or the voters for the fact that we won’t have taxes abolished for everyone and still balance the budget and have 50.9¢ a gallon gasoline.

  7. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Mike31g

    YOU want US to listen to the UK’s advise on economical and political policies….???
    BWAA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA-HAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

  8. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Robert Landers

    YOU have FAILED to see the MAIN point in my post. The buck AND blame ends with the PRESIDENT!!! He’s just as at fault if not MORE for the fiscal cliff!

  9. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 1 year ago

    @Mike31g

    Good comment Mike31.
    There have been other idea suggested- no pay for legislators unless a budget is passed, term limits, and more. Sadly, too many Americans vote with the attitude throw those OTHER guys out while moving to keep their own legislators who are rewarded for their “seniority” with choice committee seats. It is my opinion that it will get worse as the Citizen’s United ruling permits people with financial interests to involve themselves in local elections including, in many places, judge seats. Conservative donors are already planning how to elect people they can trust to support their financial and social agendas in local elections which tend to be less expensive and draw less attention than national elections. Fifty states with republicans in charge of the governor’s office, state senate and representative offices, and mayoral positions would be a powerful tool for these conservative “job creators”. In states where judges are elected, their efforts could be further rewarded with legal rulings against Democrat, and perhaps even democratic, positions.
    While I know the Dems would do the same if they could, the fact is, they cannot raise as much “local” money as conservatives have historically shown themselves able to do.
    Citizen’s United is a bad ruling but I don’t think the parties will find it in their interest to move against it.
    It will be an interesting election.
    Thank you for an international perspective,
    Have a safe and happy New Year’s Eve.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  10. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Time is a funny thing.

    In the 2010 elections the conservative group calling themselves the Tax Enough Already or T.E.A. Party won many seats in the House of Representatives. Why? Because most Americans understand that the outrageous spending habits of both parties in power was out of control and needed to stop. It was NOT about raising taxes on the wealthy – although you can do that without much effect on the debt and this group doesn’t really care – it was about the fact that no one in DC was concerned about a budget or balance or debt. NO ONE.

    So they got elected and got demonized because they did what the people that sent them there asked them to do and that was to stop the government from functioning as it had been. They raised the right issues and the debt and deficit became important again. So important that the President appointed a “super committee” to resolve the issue. The result? Failure and sequestration. What?

    Here is a reminder that I am sure you all think about constantly.

    The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) established a 12 member Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (or “super committee”) charged with reducing the deficit by an additional $1.2 – $1.5 trillion over ten years.
    The 2013 cuts apply to “discretionary” spending and are divided between reductions to defense ($500 billion) and non-defense ($700 billion).

    Sequestration can only be avoided if Congress passes legislation that undoes the legal requirement in the BCA and that President Obama will sign before January 2, 2013.

    http://www.ideamoneywatch.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=72

    So the republicans are refusing to agree to anything because they want “cuts”. And the Democrats refuse to agree because they want to “tax the rich”.

    If they do NOTHING then they both get what they want.

    Sequestration takes effect by LAW and the so called “Bush tax cuts” expire.

    What is the problem??? Let it happen.

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 1 year ago

    @Bruce4671

    Well, the problem is that a lot of economists think that the combination of tax increase on the non-wealthy and a cut in government spending could send the economy into recession again. I’m no expert, I don’t know if they are right or wrong, but it seems to be a legitimate concern.

  12. mnsmkd

    mnsmkd GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Mike31g

    Mike31 is saying wise words….

  13. D PB

    D PB said, over 1 year ago

    @Respectful Troll

    Downs, usually your posts are a little more balanced then this.

    Take a little bit of time and look at www.followthemoney.org.

    Your opinion is not supported by the facts. Who gets elected varies for quite a number of reasons, including incumbency, make up of the district (gerrymandering), and the natural variance in politics.

    Your inference that the overturning of a small portion of the BCRA by the Supreme Court has benefited the right alone is lopsided. The narrow decision only involved electioneering communications and did not remove any of the other major provisions. Also, it removed these restrictions from corporations and unions. If you look at the web site cited above you may be see things a little more clearly.

    Have a pleasant New Year.
    Respectfully

  14. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @lonecat

    The fact remains that in order to “solve” the problem spending must be curtailed and revenue must increase.

    Obama keeps touting a “shared” sacrifice approach, with the main focus on the “rich”.
    Even though his big goal of raising taxes on them will only net about 95 billion bucks a year.

    Now his proposed spending keeps the “deficit” at over a trillion bucks a year. Remember that a “deficit” is the amount that you spend that you must borrow because you did not make the amount you needed.

    1,000,000,000,000 minus 95,000,000,000 equals 905,000,000,000 in the red. Over the amount saved by taxing the rich.

    So how is this a “fix”? It is not and we all know it. So where is the other 905 billion bucks just to satisfy Obama’s need to spend going to come from?

    The citizens of this country need to buckle down, tighten their belts, and fix the problem. The sequestration and the expiration of any and all tax “cuts” is just a start. We must also change attitude. We must answer the tough questions. What exactly are we willing to spend and on what programs? Shouldn’t everyone rich and poor alike have skin in the game? Yes, those that work hard and are successful need to give back to the community. Shouldn’t they be helping others to be successful as well?

    What we need is a common goal. What we need is a leader who can articulate that goal. What we have are leaders that excel in blaming the other guy and dividing us through race and class envy and hatred.

    The founders had it right.

  15. bearguyva

    bearguyva said, over 1 year ago

    @PianoGuy24

    Yeah, because Obama voted for sequestration. Obama’s the one sitting there saying “NO” to anything and everything he proposes. Obama is the one holding up everything so the rich can keep getting richer at the expense of everyone else. Riiiiight…

  16. Load the rest of the comments (12).