Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, over 1 year ago

    “Republicans have defined their position, regardless of how reckless: austerity or bust. However, as economists have warned, austerity generally precedes — and, in fact, can cause — bust. Just look at Europe.

    But Republicans are so dizzy over the deficits and delighted to lick the boots of billionaires that they cannot — or will not — see it. They are still trying to sell cut-to-grow snake oil: cut spending and cut taxes, and the economy will grow because rich people will be happy, and when rich people are happy they hire poor people, and then everyone’s happy. "

    With a tip of the hat to Charles Blow

  2. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Well, I’ll be danged! Lisa Benson makes sense. If allowed to stand, the cuts imposed by the Sequester will wreak havoc on state budgets.

  3. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago

    @Uncle Joe

    Not only that, but this is almost a liberal position. Of course, that is only if you can ignore the ultra conservatives that almost exclusively and falsely blame President Obama for the entire sequester situation. While President Obama is not entirely without blame here, most Americans are placing the blame where it really belongs, on the do nothing (since 2011) tea party Republican House of Representatives. Should possibly make the 2014 elections very interesting despite the incredible gerrymandering of the Republicans!!

  4. Peabody-Martini

    Peabody-Martini said, over 1 year ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Is there a Republican position you disagree with? Or a better question. Why do you outsource you’re thinking to a political party?

  5. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, over 1 year ago

    @wmconelly

    Sorry……You are wrong again. Obama keeps moving the goal post. Each time he gets what he asks for (higher taxes), he wants more of the same. It is he who refuses to compromise.

  6. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 1 year ago

    @Peabody-Martini

    You might ask yourself the same question.

  7. mnsmkd

    mnsmkd said, over 1 year ago

    Now, now, now….Play nicely….Name calling just shows how angry you are. Doesn’t get folks to think ,just react….

  8. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 1 year ago

    OK Democrat/liberal posters. The sequestration is a fact. Budget cuts have been decided on by the administration. In fact, DHS jumped the gun and started releasing thousands of “detainees” back into the general population. (side thought) With the current position and instructions to ICE not to detain any who have not committed other “crimes” one wonders why they were detained in the first place.

    Soon air traffic controllers, teachers, federal workers, defense “contractors”, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, doctors, hospitals, food inspectors, regulators of all description and many other areas small and large will have their budget cut. Uh no wait. That is NOT true. They will have the expected increase in their budget cut. All over an 85 billion dollar cut in proposed deficit spending.

    You guys do understand that the deficit is the amount borrowed each year? Currently that is between 900 billion (Obama’s original proposal) and 1.5 trillion (Obama’s average record and yes I’m counting his first year entirely). That’s money we have to print or borrow or find a revenue stream for (yes for the last time raise revenue by reforming the tax code quit talking and DO something)

    But wait. Is there maybe a place we can find that 85 billion? All by itself? Just one area that has a lot of money to burn and just maybe can deal with both sides of the equation? How about this:

    Get some perspective on how we got here (even though you want to pin the blame on “republicans” and yes they are in fact hip deep in the actions that caused it but Obama has taken the same course) Read this you will absolutely love it and agree with it.

    http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

    So, IS there a place that we can cut the total 85 billion from and not do all the dire things mentioned above? This cute little blog mentions this project. Anyone know if it is true?

    http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/shock-307-billion-paid-to-africa-while-america-goes-over-cliff/36549/

    Since it is an international project, shouldn’t some of the funding come from other nations? How about 85 billion worth a mere 27% of the total funding. That seems fair to me. US 73% the rest of the world 27%.

  9. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 1 year ago

    @Bruce4671

    Bruce, the best part of Ms. Benson’s cartoon for today – a cartoon that suggests this sledgehammer approach to budgeting is going to blindside CA, and others – is your link to zfacts. I just spent 20 minutes reading on the site and have bookmarked it for future references to support and/or refine my postings on future issues. zfacts.com home page introduces itself with these first words,
    ^
    “Rarely are two sides equally right, and “balanced” has come to mean finding a nit to balance a lie. Get z Facts and then decide."
    ^
    It’s hard to find sources that objectively look at all sides of an argument. People will decide what is ‘objective’ and what is ‘prejudicial’ to an argument, but their baseline is established by paradigm.
    ^
    It’s as if our society wants to reach the number 4. Some see 1+3, or 2+2 as a way to get there. Others want to use 5-1 or 8 divided by 2 or some other formula. Our gov’t is telling us X + Y – Z =4, but they just won’t be clear on the values. They just tell us they’re the only ones who can “do the math”.
    ^
    It’s very frustrating.
    Thank you again for introducing me to zfacts, if you have other sources of info you consider equally objective, I’d love to know them.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  10. USN1977

    USN1977 said, over 1 year ago

    Federal spending has actually gone up in 2013 than it has from 2012. How can an increase in spending be called a “cut”?

  11. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago

    @USN1977
    The original increase was to have been about $100 billion. Which would be the average increase of some 3% that inflation has been running for the last 30 or so years. In other words, $100 billion is just about 3% of the $3.4 trillion already budgeted for this federal fiscal year.


    Now, a cut of some $85 billion from this for this fiscal year leaves an increase of some $15 billion, which is less than a 0.5% increase in the federal budget for this year. And a 0.5% increase is a long way from a 3.0% increase. Does that help clear the issue up somewhat?

  12. John Mettler

    John Mettler said, over 1 year ago

    For a change an apt cartoon. The hope is that the dominos will fall on the republicans but unfortunately it’s going to fall on all of us.

  13. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 1 year ago

    @Tax Man

    Obama has raised taxes a lot less than Reagan did. His signature act was CONTINUING THE BUSH TAX CUTS for most Americans. I got more from the Obama payroll tax cut, but that’s now expired from GOP insistence.

  14. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 1 year ago

    @Gore Bane

    Austerity IS the cause of economic disaster in Europe. (Well, technically it’s the cause of the lack of recovery. The cause of the disaster was lack of regulation in American financial markets.)

  15. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago

    @swr

    If the House passes a budget that the Senate can not possibly live with, then it is the Senate’s duty to reject that budget. And as the tea party types in the House would attempt at every instance to undue such FDR initiated programs as social security, then if you are not yet on or just about to go onto social security, then it is you (and our children) that will be the losers. It may surprise you , but I would consider that to be a true tragedy.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).