Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 3 years ago

    And what happened to the president’s jobs plan? That’s right. You can’t pass anything that would help Americans under a Democratic president while the GOP has any ability to sabotage it.

  2. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Interesting that Lisa and the ilk never noticed how many people back in the “W” days were taking jobs at much lower pay, or taking 2-3 jobs to “break even”, but “unemployment” stayed down, well not really.

    7.6% isn’t fantastic, but it’s below the 8% all the repubtards said Obama couldn’t lower. But, it isn’t just the White House, not even “W” who should be blamed, but the combination of a Congress that has too long handed “corporate America” a free pass, to pass jobs overseas.

    Just reading about one of our major aviation “job contributors”, looking to Mexico, or points south, rather than in the U.S.. Ah, patriotism.

  3. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    Just more apologists for the Destructer of the American Dream.
    Barry knew that Obama(non)Care would cost trillions and cost people their jobs. It’s just part of his plan to expand socialism and force Everbody to become dependent on the governments “generosity” as they dole out our allowance each month.

  4. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    Really? Maybe Barry and his rich friends, but….

    The Fed’s monthly report concluded that the “downside risks” were reduced. Housing is coming back. The stock market is up. Profits are at record levels. The sequester cuts haven’t sabotaged growth. Consumers feel more confidence.

    Only one problem with all this. The economy can’t recover if the people don’t. Official unemployment has drifted down to an abysmal 7.6 percent but largely because people are dropping out of the workforce.

    There are still over 20 million people in need of full time work. The employment rate — the percentage of the population in the workforce — hasn’t budged from recession levels. At current rates, the U.S. won’t return to the pre-recession 5 percent unemployment rate until 2022 — and even at that level, American families were losing ground.

    Corporate profits are up, but wages aren’t. Wages are now at the lowest percent of the economy on record. The median wage hasn’t budged this century. College and non-college grads are now losing ground. The good jobs that were lost are being replaced by low wage and part-time jobs. Young people are starting out behind, unemployed or underemployed at ruinous high rates. Our Gilded Age inequality is getting worse, with the top 1 percent pocketing all of the rewards of growth.

  5. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    When Clinton was president, people had jobs. Unemployment was down. Income taxes were slightly higher. The economy soared. There was a projected budget surplus. Crime was down. Inflation was down.
    And Republicans HATED it. HATED it. And they vowed never to allow it to happen again.
    And their success at preventing such horror continues today.

  6. carandken

    carandken said, over 3 years ago

    Yikes-It’s 6:45 am and you folks are already writing this drivel.Suggest some decaf and a nice walk in the park.

  7. Jonni

    Jonni said, over 3 years ago

    Surely it makes sense to create a health care plan that every employer must offer to its full time employees. Oh wait, how about not offering medical coverage to part timer’s but hire more people so it can be said there was job creation. It’s so ironic it’s almost funny.

  8. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago


    We’ve had 4-1/2 years of Obama’s machinations. He had a Congress completely in liberal control for a good chunk of that. Instead of focusing on creating the PPACA (which actually costs the country over $1 trillion, after being advertised as debt neutral, then costing less than $1 trillion… oops), he should have focused on figuring out a way to generate employment. I don’t mean government jobs, I mean working with actual industry leaders and figuring out a plan to get people back to work.

    You guys are so hung up on the 2010 elections that you forget you had 2008-2010 to get stuff done. And all you could accomplish was the extremely partisan PPACA, forced on the American People by gimmicks and procedural tricks. Imagine if Obama had spent that much political energy and capital on jobs.

  9. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago


    I want to pull out a piece of your comment that I think is a common fallacy. The stock market is up, and profits at record levels. There is a reason behind this that people aren’t recognizing, and they are blaming corporations for it.

    Stock market (aka the DOW) is only a sampling of businesses. It doesn’t represent every company. And the treasury has been buying bonds at a rate of $85 billion a month, as part of their quantitative easing. Look at the way the market reacted when when it was announced that QE3 would be coming to a close: The DOW shed some 500 points in 2-3 days, iirc. It was a bloodbath. It’s because investors know the truth: The DOW has been propped up by QE. It’s a false high. The DOW is overvalued right now.

    Secondly, the profits. A lot of this is a result of the Internet bubble in 2k, and again the recession in 2008-10’ish. Companies shed jobs in both cases, largely because they had to lean operations down. Things like Six Sigma, and L.E.A.N. were analyzed. Computerization was and continues to be the biggest inroads at efficiency.

    And that’s what we’re seeing. Corporations are running much leaner, putting more work on fewer people and automating a lot of things. Equipment can also be depreciated, which is considered an expense on an accounting balance sheet. Fewer employees with same output + more equipment with depreciation = higher profit margins with same level of revenue, or even a modest increase in revenue.

    And then there is the other issue that is the elephant in the room: the PPACA and its impact on the employment picture. Whether you are for or against the PPACA, it will cost money and jobs. Either companies are going to have to increase coverage (aka cost more money), or they are going to have to shed jobs, or both. We’ve already heard many reports, especially from the Chamber of Commerce, that the #1 reason why companies aren’t hiring is because they still don’t know what the PPACA is going to mean for their businesses. And the PPACA is the direct reason for the above ‘toon. It has the 50 FTE benchmark. So businesses are replacing 1 full time with 1-1/2 part time workers to do the same task, thus escaping the mandate from the Law.

    A lot of people look at today’s economy and say that corporations are causing the problem. The rich are causing the problem. But compare our current automotive manufacturing process and compare it to Ford back in the 50’s. Then, you had workers assembling the vehicle, bolt by bolt. Now, you have robots that do the same job, and can even repair each other. You tell someone in the 50’s that a machine would be doing their job, and they’d scoff at you. Now, it’s the norm. Technology is the biggest form of efficiency advancement, and we are now reaping those benefits. Unfortunately, it makes the employment situation in our time much … more difficult.

  10. Justice22

    Justice22 said, over 3 years ago

    I take it you would have followed the outsourced jobs to China and India?

  11. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 3 years ago

    “…weekly average of 345,000 newly unemployed last month.”

    By your numbers unemployment should have rose, not declined.

  12. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, over 3 years ago

    “Government, business and education need to work together.”

    Actually, it seems to me that there lies the problem.

    Government and industry are in bed together, and together, they’ve destroyed the education system, replacing it with a propaganda machine.

    We were much ‘freer’ when government was not working with industry, but was regulating it – which is their job. We were much freer with a literate population.

    Let’s go back to separation. When we had that, we counted for something. Now we count only as we become exploitable, which sooner or later we all do.

  13. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, over 3 years ago


    “Unfortunately, it makes the employment situation in our time much … more difficult.”

    I agree with all that, but what about the jobs that have been offshored? Don’t they count at all?

    What about the immigrant labour situation? Is this really viable?

  14. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago


    Off-shoring is an issue, but it’s something that is a symptom of our times. What a lot of people forget is that corporations are in business to earn a profit for their employees, owners, and shareholders. Conversely, you don’t go into business to go bankrupt.

    So why does this matter? It’s because American labor right now is among the highest paid in the world. This is caused by many reasons which I won’t go into here (because people we get irritated and indignant), but needless to say, we cost a lot. The manufacturing industry is really the one who’s taken the brunt of this issue. Why pay an American union worker $25/hour + lifetime benefits to thread a nut on a bolt, when I can pay a Chinese or Indonesian worker $25 a week for the same task? And that’s not even counting taxes! Monetarily, it makes a lot of sense for the corporation.

    That’s the numerics of it. Then there’s something a bit more subtle: Pride in “Made in America” is mostly flat. If you look at the history of thing we consume, we have culturally gotten used to overseas manufacturing. We have gotten used to the $12 T-Shirt. You have to ask yourself, would you pay $30-40 for that exact same T-Shirt? Of course not. But that’s how much it would cost if it was “Made in America.” The pride of that label doesn’t override most people’s skinniness of their wallet.

  15. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    sigh Vent, talking to you is sometimes like arguing with a brick wall. It’s becoming increasingly counter-productive.

    “Employees are not the beneficiaries of profits,”

    Then what is gain share? What are year-end bonuses? My father owns a C-Corp and distributes the profits of the business to his employees. This company I work for (a fortune 500 company) pays bonuses, and provides raises to the employees based on the performance of not only the employee, but also of the business overall. Hate to say it, but you’re wrong on this one.

    " The corporation is it’s own entity. It’s allegiance is to it’s own survival."

    And in its survival, its owner (especially amongst S-Corporations and sole-proprietors) is especially interested in its continued prosperity. You have partisan in your eye, Vent. You are confusing Corporations as “people” holding the ability to express free speech with the concept that corporations are an entity that performs a service or creates a good for a fee. It is made up of people, and its owner (in the aforementioned business types) is vested in the performance of that business.

    “Corporations in the real world couldn’t care less about shareholders”

    It’s not that they care or don’t care about their shareholders. They have an obligation to them, in the form of dividends. If they perform poorly, people downgrade their stock and the business’ net value retracts. If they perform well, posing good profit lines, their value increases. They post profits, and they issue dividends. Etc. So yes, they do have to earn a profit for their shareholders, because those shareholders expect returns on their investment.

    Regarding your Bain Capital comment, you again are taking a partisan slant on a specific issue. I have never heard of a business owner (especially startups) creating a business, mortgaging their home, risking their entire future just for the sole purpose of going bankrupt. You are making a silly argument based on a select few examples of a Capital Investment firm trying to get a return on its investment on a company that is at risk of going belly up. You are only taking the negative, and ignoring the positive. You forget that those businesses that they attempted to rescue were going to go out of business on their own without Bain’s intervention.

    Don’t treat me like a child, Vent. It’s unbecoming. Unless you have something productive to say, instead of trying to discount my information as invalid, I’m going to have to say this will be my last reply to you.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).