Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, about 2 years ago

    @TheTrustedMechanic

    Mechanic, the problem is that the House Republicans have offered up a bill that gives Obama the ability to make cuts surgically instead of roughshod like they are, and he turned them down. Why? Because he doesn’t want to go on record for what cuts he would make; he doesn’t want to have his fingerprints on anything that has to do with scaling back the growth of government. It’s the same reason a budget has yet to be passed since 2009. No-one in the democratic party has the moral courage to stand up and go on record for what they are doing. That’s why we’re having these budget battles in the first place.

  2. jack75287

    jack75287 said, about 2 years ago

    What this is, is a sheep in wolf’s clothing. He and his staff said first responders would be let off & air traffic controllers would be laid off. That was the mean fear mongering. Now that we find the cuts will be equal to about 9 days of borrowing, well Obama now looks foolish.

  3. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, about 2 years ago

    The Obamanation has lied so often he has absolutely no credibility…of course, he never had any to begin with, either. Libs always make threats to thnigs that will get a reaction out of people, public cuts that people may actually care about. As soon as they want to steal more of your hard earned money they shriek and wail about cutting police, fire, and public park services (and in the Obamanation’s case, the ludicrous act of cutting out the insignificant White House tours cost as a token to try and get people upset), totally ignoring the wasteful spending. Rather than services the government should actually be a part of, why not cut the overblown government with its overhiring of worthless cubicle workers, and reign in the gold plated pensions and benefits the corrupt public employee unions have demanded? How about cutting out all aid to the illegal aliens which costs us literally billions every year in health care, welfare, housing, education, etc.? Cut back on the wasteful spending on the many corrupt social programs that serve no useful purpose and only encourage the lazy the sit around and suckle at the government teat rather than actually finding work? There are many places that could be cut apart from the services they choose to cut simply to evoke a reaction from the ignorant and uninformed to get them to vote for more taxes on themselves (or, in many cases, others, which is why it is so effective…who cares if they tax the other guy?).

  4. jack75287

    jack75287 said, about 2 years ago

    @TheTrustedMechanic

    Explain this:
    http://griffin.house.gov/sites/griffin.house.gov/files/email.pdf

    An email that shows not to disagree with offical doctrin on the sequester.

  5. ninety_nine_percent

    ninety_nine_percent said, about 2 years ago

    The radical rich have told the politicians they have bribed that they will not pay $1 trillion dollars for the war that GW Bush started. So the Republican Party is pushing the cost of the war onto the middle class. That is what this sequestration is all about, everything else is smoke and mirrors.

  6. jack75287

    jack75287 said, about 2 years ago

    @exoticdoc2

    Amen, even if we phase out the benefits to the illegal aliens that would be something. But what gets me is the fact we spend four or five times the money we will save on the cuts for empty or near empty office buildings.

    190 Billion a year for maintenance on unused buildings. Sell them save money and maybe get a few hundred billion in return. Nice start I say.

  7. D PB

    D PB said, about 2 years ago

    @jack75287

    I hope you don’t expect a well reasoned and thoughtful response.

    He will be the first to spew crap with no linkage to substantiation and then demand it when someone else counters his argument, so don’t hold your breath.

  8. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    “Nonessential services” need to be cut first. That DOES include 80% of Homeland Security/TSA costs, 40% of Defense-mostly contracting, and yes White House tours.


    Having been through “across the board” cuts from Reagan, Bush 41, and observed where Republicans want cuts now, it’s interesting that they always target any regulatory agencies and personnel first. That wolf in the henhouse has always been, and remains, corporate bosses of mostly Republican administrations and members of Congress (but it certainly isn’t exclusive!)


    What’s really disturbing is that folks like Ramirez and Rush baldly put forth a lot of junk, and their “followers” who know nothing at all of how government actually operates, swallow it hook, line, sinker, and garbage scow boat.

  9. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, about 2 years ago

    @dtroutma

    Non-essential services are ones that are not required by the constitution. Sadly for you, defense of the nation is one of the “essential services” the federal government is required to provide.

    It is not essential for me to subsidize laziness through enhanced food stamp programs. It is not essential for me to pay for someone’s retirement because they failed to plan for it themselves and now rely on Social Security. It is not essential that I pay to provide health care to those who cannot pay their own health insurance (not to be confused with health care).

    And let’s also be clear on something: These are cuts to government growth. These aren’t cuts to last year’s amount of money. They are cuts to the planned increases slated for this year. A true “cut” would be to bring spending levels back to 2007 levels. Hell, I’d be okay with 2005 levels. But then, of course, poor little Johnny won’t get his free cell phone paid for by me. Little Johnny can go pound sand.

  10. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, about 2 years ago

    RePubs LOVE the Sequester; ‘cause the military takes a cut they KNOW it needs and didn’t have the testosterone to administer themselves. Go go Repubs! The back door’s good as the front… until the next election at least.

  11. D PB

    D PB said, about 2 years ago

    @THEVIC IOUSDOUG MARTIG

    You do understand the concept of “a nation of laws?” The things that have changed is you can’t enter this country just because you want to, you seem to have the problem with that.

    Immigration did indeed help to build this country, and at this time it is illegal to enter this country without proper documentation and the appropriate visa. Those that choose to enter without following the required laws should not be made whole in any way, they have violated the law.

    If you enter this country legally, then welcome. Please take full advantage of the goods, services and opportunities this great country provides to you.

    If you have entered this country illegally, you have broken the law. If you are availing yourself of services that are provided for citizens and legal immigrants, you are stealing from them and this country and you should not be able to do that. Go back and complete the appropriate documentation, apply for a visa and wait like all of the other legal immigrants. Just because you can walk across our border does not give you the right or entitlement to do so.

    Nice try at conflating the issue though, there is a distinct difference between what you tried to make it and what it really is. Illegal immigration is not the same as legal immigration.

    Oh, and as usual, you are welcome too!

  12. trm

    trm said, about 2 years ago

    @TheTrustedMechanic

    Mechanic -
    in fact he did predict the end of world if the sequester passed – and got called for it, big time. Check out some fact-checking: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/03/obama-administration-sequester-claims-shot-down-by-158626.html#.UTejXiqiPiQ.facebook
    The demagogue-in-chief strikes again.

  13. Refresh Comments.