Mike Luckovich by Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 2 years ago

    Yep, nobody’s listening to you any more Obama…!

  2. badgerman

    badgerman said, over 2 years ago

    The only people less moral, and more despicable than most 1%érs are the ones who are there loyal lackeys.

  3. Dale Netherton

    Dale Netherton said, over 2 years ago

    Care for the downtrodden? Whose doing the downtroddening?

  4. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    An interesting reference.

  5. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    You should try it. You might actually get an education.

  6. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Man, you really did drink gallons of Kool-Aid! Bain Capital made way more money closing companies down and selling off their assets. And if Obama had an “easy” time of it getting elected, it was because the horrors of the Bush years would have elevated anyone to savior status. But of course, you manage to overlook a Republican party which has sabotaged all efforts to revive the economy because they want to keep people like yourself down, but believing. Harley and Enoki, you both need therapy.

  7. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 2 years ago

    No ailurophile, I want a return to a weak central government. History shows that a powerful central government that can tax and regulate without check will inevidably lead to a decline in the welfare of the majority of the people it pretends to serve.
    Socialism and socialist-like governments love poverty because it breeds dependence. The 1% love it because it ensures they remain where they are.
    So, if you really want a President that cares for the downtrodden the last person you want in office is a vacuous Progressive Leftist like Obama; not that the Republicans are much better… But, Obama or someone like him is the worst choice for President there is.

  8. goweeder

    goweeder said, over 2 years ago

    “Obama? Does he ever stop running for the job he all ready has?”
    Do I detect a tiny bit of bias here?

  9. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago


    You say you want a return to a weak central government. Okay, can you be more specific? What would you do away with? The national highway system? That was put in place by the central government. Would you do away with the Center for Disease Control? What about the Food Safety and Inspection Service? What about the federal ban on flurocarbon gases in aerosol products? I’m all in favor of limiting the government when it’s appropriate, but I want to know exactly what you want to eliminate to make the government weak.

  10. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 2 years ago


    Yes, lonecat, I can. But, let me start off by pointing out your logical fallacy that follows your question. You make a slippery slope argument coupled to an appeal to consequences. Not good.
    Anyway, some examples: The Department of Education. Abolish it. States can perform that function perfectly fine. We do not need national standards nor do we need the federal government funding education.
    Housing and Urban Development. Abolish it. Again, state function. No need for it.
    Homeland Security.
    Reign in the “safety nuts” like OSHA, EPA, CPSC, FDA, among others. FORCE them to make reasonable and justified standards not strive for “Zero tolerance” as they do now.
    The government shouldn’t be telling us what sort of light bulb we have to buy as a micro-example.
    The “national highway system” (aka Interstates) is a DEFENSE program. Those are OFFICIALLY National Defense Highways intended to allow the military to move forces efficently around the nation for its defense. That they also are very useful to the civilian population is secondary. That is a clear federal function.
    I would also repeal the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution. That takes away the federal government’s ability to mass generate revenue from income. Direct election of senators was a mistake too. That makes the senate beholden to the people rather than the individual states as intended.
    The House was the people’s represenatives. The Senate represented the states. The President represents the country.
    That is far superior to having congress simply a body elected on popular vote.
    Since income tax would disappear so would the IRS.
    Social welfare programs across the board should be pushed down to the states and abolished at the federal level.
    That enough for starters?

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago


    I’m not opposed to a leaner government. And I would consider some of the changes you would suggest. However, I don’t have greater faith in state and local government than I do in federal government. I grew up in the South in the 1950s. Many of the Southern states at the time were little better than fascist dictatorships. Where I lived, the schools would probably still be segregated if the Supreme Court had not made a decision which covered the whole country. You may remember that one county in Virginia went so far as to close the public school system entirely; all the schools were converted to private schools, with the same principals, the same teachers, the same students — and more to the point, without any black students; and during that time there was simply no school system for black students. Then the Federal courts intervened and said that the county couldn’t do that. So I tend to be pragmatic. If something looks like it can be handled locally, that’s fine. But if we need some kind of national standard, then that’s fine, too.

  12. echoraven

    echoraven said, over 2 years ago

    Not only is he a member of the 1%, but also has been their greatest ally while convincing a good chunk of the other 99% that he is working in their best interest. Greatest salesman in history.

  13. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 2 years ago


    No do I (faith in state government) lonecat. But having essentially 50 different “experiments” going to find what works and doesn’t is better than having one dictatorship giving everyone “One size fits all.”
    Racism in schools is a singular issue that the federal government could deal with but that in no way needs them involved in the details of curricula or whether there is all-day kindergarden or not.
    We don’t need a national standard. It is better that schools tailor their education to the needs of the local population to as large a degree as practical.
    Sure, that might produce some failures but it will also produce successes. I see that as better, particularly if the successes are emulated, than an overbearing central bureaucracy with little oversight is making demands that lead to uniform mediocrity like the Dept of Education has.
    That is the reality right now: Education in the US has steadily declined since that organization’s inception under Carter.

  14. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago


    Well, it’s been a while since I’ve lived in the US. When I was a child, education was very much a state and local concern. How much has that changed? Are there still local school boards? I still hear, for instance, about litigation at the state and local level about teaching evolution; so evidently that part of the curriculum is not determined federally. Textbooks are bought by state and local boards, I believe; at least Texas seems to be in control of its own textbooks, so I assume that other states are as well. How much does the Federal government determine about education? This is a serious question — as I say, I haven’t lived in the US for a while, and maybe things have changed a lot. Here in Canada, education is very much under provincial jurisdiction.

  15. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Enoki: Yemen is right up your alley, or maybe Somalia, no resources or no government, take your pick.

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