Signe Wilkinson by Signe Wilkinson

Signe Wilkinson

Comments (48) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    Obama claims to cut spending. But he is taking this statistical Lie from the high mark of the stimulus spending and the low mark of the sequesters. How nice of him. So the temporary money that was to be spent of “making and or saving jobs” whatever that means, but the money was spent on these social programs. One time money, temporary money, that was to be a laser on jobs, is now going away as planned. And Obama uses this as his high mark in spending. But we are to what? be mad that the vote buying hand outs are to be stopped? What about the mandated cuts of the sequester becuase the Obama administration can not get a budget done? Yet they can use this low point in spending to say they have cut down the deficit spending? Man talk about spin.

  2. Noreen Klose

    Noreen Klose said, 10 months ago

    We have breakfast and lunch at school for the kids. SNAP is supposed to provide dinner. Why are they always talking about hungry kids? Is there some fourth meal that they are missing? I don’t see it.
    Find out WHY the kids aren’t being fed, and remove the kids from the people who neglect their children.

  3. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    Yes, let’s cut spending for the hungry who could use a little help feeding their family, but don’t touch those multi-million $$ subsidies to the factory farms!!
    Thanks a lot G.O.P.

  4. Ransom D Stone

    Ransom D Stone said, 10 months ago


    That’s cutting the one percent’s life short. Can’t have that!

  5. Enoki

    Enoki said, 10 months ago

    The “stimulus” money being used for non-stimulus purposes ran out… How not sad.
    Like to eat? Like food?
    Get a !%^$! job!

  6. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 10 months ago

    The best people nominated by Clinton were forced to withdraw. Romney was forced to fire his best gardener. Why? Because every decent person in America, from both parties, suffers from the most painful problem facing America today. I mean, of course, the servant problem. Those Clinton nominees and Romney had filled their domestic staffs with illegal aliens, because they couldn’t find any American citizens who would go into service.

    The US made a good start, shipping all industrial jobs to China, where they belong. Now we need to explain that those who lost their jobs, if they want to eat (and by ‘eat’ I mean scraps from their betters’ table), and if they want a place to stay (and I mean a bunk in the basement), they can’t expect the government to give them SNAP and subsidised housing, they MUST go into service. After all, the topiary isn’t going to trim itself.

  7. Clark  Kent

    Clark Kent said, 10 months ago

    Watching poor people freeze and starve to death are the free entertainment for the oligarchs.

  8. capndunzzl

    capndunzzl said, 10 months ago

    …sounds “Christ-like” to me……NOT!

  9. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago


    The only way the rightists can claim any morality to their harmful and punitive positions is by claiming that poor hungry children deserve their lot in life…
    but but it for the poor pitiful poor children that we have to spend billions on magic green jobs. Obama needs those hand outs so when they go away he can point at the other guy and say they are meanies who don’t like the poor pitiful poor. Who is worse, the one who wants a balanced budget for everyone or one that exploits the poor, uses class warfare and wealth envy to get votes. Face it this is NOT about children not eating. this is about getting you to hate the other side for taking away what should not have been given in the 1st place in order to demonize the other side.

  10. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago


    Because there’s just thousands and thousands of jobs waiting out there, without thousands more desperate people lining up for them. And of course there’s no such thing as the “working poor”- and hey, even if there are, they can get a second job! A third! Even a fourth!
    But hey, don’t let cruel reality get in the way of your pathological need to see the people you deem “unworthy” suffer.

  11. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 10 months ago


    I realize I was too curt with you yesterday regarding your reference showing a Republican plan to fix health care in this country. I apologize; I was in a hurry, and I really don’t like to be called a liar.

    But I wanted to let you know I appreciate the fact you posted a link for me to evaluate. And I will accept the fact that there is at least one Republican plan that isn’t Romney/Ryan, as advocated in the debates.

    After continuing to digest the nuances, I have two further concerns: one….as with Obamacare, the Republican plan trusts the insurance companies to do the heavy lifting, with small amounts of “guidance” along the way. My experience with insurance companies, both as a provider and as a patient, tell me that this is akin to allowing the fox to have keys to the hen-house, and being told when the farmers will be out of town. They have not earned the trust we seem to be willing to give them; simple as that.

    My other concern is the suggestion that those with pre-existing conditions go into a health-care exchange set up by a third party. Putting no one except high-risk people into an insurance situation necessitates huge premiums for the plan to survive. This is like putting those people into a money quarantine.
    I guarantee that any person who finds out he/she has cancer (for example) and does not have insurance (whether that was the patient’s choice or not) will find that premiums in the health exchange will necessarily be much higher than standard insurance would cost. Cancer patients often cannot work for months during treatment, so even though a health exchange may be available for them, it will be priced out of their range and they will remain uninsured. This means that cancer won’t be treated, but symptoms and side effects during the dying process would be attended to “for free” at emergency rooms. I see no improvement over the previous system; it may actually cost more over time. Plus, it says: if you end up with a pre-existing condition, make some final arrangements. You have no hope of survival. Are you willing to live with a system like that?

    Although there are many reasons to have heartburn over single payer, there is one fact that cannot be ignored: if you want to give everyone an equal chance for health care and treatments for same, everyone has to contribute to the system. No other system I have seen proposed takes care of that issue, unless you have an individual mandate, which it’s pretty obvious that people don’t like. This means something that EVERYONE MUST contribute to; for example, a national sales tax. If you want to buy something, a percentage of the sale goes to a single-payer insurance fund. And everyone buys stuff; this will eliminate the haves who find ways to blame the have-nots for taking their hard-earned money away from them by getting sick.

    Otherwise, we’re back to the question asked of Ron Paul during the debates: If a young healthy person chooses not to purchase insurance, and then is faced with catastrophic illness, should we just let him die?

    Thanks again for posting a link in response to my request. I would be interested to see other Republican plans, if there are any, to see if they are truly revolutionary, or just band-aids to help a failing system live for another couple of years.

  12. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    @Doctor Warbucks

    Hey, I once saw a conservative act irresponsibly with a firearm. That means that all conservatives are insane gun nuts and we need to restrict firearms!
    See how fun your kind of “reasoning” can be?

  13. Enoki

    Enoki said, 10 months ago

    @The Wolf In Your Midst

    It’s not like the poor in industrialized nations don’t get a government handout. In most of these states they do, and in some they get very generous ones; Sweden and the Netherlands being two examples of this.
    But, that doesn’t explain why these nations have poor people / families.
    What does explain it first and foremost is the feminization of poverty. Women worldwide suffer far more from poverty than men do. In the industrialized / developed world a leading cause of poverty is single motherhood and a welfare state that encourages that status. A married poor family is generally penalized relative to one with a single parent, most typically the mother.
    By the government setting conditions conducive to single motherhood and single parent families for the poor they encourage continued poverty. So, while my earlier statement was a bit of faciteous sarcasm this isn’t. Committed marriage and employment are the surest way out of poverty, particularly for women.

  14. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    @David harmful and punitive positions is by claiming that poor hungry children deserve their lot in life. "

    Where is it written that mommy government is to take tax dollars and be the mommy and daddy to the poor children?

  15. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago


    capndunzzl said, about 1 hour ago
    …sounds “Christ-like” to me……NOT!"
    Did Christ say use the government to take money, so as the government can "spread the wealth around? Oh wait that was Obama, your lefty messiah….

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (33).