State of the Union by Carl Moore

?fh=730ab80a0e6da26afea56b569a20c9a7

Comments (11) Jump to Comments Form

  1. cuchulainn3

    cuchulainn3 said, 12 months ago

    “Isn’t it true that increasing regulation curtails innovation and risk taking in business.” Well..yes possibly. But it is clear from the current state of the economy that decreasing regulation turns risk takers into greed driven morons. But that’s OK…they were fully protected by the guy in the White House who bailed them all out…at taxpayers’ expense. I guess that’s what you call COMPASSIONATE SOCIALISM.

  2. Doctor Toon

    Doctor ToonGenius_badge said, 12 months ago

    Trickle down economics was a good theory, but in practice it didn’t work out so well. The more money in the hands of big business, the higher the CEO compensation. I know what has been trickling down, but the censor wouldn’t let me say it here.

  3. bradbochte

    bradbochte said, 12 months ago

    It was deregulation that got us into this mess.
    But I don’t care about that
    What I want to know is why Carl Moore is not funny?
    He can take a lesson from Prickly City

  4. Ian Valenzuela

    Ian ValenzuelaGenius_badge said, 12 months ago

    Panel 1: wrong. Too much regulation = Communism = bad, as seen in the Soviet Union. Too little regulation = Friedmanism = bad, as seen in Chile, Argentina, and now, the United States in the 2000’s. Middle ground = Clintonian economics = good, as seen in the United States in the 1990’s.

    Communists always assert that their concept is perfect, but that it’s never been properly implemented. Ayn Rand/Friedman deregulators are now saying the same thing, staring at the failure of the free market, and concluding that the failure is because the market wasn’t free enough. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We need healthy regulation of the market, which makes the poor richer, AND makes the rich richer despite their protests.

  5. Char32

    Char32 said, 12 months ago

    bradbochte..this strip would probably be better in the Editorial Section. It is ‘satire’ (See cartoonists Bio on right side of page) but not really ‘tickling your funnybone…’ no matter which side he takes on. Like the Zen saying, “It depends on whose ox is being gored.” as to whether or not it is funny.

  6. bradbochte

    bradbochte said, 12 months ago

    Char32,
    Satire can be amusing
    Doonesbury is liberal and amusing
    Prickly City is conservative and amusing
    Even editorial cartoons of all stripes have some entertaining value
    State of Union is consistently unfunny and Carl Moore displays an artistic laziness that would get him kicked out of a high school art class

  7. bradbochte

    bradbochte said, 12 months ago

    wuztwo
    Would you prefer Obama hired a bunch of people who did not know their way around DC?
    Would you prefer inexperienced idealists who spent the first year of the administration bumping into the furniture while the country slipped further into crisis?
    I have no problem with Obama hiring Clintonites who know how to get things done. I voted for Obama in the general election but I voted for Hillary in my state’s primary.

  8. Nipponkid

    Nipponkid said, 12 months ago

    wuztwo: By change im pretty sure he was talking about the last 8 years. Not the ones previous. Where were you? Under a rock?

  9. Nipponkid

    Nipponkid said, 12 months ago

    Do you understand so little about or president-elect? If you cant understand what hes even saying how can you judge him?

  10. sablebrush5

    sablebrush5 said, 12 months ago

    “Prickly City” is amusing? No, “Prickly City” is a bore. And talk about artistic laziness - two little creatures out in the desert jumping around? Wow, that’s really pumping excitement into a strip.

  11. chucknorris

    chucknorris said, 11 months ago

    LULZ