Steve Kelley by Steve Kelley

Steve Kelley

Comments (20) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. avarner

    avarner said, almost 4 years ago

    No! That’s not what a skeet looks like!

  2. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, almost 4 years ago

    Is that Joe’s shotgun?

  3. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Wrong, wrong, wrong !!! On so many levels is this cartoon wrong !!!

  4. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago

    The sequester IS the shotgun. The dog is the sensible citizen pointing at a way to cut spending intelligently and specifically. Sadly, Mr. Obama is wielding the shotgun given him by Reid and Boehnor and is going to shoot the dog and the bear with the same shell. And according to the reports I’ve read, the shell he’s using is birdshot compared to the slugs necessary to really address the financial situation with which we deal.
    It is a good example of how politicians attack the messenger, in this case the dog pointing at the problem, instead of addressing the problem itself. In that context, there is a Capital dome FILLED with armed lunatics ready to shoot regulators, auditor, accountants, and efficiency experts rather than use the skills of those experts to end waste, fraud, and abuse. We have many good bird dogs, but the people who have the power have no honor, or, shame.

  5. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 4 years ago

    @Tax Man

    No, Cheney’s!

  6. Mephistopheles

    Mephistopheles GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    @Respectful Troll – The problem with your theory is that the American Voting body is rational and homogeneous group that can all agree on what to cut. If you ask them if they think spending cuts are appropriate they will say yes. But then ask them “What should we cut?”

    Then you hear everyone come out of the woodwork to protect their favorite program: Medicaid, Medicare, Military, SS, SSDI, Parks, FBI, …. They all have voting constiuencies.

    The only way we can cut anything is to do it as an across the board cut. And, in all honesty, I don’t see a problem with that. Instead of making Politiicians choose which group to alienate you make sure everyone feels the pinch equally.

    Honestly, I think this is a crank that Congress could turn repeatedly to ratchet down government spending until they get to a more modest level.

    Military won’t get as many carrier groups, Government dependents (Medicare, Medicaid, SS, SSDI) will not see as big an increase year to year, They won’t be able to build bridges to nowhere but they won’t be without funds to maintain roads, maybe they won’t have so many TSA agents to frisk granny so they become more selective about how many people they search.

    Faced with the same limited resources as a normal American family the Government will have to learn to do the same job with less OR they will start deciding not to do certain things.

    Maybe we don’t frisk every 5th person at the airport. Maybe we don’t incarcerate every joint smoker for 5 years. Maybe we don’t invade every country that doesn’t have a majority population worshiping the Christian god. Maybe we close some bases. Maybe we raise the eligibility age for Social Security. Do you see a pattern forming here? The government does all these things today because somebody thought it was a good idea as long as it got paid for by somebody else.

  7. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 4 years ago

    If I were rich, I don’t think I’d be investing the way I’d like to. You don’t know what your taxes are going to be. You don’t know what your AHCA costs are going to be. The government is coming up with increased fees and excise taxes (read as hidden taxes. Reagan hid many of his tax increases in excise taxes). With that said, how can you figure out how much to invest where? All of these fees and hidden taxes effect your investment’s supply chain and and distribution networks. How can you estimate the cost of your investment’s operating costs? With the government constantly speculating on what they are going to do and not truly doing anything, the government is perpetuating what they decry. Investors not investing. Investors don’t have much choice but to sit on their money.

    And yes, I realize the above is an oversimplification.

  8. Stipple

    Stipple said, almost 4 years ago

    Before the recession my home business sold mostly to those directly in the center of the “middle class”.
    I took a hit in sales during the recession, but almost all on the low end of the scale. An upscale percentage move during bad times.
    Lately more and more folks lower on the “class” level are clients again. Overall sales are up as these are the customers that quit buying during the recession.
    With several months of rising sales among the “middle class” I have no predictions on the effects of the sequester, but my finger is directly on the pulse.
    Party, both, will spin to whatever so usually I just comment on obstinence rather than specifics.
    But the effects of this should be immediate or not.
    For those admitting to memory, yes, many months down the road I will have an update. No, I do not have a party.

  9. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, almost 4 years ago

    A good economy comes from capitol circulating its way through the lower and middle classes, and eventually winding up in corporate coffers. The more the capitol has time to flow, the more good it does.

  10. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, almost 4 years ago


    If you look at periods of high high-end marginal rates, you’ll also see very high growth. This is because those who are making the money found it more profitable to pay their workers more and modernize their facilities. Now that it’s more profitable to simply make more profit, growth has stagnated.
    See: 1950s.

  11. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 4 years ago

    Dude, please. Why are we here if not to interpret and then offer an opinion on the cartoonists editorial statement?

    And the “Respectful Troll” is at least civil in his/her posts.

  12. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    “The problem with your theory is that the American Voting body is rational and homogeneous group that can all agree on what to cut.”

    That’s the most hilarious, yet sad thing I’ve read in a while. Most Americans think that a mix of tax increases & spending cuts are necessary. There is little agreement on the ratio of taxes vs. spending, or what spending should be cut. Agreeing on the mix would be hard enough, but a minority group with an outsized voice on Capital Hill refuses any more negotiating on taxes.

    Yet, when Mitt Romney proposed closing loopholes, it was a great idea. One might suspect that reducing deficits is not the real agenda…

  13. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 4 years ago


    “If you look at periods of high high-end marginal rates….”

    It isn’t the rates that are killing investment. It’s not knowing what the rates will be.

  14. echoraven

    echoraven said, almost 4 years ago


    “The government does all these things today because somebody thought it was a good idea as long as it got paid for by somebody else.”
    Damn that was good. Brilliant.

  15. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago


    Thank you for the thoughtful reply Mephist..,
    The hypothesis presented is based on a knowledge of some very capable professionals and their accomplishments.
    Before indiscriminate cuts are made, why not use auditors to look for waste, fraud, and abuses? Before slashing programs that have value, why not use efficiency experts to review contracts, procedures, and methodology? If a trillion dollars a year can be saved by reviewing contracts and bills in order to remove loopholes, exclusions, and subsidies that only serve to drive up costs without providing value, wouldn’t that be a better first step?
    There is ample proof of conditions causing Americans’ tax dollars to be used in ways that do not improve our infrastructure, food delivery methods, education system, and healthcare.
    You are right that individuals seek to protect their special interests, but if what they seek creates expenses because of poor risk managament (like BP’s oil spill) or costs the gov’t more money in bailouts, rescues, and damage to public property, where is the value?
    Let me present just one example…
    A report from two weeks ago stated over 50% of US farmland is under drought conditions and these conditions add to the firestorms we’ve seen over the last few years.
    In an oddly related condition, each year, at least one major US river floods and does billions of dollars worth of damage to towns and cities along its banks
    Flood towers placed along flood prone rivers could be used to pipe water through filtration systems and into lakes and rivers. Water could even be moved along pipes that parallel highways, railroads, and along waterways to locations where water is needed for food crops, ethanol production, forest fire control, and even recreational areas.
    Even AFTER the pipe line was in place, the water would create jobs in agriculture, recreation areas, and if engineered creatively, energy production – perhaps even enough energy to power the moving and filtration of the water.
    Drought & fire control would greatly reduce insurance claims paid to farmers for losses and businesses who depend on agri-business as well as home owners and businesses/roads/etc that would have ample water nearby to combat these disasters.
    Flood control would reduce insurance costs to farmers, home owners, businesses. Over the years, billions of dollars would be saved as the need for the gov’t to pay out to people will be reduced, and insurance companies will have a reason to lower rates.
    I apologize for the length of this, but this is just one example of where money spent by the gov’t will create short term work with long term benefits to employment, safety, and costs to taxpayers. There are so many more. The Keystone pipeline will be a short term job creator with a potential for risk moving a finite product. Water is a better product.
    Respectfully looking for a better way—

  16. Load the rest of the comments (5).