Tim Eagan by Tim Eagan

Tim EaganNo Zoom

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Basqueian

    Basqueian said, 5 months ago

    That’s about how it feels. I don’t see any help for working people to feel comfortable or secure, and yet, the stock market is booming, bankers are making huge bonuses again, and the rich don’t even know what to do with all their money, except not pay taxes with it. Do you remember when taxes were higher and everyone paid their share? We used to get roads, bridges, repairs, decent public works and buildings, now it’s all cut costs, the rich need their tax cuts.

  2. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose GoComics PRO Member said, 5 months ago

    Bush (the first) told us this about NAFTA. The only boats which rose were a few huge yachts.

  3. Jase99

    Jase99 said, 5 months ago

    @MangeyMoose

    To be fair, Clinton also championed NAFTA.

  4. nighthawks

    nighthawks GoComics PRO Member said, 5 months ago

    storm the Bastille!

  5. cjr53

    cjr53 said, 5 months ago

    @DaSharkie

    Yeah, let the dwindling middle class pay for everything, the rich need tax breaks. Too bad there is only room for a few multi-millionaries and billionaires. No matter how hard any individual works, only a few can be the CEOs of huge bonuses and gigantic salaries.

  6. cjr53

    cjr53 said, 5 months ago

    @DaSharkie

    “Shhhhhhh. That would not fit their agenda to blame Republicans or conservatives (they are not necessarily the same) for everything.”
    .
    The only truly successful aspect of the bush-cheney regime was their wanton shifting of wealth from the poor and middle class to the 1%.

  7. retpost

    retpost said, 5 months ago

    I am still wating for the trickle down; if the senate goes republican I expect it to start the trickle down.

  8. Ruff

    Ruff GoComics PRO Member said, 5 months ago

    Corporate structure explained

    http://cheezburger.com/6010501888

  9. DLee4144

    DLee4144 GoComics PRO Member said, 5 months ago

    We ARE the 99%—- that means we have the votes to elect people who will actually represent middle class workers and provide a safety net for those who are trying to get into the middle class.We all need to know who is supporting each candidate. That is who they will be working for. They have no choice if they want to stay in office. You have to do the bidding of whoever who is paying your way, just the same as we all do in our jobs. So, before going to vote, look it up on the internet. Open Secrets is a good site, but there are plenty.If the candidate is getting their money from small donors or from unions, they are going to be working for middle class working people. If their donations are from corporationsor from 1%ers, don’t figure they are going to go against them and do anything for the middle class.It would be political suicide.

  10. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 5 months ago

    It is just a saying, it isn’t like a rising tide at all. The Rich have been taking money from us for decades and it shows. That and a quite war to destroy the Middle Class.

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 5 months ago

    @Tigger

    Explain how helping more people to be covered hurts them?

  12. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 5 months ago

    @Tigger

    Actually, Reagan started it, Bush, sr continued, Clinton did far more than they did when he pushed the repeal of the Glass ceiling on bankers’ profits through the Congress, and Bush, jr saw to it that the bankers were encouraged to make as much as they could, since the bonuses of the bankers with connections were unconditionally guaranteed (sorry, Lehman, you should have worked harder on your connections). And Obama said those who were convinced by great bankers to take out sub-prime loans owe tax on the unpaid loan and can go to jail for tax evasion if they can’t figure out how to pay the income tax on the income that’s the $700,000 of their $750,000 sub-prime mortgage they cannot repay, so everyone who defaulted on a sub-prime loan had better get three or four jobs and repay or else.


    (Of course, I’m not that well read, since I didn’t read Larry Summer’s erudite explanation of why the Glass ceiling on bankers’ profits was a terrible burden that was depressing the economy, and that Clinton replaced it with some executive orders that did a MUCH better job, until Bush, jr changed those executive orders and single-handedly trashed Clinton’s booming economy. And, of course, Obama has corrected all Bush, jr’s mistakes and the average income has increased sharply since Obama took office, though the median income has fallen by about the same amount. But I don’t read Summer’s papers that show that Clinton’s and Obama’s policies have been perfect, things are rosy now, any anyone who is still in any trouble has to blame the Bushes.)

  13. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose GoComics PRO Member said, 5 months ago

    @Jase99

    Now that you bring it up, I’ll now tell all of you what I think. True, Clinton did.

    Before the election, Bill Clinton was saying that he didn’t think the Act was going to benefit the U.S., that it would probably cost us too many jobs. At the same time, up in Canada, Jean Cretien, soon to be Prime Minister was saying the same thing. Both said that if elected, they were going to look it over and maybe make some changes. Both were elected.

    However, soon after assuming their respective offices, both did an about-face and worked hard to push it through!

    It is still my suspicion, my belief, that NAFTA was written by those who wanted it. Bush the First was expected to glide it through Congress into law. But when Bush lost, those authors were alarmed. I suspect strongly that both Clinton and Cretien were “advised” that NAFTA was a done deal, that no amendments were to be made, and that they MUST see it through.

    We were told that NAFTA was to make Canada, the U.S. and Mexico a solid economic block so as to compete with Europe and Asia. Since Mexico’s standard of living would increase, more Mexicans would purchase U.S. made goods, and illegal immigration would soon disappear. I can still see Bush on TV telling us A RISING TIDE LIFTS ALL BOATS. But, within two years, the NAFTA sponsors discovered that Mexico is still a land of bandits, with a tiny oligarchy, and bribes demanded at every level. Then, the focus shifted to Asia, then Eastern Europe..

    Do you think NAFTA helped the U.S.?

    By the way, Tigger, I voted for Ross Perot twice, and I agree totally with your comment.

  14. cjr53

    cjr53 said, 5 months ago

    @DaSharkie

    You clearly do not understand that only so many people can be the CEO of big bonuses and gigantic salaries. Those positions are very limited.

  15. Kaffekup

    Kaffekup said, 5 months ago

    And yet, the republicans insist on telling us Clinton was a “liberal” (either Clinton – you pick).

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).