Tony Auth by Tony Auth
- August 27, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Chuck Asay by Chuck Asay
Donna Barstow by Donna BarstowAbout Tony Auth
Jules Feiffer has described Tony Auth best, "His perspective is that of a bemused and often angry comic historian. Irony, never a favorite form with Americans, is his meat and potatoes. He is not smug, and though he can be mean, he is never mean-spirited. Auth is a moralist and an optimist. He insists, even in this day and age, that hope is more than the name of a right-wing comedian or the shtick of a reactionary president."
© 2009 Universal Press Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (46) Jump to Comments Form
Buzzy-One said, 2 months ago
The weak minded can tell time ?
Bill Ewing
said,
2 months ago
Social Security IS Socialism; Medicare IS Socialism; Barack Obama IS a Socialist by his own actions and admissions.
Time HAS told!
wittyvegan said, 2 months ago
So to all republicans: Lets get rid of social security and medicare. We need the money to build more nuclear missles to scare of the terrorists. We simply didn’t have enough on 9/11.
wminfield
said,
2 months ago
Social Security and Medicare (which are way over budget and can’t sustain themselves without continuing to pour money into them) horses are already out of the barn. Who said anything about doing away with social security or Medicare during this debate? If we let this proposed health care program which is 1/6 of our economy pass we will destroy the barn and let them all out. Most Republicans want to fix health care, but don’t want this plan. There are many things that could be addressed that would fix the system The Dems pushing this program hard will take nothing less and don’t want input from the other side of the aisle. It seems some Dems want to destroy this country more than fix what’s wrong with it.
Let’s do away with the myths that Republicans are opposing this plan only because they hate Obama or that they are just the party of no. Those are great talking points for the hard core left, but don’t solve anything either. Yes Obama won, lets see some of the bipartisanship he was going to bring to Washington.
tpenna
said,
2 months ago
I sympathize with what you’re saying, wminfield. The comment about some Democrats wanting to destroy the country is way over the line, though, and you should know that.
But I cannot understand how anyone who’s been paying attention can say the Democrats haven’t tried numerous times to work towards bipartisanship in this debate. The fact is, they have been stonewalled by people just as interested in pleasing their partisan backers as you criticize the Democrats for being.
4uk4ata said, 2 months ago
“The Dems pushing this program hard will take nothing less and don’t want input from the other side of the aisle. It seems some Dems want to destroy this country more than fix what’s wrong with it.”
I have to disagree. The GOP has been offered multiple gestures. So far, I have yet to see any attempt at a compromise from their side.
@ Bill E: So if social security and medicare are socialism, it’s not so bad after all, is it?
kcunning
said,
2 months ago
These are the same folks who oppose any progressive legislation. They are for corporations and against human rights.
Kevin said, 2 months ago
My problem with the whole debate is that it seems Obama and Congress want to take more from me and give it away to someone else. Yes, I have health care because I worked hard in High School, College, and Graduate School as well as in my career to develop Job skills that were in demand in the market that keep me employed with a company that makes healthcare part of my compensation package. Yes, they get a tax discount for providing that benefit but one of the reasons I continue to work for the company is that my overall compensation matches my work output for the company.
Now this group (Obama and his supporters) comes along and says that everyone should have healthcare and it should be paid for by the rich and I’m considered one of them so I should have to pay more.
I don’t hear him asking for any sacrifices from those people who will be sucking up this new entitlement. I don’t hear him saying that they have to exercise, or control their weight, or their fat intake or curb their smoking or drinking. It’s all about what he can take away from me and give to others.
I would be a lot more supportive of his plan if everyone had to give up something.
tpenna
said,
2 months ago
Kevin: I’d just like to point out that exactly *no* Republicans would support a plan in which the government told people they had to “exercise, control their weight, or their fat intake or curb their smoking or drinking”. None. If Republicans think that government is too involved with our lives currently, such an idea would be anathema.
That said, perhaps when we get these folks some health insurance, their doctors will tell them that they have to do all that.
hlp54 said, 2 months ago
I guess the people who like their health care also like having insurance companies control it. And they have CEO’s who are raking in as much as 5 million dollars which could be used to provide more health care. And you worked so hard to get your health care but just get really ill with something serious and see how long you keep it. Lose your job - lose your health care.
A public plan would not take away your health care benefits but with a large number of people paying in to a public plan the costs would be lower.
I guess because you were lucky enough and rich enough to get a good education you feel you got yours and what about the people who also work hard some at two or three minimum wage jobs and still can’t afford to pay for insurance. Small businesses cannot afford to provide it.
Also with your “college education” great -BUT who is collecting your garbage, plowing snow, fixing your toilets, repairing your roads and all the other jobs without a college education? People like you make me sick. Health care should be a right just like food and shelter. I’d sure like to see you work even two full time jobs - maybe even with manual labor, but you probably can only lift a golf club. Gee who carrys your bag? I’m an old lady on medicare w/supplemental insurance - I didn’t have a college education - but I worked bleeep hard! And so do many people who don’t have a college education. Your mother apparently didn’t raise you right. I bet you even call yourself Christian!!!
charlie555 said, 2 months ago
Bill Ewing
Amen! And now we will pay the price for putting all our eggs in the fed’s basket. When it goes bankrupt now it takes our health, education, and welfare with it.
Without socialism, these basic goods of a nation remain intact no matter what happens to the government - insolvency, coup, whatever. The people remain strong and united, so can still defend ourselves against any foreign force that may want to take advantage of a weak government.
Obama wants us to live and die by the fed. He has no faith in the people, and we are responding by having no faith in ourselves.
WestTex13 said, 2 months ago
wittyvegan We don’t have to get rid of it.. In 2036 its scheduled to die on its own.. As there will be more money withdrawn than put in. It will slowly wist away unless we intervene and dump trillions into it and preserve something that only lets the elderly starve slower..
I have great faith in my friends, family and loved ones, but if we ran our household like the government is ran then we’d be on the street..
motivemagus said, 2 months ago
An army is socialism! Giving money to oil companies for exploration is socialism! Providing government lands to loggers, ranchers, and miners is socialism! Having the government fight a war on terrorism is socialism! By golly, let’s just let all Americans buy a truckload of guns and ammo and wait for Osama to come over here and take him on like the Minutemen did! And maybe we can find some way to stop missiles, too!
Sheesh. If you define “anything government does” as socialism, you are not a conservative, you are an anarchist.
ezdeb said, 2 months ago
Kevin, you said “Yes, I have health care because I worked hard in High School, College, and Graduate School as well as in my career to develop Job skills that were in demand in the market that keep me employed with a company that makes healthcare part of my compensation package.”
Good luck to you when that job goes away. They won’t keep you because they pay you too much. Then your compensation, insurance package and all, will go bye bye. Even if you keep your own job, your employer may well decide that the benefits are too expensive and, rather than lay off your well-educated butt, they’ll just end the medical benefits. Then we’ll have a new healthcare reform advocate in the form of benefits-less Kevin! Suddenly, if YOUR advantage is lost, you’ll call it a national disgrace that needs to be addressed on a federal level.
I went to high school, college and vocational school. I worked in a title company, the same bank for 23 years, a hardware store and a cellphone carrier store. I don’t have health insurance now; laid off 2/09. Where do you get off bein’ so smug, Kevin? Your argument is that you were smart and lucky, so you don’t have to worry. People who are unlucky, not so smart, or in the wrong job at the wrong time are…..what? Not worthy fellow citizens?
foxglove16
said,
2 months ago
Sure! Let’s get rid of those socialist Social Security and Medicare programs. Let’s go back to old people working until the day they drop dead on the street or die from easily preventable or treatable diseases. You don’t see bag ladies so much any more, and SS and Medicare are the reasons.
charlie555 said, 2 months ago
motivemagus
You are right. There is too much “socialism” being thrown around.
I limit it to the realm of health, education, and welfare, which are traditionally the works of the local community in a healthy republic. These works involve moral decisions that defy one-size-fits-all government programs. As soon as the fed is involved in these works, freedom of conscience - the foundation of a free nation - must be taken away.
fbrewer said, 2 months ago
@Kevin - I’m sympathetic to your feelings. You worked hard and want to enjoy the fruits of your labors. But (you knew there’d be a but) you’re part of a larger community. You already share the fruits of your labors with that community. You pay taxes - a lot of taxes. I think a lot of those taxes are being used in ways that deserve your indignation a lot more than social programs. And unless you’re an exceptional person (like President Obama) you were ABLE to finish high school, go to college and grad school, get a good job, and advance in that profession because you grew up in a good neighborhood, with nurturing parents, in a community that cared about and supported your education. And you’re presumably male, probably white, and English is your first language. Most - certainly not all - of the people who are protesting this idea of reform so vehemently are like the guy who was born on third base, who looks around and says, “I hit a triple, why can’t you?”
Corosive Frog said, 2 months ago
“Socialism” is just a word, a boogie man.
What we really want to know is “Does it help?”.
dtroutma said, 2 months ago
In 1933 Prescott Bush, Henry Ford and other American “capitalists” thought industrial growth in Germany was a good investment too, and backed their “new regime”.
WestTex13 said, 2 months ago
Socialism does help some people and it takes aways from others.. True socialism does not reward hard work it merely redistributed the overall rewards which has been proven over time to produce a handful of people working to support many who either do not work hard or hardly work (if at all) as the case may be.
After all why work when you can have someone else do the work for you and merely reap the rewards after the fact.. As a working individual I oppose working so others can choose not to..
Jase99 said, 2 months ago
Socialism is the new terrorism, which was the new communism. Republicans seem to do best in elections when they have something to scare voters with. What red herring will the Republicans use next to scare/rile voters into doing/voting as they’re told? I’m guessing Europe.
We don’t want everyone to have affordable health care. That’s how they do it in /Europe/! Europe isn’t in America! Do you really want to be like the unamerican Europeans???
fritzoid said, 2 months ago
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Where in this does it say anything about rewarding sloth? If you are able to contribute, you should contribute. But if you expect the masses to do their best, you’ve got to give them a reasonable hope that their efforts will pay off. You can’t just haul out the one individual out of millions who went from rags to riches and say “See? He did it, so why can’t you?” That is treating the exception as if it were the rule.
Socialism isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the profit motive; one who works harder should be rewarded for doing so, I agree, but that doesn’t justify the obscene disparity of living-standard between Labor and Capital.
It’s true that the American “poverty line” is still far above the levels of destitution you can still see in other countries, but does that mean it’s “good enough”? If getting rid of the “upper-class” is the price we pay for getting rid of the “lower-class”, I’m all for it. Let’s try to fit everyone within “upper-middle class”, “middle class”, and “lower-middle class.”
Tigger
said,
2 months ago
He is as are McCain and many Republicans and Democrats
ezdeb said, 2 months ago
Tigger is as Santa Claus and as so many patriots and liverwurst sandwiches
NoFearPup
said,
2 months ago
I hate it when Auth draws these unflattering elephant-Republicans. Especially with their offensive, erect probosces. Ugh.
churchillwasright said, 2 months ago
FRITZOID: I can’t tell if you’re naive, delusional or… well, let’s just say that we already have the govt telling us that any family making over 200K/year is rich– not upper middle class– rich. Of course your 3 tier system doesn’t include the political class and elite. They will be exempt. And ultimately your 3 tier system would never be fair enough. It will never be fair until we are all equally poor.
What I suggest is that all the “progressives” here go on their roofs and scream “I am throwing off my pretense of being a Democrat– I proudly proclaim that I am a proud Socialist!” You will all feel much better about yourselves. You can all then demand that your politicians do the same, and be honest and campaign on that platform if they want your votes. After all, that is the Hope and Change that you are truly looking for.
Then when your politics is overwhelmingly defeated at the polls, you can jump up and down and scream how stupid the American people are, how they don’t understand what is in their best interests, and how they were brainwashed by corporate interests.
fritzoid said, 2 months ago
200k/year IS rich, compared to those trying to live on 10% of that. But that’s not what concerns me anyhow. 2mill/year is unjustifiable, 20mill is truly obscene, and there are people pulling in far more than that who pay zero taxes.
If I’m advocating (nonviolent) revolution, it’s in hopes of seeing meaningful reform. I’ve said it before - Redistribution of wealth is inevitable, but if we don’t achieve it in an orderly manner then it will occur in a disorderly one. 200 years ago, the idea that political power need not be confined to those with prestigious ancestors was radical. Blood was shed over the question. The masses won. It could happen again. If there’s a way to move from our economic ancien regime to something even APPROACHING an egalitarian society without having another Reign of Terror I’d like to have that happen.
ezdeb said, 2 months ago
Churchill sez: “Then when your politics is overwhelmingly defeated at the polls, you can jump up and down and scream how stupid the American people are, how they don’t understand what is in their best interests, and how they were brainwashed by corporate interests.”
Sound like Republicans at this time? Thanks, Church. You made my day.
wminfield
said,
2 months ago
tpenna, How about this then: anyone whether they are republican or democrat that pushes this HC program knowing that it will grow our defecit to levels that could bankrupt our nation is putting the country at risk? It just happens that Pelosi and Reid and several others are hell bent on HR 3200 and the public option no matter what the consequences, all in the name of controlling another huge chunk of the economy and making more people increasingly dependent on gov’t. The only Repubs that were given any legitimate input were the few that were on the committee. There has not been much real debate on writing the bills and that is a fault of both party’s partisanship.
4uk4ata, Any gestures that have been offered to GOP are symantics and minor in scope and have no bearing on reducing the costs or solving what is wrong with our current health care. Tort reform, portability, regulating preexisting condition clauses, eliminating the restrictions on buying policies out of state are many of the alternative solutions that could be worked on carefully rather than revamping everything and destroying the current system, and would not risk adding so much to the defecit at a time when we have enough defecit. Howard Dean says that the writers of the plan (probably trial lawyers) didn’t want to take on the trial lawyers and bog down the plan so as to rush this thing through before anyone can read it. That shows how much they care about getting this right.
tpenna
said,
2 months ago
churchillwasright, I’m a capitalist. And I’m a liberal. I take both of these seriously. I also seriously support health insurance reform. Stop trying to label me (and the politicians I support) as a socialist. It’s not working because it’s not true.
These words from Adam Smith (the father of capitalism):
“The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interests should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own particular order of society–that the interests of this order of society be sacrificed to the greater interests of the state. He should therefore be equally willing that all those inferior interests should be sacrificed to the greater interests of the universe, to the interests of that great society of all sensible and intelligent beings, of which God himself is the immediate administrator and director.”
Capitalism’s “self-interest” was always about more than rugged individualism. Smith always intended that we would, as a society, look out for one another (even to the point of altruism). We liberals want to help capitalism find its soul again.
NebulousRikulau
said,
2 months ago
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Acts 2:44-45 KJB
Christianity is Socialism!!!
fbrewer said, 2 months ago
Lao Tzu 42
The wise man does not lay up his own treasures. The more he gives to others, the more he has for his own.
The Dao is socialism!
If you love the poor and bring them near you…God will bring you near Him on the Day of Resurrection.
(Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1376)
Islam is socialism!
The Buddha:
Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.
Buddhism is socialism!
churchillwasright said, 2 months ago
BREWER: Those philosophies were for an individual to make, and are good for the sole. Not for the STATE to MANDATE. If the state takes it, it is neither charitable compassionate or altruistic. Don’t you understand the difference?
tpenna
said,
2 months ago
Still, churchillwasright, my post isn’t about religion. It’s about real capitalism (as opposed to the rubbish that so many libertarians and conservatives trot out). I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.
DrCanuck said, 2 months ago
Churchy: Have YOU sold all your goods and distributed them to other needy Christians? If not, then you’re going against God’s commandments, and the government is going to help you get right with God by doing it for you. Isn’t that a great idea, the government ensuring the redemption of your sole (and your soul as well)?
ezdeb said, 2 months ago
Besides, churchy, the state already mandates that murder is bad and illegal. It’s not just a personal Christian choice for you to make. You don’t get to do it, according to the state’s law. Duh.
WestTex13 said, 2 months ago
DrC That is probably the most flagrant abuse of viewing Christianity I’ve seen this week but it did make me laugh so grats..
I hope to someday be clearing certain dollar amounts.. I am setting myself into position to work my way into developing a company where I can reap the rewards.. I have years ahead of my projections.. I would hate to be capped at 100k or 200k merely so I can pay for someone to sit at home and post comic blogs with free healthcare, wellfare, etc..
Hell I know Welfare recipients who live a higher standard of life than I do because of the way the system can be milked to still get welfare checks, wic, lonestar cards, Hud, medi, brand new 2009 crew cab trucks and more while getting a 60k a year income.. I know the work I’ve done and the work I will do and I deserve the rewards for that even if it becomes obscene as someone put it..
fritzoid said, 2 months ago
“Those philosophies were for an individual to make, and are good for the SOLE.”
Podiatry is socialism! Or is it piscatology?
In a democracy and/or a republic, the State is the People. If you are one of the People, you are part of the State. If those who control the resources do NOT willingly contribute to the General Welfare, then the State which is the People must mandate and enforce redistribution.
And yes, WestTex, there are people at the bottom who “work the system”. There are likewise people at the TOP who “work the system”, on a much grander scale. L. Helmsley - “Taxes are for little people.” But if 10,000 people scam the Government out of $10,000 each and 100 people scam the Government out of $10,000,000 each, which should be the first concern?
But of course, “Everyone is equal under the Law; the rich are forbidden to sleep under bridges, same as the poor.”
Those which Too Much have been very effective at keeping those with Just Enough afraid of those with Almost Nothing, when the hand that’s picking your pocket more than likely is wearing a Rolex and not a Timex.
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.
Claim ownership of the river, dam the flow to trap the fish, lease fishing rights to those who promise you the biggest kickbacks, and sell what you can’t eat yourself at an enormous profit…that’s the American Way!
fbrewer said, 2 months ago
@WestTex - As I said to Kevin earlier in this thread:
“You pay taxes - a lot of taxes. I think a lot of those taxes are being used in ways that deserve your indignation a lot more than social programs.”
You’re obviously smart, hard-working, and well-intentioned. I’d sure like to see your energies aimed at some of the issues that are truly damaging the fabric of our society - like payday lenders who have managed to stifle any attempts in Congress to limit their rates to a paltry 38%/yr.
crunkbot said, 2 months ago
I am a very successful white-collar executive who grew up in extreme disadvantage – i.e. poor as HAYell. If it weren’t for all the “socialist” public programs (food stamps, housing assistance, MedicAide, etc…) giving us po’ lazy white trash endless “handouts,” I may have easily succumbed to my environment and continued the cycle.
I have a great job, awesome wife, a kid about to go to college to be an architect, I make good money and I pay a HELL of a lot of taxes.
I would be THRILLED to pay even more taxes to secure access to health care for the millions of Americans who try to exist without it.
If all that I’ve described is “socialism” then BRING IT. I will take my clothes off and roll around in it.
tpenna
said,
2 months ago
Bravo, crunkbot!
fritzoid said, 2 months ago
My sister is a devout Christian, and a liberal. We disagree on many things, but we agree on others and we respect each other.
Her take on why Jesus was such a hard-liner on some things (“Did you even THINK lustfully about that woman? That’s as bad as if you committed adultery. Are you keeping ANYTHING of your own possessions? Then you are too tied to your worldly goods.”) is specifically because He knew His listeners would try to weasel out of anything other than absolutes.
“Jesus, exactly HOW righteous do I have to be, if I want to get to Heaven?”
“You have to be COMPLETELY righteous. Any little sin is enough to send you to Hell.”
“But I gave money to THIS beggar, isn’t that enough?”
“No. What good is that to the OTHER beggars? Give until you have nothing left to give.”
Of course what He said elsewhere is that his sacrifice will wash away EVERY stain, great or small. It’s up to Him alone to decide who is saved and who is not; we have no business even speculating. But if you think “Well, I’ve given my 10% so I’m covered, and if anybody asks me for more I can turn them down”, you ain’t got the idea.
If you see suffering, act to relieve it. If you are sued for your coat, give your cloak as well. Anything less than your all isn’t enough. Maybe you’ll make the list and maybe you won’t, but you can be no more sure of your own salvation than you can be of someone else’s d*mnation.
The idea that the commandment to comfort the afflicted is “voluntary” and that the purpose of charity is to improve the soul of the giver rather than ease the sufferings of the recipient, is rot.
NoFearPup
said,
2 months ago
Where does Jesus say give all you have away and become a beggar…He doesn’t say that. Here’s how righteous you have to be to get to heaven: You have to be as righteous as Jesus. Otherwise you deserve hell. The Bible is clear on this: All are in sin: none are found righteous. In summary: Jesus further told the Rich Young Ruler (Sell all your possessions and) ‘“Come, follow me.” Which is why Christians make a point of accepting salvation from our sins by Christ’s death on the Cross(Atonement) and by making Him our Lord (His Resurrection demands it) and doing what He would have us do -thereby becoming “living” epistles. One thing we shouldn’t do is judge others hypocritically and thereby become a stumbling stone to them. But the Word is the Word, use it as your guide to SELF-fulfillment, then you will be knowledgeable enough to train others. (I’m still learning…)
believecommonsense
said,
2 months ago
Kevin wrote: I don’t hear him asking for any sacrifices from those people who will be sucking up this new entitlement. I don’t hear him saying that they have to exercise, or control their weight, or their fat intake or curb their smoking or drinking. It’s all about what he can take away from me and give to others.
wow … so you believe the only people in the US who don’t have health insurance are fat slobs who smoke and drink too much?
so working for a small business, or owning your own business, or be a self-employed contractor, or having a pre-existing medical condition or being one of the millions who’ve lost their job in the last year means being lazy and irresponsible just waiting around for someone to give something to them by taking it from you ….
have you had your heart checked lately, are you sure it’s still there?
NoFearPup
said,
2 months ago
BCS, that’s cruel.
Crunkbot: You are free to give away whatever you want; why are you happy to also donate the earnings of others?
tpenna
said,
2 months ago
crunkbot was not volunteering anybody else’s earnings, NoFearPup. Rather, he was attempting to lead by example. He recognizes that neither he nor anybody else has achieved success in America without the help of others. He recognizes that so-called “government handouts” were vitally important to his own success.
Therefore, he believes it is the duty of all wealthy individuals to give back to the people for the betterment of society. His example is one of a citizen fulfilling his duty.
Again, bravo!