So the equation works as follows: Subtract the “free stuff” unicorn from the rich and add it to the poor and middle class.
Then you do the same thing for the rest of the budget. Subtract the “free stuff” unicorn from the over-bloated military industrial complex and add it to healthcare and education.
Republican conservatism 101: Tax cuts for the rich. Reduce benefits for the poor. Remove regulations protecting the middle class from predatory behaviour by large corporations, shrinking and eliminating the middle class. Therich won’t have anyone left to make money off of, but they have Lisa’s magical pot of gold.
Lisa Benson will never draw anything that promotes her fascist conservative ideology. Why? because it is easy to mock and disparage a young, inspiring, intelligent, compassionate and forward progressive woman with an actual, reasoned, demonstrable agenda platform. Something her conservatives have absolutely nothing to counter. Ever since America was blessed with the intelligent, focused leadership of Barack Obama, the conservative jealous derision machine (like Lisa Benson) has done nothing but pretend stupid and selfish and racist and bigoted and misogynistic and homophobia is the way to go. And anyone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a major threat to that conservative pretense. So go ahead, Lisa Benson; prove me wrong. Draw a cartoon for your conservative base that promotes the conservative version of our Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Apparently the Democratic Socialists have a better grasp of “basic economics” than Lisa. Their system is all about fair and equitable taxation where everyone pulls their weight. Also nothing is free but rather paid for out of a pool of taxes for the benefit of all. American politicians always seem to fall on their face when trying to explain away counties like Sweden and Germany. When they fail they like to yell “Venezuela!” because they are too uninformed to understand the difference between a dictatorship and a Democratic Socialist State. Even the Nazis had the word Socialist in their name which, of course, they weren’t.
I’ll never understand how “taxing the rich” is scary bad idea in any type of American economic or political policy.
The rich benefit the most from a stable, growing economy. Paying taxes should be considered an investment. It’s how the rich can insure that there will always be safe roads to bring their products to market. There will always be good schools to educate their workers. There will always be consumers with cash to buy their products.
Failing to tax the wealthy is stupid and short-sighted. Especially when the poor vote to protect the wealth of the wealthy.
Taxation should not be fair, it should be just. Having everyone pay the same percent, the flat tax, is neither fair nor just.
If I’m making $30,000 a year I need the $3K 10% just to put groceries on the table and make it from one end of the month to another. I have to make decisions like, “Do I pay the electric bill or buy groceries?”
But if I’m making $300,000 a year and paying $30K in tax guess what, I can easily live without that $30K. I’m making decisions like “Do I buy that pool table this month, or wait until next month?”
A simple choice: shall we redistribute wealth from the middle class to the wealthy or from the wealthy to the middle class. (And all the middle class Conservatives scream “Take my money, please!”)
Historically, socialism has not called for freeloading. It’s just the opposite. Socialism traditionally calls for full employment. Marx, for instance, believed that work was a fundamental human need; this idea actually goes back at least to Hegel’s “Phenomenology of the Spirit”, and Marx began as a left Hegelian. Socialism sees that the rich are freeloading on the labor of working people by turning the labor of working people into the profit of the capitalists. Everyone should work, and everyone should get the full value of the work they do.
The two comments immediately before this one is a perfect example of the difference between liberal and conservative comments. Liberal lonecat gives reasonable historical information; Conservative jah1492 screams hatred and slime to those he dislikes.
The Republicans are very good at convincing their folk that free stuff is bad and to be ridiculed.. And that tax cuts and loopholes for the rich are not at all handouts or free stuff.
A strong economy depends on aggregate demand from a large and prosperous middle class. The gross inequality we have today is a direct result of wealth being concentrated in the hands of the top 1% and the combination of automated manufacturing and the race to the bottom in wages for the service sector.
Awhile back I bought a book called “The Louisville Story; A Century of Fiscal Integrity 1851-1951” in a used book store.
It’s the story of how the Louisville Water Park was financed, built, and then paid for.
The people of Louisville needed clean drinking water. Since building a private organization to collect, purify and distribute cheap water is ridiculously stupid the wise citizens of 1850 Louisville started a city project to fund, build and operate their own COLLECTIVELY owned water facility. The book was written in celebration of when the original bonds used for funding were paid off.
To me this is the pure spirit of American Socialism. There is a local need and the people of the community organize and execute the project. Today they would likely get federal grants and corporate funding as well, but it still works.
The problem that people like Our Dear Lisa have is that they can’t get past their bias towards the idea of socialism. They were taught, wrongly, that socialism is the same as communism and that all communists want steal all our stuff and give it to poor people. They look at every proposal put forward by Democrats with dread and suspicion as some sort of socialist plot.
It is time to grow up and realize, America has had socialist type programs going all the way back to before Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
Lisa wouldn’t have supported the WWII G.I. bill educating our returning soldiers, because she does not connect the benefits of an educated citizen base with a health economy. She supports a tax cut to the 1%, socialism to the rich, which has raised the deficit by over a trillion dollars.
One point I’d like to make (which lonecat and I have discussed privately) is that the point of taxes is not to redistribute wealth but to provide conditions to optimize the society on the whole, in part by increasing social mobility. This is not saying that all incomes must be equal, but that all citizens must have the opportunity to reach their potential and live a decent life. By this reasoning one can make a very good case for high levels of governmental spending in areas that promote social mobility, such as support for education that really all of us take for granted, even conservatives, support for public health concerns (i.e., health care) and regulation to prevent unfair trade practices (eg., non-competiton clauses in work contracts). These are all public goods that benefit all. As twclix points out, no one gets off scot-free from taxes of one sort or another, and we all have skin in the game just by being here.
To follow up on my comment above about the socialist attitude to work: the following is from Leszek Kolakowski’s “Main Currents of Marxism”, Vol, 1, p. 133: “Labour, as the realization of the essence of man, thus has a wholly positive significance, being the process by which humanity develops through externalization of itself….. Marx (…) bases his own view of humanity on labour, understood as physical commerce with nature. Labour is the condition of all spiritual human activity, and in it man creates himself as well as nature….” And so on. Lisa Benson thinks she knows something about Socialism 101, but clearly she is deeply uneducated and ignorant. And then she spreads her ignorance around.
Leaving all the sniping aside, can someone please provide the hard cost in current dollars for providing “adequate” health care for our entire nation?
Please define your standard of adequate and source your budget assumptions.
No toss offs, no “just look at Europe” comments. We can discuss European single payer on a different thread if you wish but I am trying to get a US specific standard and cost here.
As soon as you say “European single payer” you are in trouble. Many of the European systems are not single payer. Martens has made this point to you, but I guess you didn’t pay attention. I’m not an economist, and your question is really the kind of question that would need an economist with a specialty in health. Here’s one thing you could do for a rough estimate. You could take the per capita spending of some other countries (such as Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain, Canada, etc.) and multiply that by the population of the US. Since the per capita costs of any of these countries are less than the per capita costs of the US (lack of a) system, you will get a number smaller than what is spent in the US. Is their health care adequate? Well, they have comparable outcomes, so it’s probably adequate by any reasonable definition.
Yawn. You are correct. You are neither an economist nor a health insurance/healthcare specialist. Nor is Martens. In fact, I happen to have spent the last 30 years in the health insurance market here in the US. From retail sales to underwriting, reinsurance, agency management, contract analysis and claims management. Part of my job includes keeping an eye on trends worldwide.
I use the term Single Payer for 2 reasons. It is what is being proposed in the US and it is what the original intent of most European models were built upon. In both cases the reality includes some private healthcare and some private insurance.
In Europe, as the govt allocations to the national systems have shrunk in relation to the needs of the users, premiums have increased, covered needs have been reduced, and taxes on various goods an services unrelated to healthcare have been imposed for the purpose of funding healthcare.
Despite these adjustments, the level of publicly funded care has been steadily dropping in western Europe. Over that same period private health care providers have increased and private health insurance has flourished. The participation in private GAP insurance ranges between 70%-90% depending on the nation.
Which brings us to the Big Lie. The WHO reports on cost/outcome figures. The problem is that they use only the public funds in determining cost, but outcome result are generated from both public and private healthcare services. Search as I may, I cannot find anything in WHO records or reports that separates those bodies of data.
Of course the public figures for nationalized healthcare in Europe look good compared to the rest of the world. They fail to include the private funding in the total costs.
@braindead We have had a mix of private and public insurance for 50 years. Longer if you include medical benefits for veterans. I am not recommending it. Nor am I entirely opposed to to the concept, provided the care management on the govt side is privatized to a certain extent.
Please understand that this entire debate hinges of the standard and level of care you seek to provide. The European model (and Canadian) have proven that it is essentially impossible for a government to provide the level of care funding you will find in the average US group or individual Major Medical plan. Be that current model or pre-O-Care model.
What they do instead is provide coverage for a basic level of care, with some procedures or treatments excluded. Exclusions are in some cases across the board and in others are based on a cost/benefit calculation driven by age of patient, life expectancy, cost of procedure, average percentile expectation of improvement of life quality, employment status, productivity expectations and other factors. Hence the term “death panel”. Some procedures, even if life prolonging, are denied to elderly patients because they fall below the cost/benefit minimum standard.
That’s where the private insurance comes into play.
As for Canada, their system result vary widely from province to province, but my general opinion is similar to that of the European model. Standing alone, it is not a system I would want for myself. The emergency services are excellent, but the follow up and ongoing services for less than life threatening situations are poor at best. The proper term is “rationing”.
Lisa, to start with, put a tiny tax of financial market trades and mandate that taxes are spelled out separately in statements that financial managers give to their clients. This will discourage the automated, lightning-fast transactions that have crippled the market several times. When these transactions involve currencies of small countries, their economy can be crippled. The reason for the mandated reporting is to prevent unscrupuous financial managers from continuing this practice since it isn;t their money going for the taxes.
Next, stop most agricultural subsidies. The corn subsidy to promote ethanol is worse for the environment than gas alone. Tobacco is still getting subsidies. Paying any farmer NOT to grow something is ridiculous – encourage a better crop. Legalize hemp – excellent animal feed, cheap replacement for cotton (which is subsidized). seeds are high in Omega-3s, and can be used to make paper, rope and many other products. Trump wants to add $12 BILLION more, which will just go to corporate farms.
Stop corporate subsidies, particularly those for fossil fuels.
Lower the military budget. Missiles costing $800,000 EACH and tanks going straight to storage in the desert are just plain stupid.
Raise the corporate tax rate back up and create jobs for infrastructure projects. Puts money in the economy by paying workers that will spend that money.
If anyone’s wondering I decided to usurp @Jah1492’s avatar originally for fun but also because I don’t like it when trolls make fun of a great humanitarian and lefty like Einstein.
Radish the wordsmith almost 6 years ago
Republican faries take the tax dollars and give it to their rich friends.
Therefore there is no money for education or health care.
Daeder almost 6 years ago
So the equation works as follows: Subtract the “free stuff” unicorn from the rich and add it to the poor and middle class.
Then you do the same thing for the rest of the budget. Subtract the “free stuff” unicorn from the over-bloated military industrial complex and add it to healthcare and education.
Say What Now‽ Premium Member almost 6 years ago
And this here comic, folks, is a fine example of the conserves’ simple view of the social structure.
shakeswilly almost 6 years ago
Republican conservatism 101: Tax cuts for the rich. Reduce benefits for the poor. Remove regulations protecting the middle class from predatory behaviour by large corporations, shrinking and eliminating the middle class. Therich won’t have anyone left to make money off of, but they have Lisa’s magical pot of gold.
lopaka almost 6 years ago
Define parasite. Sort of reminds one of the 1%’ers.
alex Coke Premium Member almost 6 years ago
This looks like a comic making fun of an ignorant view of socialism.
Stephen Runnels Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Lisa Benson will never draw anything that promotes her fascist conservative ideology. Why? because it is easy to mock and disparage a young, inspiring, intelligent, compassionate and forward progressive woman with an actual, reasoned, demonstrable agenda platform. Something her conservatives have absolutely nothing to counter. Ever since America was blessed with the intelligent, focused leadership of Barack Obama, the conservative jealous derision machine (like Lisa Benson) has done nothing but pretend stupid and selfish and racist and bigoted and misogynistic and homophobia is the way to go. And anyone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a major threat to that conservative pretense. So go ahead, Lisa Benson; prove me wrong. Draw a cartoon for your conservative base that promotes the conservative version of our Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
NRHAWK Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Apparently the Democratic Socialists have a better grasp of “basic economics” than Lisa. Their system is all about fair and equitable taxation where everyone pulls their weight. Also nothing is free but rather paid for out of a pool of taxes for the benefit of all. American politicians always seem to fall on their face when trying to explain away counties like Sweden and Germany. When they fail they like to yell “Venezuela!” because they are too uninformed to understand the difference between a dictatorship and a Democratic Socialist State. Even the Nazis had the word Socialist in their name which, of course, they weren’t.
ArtyD2 Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Rotate 90 ccw and tell them its “Trickle Down” economics.
Durak Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I’ll never understand how “taxing the rich” is scary bad idea in any type of American economic or political policy.
The rich benefit the most from a stable, growing economy. Paying taxes should be considered an investment. It’s how the rich can insure that there will always be safe roads to bring their products to market. There will always be good schools to educate their workers. There will always be consumers with cash to buy their products.
Failing to tax the wealthy is stupid and short-sighted. Especially when the poor vote to protect the wealth of the wealthy.
Taxation should not be fair, it should be just. Having everyone pay the same percent, the flat tax, is neither fair nor just.
If I’m making $30,000 a year I need the $3K 10% just to put groceries on the table and make it from one end of the month to another. I have to make decisions like, “Do I pay the electric bill or buy groceries?”
But if I’m making $300,000 a year and paying $30K in tax guess what, I can easily live without that $30K. I’m making decisions like “Do I buy that pool table this month, or wait until next month?”
Tax the wealthy. They’re the ones with the money.
NeoconMan almost 6 years ago
A simple choice: shall we redistribute wealth from the middle class to the wealthy or from the wealthy to the middle class. (And all the middle class Conservatives scream “Take my money, please!”)
lonecat almost 6 years ago
Historically, socialism has not called for freeloading. It’s just the opposite. Socialism traditionally calls for full employment. Marx, for instance, believed that work was a fundamental human need; this idea actually goes back at least to Hegel’s “Phenomenology of the Spirit”, and Marx began as a left Hegelian. Socialism sees that the rich are freeloading on the labor of working people by turning the labor of working people into the profit of the capitalists. Everyone should work, and everyone should get the full value of the work they do.
NeoconMan almost 6 years ago
The two comments immediately before this one is a perfect example of the difference between liberal and conservative comments. Liberal lonecat gives reasonable historical information; Conservative jah1492 screams hatred and slime to those he dislikes.
Alberta Oil Premium Member almost 6 years ago
The Republicans are very good at convincing their folk that free stuff is bad and to be ridiculed.. And that tax cuts and loopholes for the rich are not at all handouts or free stuff.
Radish the wordsmith almost 6 years ago
According to the Republicans its fine to give the 1% all the free tax breaks they want even if they have to borrow trillions to make up the deficit.
The richest country in the world and the only one where 5 million families go bankrupt every year over medical bills.
The actual civilized countries think America is barbaric for good reason.
ED CANTWELL almost 6 years ago
A strong economy depends on aggregate demand from a large and prosperous middle class. The gross inequality we have today is a direct result of wealth being concentrated in the hands of the top 1% and the combination of automated manufacturing and the race to the bottom in wages for the service sector.
Durak Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Awhile back I bought a book called “The Louisville Story; A Century of Fiscal Integrity 1851-1951” in a used book store.
It’s the story of how the Louisville Water Park was financed, built, and then paid for.
The people of Louisville needed clean drinking water. Since building a private organization to collect, purify and distribute cheap water is ridiculously stupid the wise citizens of 1850 Louisville started a city project to fund, build and operate their own COLLECTIVELY owned water facility. The book was written in celebration of when the original bonds used for funding were paid off.
To me this is the pure spirit of American Socialism. There is a local need and the people of the community organize and execute the project. Today they would likely get federal grants and corporate funding as well, but it still works.
The problem that people like Our Dear Lisa have is that they can’t get past their bias towards the idea of socialism. They were taught, wrongly, that socialism is the same as communism and that all communists want steal all our stuff and give it to poor people. They look at every proposal put forward by Democrats with dread and suspicion as some sort of socialist plot.
It is time to grow up and realize, America has had socialist type programs going all the way back to before Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
Radish the wordsmith almost 6 years ago
Meanwhile the republicans are destroying the environment and endangered species act so that business can steam roll the earth into the ground.
Sometimes when species go it creates a domino effect taking out a whole series of interdependent animals such as humans.
braindead Premium Member almost 6 years ago
It’s ridiculous that I have to pay for any roads I don’t drive on, right Lisa?
Why do Trump Disciples like Lisa have to lie about every issue?
ahab almost 6 years ago
Lisa wouldn’t have supported the WWII G.I. bill educating our returning soldiers, because she does not connect the benefits of an educated citizen base with a health economy. She supports a tax cut to the 1%, socialism to the rich, which has raised the deficit by over a trillion dollars.
martens almost 6 years ago
One point I’d like to make (which lonecat and I have discussed privately) is that the point of taxes is not to redistribute wealth but to provide conditions to optimize the society on the whole, in part by increasing social mobility. This is not saying that all incomes must be equal, but that all citizens must have the opportunity to reach their potential and live a decent life. By this reasoning one can make a very good case for high levels of governmental spending in areas that promote social mobility, such as support for education that really all of us take for granted, even conservatives, support for public health concerns (i.e., health care) and regulation to prevent unfair trade practices (eg., non-competiton clauses in work contracts). These are all public goods that benefit all. As twclix points out, no one gets off scot-free from taxes of one sort or another, and we all have skin in the game just by being here.
martens almost 6 years ago
A discussion between Jennifer Rubin, conservative poundit for the WashPost and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (a discussion that we all should be having):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/07/25/tell-us-more-sen-warren/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/07/27/sen-elizabeth-warren-responds-to-our-invitation-to-discuss-policy-part-1/
lonecat almost 6 years ago
To follow up on my comment above about the socialist attitude to work: the following is from Leszek Kolakowski’s “Main Currents of Marxism”, Vol, 1, p. 133: “Labour, as the realization of the essence of man, thus has a wholly positive significance, being the process by which humanity develops through externalization of itself….. Marx (…) bases his own view of humanity on labour, understood as physical commerce with nature. Labour is the condition of all spiritual human activity, and in it man creates himself as well as nature….” And so on. Lisa Benson thinks she knows something about Socialism 101, but clearly she is deeply uneducated and ignorant. And then she spreads her ignorance around.
kathyw Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I had a good laugh at the unicorn. Sean Spicer called Trump a unicorn. Start with that.
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Leaving all the sniping aside, can someone please provide the hard cost in current dollars for providing “adequate” health care for our entire nation?
Please define your standard of adequate and source your budget assumptions.
No toss offs, no “just look at Europe” comments. We can discuss European single payer on a different thread if you wish but I am trying to get a US specific standard and cost here.
lonecat almost 6 years ago
As soon as you say “European single payer” you are in trouble. Many of the European systems are not single payer. Martens has made this point to you, but I guess you didn’t pay attention. I’m not an economist, and your question is really the kind of question that would need an economist with a specialty in health. Here’s one thing you could do for a rough estimate. You could take the per capita spending of some other countries (such as Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain, Canada, etc.) and multiply that by the population of the US. Since the per capita costs of any of these countries are less than the per capita costs of the US (lack of a) system, you will get a number smaller than what is spent in the US. Is their health care adequate? Well, they have comparable outcomes, so it’s probably adequate by any reasonable definition.
feverjr Premium Member almost 6 years ago
For your information and guidance….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
@lonecat
Yawn. You are correct. You are neither an economist nor a health insurance/healthcare specialist. Nor is Martens. In fact, I happen to have spent the last 30 years in the health insurance market here in the US. From retail sales to underwriting, reinsurance, agency management, contract analysis and claims management. Part of my job includes keeping an eye on trends worldwide.
I use the term Single Payer for 2 reasons. It is what is being proposed in the US and it is what the original intent of most European models were built upon. In both cases the reality includes some private healthcare and some private insurance.
In Europe, as the govt allocations to the national systems have shrunk in relation to the needs of the users, premiums have increased, covered needs have been reduced, and taxes on various goods an services unrelated to healthcare have been imposed for the purpose of funding healthcare.
Despite these adjustments, the level of publicly funded care has been steadily dropping in western Europe. Over that same period private health care providers have increased and private health insurance has flourished. The participation in private GAP insurance ranges between 70%-90% depending on the nation.
Which brings us to the Big Lie. The WHO reports on cost/outcome figures. The problem is that they use only the public funds in determining cost, but outcome result are generated from both public and private healthcare services. Search as I may, I cannot find anything in WHO records or reports that separates those bodies of data.
Of course the public figures for nationalized healthcare in Europe look good compared to the rest of the world. They fail to include the private funding in the total costs.
braindead Premium Member almost 6 years ago
^Sounds like you are recommending a mix of public and private insurance.
O’ course, that might allow a lot of people to get health care who don’t deserve it.
What is your assessment of Canada’s health care?
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
@braindead We have had a mix of private and public insurance for 50 years. Longer if you include medical benefits for veterans. I am not recommending it. Nor am I entirely opposed to to the concept, provided the care management on the govt side is privatized to a certain extent.
Please understand that this entire debate hinges of the standard and level of care you seek to provide. The European model (and Canadian) have proven that it is essentially impossible for a government to provide the level of care funding you will find in the average US group or individual Major Medical plan. Be that current model or pre-O-Care model.
What they do instead is provide coverage for a basic level of care, with some procedures or treatments excluded. Exclusions are in some cases across the board and in others are based on a cost/benefit calculation driven by age of patient, life expectancy, cost of procedure, average percentile expectation of improvement of life quality, employment status, productivity expectations and other factors. Hence the term “death panel”. Some procedures, even if life prolonging, are denied to elderly patients because they fall below the cost/benefit minimum standard.
That’s where the private insurance comes into play.
As for Canada, their system result vary widely from province to province, but my general opinion is similar to that of the European model. Standing alone, it is not a system I would want for myself. The emergency services are excellent, but the follow up and ongoing services for less than life threatening situations are poor at best. The proper term is “rationing”.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/it-s-insane-ont-patient-told-she-d-have-to-wait-4-5-years-to-see-neurologist-1.3661114
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bacchus-barua-/wait-times-canada_b_5505110.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435131/Friends-girl-18-leukemia-sign-casket-loving-messages-final-goodbye-died-waiting-hospital-bed-shortage-Canada.html
Nantucket Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Lisa, to start with, put a tiny tax of financial market trades and mandate that taxes are spelled out separately in statements that financial managers give to their clients. This will discourage the automated, lightning-fast transactions that have crippled the market several times. When these transactions involve currencies of small countries, their economy can be crippled. The reason for the mandated reporting is to prevent unscrupuous financial managers from continuing this practice since it isn;t their money going for the taxes.
Next, stop most agricultural subsidies. The corn subsidy to promote ethanol is worse for the environment than gas alone. Tobacco is still getting subsidies. Paying any farmer NOT to grow something is ridiculous – encourage a better crop. Legalize hemp – excellent animal feed, cheap replacement for cotton (which is subsidized). seeds are high in Omega-3s, and can be used to make paper, rope and many other products. Trump wants to add $12 BILLION more, which will just go to corporate farms.
Stop corporate subsidies, particularly those for fossil fuels.
Lower the military budget. Missiles costing $800,000 EACH and tanks going straight to storage in the desert are just plain stupid.
Raise the corporate tax rate back up and create jobs for infrastructure projects. Puts money in the economy by paying workers that will spend that money.
Ignatz Premium Member almost 6 years ago
The radical idea that public money should be used to benefit the public.
Mokurai almost 6 years ago
Thank you for outing yourself yet again, Lisa.
Lyman Elliott Premium Member almost 6 years ago
One American’s experience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwantba05Y0
Union Man almost 6 years ago
Lisa I have been waiting on ST. Reagan’s trickle down for a long time. I am willing to try a new approach.
NRHAWK Premium Member almost 6 years ago
If anyone’s wondering I decided to usurp @Jah1492’s avatar originally for fun but also because I don’t like it when trolls make fun of a great humanitarian and lefty like Einstein.
Scoutmaster77 almost 6 years ago
A simple analogy for simple minds.
Dave Ferro almost 6 years ago
Great cartoon, Lisa!