Tom Toles for February 28, 2011

Well stated.

There’s an old saying about those who forget history. I don’t remember it, but it’s good.

This, by far, is the best way to explain the Republican plan. Wanna cut spending? Shut down the government. When nothing works, we default on our Chinese loans, and truly become a third world country (which arguably by definition means we already are one) remember to thank your local Republican party for their small government approach.

The last Republican to try this stunt was Newt Gingrich…and how did THAT work out for him and his party?

And, Simon, as I recall, it got him kicked out of office. Now he’s back, and claiming that Obama’s nonenforcement of the DOMA is impeachable. Oh, he is SO asking for it again…

ZING!!

Put a little extra in there to buy more peanuts. That means to increase some taxes. OH, HEAVAN FORBID! “We can’t tax the oil companies, cut tobacco subsidies, or remove the cap on Social Security.”

I see jmatt’s trying to be a wit again.

As usual, he was only half successful.

Too bad Newt’s never defended any of his own marriages.

There’s never enough peanuts in those bags. =/

Sorry, but I have to put in another two cents worth. Balancing a budget is accomplished by adjusting two different components. Expenditures and income. The Republicans want to balance the budget using only one component at the expense of the weakest of the population.

‘toon is spot on description of the “Republican strategy”.

While DADT’s passing is somewhat remotely validated, Clinton failed to veto the Republican’s passing of DOMA. I think I’d rather Obama be “NO Bill Clinton.”

Let’s try a little “Business Econ 101”. Mr. / Ms Republican, you are the new head of a Fortune 100 firm that is deeply in debt due to poor managment in the past. Bankruptcy is not an option.

Hourly employee salaries and benefits are about 20% of expenses, but cutting benefits will only relieve a small portion of your debt load, and further lay-offs will severly hurt production. Conversely, your executive management team has enjoyed steady increases in their compensation packages for several years, despite the company’s red ink.

You’ve obligated a large portion of your revenues to new, state-of-the-art robotics equipment that may defend you against competition, but much of which, frankly, is untested and won’t be online for several years, at best. And your chief of production says she doesn’t really want the new equipment, anyway.

Your products are price-elastic, meaning you could raise prices without affecting demand.

So how do you rescue your company from debt? Any responsible CEO would understand that cutting spending on supplies and worker benefits is counter-productive. You might make some token cuts to wasteful practices on the manufacturing floor, but you would understand that that won’t solve the main problem.

You’d probably tell your managers that they won’t get raises or bonuses this year, and in fact, you’re going to reduce their compensation by 3%.

You’d probably cancel or postpone a good portion of the robotic equipment purchases, especially the beta models that production has no use for.

But the necessary move would be to produce more revenue. You can freeze or even reduce spending, but without more revenue you can never get out of debt. You must cut out the sales, coupons and give-aways you give to your richest customers. Stop giving rebates and interest-free loans to your well-to-do clients.

^ Amen

I think what is important here is what is NOT being said. You see when it comes to budget cuts some in Congress would rather shut off the engine than shut off the ice cream machine, the jetted tub, the big screen TVs and the popcorn machine. We must either raise taxes to support this size of government or we must cut government to allow the rate of taxation we have right now. What people don’t realize about the first option is just how much our taxes would have to be to support the drunken spending going on in government. We have a $1.3 trillion dollar gap right now and the richest man in the world is worth just south of $70 billion.

If you think the rich can pick up the tab, think again. Even if you took everything they owned it wouldn’t add up. Additionally, the same smarts that got many of them their money in the first place won’t stick around to have their assets confiscated. They will leave and those who can’t afford to leave will be stuck with a huge bill.

Either choice will hurt but they won’t hurt nearly as much as if we continue living in the dreamland that we do and crash the whole shooting match!