So where were Lisa Benson’s complaints during the Bush administration, when the debt limit was raised at least once every year, with the full support of the Republicans?
By the end of his full four year term President Obama will have personally added more to the national debt than all the previous presidents combined. (that includes Bush). He has more than doubled the national debt and that does not yet include ObamaCare.
I agree one can’t live on credit forever. But it makes no dam’ sense at all to try to recoup it all from cutting the spending that supports the lower income levels (which exists only to keep them from slipping under the poverty line forever), while at the same time protecting corporations and the upper 1% from taxes. There needs to be money coming in as well as money not spent, and protecting the people who have all the money from ever having to pay a fair share to the country’s infrastructure is going to sink everyone. But what bugs me about this cartoon is the sheer hypocrisy of it. If the action is problematic, why exactly haven’t these people been complaining about it before? And the answer is, of course, it is apparently only problematic if someone who “ain’t yours” is doing it — which is just hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy is that so many of that 1% you keep carping on are Democrats. Pick any famous entertainer. How about Al Gore (who’s daddy was on the board of a big petrol company – an inconvenient truth), John Kerry, Edwards, the Clintons, etc. You’ll never get a tax hike on those people passed, regardless of the party in charge. At the moment its simply convenient to blame the Repubs because they happen to be in charge of the House (though not the Senate).
Also, Dems appear unable to do math. We’re over spending to the tune of 40% (and that’s before the bailouts.) What that means to you and me is that everyone who paid taxes last year needs to pay 40% more in taxes this year just to make ends meet. What you are saying is that you want the rich guy to pay another 40% for his bill and your 40% too.
I’m sorry for the people who are at poverty level and slipping lower, but if this keeps up we’ll all be there with them. We simply must control spending; I’m pretty sure we can find a way to feed people and not break the federal bank.
I read a statistic yesterday which I found both informative and alarming. If we confiscated 100% of all the money, stock, goods etc from Bill Gates, leaving him a total pauper and never able again to even pay 1 penny in taxes, we could fund current government spending for 15 days. Not one penny towards $15T debt.
So “tax the rich” is obviously not the answer. We must cut spending across the board. But neither party will do that because they will lose votes.
Honestly, I think Bruce hit it on the head. There is an inherently threshold where you can’t take more. It’s the perpetual argument of “raise up” vs. “bring even.” On a moral level, everyone wants to take care of those who can’t take care of themselves. Religion aside, it’s a “good thing to do.”™ But what we can’t figure out is how to pay for it. Some people believe in taking from those who appear to live in excess and handing that excess to those who have nothing, thus elevating them and giving them a better life. Sounds great, right? Well, yeah, unless you’re the one who’s having that “excess” taken away. Most of those “excess” people earned their excess, fair and square. Many of these business owners that are living high off the hog built their companies from the ground up, and put in many years of their life barely squeaking by. Many started with modest means, and now are reaping the risk they took and the rewards provided therein. By taking their “excess,” you are essentially stealing from them. And therein lies the trapings of socialism.And then you flip the coin and say “let’s raise the people up.” It is very empowering but also can be very draconian at the same time. Why? Because that means there will be losers. But in every game, in every contest, there will always be winners and there will always be losers. So that means some people will go hungry/poor/etc. And that means hardship for some, but equal opportunity for everyone. Everyone is given a chance to succeed, to win, to amass wealth. But everyone is also given a chance to fail, to go bankrupt, and go hungry. And the “raise up” crowd understands this is part of the game, you fall, you stand up, dust yourself off, and try again. But some people won’t stand themselves back up, and therein lies the rub.I personally think we should stop taking from the “rich” and giving to the “poor.” Government has never been efficient at doing its job, and playing Robin Hood only wastes money. Everyone’s definition of “fair” is different. It’s very subjective. But what isn’t are the statistics showing that the top 5% may control the vast majority of the wealth in this country, but they also pay a disproportionately higher share of the taxes, too. Fair to me is everyone pays the same proportion as the next guy. I’m a live within your means guy. I’ve gone through tough times, and every stretch I’ve figured out how to pay for it with what I made. Tough choices had to be made, but they were made and now, on the other side of it, I’m better off. I learned from it. But if someone had given me a bunch of money and said “it’s okay, you’re fine,” what would I have learned? Nothing. And that’s what Congress and the rest of America is learning by continuing to raise the debt ceiling: Nothing.
so many Lies, D——d Lies about Bush and Republicans.-GW left us with $10 trillion debt total….for 8 years of his term of office…the debt is BI-PARTISAN….but Obama in 2009, 2010 and 2011 raised the total debt to $15 trillion and climbing!Now, Obama is seeking to raise the debt “limit” another $1.2 trillion…….and the Dems and the MSM still are falsely blaming the GOP!!!-the GOP continually calls for cutting federal spending and the Democrats/MSM continually accuse the GOP of wanting to push the elderly off the cliff and of denying children food and denying the uninsured sick more healthcare!!!-all Lies….GOP plans would allow people opportunities to create jobs and to earn paychecks and to provide for themselves! And to get out of the way of Private Charities to provide for the truly needy.
The “debt limit” is simply a straw dog that has been burning at both ends for too long, starting dramatically in 1982, under Reagan, with both “parties” doing little or nothing to truly stop the rise.
Welcome to a room full of Neocon sycophants. No concern about 2 unfunded wars and tax breaks for 8 years, but damn, give a black Democrat a shot at fixing compete fubar of the country and the Cons are whining and howling. You may have missed that the Republicans have set records blocking judicial selections,many of the appointments felt reasonable by moderate Republicans. Any job program is fillibustered or poisoned with totally ignorant anti-envitonmetal add ons/deregulationadd add ons. This administration may be American’s last chance for recovery. God save us if the Republicans reclaim the White House. I’ll place my savings in protective investments and withdraw from the Stock Market.
Distribution of wealth produces a nation of wussies, majority of which will depend on the largess of the Government ad infinitum – with over 47% not paying any federal income taxes, we are just about there . . .
Anybody else catch the irony that the debt was above the cartoon’s “visual limit” before Obama had a hand in the matter?See:http://zfacts.com/p/1170.htmlOnce again, for the learing impaired, it is wholly unremarkable that our debt should increase dramatically in the current circumstances.Millions out of work, tax revenues down, why would the deficit not baloon?
When the economy improves, it will be time to address the deficit. To place too much emphasis on this problem now endangers the recovery.To pretend that Obama has done this to us is low grade partisan bullshit, which so often seems to be all you righties have to offer.
Where is my what, Gozer? Where is my complaint? It’s about not doing what is really needed to tackle the debt: raising the taxes on the people who own the wealth, but are paying less than they ever have in taxes since 1934.
Lynne, I will start with the assumption you are both intelligent and reasonable. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
2009
Top 1% earned 16.9% of all AGI and paid in by Federal taxes 36.7%
Top 5% earned 31.7% of all AGI and paid in 58.7% of all Federal income taxes
Top 10% earned 43.2% of all AGI and pain in via income taxes 70.5%.
Bottom 50% earned 13.5% of all AGI and only paid in 2.3%
Is this “fair”? What percentages would you call fair?
You might complain at how much the top earn but you have absolutely no complaint at the percentage of taxes they contribute. They pay in far, far more than their fair share.
Leftwingers blame Republicans for “foreign aid” and “unfunded wars”….never mind that much of that “foreign aid” has strings that guarantee the government receiving it spends the majority of dollars inside the USA…government or private!-most “war” equipment is manufactured and sold by USA companies. The US government profits by taxes paid by those US manufacturers. The military is #1 constitutional priority of government support in war or peace times.
Where did anybody say tax the lower 50% more? You are making up your own straw man.
Apparently you now reluctantly accept the upper 1%,5% and 10% do indeed pay “disproportionally” heavy. Good for you. Shield the wealth? As you just admitted they already are overtaxed.
You miss the entire main point. Spend less. I will repeat that -spend less.
Obama has taken the absurd overspending by Bush and then doubled that. He is personally responsible for more debt than all the other presidents from Washington on, including Bush, combined. Obama>50% of total debt (Nov 2012)
You seem to not understand. If we confiscated all the wealth, ALL the wealth of the upper 1% we will still go broke. We must cut spending.
Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913As of Dec 28, 2011:$15,125,205,774,064In 2.9 yrs Increased:$4,498,328,725,151George Bush (8yrs):$4,899,100,310,609
In 2012 projected to be at least 2011= $1.3TNone of this counts ObamaCare adding 37 million new covered patients.
So under Obama we will go at least from $10.6 to $16.5 in 4 years plus ObamaCare. Do the math.
thank you Libertarian1…(Libertarian1 said, about 20 hours agoObama’s National Debt Impact
Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913As of Dec 28, 2011:$15,125,205,774,064In 2.9 yrs Increased:$4,498,328,725,151George Bush (8yrs):$4,899,100,310,609
In 2012 projected to be at least 2011= $1.3TNone of this counts ObamaCare adding 37 million new covered patients.
So under Obama we will go at least from $10.6 to $16.5 in 4 years plus ObamaCare. Do the math.)-thank you for the refreshing change on this comment space! TRUTH….which Lib/Dem/Lefties deny, or twist, or use “new math” upon.-IMO, Obama will be unchallenged as #1 US Prez on that one category….SPENDING. FISCALIRRESPONSIBILITY.(IMO, he is the constitutionalist’s #1 Enemy, also)
rockngolfer over 12 years ago
That is a Rethuglican running that game.
lbatik over 12 years ago
So where were Lisa Benson’s complaints during the Bush administration, when the debt limit was raised at least once every year, with the full support of the Republicans?
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
By the end of his full four year term President Obama will have personally added more to the national debt than all the previous presidents combined. (that includes Bush). He has more than doubled the national debt and that does not yet include ObamaCare.
halfabug over 12 years ago
he wants a trillion more.no big deal. Righr.
lbatik over 12 years ago
I agree one can’t live on credit forever. But it makes no dam’ sense at all to try to recoup it all from cutting the spending that supports the lower income levels (which exists only to keep them from slipping under the poverty line forever), while at the same time protecting corporations and the upper 1% from taxes. There needs to be money coming in as well as money not spent, and protecting the people who have all the money from ever having to pay a fair share to the country’s infrastructure is going to sink everyone. But what bugs me about this cartoon is the sheer hypocrisy of it. If the action is problematic, why exactly haven’t these people been complaining about it before? And the answer is, of course, it is apparently only problematic if someone who “ain’t yours” is doing it — which is just hypocrisy.
tburger49 over 12 years ago
The hypocrisy is that so many of that 1% you keep carping on are Democrats. Pick any famous entertainer. How about Al Gore (who’s daddy was on the board of a big petrol company – an inconvenient truth), John Kerry, Edwards, the Clintons, etc. You’ll never get a tax hike on those people passed, regardless of the party in charge. At the moment its simply convenient to blame the Repubs because they happen to be in charge of the House (though not the Senate).
Also, Dems appear unable to do math. We’re over spending to the tune of 40% (and that’s before the bailouts.) What that means to you and me is that everyone who paid taxes last year needs to pay 40% more in taxes this year just to make ends meet. What you are saying is that you want the rich guy to pay another 40% for his bill and your 40% too.
I’m sorry for the people who are at poverty level and slipping lower, but if this keeps up we’ll all be there with them. We simply must control spending; I’m pretty sure we can find a way to feed people and not break the federal bank.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
I read a statistic yesterday which I found both informative and alarming. If we confiscated 100% of all the money, stock, goods etc from Bill Gates, leaving him a total pauper and never able again to even pay 1 penny in taxes, we could fund current government spending for 15 days. Not one penny towards $15T debt.
So “tax the rich” is obviously not the answer. We must cut spending across the board. But neither party will do that because they will lose votes.
Jonni over 12 years ago
Maybe if he weren’t jetting to every carnival in the world he may understand the money does not come from an ATM.
Wraithkin over 12 years ago
Honestly, I think Bruce hit it on the head. There is an inherently threshold where you can’t take more. It’s the perpetual argument of “raise up” vs. “bring even.” On a moral level, everyone wants to take care of those who can’t take care of themselves. Religion aside, it’s a “good thing to do.”™ But what we can’t figure out is how to pay for it. Some people believe in taking from those who appear to live in excess and handing that excess to those who have nothing, thus elevating them and giving them a better life. Sounds great, right? Well, yeah, unless you’re the one who’s having that “excess” taken away. Most of those “excess” people earned their excess, fair and square. Many of these business owners that are living high off the hog built their companies from the ground up, and put in many years of their life barely squeaking by. Many started with modest means, and now are reaping the risk they took and the rewards provided therein. By taking their “excess,” you are essentially stealing from them. And therein lies the trapings of socialism.And then you flip the coin and say “let’s raise the people up.” It is very empowering but also can be very draconian at the same time. Why? Because that means there will be losers. But in every game, in every contest, there will always be winners and there will always be losers. So that means some people will go hungry/poor/etc. And that means hardship for some, but equal opportunity for everyone. Everyone is given a chance to succeed, to win, to amass wealth. But everyone is also given a chance to fail, to go bankrupt, and go hungry. And the “raise up” crowd understands this is part of the game, you fall, you stand up, dust yourself off, and try again. But some people won’t stand themselves back up, and therein lies the rub.I personally think we should stop taking from the “rich” and giving to the “poor.” Government has never been efficient at doing its job, and playing Robin Hood only wastes money. Everyone’s definition of “fair” is different. It’s very subjective. But what isn’t are the statistics showing that the top 5% may control the vast majority of the wealth in this country, but they also pay a disproportionately higher share of the taxes, too. Fair to me is everyone pays the same proportion as the next guy. I’m a live within your means guy. I’ve gone through tough times, and every stretch I’ve figured out how to pay for it with what I made. Tough choices had to be made, but they were made and now, on the other side of it, I’m better off. I learned from it. But if someone had given me a bunch of money and said “it’s okay, you’re fine,” what would I have learned? Nothing. And that’s what Congress and the rest of America is learning by continuing to raise the debt ceiling: Nothing.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
@skibum
What is your complaint?
disgustedtaxpayer over 12 years ago
so many Lies, D——d Lies about Bush and Republicans.-GW left us with $10 trillion debt total….for 8 years of his term of office…the debt is BI-PARTISAN….but Obama in 2009, 2010 and 2011 raised the total debt to $15 trillion and climbing!Now, Obama is seeking to raise the debt “limit” another $1.2 trillion…….and the Dems and the MSM still are falsely blaming the GOP!!!-the GOP continually calls for cutting federal spending and the Democrats/MSM continually accuse the GOP of wanting to push the elderly off the cliff and of denying children food and denying the uninsured sick more healthcare!!!-all Lies….GOP plans would allow people opportunities to create jobs and to earn paychecks and to provide for themselves! And to get out of the way of Private Charities to provide for the truly needy.
hector1 over 12 years ago
Hey Bruce4671 – Clinton had balanced budget with no debt
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
The “debt limit” is simply a straw dog that has been burning at both ends for too long, starting dramatically in 1982, under Reagan, with both “parties” doing little or nothing to truly stop the rise.
Wraithkin over 12 years ago
Then trout, we should just cut up the credit card and force the government to live within its means. Fix it or default.
agate1 over 12 years ago
Welcome to a room full of Neocon sycophants. No concern about 2 unfunded wars and tax breaks for 8 years, but damn, give a black Democrat a shot at fixing compete fubar of the country and the Cons are whining and howling. You may have missed that the Republicans have set records blocking judicial selections,many of the appointments felt reasonable by moderate Republicans. Any job program is fillibustered or poisoned with totally ignorant anti-envitonmetal add ons/deregulationadd add ons. This administration may be American’s last chance for recovery. God save us if the Republicans reclaim the White House. I’ll place my savings in protective investments and withdraw from the Stock Market.
petergrt over 12 years ago
Distribution of wealth produces a nation of wussies, majority of which will depend on the largess of the Government ad infinitum – with over 47% not paying any federal income taxes, we are just about there . . .
pirate227 over 12 years ago
Congress controls the purse strings, Lisa.
charliekane over 12 years ago
Anybody else catch the irony that the debt was above the cartoon’s “visual limit” before Obama had a hand in the matter?See:http://zfacts.com/p/1170.htmlOnce again, for the learing impaired, it is wholly unremarkable that our debt should increase dramatically in the current circumstances.Millions out of work, tax revenues down, why would the deficit not baloon?
When the economy improves, it will be time to address the deficit. To place too much emphasis on this problem now endangers the recovery.To pretend that Obama has done this to us is low grade partisan bullshit, which so often seems to be all you righties have to offer.
lbatik over 12 years ago
Where is my what, Gozer? Where is my complaint? It’s about not doing what is really needed to tackle the debt: raising the taxes on the people who own the wealth, but are paying less than they ever have in taxes since 1934.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
Lynne, I will start with the assumption you are both intelligent and reasonable. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
2009
Top 1% earned 16.9% of all AGI and paid in by Federal taxes 36.7%
Top 5% earned 31.7% of all AGI and paid in 58.7% of all Federal income taxes
Top 10% earned 43.2% of all AGI and pain in via income taxes 70.5%.
Bottom 50% earned 13.5% of all AGI and only paid in 2.3%
Is this “fair”? What percentages would you call fair?
You might complain at how much the top earn but you have absolutely no complaint at the percentage of taxes they contribute. They pay in far, far more than their fair share.
disgustedtaxpayer over 12 years ago
Leftwingers blame Republicans for “foreign aid” and “unfunded wars”….never mind that much of that “foreign aid” has strings that guarantee the government receiving it spends the majority of dollars inside the USA…government or private!-most “war” equipment is manufactured and sold by USA companies. The US government profits by taxes paid by those US manufacturers. The military is #1 constitutional priority of government support in war or peace times.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
@LynneB
Where did anybody say tax the lower 50% more? You are making up your own straw man.
Apparently you now reluctantly accept the upper 1%,5% and 10% do indeed pay “disproportionally” heavy. Good for you. Shield the wealth? As you just admitted they already are overtaxed.
You miss the entire main point. Spend less. I will repeat that -spend less.
Obama has taken the absurd overspending by Bush and then doubled that. He is personally responsible for more debt than all the other presidents from Washington on, including Bush, combined. Obama>50% of total debt (Nov 2012)
You seem to not understand. If we confiscated all the wealth, ALL the wealth of the upper 1% we will still go broke. We must cut spending.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
Obama’s National Debt Impact
Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913As of Dec 28, 2011:$15,125,205,774,064In 2.9 yrs Increased:$4,498,328,725,151George Bush (8yrs):$4,899,100,310,609
In 2012 projected to be at least 2011= $1.3TNone of this counts ObamaCare adding 37 million new covered patients.
So under Obama we will go at least from $10.6 to $16.5 in 4 years plus ObamaCare. Do the math.
Libertarian1 over 12 years ago
@CK
Must add the total debt added through Sept 2013. At least 10% more.
disgustedtaxpayer over 12 years ago
thank you Libertarian1…(Libertarian1 said, about 20 hours agoObama’s National Debt Impact
Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913As of Dec 28, 2011:$15,125,205,774,064In 2.9 yrs Increased:$4,498,328,725,151George Bush (8yrs):$4,899,100,310,609
In 2012 projected to be at least 2011= $1.3TNone of this counts ObamaCare adding 37 million new covered patients.
So under Obama we will go at least from $10.6 to $16.5 in 4 years plus ObamaCare. Do the math.)-thank you for the refreshing change on this comment space! TRUTH….which Lib/Dem/Lefties deny, or twist, or use “new math” upon.-IMO, Obama will be unchallenged as #1 US Prez on that one category….SPENDING. FISCALIRRESPONSIBILITY.(IMO, he is the constitutionalist’s #1 Enemy, also)