Advertisement

Jerry Holbert for December 13, 2012

16 Comments

Hide All Comments
  1. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma Premium Member about 7 years ago

    More ludicrous, and whiney, every day.

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    ConserveGov  about 7 years ago

    So taxing the “rich” will help the 30 million people unemployed?

     •  Reply
  3. 100 8161
    chazandru  about 7 years ago

    There’s good comments here. A few aren’t helpful but most are good. My own thoughts on this matter have been oft seen under similar toons as this so…Let me throw this bone out for gnawing purposes. It’s an idea presented by a man whose name I forget.Let’s nationalize the debt. Over the decades, many nations overseas nationalized US companies and resources and many other sought and received debt forgiveness for monies owed to the USA from times of war or politcal upheavel in their own nations.And now, I’ll just quietly walk out of the room. ;)MischievouslyC

     •  Reply
  4. Giraffe cat
    I Play One On TV  about 7 years ago

    Thanks for all the feedback. Of course I’m aware that there are wasteful stupid programs, and that some of them will be defended to the ends of the earth by politicians who do not wish to serve the people they represent.

    I would also like to believe ConserveGov is correct in saying that if the dems would reduce spending in addition to selectively raising tax rates, the repubs would compromise. I have seen little to make me believe that the R’s have any intention of compromise under any circumstances, but I hope I’m wrong.

    As far as people saying “fair share”, this has been debated over and over on this site, and nothing I can say will be different from what has already been said.

    I feel I am assumed to be someone I’m not, as many Americans do. I am a social liberal, meaning that as long as no one gets hurt (unless they want to), adults should be able to do whatever they want without me telling them how to live their lives. I am a fiscal conservative, which means I recognize you can’t spend more than you make without getting into trouble.

    I am also practical, which is anathema to most politicians. I do not subscribe to any particular political party, but I recognize things for what they are. Democrats are disorganized, and often will take positions that are absurd, just because they are different from Republicans. But, again, they are disorganized enough that it’s hard for them to do too much harm individually. I see Republicans as being very organized, and very endgame-oriented, willing to do whatever is necessary (including trashing our economy, keeping us as miserable as possible to blame Democrats, downgrading our credit rating, and threatening to stop government unless private individuals and corporations get favorable treatment). I see them as more dangerous than the Democrats. Also, if government wants to spend, it should tax to pay for it. Borrowing to pay for it got us into this mess, yet that is the Republican mantra.

    Best answer is to determine what doesn’t need investment, and to stop it ASAP. Cancel Star Wars, bring our troops back from the Middle East: don’t wait for 2014, it won’t be any better for the Afghanis no matter how long we stay. Bail out the wage-earner and punish the bankers, instead of the other way around.

    I am sure that most posters on this site are more willing to and are more capable of fixing our economic mess than anyone who has the power at this time. This is more sad than anything else.

    Again, thanks for all the input.

     •  Reply
  5. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 7 years ago

    I feel so sorry for the rich.

     •  Reply
  6. Shark vs swimmer stencil copy
    SwimsWithSharks  about 7 years ago

    Clinton balanced the budget. Dubya gave huge tax breaks to the risk and broke the bank. Let’s undo Dubya and stop getting into stupid wars. The rich will still be rich, and the rest of us can stop funding their corporate welfare.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    ARodney  about 7 years ago

    Raising taxes will reduce revenue? That’s what Newt Gingrich said under Clinton. It proved to be wrong then (suprise! More revenue meant more revenue), and there’s no reason to think arithmetic has fundamentally changed since those days, unless of course you’re conservative and unable to learn from experience.

     •  Reply
  8. Computerhead
    Spyderred  about 7 years ago

    The Koch Brothers just bought Michigan and Wisconsin, and in both cases attacked working people. And you think they need protection? From what? The excesses of greed?

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    ConserveGov  about 7 years ago

    Very good Professor. Btw The Dems do like it when more of our money Rains down on them.

     •  Reply
  10. 200
    Michael Peterson Premium Member about 7 years ago

    Ah, let me wipe away a tear for the poor, unfortunate rich people. (But, oh how glad I am not to be one of them!)

    Poor rich folks. Poor plutocrats. Poor bloodsucking exploiters.

    Won’t anyone think about Ebenezer Scrooge this Christmas?

     •  Reply
  11. Missing large
    dannysixpack  about 7 years ago

    let’s cut funding immediately to “faith based initiatives”. 4 billion a year. not much but a start.

     •  Reply
  12. Jollyroger
    pirate227  about 7 years ago

    Boo-hoo, the rich may have to pay their fair share.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Jerry Holbert

Advertisement