Here were my top five favorite political cartoons for the week, first by Dana Summers at GoComics.com…
then a twofer by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
A link to some funnier weekly cartoons - http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/
The debt situation is just plain sad – you can go back to the beginning of Bush’s term and find articles about how the debt would be paid off by around now and we’d be running surpluses. Tax cuts, Medicare reforms, and a few wars later and now we are where we are. I wish Obama had been tougher and let the tax cuts expire – if debt is our number one issue, then we’d be much better off in the tax brackets from the Reagan/Clinton years. The economic tax model of Bush/Obama has been a failure – failed to create jobs, failed to do anything but pile on debt. Time for a change.
Great line-up, Jill! It is hard to pick a favorite cartoon as they are all great.
Ex says it is time for a change. Amen to that!
Yes – for politicians to read public opinion polls that say that the deficit should be solved by raising taxes and cutting spending!
And Jerry – a change to WHO? I mean, maybe there’s an independent hanging in the weeds that will jump in. Short of that, you’ve got Obama and the winner of the sorry cast of GOP characters. I thought the GOP would learn from the Kerry-Bush election…you can’t just figure that enough people hate Obama so anybody else will win…you’ve got to run a viable candidate. I think the GOP is falling into the same trap the Democrats did – Bush was unpopular, but they ran a bad candidate and Bush won. Sure the right hates Bush, but do you think Independents are going to vote for Newt? Perry? Cain? Romney’s got a chance because he governs as a moderate – the rest of the field – pretty lousy (and I’ve watched 4 or 5 of the debates…)
The last cartoon is best. Though technically, it’s when he was state senator that he voted “present” so much. The two years he was U.S. senator he was absent campaigning.
Ex-GOP,
Yeah, most people are fine with raising everyone else’s taxes, not their own. And they don’t want their freebies cut off. Well, we’ve tinkered plenty with tax-raising and we’re still sinking. I say we tighten the belt across the board. Even if it’s 1% for starters. Plus really try stepping up the efficiency.
The economy will not grow if continue to threaten to pinch “them’s what’s got”. “Trickle-up government” negates “trickle-down economy” and we’re left treading water in a fetid, stagnant pool. Aren’t you as sick of that as I am?
Ex: I too have seen parts of the debates. They all stand head and shoulders over the imposter Obama, although some are obviously more conservative (and therefore more preferable) than the others. In the end though I still think the choice will be Romney.
Cut spending? I agree! Here’s my list:
All Planned Parenthood funding, Federal, State, county, city
All embryonic stem cell research funding, federal, state, county, city
Most freebies for Congresspersons: the parking, the travel, and cut away all pensions except the same Social Security all Americans can expect
All “aid” to foreign countries who use it against us (which covers quite a lot!!)
All money that goes to any population control efforts, especially those connected with the United Nations, on all levels, Federal, State, County, City
Well, I could go on and on, but that’s my starting list.
Hans – I think what you say is noble and cute and all good – but can it be done in practice? Seriously – I challenge you to go out and find the 1.5 trillion to cut. Everyone can pick off small programs here and there – but do you really think we should massively cut defense spending? Maybe completely get rid of social security (but continue to take in those taxes). Maybe get rid of Medicare.
Hey, I’m all for it to – I’d LOVE to have no tax increases and still have good roads, good schools, and a strong defense. I can’t get the math to work.
Thoughts? Do you have a plan?
Jerry – you must have your very strongly colored glasses on while watching – even conservative sites like redstate know that the GOP is a weak field. Romney is your best shot, but if Kerry was a flip flopper – Romeny brings it to the next level. Will be interesting (if he has the chance) to explain that at the national level.
Ninek:
Good list.
Ex says:
Do you have a plan?
No need to reinvent the wheel here. Ryan’s plan is a good start. Seriously.
So Jerry – you are comfortable with us continuing to run a debt every year into the 2040’s before achieving a surplus?
CBO: The proposal specifies a path for all other spending (excluding interest) that would cause such spending to decline sharply as a share of GDP—from 12 percent in 2010 to 6 percent in 2022 and 3½ percent by 2050; the proposal does not specify the changes to government programs that might be made in order to produce that path. Total spending under the proposal would be about 21 percent of GDP in 2030 and almost 15 percent in 2050. The proposal also specifies a path for revenues relative to GDP—rising from 15 percent in 2010 to 18½ percent in 2022 and 19 percent in 2030 and beyond.
The resulting budget deficits under the proposal would be around 2 percent of GDP in the 2020s and would decline during the 2030s. The budget would be in surplus by 2040 and show growing surpluses in the following decade. Federal debt would equal about 48 percent of GDP by 2040 and 10 percent by 2050.
Ex-GOP, you do realize that the folks you’re pitching to voted for Bush and Cheney, who used that fornicator Bill Clinton’s surplus to start two trillion dollar wars, and at least one of those wars was started under false pretenses.
And they voted for them twice.
I wouldn’t expect to find much “wisdom” here.
I know mp…I just hope that maybe one person out there will realize that the GOP isn’t the great fiscal party that they think they are.
It literally makes me a bit ill thinking of the opportunity we lost from 2000-2008…imagine a balanced budget and no deficit!
I still like Huntsman, out of the GOP candidates. I disagree with him on the capital gains tax and other points, but like that he would be tougher on the big banks (not the smaller ones) than Obama has been. I blame Bush for somehow selling people on a ‘new normal’ of unprecedented tax rates, increased spending, and deregulation of the financial industry, but I blame Obama for not aggressively combatting the idea that these circumstances are actually “normal,” or sustainable. I think maybe only a conservative politician can reform the financial industry, just because anyone else will get called a socialist at this point. “Too big to fail” is “too big,” in my opinion. I want an economy where badly run businesses fail, and make room for well-run businesses.
I also agree with him on really taking advantage of the rising cost of labor in china. It’s nowhere near the cost of labor in the US yet, but combined with the cost of shipping, etc, the costs of managing a business so far away, and the fact that some US companies already/still own the facilities to manufacture in the US, having held onto them in the meantime – there could be a real opportunity to take manufacturing FORWARD in the US and not just “take it back” for the US.
I disagree with Huntsman about a lot of things but I would trust him not to be a crazy person in office. He at least has a firm grasp on economic and political reality.
Ninek – LOVE YOU! That was a great list.
We need to spend on certain things, and taxes are important if used right – but those are programs that are wasting our time and money and in the case of PP and certain wars – destroying lives and our society!
The democrats’ hero Obama submitted a budget to congress which was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. So much for leadership on the part of the president and the democrats.
And then there is the matter of pro-life. As long as Obama and the dems remain in control there is zero chance of any political progress to that end. To make any progress on Ninek’s list we have to win the senate and the presidency next fall. It is doable.
Jerry – I’m actually interested in the question I asked you – you support Ryan’s plan even though it doesn’t balance the budget for decades? That surprises me a little bit. Thoughts?
Ex:
The funny thing about Ryan’s plan is that the libs should like it the most and conservatives the least for the reason you correctly point out. The rate of spending does not decrease for quite some time so this is right up the libs alley. But conservatives have to hold their nose and accept it because there is no one offering practical alternatives, save for Obama’s Simpson Bowles commission which the president totally ignored.
So the answer to your question has to do with the hand we have been dealt. The unprecedented run-up in indebtedness under Obama coupled with high unemployment, anemic growth, the ratio of spending to GNP, and spiraling demands on social safety net programs and health care entitlements creates a most difficult situation. The least painful and at the same time most practical solution is to somehow, over a long period of time reduce the level of borrowing and then pay down the mortgage while at the same time managing our social programs through phased in reforms to entitlement programs all the while keeping our hands off social security. Quite a balancing act!
The alternative to the long range gradual approach are dramatic changes which offer a great deal of uncertainty and pain. With our backs against the wall it seems Ryan’s thinking is at the very least a blueprint and starting point. Actually, and I know you will disagree, Ryan’s plan is a moral document that takes into account the very real needs of present and future dependents on goverment programs and honors our commitments to social security. Obamacare can only work one way and that is through rationing.
The following link offers some useful graphs that give long term projections on how the plan would work. If you have disagreements with the author’s analysis I will not be able to answer for him. I am sure Ryan’s offfice would be happy to link you to the congressman’s position papers and the such on this. Call them and try to persuade them of what you feel are his errors if you feel so strongly about it.
http://economics21.org/commentary/ryan-budget-real-choice-we-face
Jerry – you can I could debate this for a long time and get nowhere – so just a couple of points:
– I do credit Ryan for at least putting something on the table
– You say that libs should like it – but part of the reason it takes so long to make any move on the deficit is that it slashes taxes for the rich and boosts it for others – which is a no-go for Dems
– I agree that a long term plan is the best solution
– Ryan’s plan has too many crazy assumptions that would have very little chance of panning out – so he presents a best case scenario – the reality wouldn’t be so pretty (most likely)
– Last thought – the very nature of Ryan’s plan is rationing. At the core of Ryan’s plan is rationing. If you get one thought from me, I hope it is the realization that Ryan’s plan is a plan basic on economic rationing. I don’t know how old you are, but if you were one of the “unlucky” ones (I am) that are under 55, as health care increases at a fast pace, the medicare vouchers increase as a slower pace – so by definition, you wouldn’t be able to pay for as much as is given now, and that will continue to go down. So it “works” because the government says “we’re not going to pay $1000 for this cancer drug – but we’re going to give you $700 – and if you can pay for it, that’s great – but if you can’t, we won’t help you”. Necessary? That’s a different argument – but Ryan’s plan, at the very core, is a plan of economic rationing. Plain and simple.
Ex-GOP,
While you and mp commiserate about unnecessary wars raising the debt, remember Clinton sowed the seeds by botching intelligence cooperation and failing to go after Bin Laden when he was in our sights.
ninek’s list is certainly a good start. Don’t tell me we have to go once again to the dry well of raising taxes. We had quite a good recovery after the Bush tax cuts. If not for the war on terror the deficits would not have ballooned so. But Obama has quadrupled-down on that debt.
A Republican – any Republican - is our only hope for slowing down the debt while the economy is allowed to grow. Obama will only pull the scab off the economy with more taxes while not caring a whit about austerity. It will never heal.
The Tea Party represents the voice of those of us who would like both sides of the equation to be be given a real try at the same time. Enough of this see-sawing between taxes and spending! LIMIT BOTH!
We don’t have to slash the taxes for the rich. How about slashing deductions and tax dodges? Those evil Bush tax cuts only really slashed taxes for the poorest 40%, who were taken off the books as far as income taxes.
Hans – I’ll just point to my previous post at you with a couple more thoughts:
– I disagree that a Republican is our only hope. None of the GOP folks will raise taxes, and as I stated (and challenged you earlier on), you can’t get there without raising taxes unless you’re going to hack off something big. Massive cuts to defense? Cut out social security? I mean, Ninek’s list is cute and all – but what are we looking at? Not $1.5 trillion. Last person to have a decent budget and attack the deficit was a Democrat and that is because they aren’t afraid to have taxes in line with our spending.
– You have absolutely no concept of the Bush taxes is you think that it ‘only really slashed taxes for the poorest 40%’. The tax rate for those making $310K plus a year went from about 39% to 35% (married) – singles it dropped the same over $150K a year. Capital gains taxes were cut (which largely benefit the rich), as did Estate taxes (which only benefits the rich).
Are you serious in that you thought the Bush taxes really only slashed taxes for the poor?
Ex:
You may call Ryan’s reform “rationing” if you would like, but in the context you are using it I think you are confusing it with budgeting. Ryan looked at hard numbers and based his plan upon the reality of the way things are. I really do believe you are selling his plan short.
I will concede some of his assumptions may be optimistic but I don’t think they are enough to derail the plan all together. The same criticism can be leveled at just about anyone who has ever done a budget.
You speak of concern for those who are younger than 55. Under Obama you should be concerned, especially when you reach the age of collecting social security and using medicare. Under Obamacare RATIONING is the operative word and heaven forbid you need a medical procedure once you reach age markers assigned to various treatments. These things are already being set up.
Ryan offers a plan that tackles the reality of the forthcoming conditions head on, not on some wishful thinking that mush headed leftists pretend will take care of things. And by meeting it head on much of the pain can be mitigated through planning. Again, as for the budget and keeping the integrity of social security there is NO PLAN from Obama and the dems. The entire thrust of their re-election hopes are based upon the class warfare argument, demonizing the rich and all of that. Taxing the rich at 100% of their income will not change the things that need to be changed.
If you are younger than 55 there is a fairly good chance of your kids having nothing by the time they get to 65. Unless of course we do the hard work now to prevent that. The outlines presented under Ryan give your kids a fighting chance of having social security and non-government controlled/rationed medical care when they reach 65. Under the do nothing dems and under Obamacare things will be bleak indeed when they reach their golden years.
Coming into the next election cycle the choices have never been more clear.
Ex-GOP,
Are you seriously calling 39% to 35% slashing taxes? And then you wonder if the right wants to eliminate social security et al. all at once?
Government is all too keen to raise taxes. It’s showing just a little spending frugality that is like pulling hens’ teeth. If you continue to push the rich into hiding their money or investing it elsewhere, we’ll never recover.
No slashing is required. Let’s just catch our breath.
Ex-GOP: do you really think we should massively cut defense spending? Maybe completely get rid of social security (but continue to take in those taxes). Maybe get rid of Medicare.
All three should be cut, and I hate to say it. Half a century ago, Eisenhower warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex, and we didn’t take him to heart. I’ve paid into Social Security, etc., for 35 years and for a long time I hoped we’d “muddle through” and I’d get what I was supposed to. Before that, I thought, “You can keep everything I’ve paid so far, and I won’t expect anything in return, just don’t take any more.” Now, the best hope is some kind of sustainability at lower benefit levels.
Without regard to political parties, almost without exception the bozos in Congress need a butt-whipping.
Hans: Government is all too keen to raise taxes. It’s showing just a little spending frugality that is like pulling hens’ teeth. If you continue to push the rich into hiding their money or investing it elsewhere, we’ll never recover.
Hans, totally agree on the spending, but having the top marginal tax rate go from 35% to 39% or 40% is hardly “pushing the rich into hiding.”
In the “Nifty fifties” and indeed – in the high-growth years after World War II, the late 40’s, all the 50’s, even into the 60’s, the top rate was either 94% or 91% and both the economy and the rich did just fine.
Jerry – Rationing is rationing. You can call it what you want, but here’s the main fundamental difference in the two plans (concerning Medicare):
– Obama – as a partial cost control, have various best practices that control what is paid for – for instance, if two options are equal in outcome, go with the cheaper option in regards to what the government will pay for
– Ryan – as a partial cost control, allow people to do whatever they want, but have them pay for it based on decreasing cost support
I just don’t know many seniors that could suddenly take on more than half of their health care costs. People will forego care – that’s a simple fact on Ryan’s plan.
Your last two paragraphs are fear mongering and not rooted in any sort of fact or reason. Social security could be saved for decades by simply raising the cap on payments into the system. Medicare doesn’t need to be scrapped – it needs tweaking, but not the kind of axe treatment Ryan gives it. You say kids would have “nothing” – well that is pretty much what Ryan’s plan proposes. Get rid of Medicare – completely alter social security – I just don’t think those are compassionate options when other options exist.
Hans -
In the first paragraph you argue that 4% points is really nothing; in the second paragraph you say that amount is enough to ‘push the rich into hiding’.
Hey, I issued a challenge earlier – you can still take me up on it. I’d love more than anything a world in which we could all pay no taxes, where our roads were pot-hole free, our health care was cheap, and our retirements secure. I live in the real world though, and I invite you to step into it as well.
$1.5 trillion. You don’t want to raise taxes. So what should we cut? Gut the military? Eliminate social security today?
Ex says:
Medicare doesn’t need to be scrapped – it needs tweaking, but not the kind of axe treatment Ryan gives it.
Not so. The rapidly rising cost of medical care and the 10,000 plus baby boomers added daily to the system for years to come…these add up to far more than a “tweak”. And, no “fear mongering” on my part–just trying to warn you of the implosion headed our way if we proceed under the do nothing dems and Obamacare. Hopefully there will be enough voters next November to save us from the head in the sand crowd.
Obama – as a partial cost control, have various best practices that control what is paid for – for instance, if two options are equal in outcome, go with the cheaper option in regards to what the government will pay for.
I do not consider Obama’s rationing as a “best practice”. If you want to talk about the “ax” approach this is it. The so called “cheaper” option under Obamacare will often be little to no care. It is dreaming to say that it will be a choice between two relative equals in terms of efficacy of treatment. Ryan’s plan keeps government decisions out of the process whereas Obamacare puts the government in the driver’s seat.
Just because our malfeasant government was in such a hurry to balloon the deficit the past five years doesn’t mean we have to cut $1.5 trillion overnight.
Freeze taxes. Whittle away at spending. Economic growth is the true lasting way to shrink the deficit. Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush have followed this tactic to one degree or another.
Hopefully the next president will too – and without an opposing Congress bent on diluting the recovery.
Jerry -
I feel that our conversation has been overall civil, so it is disappointing to see comments like the “do nothing dems” and the “head in the sand crowd”. If you’re honest about it, you’ll see Washington is so broken that both parties are more interested in their own political necks than those of Americans – plain and simple.
With Medicare, we simply need to decide what we want. Some folks say “Medicare costs too much and costs need to be slashed”, and yet when the funding was cut (a decrease in the increase), people had a fit about it. We say we can’t pay for everything, yet when the government or anybody comes out and says “this treatment doesn’t work, we’re not paying for it”, suddenly the call of rationing starts yelling. So what do we want to accept? Do we want to deny care to people? Do we want to limit options? Some things HAVE to happen – but will we accept them, or will we fight the machine until everything crashes.
On the rationing – you are going to need to further define rationing – because you and I are obviously talking about two different things. I’ll go first:
Ryan’s plan of rationing is economic rationing – the government support is less than the overall cost of services, so economics will define and lower overall services. Some will go without because they can’t afford it.
Obama’s rationing is a government rationing – some services don’t prove effectiveness, so the government won’t pay for it. Again, the poor get screwed because if they want the care not covered, they can’t get it but instead will get the care that yields the better effectiveness. For instance, plan A costs $100 but doesn’t significantly yield results better than plan B that costs $70 – so only plan B is funded.
Now, I need you to define this rationing and where you get the belief from, because two things stick out – I don’t see any sort of “ax” approach. I also don’t see the government decisions and the process, because even in Obama’s plan, even if the government doesn’t pay for it, and individual can choose to (just like in private insurance).