Stanek Sunday funnies 3-24-13
Here were my top five six favorite political cartoons this week. Vote for your favorite in the poll at the end of the post.
by Steve Kelley at GoComics.com…
by Dana Summers at GoComics.com…
… in reference to this brouhaha…
another one by Steve Kelley at GoComics.com…
… regarding this video posted by Hillary on March 18…
[youtube]http://youtu.be/6RP9pbKMJ7c[/youtube]
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Glenn Foden at Townhall.com…
by Walt Handelsman at GoComics.com…
[polldaddy poll=6987143]
Mar.24, 2013 10:33 am |
Cartoons |
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.
“But I believe America is at it’s best when we champion the freedom and dignity of EVERY human being”
Tell that to a full term human being who’s being injected with poison and killed before being thrown away with trash, hypocrite Hilary! Sure, freedom and dignity of gays is SO much more important than the right to LIFE of babies….. Grr!!!
I love #1, because it’s just so incredibly true.
If those are the favorites for the GOP nominee in the next election…then the Dems will control things for quite a while.
I thought CPAC this year was an awesome rallying cry to the left (since the GOP shuns anybody who is well liked, and embraces the crazies). I really hope that Paul Ryan throws out his budget on a yearly basis – I think it is great for all to see an actual document that sums up how much the GOP loves the rich and gives to them at the expense of everybody else.
Article on Bloomberg this morning in CNN – pretty interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/24/us/michael-bloomberg-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
I think the limit on big sodas went too far – I would have simply taxed them at a higher rate and used the funds to either fund health program, or subsidize the price of healthy food.
In reference to the satan/0’bama similarity and Hillary video clip:
I have come to the ‘opinion’ that the anti-christ will be a female masquerading as an overtly effeminate male [think mr. bo-jangles] or impersonating a flamboyantly homosexual male [think Barney Frank].
Hillary could never pass as an overtly effeminate.
According to the National Institute of Health, Hillary will have to loose some weight if she is going for the latter.
CNSNews.com) – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why “three-quarters” of lesbians are obese and why homosexual males are not, calling it an issue of “high public-health significance.”
“It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation [female homosexuals] are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, it continues.
This might explain Hillary’s edict to the U. S. State Department regarding gender identification for U. S. Passport purposes:
“The U.S. Department of State is pleased to use the occasion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Month to announce its new policy guidelines regarding gender change in passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad,” the June 9, 2010 media note states on State’s website states.
“Beginning June 10, when a passport applicant presents a certification from an attending medical physician that the applicant has undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition, the passport will reflect the new gender,” the note states. “The guidelines include detailed information about what information the certification must include.”
“It is also possible to obtain a limited-validity passport if the physician’s statement shows the applicant is in the process of gender transition,” the note states. “No additional medical records are required.”
“Sexual reassignment surgery is no longer a prerequisite for passport issuance,” the note states.
“A Consular Report of Birth Abroad can also be amended with the new gender,” the note states.
I do see some inherent problems with this change in policy.
Veiled men claiming to be female passing thru immigration check points unchallenged on the basis of a passport issued by the our state department because to do so might offend the sensabilities of the persons attempting entry.
Is ms Clinton the woman who has the rare neurolgoical condition that makes her see everything upside down?
I love the one with the devil in hell. Ya gotta admit, the resemblence is striking.
Well, I guess if we can portray Obama as messianic, complete with halo and chanting, then it is no less acceptable to portray him as the lord of the flies.
EGV 12:22PM
Typical liberal response. Tax, then the gov’t determines where to best spend.
Now tell me, who defines “healthy” food? Given a previous discussion on this blog, it seems like every poster, me included, has their own definition.
Mary -
I’m sure some guidelines could be determined – I mean, we tax cigarettes and alcohol at higher levels. And I’ve seen conservatives all over trying to ban unhealthy foods for food stamp users. So you are against that push – the banning of unhealthy foods for food stamp folks?
EGV,
While you bemoan the love of the rich, it looks like your Democrat buddies in the Senate are having some second thoughts about taxing the eeeeeeevil wealthy medical device corporations. This could really put the screws to Obamacare.
That’s an interesting discussion Mary, and one we can surely look at – but I think I asked you a pretty direct question.
Given your statement then, are you against the push – the banning of unhealthy foods for food stamp folks?
Re: #1 (Pope/Biden)
How true.
EGV,
What is defined as “unhealthy” food?
Perhaps the real solution is to get people off food stamps then the gov’t can’t so easily dictate what they eat.
According to the USDA food stamp usage reached an all time high in 2012.
Your link didn’t work.
Regardless, Tom Coburn in the US House proposed it – setup a new committee to come up with healthy food guidelines, and then ban them from SNAP.
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/legislation/289867-gop-lawmaker-no-more-food-stamps-to-buy-junk-food
So given your previous statement, I’m guessing you are against it? Yes?
I vote we tax meat products so much no one can afford them. If we’re talking about trying to tax things we don’t think people should be eating to make it not worth their while.
“Regardless, Tom Coburn in the US House proposed it – setup a new committee to come up with healthy food guidelines, and then ban them from SNAP.”
I don’t see the huge problem. WIC already does something similar, they give the mother vouchers for bread and milk and stuff like that. No Skittles and Pepsi on the taxpayer dime.
Also people gotta think about the kids. Child obesity is really high among kids under the poverty line, and it’s mostly due to not eating junk food.
Stupid phone. Mostly due TO eating junk food.
EGV,
Sorry about the links, I thought they were deleted. My computer is going black again when I try to. I may just have to refer you to google or yahoo.
Anyway, my point is the large numbers of Americans on food stamps, which to me is the problem. Why is the number an all time high after years of Obama’s brilliant leadership?
Yes I object to the gov’t telling any of us how to eat, period.
Hi Jack,
I vote we tax skim milk to the hilt. Worthless sugar water.
Oh yeah WIC, I remember my former sitter giving me her excess WIC food. Thankfully I liked cheese and butter. Obviously she didn’t know what’s best for her like the gov’t does.
I felt a little guilty taking it but then figured what the heck, I paid for it.
Oh, and don’t let anyone give you any crap about salt. I’ve inhaled the stuff since childhood, I must be an addict, and my blood pressure barely registers.
Semper lie really nails it…the lies and extent to which Obama and his lapdogs will go to feed the hunger pains of their wretched small-mindedness. Everyone blessed with more than two brain cells knows that the sequester can be managed without any significant reduction in services. Heck, just cutting back on the royal household expenses alone could make a big difference.
But that is not how the Obama mafia plays the game. No, they want to make people feel pain in the hopes that they will rise up against the Republicans and blame them for the sequester which is Obama’s baby. The Obama administration’s equivalent of sending Guido out to break a few fingers is releasing thousands of criminals from detention, cutting back on services to needy children, and reducing hours for traffic controllers at various airports thus jeapordizing the safety of the flying public. All of this, the public be damned, to make a point that is an Obama lie.
If we cannot handle the annoyance of a smaller than usual increase in spending…which is all the sequester is… then how are we ever going to be able to handle the reality of a necessary cut-back in spending when Obama’s borrowed money spending spree finally ends?
The Republicans presented a bill that would permit Obama to cut programs where he wished in order to deal with the reduced outlay. In typical fashion he wanted nothing to do with it. And we all know why…because it would have be done up-front. He is not a leader and would not want to have to pay the political prices for making decisions where everyone can see his actual decisions as having negative impact on some programs and fully attributable to him.
I wish we had the Obama of the ’08 campaign in office, the same Obama that crticized the national debt (then 6 trillion less than today) as “unpatriotic”.
” Oh, and don’t let anyone give you any crap about salt. I’ve inhaled the stuff since childhood, I must be an addict, and my blood pressure barely registers.”
Salt’s like most things, okay in moderation.
Hi Jack
Moderation in the use of salt? What’s that? :)
It would embarass my mom since she thought it was such bad manners to salt my food before eating it. Well, my manner are still bad.
Oh, and use sea salt. Far more nutritious. I finally started using it a few years ago. However I have no qualms about reverting back to plain old table salt should the need arise.
I would be offended if you salted something I cooked. I season my dishes to perfection. ;)
Hi Jack,
I have no doubt you do but being offended would be preferable to watching me go through salt withdrawal! :)
Jerry, but you must admit, the GOP does the same thing with taxes. The very mention that tax rates for people making over a million a year could rise to a number even less than it was under Reagan, and the GOP paints a picture that businesses won’t hire, people won’t strive to succeed, and the world might end.
EGV,
Why then do you suppose the Democrats voted with Republicans to repeal the medical device tax, undercutting a major source of revenue for Obamacare? Maybe because these eeeeeeeevil businesses might not hire and/or be forced to lay people off? Or could it be their abused and exploited employees are constituents of the Democrats and may get angry over losing their jobs?
Obama and Satan both support abortion.
I don’t understand the Obama/Satan thing, I must have missed something.
Jack – some people think Satan on the history channel show ‘The Bible’ looks like Obama.
It reminds me of when a head that looked like George Bush was on a stake in the show Game of Thrones
“Jack – some people think Satan on the history channel show ‘The Bible’ looks like Obama.
It reminds me of when a head that looked like George Bush was on a stake in the show Game of Thrones”
I see. I remember the GoT thing and thought it was hilarious. People seem to be taking the Obama/Satan thing a bit more seriously though, which is a shame because it’s rather funny.
Mary –
Getting to your question on the medical devices – it is like the medicare doc fix – any sort of tax, cut, or anything painful is tough to implement and easy to reject, even if it leads to deficit. That’s why we’re here in the first place.
If they run with PAYGO on it, then they should look to repeal the tax and fund the lost revenue in a different way.
Mary -
Food stamp usage goes up when the number of people qualify for them – so when the economy crashed at the end of Bush’s term, more people qualified. The recovery has been moving forward, but not real well for unskilled workers, and there are a lot of people that still qualify. If you think we should throw people off food stamps and leave them on their own, just say it.
I think white people think all black people look alike – that’s the issue.
Anyway, have you watched the Bible on history? I don’t remember so many ninjas in the old testament – the matrix like sword fighting has been crazy.
“I think white people think all black people look alike – that’s the issue.”
Snap!
“Anyway, have you watched the Bible on history? I don’t remember so many ninjas in the old testament – the matrix like sword fighting has been crazy.”
I haven’t seen it, I should look it up, Bible stories + ninja sword fighting sounds fun. I get bored waiting for Walking Dead and GoT to make more episodes.
EGV 6:57PM
Your answer is as clear as mud.
EGV 6:59PM
You seem to forget Obama was in his 4th year as president in 2012. When do you start holding him accountable for anything?
Mary -
Let me try a different way.
There’s a general rule of thumb that the federal government uses at times called PAYGO – any tax cut or spending has to be offset so that it doesn’t raise the deficit. The reason we are in this deficit mess is after Bush took office, we got rid of PAYGO, thus, the tax cuts and the medicare expansion didn’t have to be balanced.
Anyway, the spending part or tax cuts, without pain, is very easy for politicians. ”Hey, here is a big health care expansion – or new tax cuts – or a new bridge” – paying for it is the hard part.
Health care reform does a lot of great things – but to expand it, it needed to be paid for (thus the medical devices tax). Of course, taxes aren’t something people like – they don’t like to pay for what they get – this is pretty common.
So of course, politicians now are saying they’d like to get rid of it. The vote was a non-binding resolution though, and it didn’t specify the paygo offset.
I think they should just get rid of the house deduction for people who make over $250K a year – that would pay for it and then some.
Again, the resolution said we don’t like it – a vote would have to specify what to cut (or taxes to raise) to offset getting rid of that tax.
Make sense?
Mary – if you are trying to score cheap points, that’s fine.
If you really want to understand the increase more, here’s a link:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-food-stamp-stretch/
EGV 7:01PM
“I think white people think all black people look alike–that’s the issue”
LOLLLLLLLL. Please tell me you’re not serious EGV.
The Satan character in the history channel’s “The Bible” does have a resemblence to Obama. I think its funny myself and I enjoyed the cartoon that made fun of it. I see no more to it than that.
A head on a stake reminded you of George Bush? Good grief EGV you must think all white people look alike.
EGV,
I think you can boil it down to Democrats finally figuring out that it was their constituents that were hard hit by this tax and they better act fast to get rid of it or they’re going to feel it at the ballot box. Just plain old politics EGV.
” A head on a stake reminded you of George Bush? Good grief EGV you must think all white people look alike.”
Lol he wasn’t the only one who thought that, it was a whole thing. I thought it was incredibly amusing.
Ha Mary – you never saw that ‘controversy’. Like this one, it is a bit funny:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/14/entertainment/la-et-st-game-thrones-george-w-bush-head-20120614
All white people do look alike Mary. I have a stunning resemblance to a younger Brad Pitt, for example. ;)
EGV,
Your source gives some interesting history yes, but the point is Obama is into his 5th year as president. Your source acknowledges food stamp usage increased 46% during his presidency.
The point still remains he IS president. The situation has NOT changed, only worsened. Somewhere he starts to take responsibility. When is that EGV?
Hi Jack,
Really? People tell me I remind them of a young Ursula Andress, especially when I’m walking back to shore after swimming in the lake.
Lol no Mary, I don’t look like Brad Pitt, I was kidding. The only celebrity anyone has told me I resemble is Jared Leto, but I really don’t see it at all.
Hi EGV,
Thanks for the pics. The guy with the hair looks like it might be a George Bush profile. Is that the one? Honestly, if you didn’t tell me I wouldn’t have seen it.
The first cartoon should be put into every Catholic church bulletin. Just make sure it gets put in there on Easter Sunday because it’s a long time until Christmas.
Hi Jack,
I knew you were pulling my leg. Any resemblence between me and Ursula Andress is purely wishful thinking. I just googled Jared Leto, and well, being told you look like him is no insult my friend! Brad Pitt has never done a thing to me but that Jared Leto looks darn good! I’m old but I ain’t dead yet!
I’ve been told I look like Ginger on Gilligan’s Island but that was some years ago. Also Ann Margaret, the older version of course.
Lol, I told you I don’t look like him imo. I think it was just my ex-wife’s wishful thinking (she’s a huge fan of him). Him and I have the same coloring and the same cheekbones, that’s about it. (Don’t get why women like him, actually, I think he looks girly).
Ginger was pretty! :D
Hi Jack,
Well being you’re not a woman…well leave it at that! Take my word for it, its a compliment.
And thank you for yours, aren’t you a dear :)
My husband has said I look like “Miss Kitty” on Gunsmoke and Greer Garson in “Mrs. Minerver”
Never anything about Ursula Andress. I just can’t fathom why not!
BTW, in case you’re too young to remember, there’s a famous scene of her coming out of the ocean dripping wet, it was in a James Bond movie. That was what I was referring to when I mentioned walking out of a lake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE2WIA6rYIk
I’ve seen all the Bond movies, I remember that scene. They had Daniel Craig do an homage to it in Casino Royale lol.
Mary –
All I’m saying is, food stamp usage is up because the economic recovery hasn’t helped everyone, and we’ve changed laws to expand eligibility.
Sure, fine, he owns it. Obama is fine with helping the poor. Is that a bad thing? People don’t starve to death often in America – is that a bad thing?
Hi EGV,
As I have stated before, I have no problem with helping anyone legitimately in need of help and I am thankful people are not starving.
I have no problem with Obama helping the poor, just with his having so far done nothing to eliminate the need for food assistance.
I’m sure you’ve seen the video going around about the wealth inequality in this country. It is really no surprise that we have this type of situation when so few control so much of the wealth in this country. The good ole days of the 50’s and 60’s are over – nowdays, a person can work full time and still not be in a position to make ends meet. I don’t see the situation getting better anytime soon – and neither party has an answer for it.
EGV,
Yes I have seen the video. Typical class warfare claptrap. The fact that someone owns a mansion and numerous cars doesn’t stop you from owning a home, and as many vehicles as you want. It doesn’t stop you from eating, buying nice clothes, or taking a vacation. The fact that you live in a nice home and have enough to eat doesn’t stop someone else from doing the same, or better.
Look at it this way. When one of those eeeeeevil rich people buys an estate, let’s see, they likely have a realtor who hires a staff, they pay city and state taxes on the property they bought, which pay police, teachers, fire fighters, the county and city hospitals which care for the indigent, etc. They need a household staff, groundskeepers, and security. They certainly have to furnish, carpet and decorate the place. Well, someone had to produce these items and I’m sure a decorator has a staff to be paid. Now this eeeevil rich person will likely have parties, weddings, etc. which of course means there is need to hire more services. Now if these eeeevil rich people have more than one home, well ditto. If they own a yacht, they need a crew and staff. They likely will have chauffers. A private jet, well that also needs a pilot, crew, and maintenance.
My opinion is these eeeevil rich people generate a lot of employment.
Well they generate employment for sure. But it certainly seems like wages for the majority of people aren’t keeping up with inflation and living expenses, which is a problem. If a full time job isn’t going to keep up with your bills, it’s just a downward spiral of getting more and more in debt and doing without basic necessities such as healthcare.
Ex-GOP, why do you post the lie that Food Stamp usage borbids their use on “Healthy” foods, or “Health” foods?
Hi Jack,
True as that may be, I don’t think its the fault of the wealthy. Maybe its the fault of a gov’t’s out of control spending and taxing. Even though those frantic Democrats voted to repeal the medical device tax, there are still about 20 more new Obama taxes on the way.
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758
Not hard to see how they will affect future employment and business.
Mary – I’m guessing it wasn’t the video I’m talking about – it isn’t blaming rich people – you are making that up. It is simply looking at the distribution of wealth in the US – the actual vs perceived, and asks if that is a good distribution for the long term health of the country. It has gotten very skewed over the past 50 years.
Let me know if I should send a link to the video.
Question though – do you think America is in a good economy place when 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% barely register in wealth accumulation? I’m not asking if it is fair, unfair, etc… – asking if you think that is a good economic position for long term growth?
William – please direct me to the post of mine you are talking about – I did a search for the word ‘forbid’ (and ‘borbid’ for that matter) – and it hasn’t been used on this thread – so not sure which post you are referring to.
Thanks
Hi EGV,
I’m sure we’re talking about the same video and no it doesn’t blame rich people per se, it just shows the so called wealth inequality. Thank you for the link offer.
To me its just more class warfare, at least it gives that perception to the average viewer. I was pointing out that the rich generate more employment than any gov’t agency.
I’ve already posted that I think out of control spending and taxing is the problem, I linked Jack to the new Obamacare taxes. Thankfully my computer is behaving again. The vote by Democrats to repeal the medical device tax is a ray of hope that they may actually see a connection between taxation and job less, especially when it might cost them their re-elections.
Someone on this blog, after assuming I have a much higher income than I do, told me if I pay more taxes, so what? Give up my lawn service. Uh genius, what happens to the local family business that provides my lawn service if I and others cancel? Their suppliers? The people they do business with? Dahhhhh
The old wealth inequality issue.
1 That is simply class warfare rhetoric under a great disguise.
2 those who throw this out there NEVER describe how the wealth inequality gap is bad, versus neutral, or good. It is simply accepted as “bad.”
So, can someone please explain how the wealth gap is bad?
There are circumstances where it simply indicates that things are going well, or indicates nothing.
As our population grows, there are more people to buy a cell phone. A company making a decent cell phone thus might sell more cell phones.
If they make money on each cell phone, then they will necessarily become more wealthy.
That simple explanation, applied across our country, indicates that as our population, nad our economy, become more efficient, the handful of wealthiest people will be yet ever more wealthy.
The wealth rung below them will also be larger.
And so on.
The bottom of the wealth ladder will always have people who are, by definition, at the bottom. Whether a high bottom or low bottom.
As a country builds wealth by increasing population and increasing production efficiencies in many ways, the bottom rung will always be the bottom rung, but the top rungs will keep growing higher and higher.
It is like a pyramid.
This is simply a matter of increasing population and incrasing production efficiency.
Production efficiency: as the pop gets bigger, scales of mass production are worth trying, since the market is there. Look at all of the things that walmart can efficiently bring to many corners of america. 100 years ago, it would not have worked. Now it does.
Same with Amazon, and Ebay.
Concrentrated power CAN be bad for the general populace. For example, we are trying to make health care more affordable for everyone, but the doc organizations, hospital organizations, and pharamceutical organizations are using their existing wealth to influence the lawmakers AWAY from things that would be fair.
That is not simply a matter of providing goods and services efficiently. That is taking the power of money and translating it into political power – and this can be exploitative.
Taking away wealth, or forbidding wealth, does NOTHING to get at the lobbying influence.
No one ever says we need marginally higher taxes on the wealthy in order to cut them dow nto average-citizen lobbying poewr. That is ridiculous.
Instead, what COULD work would be:
TRANSPARENCY in politics – NOT health care reform developed as a last-minute, unseen, back-room deal.
TERM LIMITS
And other things, such as less crative writing with the Constitution, etc.
All of this to illustrate:
the “wealth gap” rhetoric is simply marxist rich-vs-everyday-guy propaganda. It makes us more ready to emotionally be manipulated by rich-vs-poor rhetoric as time moves along.
And it works. Some of us voted for democrats in the recent election because of a belief that the dems support the little guy.
Yet the dems have the hand in the same cookie jar as the repubs. Big banks. Pharmaceutical companies. Oil. Etc.
If you voted dem because the dems fight for the little guy and for fairness, you were suckered in. Their big dollar supporters are OK with being called evil and greedy – cuz they are having lunch with the dem senator next week – and you are not invited to that one, chump.
Decades ago, Michael Harrington wrote “The Other America.” Harrington was some stripe of marxist – doesn’t really matter to me which but you can answer or argue if you want — but he pointed out how, in his review of union efforts to help out th elittle guy up through the 1950s, they had opted to go for thelow-hanging fruit – geographically centered, skilled-wage-earning employees of big business –
while ignoring other “oppressed” groups in need, such as migrant workers.
While he supported political activity directed at re-balancing power to the average guy versus big business, he chastized the progressive, union movement for going for POWER versus going where they were needed most.
The dems and progressives are still doing that same thing. Even more now – they seek to expand the employee roles of a monopoly – govt – rather than big business, and then go unionize the govt employees.
So, union-elected politiicians build up more govt, knowing those employees will be union, and will in turn support th ere-election of th edems who made the govt jobs in the first place.
That, my friends, is entrenched power.
You think that one through and figure out how to dismantle that power game.
What would help the little guy? How about if the little guy had the tiniest chance of getting affordable healthcare anywhere other than when employed by a large employer, such as the govt or big business?
Then, we little guys could be more free to change jobs or start our own business. We cannot, very easily, because of indiv plan health care costs.
So, a leading political move to make a wealth power inequity more fair would be to END the ability of an employer to offer pre-tax healthcare as part of pay package.
This tax break was a move developed in WWII to help employers draw more ppl into the workforce without having to really up the wages. Its time has come and gone, and its damage has been done.
But has anyone mentioned that? We ALL have been in the spot of preferring a job with better benefits versus small company, or self-employment.
Will Obamacare make things more equal between the high wealth rungs and low wealth rungs?
Obama already told us that if we like our current deal, we won’t have to change.
There you have it.
The income gap is a red herring to get you to accept covert marxist and socialist power grabs, rather than to really make things work better between the high rungs of the wealth ladder and the low rungs.
There are real problems and real solutions – the tax break deal, term limits, etc. I just laid it in front of you plain as day.
But I squeeked out of school back when they still taught critical thinking and decent economics. Now it is all social justice, healthy eating, and green eco-activism.
Thank You The Last Democrat,
An outstanding post.
So, the statute of limitations on blaming Bush appears to have finally been reached, and now libs are replacing “blame Bush” with “blame the candidate who didn’t get elected rather than the candidate who got reelected after accomplishing a big fat nothing”. Ok, carry on.
The LastDemocrat –
Heck of a lot of substance in your post – just going to hit a few things:
1) I’ve never liked the term ‘class warfare’ because it just seems like a bad cliche. What even is class warfare? When one side has all the money and power, doesn’t make for much of a war.
2) The issue is, we have a consumer driven economy. If the wealth continues to reside only in the hands of the few, then the economy has a harder time growing. Furthermore, if we don’t have the avenues for advancing to higher rungs in the ladder, then things like drugs/crime become the avenue of choice rather than hard work. We already see it – with min wage stagnent, higher education costs climbing, and health care locked to employment – makes it tough. The other issue is in a new world with unlimited political spending, it puts the power in less hands. Thankfully – election one under the new rules showed that at least this time, political spending didn’t make a huge difference.
3) I’ve seen the thought thrown out of ending the tax break for businesses and insurance. I love the thought of getting rid of the tie of insurance to employment. I think single payer is the way to go, simplly because we already have universal emergency care – the least efficient universal care out there. Tying employment and insurance together though is a nightmare. Health Care reform is better than status quo – but far from the ideal.
Ninek – I think you are trying to be cute than thoughtful – but one point I do want to make is that Presidents put in certain political agendas and structures that aren’t easily erased.
For instance, you’ll see some people give Reagan credit for what Clinton did because it was similar tax structures. Now, you seem to be saying that Regan would get no credit for the later success. I don’t fully agree with that – I think Reagan brought in a better tax system than what previously existed, and some of that credits rolls forward.
Similarly, Bush brought in some new programs during his presidency that haven’t worked (his tax breaks is the big one), and not much has changed in those systems.
Last qustion – again, if you are being thoughtful about it. Are you saying if Romney had won, but not been able to overturn health care reform, he would have taken full responsibility of any success or failure of it shortly into his term?
I’ll answer for you – you’ll always link that simply to Obama.