December 1, 2020

Dueling Political Media

Today, two clever, attention-getting media offerings, capturing opposite perspectives on the role of government in American life.

First, from the right…



After the jump, the left strikes back…



  1. That we take advantage of things does not make them good for us, or for the whole.

    I used to take Summers off and collect unemployment. It wasn’t right. I could have worked somewhere.

    We do get used to handouts and become addicted to “freebies” (ha…that’s a good one).

    Look at Greece. Look over at Europe. These good ideas are, in many cases, unsustainable.

    I do believe that’s why the founders of this nation wanted a small government, with maximum (possible) freedom.

    • Steve, I personally don’t view those summers off as unethical. The problem was that the system allowed it. Sometimes the best way to fight against these excesses is to exploit them for personal gain until it becomes so ridiculous that somebody has to change it. If everyone was smart enough to take the government up on every free offer, perhaps they would be forced to be more practical out of sheer necessity. Just an idea I’ve been musing over. Don’t know if it actually works.

      • Thanks, Miguel.

        I do think it was wrong for me to take months off at the expense of society.

        And, you are right, if everyone did take advantage of everything, the system would collapse. I would rather those in power start cutting back the “entitlements” before we end up like Greece…or worse.

      • My wife used to work for one of the national tax chains. A few years ago, once the tax season had officially ended, many of her coworkers jumped in their cars and headed off together to apply for unemployment. When my wife was asked to join them, she declined, citing my own dim view of her doing so as a socially acceptabale reason for begging off.

        The real reason was simpler: she was a seasonal worker by choice, and so for her to collect unemployment the rest of the year was, we both agreed, unethical.

  2. Sue can afford a house BECAUSE of the mortgage credit? Oi vey.

    I just wanna know where the panel is that shows Sue not getting that Social Security after all because the system is bankrupt and collapsed under its own weight. Not that the tea party is the bee’s knees but what a silly exercise in logical fallacies.

    • And we wonder why we’re facing a foreclosure crisis?

      I also think that the panel about Sue being able to save for her kid’s college education by using a, gasp!, tax free savings account. The government is so gracious to let Sue keep some of her money! Or perhaps I should say “keep some of its money”. 🙂

    • See Sue’s college jack up tuition to extreme levels because of government subsidies and regulations limiting her ability to declare bankrutpcy, see Sue be unable to afford a house because of her absurd student loans and a real estate market broken by federal mortgage deductions, subsidies, regulations, and GSEs, see Sue stay in her dead end job to avoid losing health care because government regulations and tax schemes have tied health care to employment and made personal policies inordinately expensive; see Sue give up on retirement savings and college savings because she is still paying for studen loans and completely underwater on her home loan; see Sue work until she dies of a treatable disease because social security and medicare are insolvent and a government panel of bureaucrats decided treatment options weren’t cost effective and therefore not covered.

      • Oh, and, see Sue’s parents pay high property taxes to pay for gorgeous public school buildings and generous teacher pensions; see Sue’s parents be unable to afford sending her to their church’s school; see Sue reject her parents’ values and religion because of what she learned at public school.

        • And just what did that public school teach her that was against her parents’ values? Honestly? I went to a public school. Yes, we had sex ed. I learned how to prevent pregnancy and STDs. I’m not sure that’s against anyone’s values. Or do you mean science? At which rate I’d say if parents’ values or religion are against science then they’re fighting an uphill battle anyway.

          And why shouldn’t teachers who work for years qualify for a pension? At one time it was standard for just about all employees. True, most engineers don’t get one, but most starting engineers earn substantially more than starting teachers, even accounting for the summers off.And don’t forget some of those pensions were negotiated instead of pay raises.

        • Randy Thompson says

          Well OK.

          But, also, see Sue reject her parents values and religion because of what she learned at her parents church and because of what she saw in her parents!

  3. The Previous Dan says

    Hmm… The places where the cartoonist shows Sue “taking” money from the government are really Sue paying a little less TO the government in taxes or else getting back a small portion of the money the government took out of her wages. It seems that the cartoonist thinks the government has a right to everything sue makes and is being generous with her when they let her keep some or give a little back. Funny cartoonist.

    Fact is, if sue works her whole life she will pay a lot more in then she will ever get back in benefits. So Sue is correct when she says she has never taken a cent from the government.

    • In a way, this is how we in Britain (and, I would imagine, other countries with welfare systems like ours) justify our welfare state. Yes, we and Sue end up paying in more than we get out – otherwise it wouldn’t be sustainable. But we get stuff out when we need it most (when unemployed, when poor, when ill) and pay in when we need it least (when employed, when the going is good). Call me a cheese-eating European lefty if you like (because I am one), but I rather like the idea of using my income in middle-age to fund my education when I’m young. But that’s just my experience here – I try to avoid having firm opinions on American politics because none of it makes much sense to me.

      • The Previous Dan says

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m no anarchist. Government definitely has a vital place in our lives and it must be funded by our tax dollars. The debate centers on the size and scope of government. The bigger it is, the more inefficient and corrupt it is. By some estimates 70% of the taxpayer dollar here in the US is eaten up in administrative costs.

        The problem with using the government as my educational provider, healthcare provider, lending institution, savings bank, etc. is that they do a poor job. They may do OK with roads, police, courts, and armies but for the other stuff I can find 10 providers that can give me more back for each dollar invested.

        Smaller government, lower taxes, more control over my own life. Amen.

        • I would argue state colleges are far better education providers than the private schools. They’ve managed to provide real educations to poor folk far more than the privates ever have. I mean, U of C Berkeley, a top notch public school has a substantial number of students who are poor enough to receive Pell Grants.

          The reason the government has become the student loan vendor is due to the fact that the banks weren’t actually doing anything to earn the money from the loans. They relied on the gov’t to collect them, guarantee them, etc. Why should they get a profit when they’re not actually taking any risk?

          Medicare is popular. Just try to take it away. And it’s popular because you can go to any doctor etc. There’s a lot of freedom in the plan.

          Of course there’s going to be a lot of overhead in these plans. You have to determine if people are eligible, there has to be someone to sign off on the funds.

          Me, I’ll take universal access over my own access any day. After all, I received government assistance when I went to college. The state of IL gave me merit scholarships that I’ve never forgotten. I’ve probably paid them back well by now as I’ve never received any other direct funding from the state, but I’m still thankful. And quite loyal to my state.

        • Randy Thompson says

          I’ll take smaller government seriously only when there is no “big” business. I want a big government between me and big business, big financial institutions, big communications conglomerates (hello, Rupert!), and big agribusiness. When they get small, let’s have a serious talk about shrinking government. Until then, it seems to me that talk about the need for “small government” makes no sense.

          I trust the FDA, not the big pharmaceuticals.
          I trust the SEC, not Wall Street.
          I trust the FCC more than I do Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.

          I want intelligent, big government for the same reason a lion tamer wants a whip, a gun, and a chair.

          • The Previous Dan says

            Randy – Maybe I have grown cynical but what makes you think that big government protects you? I think that big pharm bought the FDA long ago and actually uses it to crush competition from “the little guys”; The SEC does nothing more than extort money from Wall Street; and the FCC plays no role in curbing the lies told on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, or anywhere else. Big government and big business are bedfellows. “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” applies to both big government and big business.

          • Big businesses usually only become as big as they when they are in cahoots with the government in one way or another. Also it’s very hard for these regulatory agencies to be completely independent from the industries they’re supposedly regulating. Many of the people that work in these agencies held jobs in companies they’re now supposedly regulating.

          • I can ignore big business with impunity, government, big or little, not so much. Try not paying a speeding ticket if you don’t believe me.

          • Randy Thompson says

            I agree with you about the revolving door between business and regulatory agencies. However, we are able to vote for people who hire these folks, and I take comfort in that. I’m pro-government because government is supposed to be concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number of people, fairness, justice, etc. Business is about making money. Period. And, big business is about making big money. I’m not upset because businesses make money; that’s what they’re supposed to do. But, I don’t want to wake up some day and find that I’m at the mercy of stock holders of some giant company. (By the way, I am a stock holder.) What I want is push back. I’d rather see someone clean up regulatory revolving doors than gut regulatory agencies. Agribusiness doesn’t care if my pork chop fell on the floor on its way to my table; the FDA does (or at least is supposed to).

          • Agribusiness doesn’t care if my pork chop fell on the floor on its way to my table; the FDA does (or at least is supposed to).

            Well, you might be surprised.

            Actually, my wife works for one of the biggest food companies in the world, and they people who work there really do care about a lot more than money. Safety, quality, and people access to a good food supply is something they put a lot of effort into. Of course they’re concerned about the bottom line as well, but I honestly don’t think it needs to be seen as an adversarial relationship between the FDA and food companies (or businesses and other agencies).

            It really has to do with the level the control comes at. The USDA, for example, oversees production at plants that produce meat and dairy products. The agents that do these jobs usually have some sort of relationship with the people they’re regulating. They can work together to solve problems. The idea that I don’t like is that somehow people in government agencies are somehow less prone to do things haphazardly or overlook things. History has proven again and again that’s simply not true.

        • They do? Perhaps you can point to a system that has, or has had no government involvement in education and that has also produced a society better educated than a western government funded education system. And I dont mean a part of a system.. I mean a whole system.

          • The Previous Dan says

            “And I dont mean a part of a system.. I mean a whole system”
            We need to stop think in extremes like that. As I indicated above I’m not for no government, I’m for limited government.

            Regarding college education, when I was young I attended a private Christian college that offered a good education for about the same price as a state school but without most of the funding from taxpayer dollars. Now I work for a private secular junior college that offers a good education for about the same price as a state school but without most of the funding from taxpayer dollars. The problem is that I am witness firsthand to how the government is trying to regulate us out of business in favor of its state sponsored schools. We are able to compete with them without putting a burden on the taxpayer, but they don’t want competition. They want control of the educational system. It is another version of the same fight that has been going on in the primary and secondary school system.

            The people want choices and competition, but the government wants control. I’m not proposing that there be no government sponsored public education. I am proposing that government schools stop the bully tactics and compete with private schools on a level field.

          • Regulate? How? If it’s about ADA, a Christian college is going to have horrific optics if it protests having to accommodate the disabled. I’d be curious what other kind of regulation is in play. I could see requirements re fuel-economy of fleets, and lawn chemicals which affect everyone else as well. Also, does your college accept federally-guaranteed student loans?

            I have seen that there’s some less well-known struggling Christian schools in the midwest that are offering tuition breaks this year as a way of getting more students in.

          • The Previous Dan says

            The regulation I refer to is in relation to the secular jr college I work for. We are a (oh the horror) for-profit school. That means our competition (the local community college) doesn’t have to worry about either graduation rates or if any of those who graduate get jobs, but our very accreditation is dependent on those things. End result, 64% of the people who enroll in an educational program with us will end up with a job in that industry. At the local community college that number is 28%. But to the Federal Government we are villains because we make a profit while the CC is a bunch of saints doing a public service. Truth is we turn our students’ investment into a money making career while the government backed CC wastes the time and money of most students.

            The regulation has to do with record keeping and reporting of numbers. In the 3 years since BHO took office we have had to hire three additional people (for a little school like us, that’s a lot) just to handle tracking our regulatory compliance. No value added to the student, but it does drive our tuition costs up. Also, any new programs we want to offer have a lead time of 12-15 months instead of the previous 6-8 months. That means we HAVE TO teach outdated material while we wait for multiple levels of government approval. We used to be able to compete, but we are slowly being regulated to death.

          • Oh yes, the for profit schools. They have a bad reputation because so many student took out loans to attend and then could not get jobs. If yours is doing well by the students that’s great, but there’s a lot that aren’t. I’m far more sympathetic to non-profit schools like DePaul, Northwestern and Loyola (my alma mater) in Illinois.

            Community colleges are not really comparable because many of them are attended by people from the community who just want a class or two but not a degree. My local one has classes in car mechanics and refrigerator repair and folks will take a couple classes and then get a job, not interested in graduating. Other classes offered are art classes. I’ve taken a couple drawing and painting classes for my own edification but because I’m already degreed I have no reason to “graduate” I just consider my local CC a good resource.

            A lot of people attend the local CC for the purpose of amassing credit hours that they can then transfer to 4 year state schools, also. Some get associates degrees, but most just transfer their credits.

          • The Previous Dan says

            “If yours is doing well by the students that’s great, but there’s a lot that aren’t.”

            That’s what the media has told you but it isn’t true. There may be a highly publicized bad apple or two, but someone enrolling in a for-profit educational program has twice the chance of getting a job in their chosen industry than someone enrolling in community college. That is comparing program enrollments to program enrollments which has nothing to do with a person taking a personal enrichment course or two.

            If a for-profit doesn’t graduate and find employment for a mandated percentage, they lose their accreditation. So if your local for-profit is accredited (and not on probation) that means that they have met standards well beyond those to which your local community college is held.

      • You’re a cheese-eating European lefty. 🙂

  4. Maybe we should give up politics for lent.

  5. Joseph (the original) says

    i am unemployed since April 2011. i have a small pension & get spousal support. yet even when i was working & having a maximum of taxes taken out, it still have to cough up another 1/3 of that! my only consolation is this: my spousal support actually pays for all my taxes with some left over. and this year will be lean & the following 2 years or more will be spent full-time pursuing my Master’s Degree…

    the one small silver lining was my state refund that paid for the tax preparation…

    the problem with the way my earned money is handled by government thru taxes is something that hurts the lower rung demographic as the upper enders simply revert to the shell-game methods of money management that proportionally reduces their taxed income.

    God bless the upper enders, but those without the creative options to ‘shelter’ money still live check-to-check & have it harder to save enough to get it working for them as it does those with more discretionary income…

    i can see why there is a distaste in the way taxes are calculated/levied. not sure how realistic tax law changes are in this country, but i would hope they do result in a reduction in redundant/unnecessary goverment that runs leaner & more efficiently as it handles the things it does for the good of all…

    i will be sending in that IRS check on the deadline. no need to give it to them too soon… 😉

  6. Here are my thoughts….

    I’m not expecting to receive social security becuase the system will be bankrupt. I think many young people are going to be screwed. Myself included….my cynicism towards faith also carries over to politics and business

    I worked at one time for Washington Mutual and sold the loans that eventually brought down the bank. If you are pissed…feel free to blame me. My grandmother had over $10,000 in WAMU stock and when the bank became the largest bank failure in US history he $10,000 was reduced to pennies. My grandmother had a hard time with that and she remembered the Great Depression though her family wasn’t touched by it.

    So I am cynical towards banks in many ways…

    Government has its plus and minuses, and while I am a firm believer in health care reform I still don’t think the government is the best way to bring about reform. After living in DC and having friends work in the government burocracy it’s been an eye opening experience. There was a guy that I met who worked at the Bureau of Labors Statistics and I think he told me that it took over a year and a half to get hired. I don’t want to see that type of sluggish system response to come to someone juts diagnosed with cancer or sickle cell amenia. I’m not saying the government should not be involved. But I am still weary

    I’d clasify myself as a liberal on social issues, conservative on military issues, but hate seeing people just attack the government. That’s why I dread politics….

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      I don’t want to see that type of sluggish system response to come to someone juts diagnosed with cancer or sickle cell amenia.

      Won’t be sluggish at all if you’re a Senator, Congressman, court favorite of same, or other Inner Party Member.

    • I have consulted with the government for years and here’s what I obsereved:

      There is no incentive to improve the system, become more efficient or use money wisely – all incentive is to spend the budget before the end of the fiscal year so that the program can receive at least that much or more the next.

      There is no incentive for doing a good day’s work for the company, only to make it to work, and then….

      There is every incentive to keep the program going, even if it is duplicated 10 times over throughout the government. Once a program is started it is hard to consolidate or eliminate.

      Government jobs used to be salary poor and benefit rich. Now they are both salary and benefit rich… but who is ultimately paying?

      A contributing component to the issues in Greece is that more than half the population works for the governement, but no one wants to pay the taxes to support the bloated bureaucracy.

      The political cartoon screams to me – look what the government can do for you with your money, on the surface it looks good but underneath it is purely rediculous.

      Government does have a role in helping those in need, but it shouldn’t become a permanent dependency. otherwise there won’t be much fight when things are mandated instead of allowing one to choose…

  7. I’ve worked in both government run entities and private. Trust me, the government is no more unethical, unreliable, or inefficient than the private sector. We pay CEOs of private companies millions with the assumption that this is the only way to ensure that we will get the highest quality. Public employees? Oh, heck, pay them crap or slightly above crap, but they should still be able to get blood out of a turnip.

    People tell me all the time the difference is that a bad business will close. Maybe, maybe not. Many just limp along, raising the price of their product until the place goes belly up and takes a whole bunch of hardworking people with it. I once worked at a private company that sent a package of papers via overnight FedEx because they had not been alphabetized correctly. Another company fired people so often that we were tempted to put a fire sale sign on the front door. How efficient is it to constantly have to train a new person? It’s not, but as long as the stockholders are happy today, who cares what happens tomorrow? I care, because what happened in the past 5 years is the result of that thinking. I have little hope now of my retirement accounts earning enough money for me to live in retirement, social security is being called a ponzi scheme by those with way more than enough money to live well until they pass on, and Medicare being threatened with extinction. I figure my chances of dying destitute and in the street are getting better and better.

    I also worked at a institution of higher ed (Christian at that) for a time. It was filled with Sues moaning and groaning about the government intrusion in their lives as they collected Medicaid payments for the children they kept having, and those who had older children seemed quite proud of the fact they their kids were going to college for free using a government program that paid for the tuition. They also were given access to the institution’s free food bank for students. And they almost all loved that Tea Party.

    • Funny how that works. That’s been my experience as well. The very people who benefit from programs are the ones who complain the loudest about big government. Something doesn’t jive.

  8. Not a Santorum fan, but his comparison to where we’re heading – where government tells us what rights we have rather than the people giving government a mandate to exist in the first place – with the French Revolution struck a chord for me, and the media called his comments way out of whack (w.o.w). Really? When government thinks a tax credit is a hand-out, when it isn’t their money in the first place – something is wrong. Tax reform is so badly needed, but we’re so used to playing the game that no one will have the stomach to pursue it.

    • Yes, when someone says that a moderate, centre right politician, with basically minor adjustments to a system is comparable to the mass killings of the French Revolution, it IS out of whack. It is crazy, it is stupid and it is evil to do that.

      • Oh, you’re right. I forgot the part of the quote, where basically a vote for Obama is a vote for guillotines. It was definitely w.o.w.. Gingrich had a gem this morning: a vote against Obama is a vote for world peace, or something w.o.w. like that. The absurd extreme rhetoric has become such a part of the national dialogue that maybe it just sounds normal. Scary.

      • Headless Unicorn Guy says

        Problem is, the way the generations are arranged right now with an Idealist Generation (Baby Boomers) ascendant, any revolution WILL resemble the French more than the American. Idealist gens are into Purity of Ideology and Eyes constantly gazing towards The Perfect Utopia beckoning on the horizon. Unfortunately, they are not into the same Ideologies (only the Perfect Purity of their own), so they usually split into factions going at each other’s throats To The Death For The Cause. This lasts until the Reactive Generation below them (the Gen-Xers) ages to the point they come into enough power and influence to act as damper rods in the melting-down core. But for now, The Republique of Perfect Virtue beckons, and the Perfect Utopian Omelet justifies breaking more and more eggs. Whether that Perfect Utopia is the Perfect Socialist State or a Reconstructed CHRISTIAN America.

  9. First, sorry about the duplicate post above!
    Now, onto my major point. The example in the cartoon is mostly stupid and misses the major point. It is not the tax breaks that make government a force mostly for good in our lives, it is the services that it provides and the functions it performs.

    See Susy get born. See the doctor who went to a state school before going onto a government subsidised university deliver the Susy.

    See Susy run. See Susy fall down. See Susy get an infection. See Susy being given a prescription for an antibiotic that was developed by a government funded research scientist.

    See Susy go to public school. See Susy get taught by an employee of the state to read, write, appreciate literature, science (even if it goes against the lies her parents tell her about the origin of the universe), computers..

    See Susy do her homework. See Susy use the internet which was created by agencies of the government.

    See Susy use the World Wide Web. See Susy use HTML developed by a state funded scientist at a research facility that is funded by many governments working together.

    See Susy leave school and start a business. See Susy benefit from the existence of an educated workforce thanks to the existence of public schooling.

    See Susy’s business flourish. See Susy benefit from the relative law and order that exists thanks to the government provision of policing and justice systems.

    See Susy’s business accidentally catch fire. See Susy’s business saved by the existence of state funded fire brigades.

    All through Susy’s life, she is better off because of the existence of government. She lives in a society that is better on my counts than any that has ever existed in the history of man. Susy is lucky she lives somewhere with a “big government”.

    • Thank you Donalbain.

    • The problem with all these issues is that it’s not really a pure black and white issue. The question to me isn’t whether or not these programs produce beneficial outcomes, but whether or not they outcomes they are providing are worth what is being invested into them. And then following that, is that investment sustainable in the long run. Right now we are at debt levels that are unsustainable in the long term and we are borrowing something like 40 cents or more for every dollar spent. In other words, the ends don’t justify the means.

    • “Susy is lucky she lives somwhere with a ‘big government.'” At least until that big government collapses under the weight of its massive unfunded entitlements and debt (I believe they’re calling it “Going Greek” these days).

      It’s easy to talk about all of the ‘benefits’ we’re receiving from “big government” when that government gives us those benefits by borrowing on the backs of our grandchildren (even if many of those benefits could be provided by non-government organizations or state governments).

      Five minutes before the Titanic hit the iceberg: “We’re so lucky to be on this amazing ship.” Five minutes after, not so much.

  10. The comic seems to go off the premise that the .GOV has money off it’s own. Like Uncle Sam has a job and tax cuts and credits are taking money from the government.

    The .GOV confiscates OUR incomes. So anything in the form of tax credits or cuts is giving back to me what is mine!

  11. And I should add; the .GOV should not be in the Education and Student Loan business.

    • Perhaps you can point to an education system that has no .gov involvement in at all. If it works, I would like to see it. (And I do not mean a part of a system that educates a section of society. A system in which the whole of society has access to high quality education)

      • Donalbain,

        I’d like to see the government system in which the whole of society has access to high quality education.

        • Joe, would you rather they have no access to education? Look at Afghanistan.

          • Suzanne,

            Why not just say, “Look at most urban centers of America”?

            If the fear is that reducing (or even eliminating) federal involvement in education (which is what I think Dave was getting at) will lead to lots of people having no access to high quality education, then we don’t have to wait. That’s the system we have now. I know that there are a lot of great public schools (setting aside the official agnosticism and frequent hostility to Christianity, biblical morality, etc); I’m the product of one. But to criticize those who want the federal government out of the education business on the grounds that, if we get our way, lots of people will somehow not have access to education is just silly. They don’t have access to quality education now, despite the gazillion dollars that we’re spending to fund the NEA’s pension plans.

          • Headless Unicorn Guy says

            During my college days, “Winding up in Afghanistan” was an idiom for “the middle of nowhere”.

        • Most of Western Europe

          • Joe,
            Those in urban centers might not have access to fabulous education but they have something. In a place like Afghanistan, if you are rural, or a woman, or plenty of other reasons, you have no access to education because there are no schools, good, bad, or otherwise.

            I realize that the federal government is in the hole financially, but some of what they do exists for the betterment of all. I live in a rural area, and the old timers can tell you how lousy life was before the fed gov’t stepped in and helped them get electricity and phone services. Bringing their lot in life up helped the economy in the entire area and it was a benefit to all.

  12. Headless Unicorn Guy says

    Yahoo headline over the weekend: “Santorum says Obama policy “Not Biblical”.

    First reaction: Not Biblical? What about “The Number of his Name is Six Hundred Sixty Six”?

    Second reaction: God’s Anointing for POTUS has been withdrawn from Godly Gingrich and bestowed upon Saint Santorum. (Just as it had been bestowed on and withdrawn from Sarah Palin, What’s-her-Face…)

    It’s Election Year where Messiah Politics is king. Expect to be followed into the toilet stalls and Witnessed to about Politics Politics Politics Politics Politics (“HAVE YOU ACCEPTED RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL AS YOUR PERSONAL *LORD* AND SAVIOR?!?!?!?!?”) for the rest of the year.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      And Sanctus Santorum just topped himself this morning. Further denunciations of the Obamanation of Desolation, invoking Spiritual Warfare against Wickedness in High Places (like the White House), using the terminology “The Father of Lies has it in for America”, actually naming Satan, etc.

      Is he running for President or Witchfinder-General?

      • The Previous Dan says

        Of course Obama says his policies are based on his Christian faith and republicans are hypocrites. No religious imagery there right? And Maxine Walters says that Republicans are demons and tea partiers can go straight to hell. And let’s not forget years of Democratic congress-persons accusing Republicans of wanting to starve our kids, euthanize the elderly, jail homosexuals, imprison blacks, and force woman into slavery. But wait… that is all true so it’s OK, right?

        We don’t need a Witchfinder-General, we already have the whole Democratic Party engaged in it.

        • The Previous Dan says

          Oops, “Walters” should be “Waters.”

        • Headless Unicorn Guy says


  13. That cartoon makes so much sense because every time the government generously allows you a tax credit, that’s a gift to you from the government. Really. Because it’s all the government’s money, isn’t it? What, you think you earn it? Funny Sue.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      — California State Legislator/Inner Party Member, back when Prop 13 (property tax ceiling) passed