Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for October 31, 2008

Regardless of what happens, we should just tell them that Obama won, if that’s all it takes to make their lives worth living!

Not much difference between celebration and despair…dance on the streets or watch a movie. Wish life were that simple.

to-mr says:

uncaalby,

you truly are obnoxious…   Sorry to disappoint.   your [statements] fairly drip condescension,   It was an ironic comment on Trudeau’s condescension. But I suppose your liberal lord and master can do no wrong, yes?   Actually, it was more an attempt at a joke, and fairly reasonable one at that, I thought. I guess only liberals are allowed to be funny on this forum.   but then since you live to be the first to post, what to expect…   Well, first, it just so happens I’m usually up this time of night on a regular basis anyway. And this forum isn’t very active, so being first isn’t really that difficult.   Second, I should like to know what exactly that has to do with the price of tea in China or anyplace else.   argh! why bother.   Good question.

Oddly, I find myself feeling a great empathy toward this fictional guy from Trudeau’s Kenya, because I’ll probably do the same things under the same circumstances. You guys better hope McBush wins, because me dancing in the streets is NOT an attractive thought.

UncaAlby says: I suppose your liberal lord and master can do no wrong, yes? … I guess only liberals are allowed to be funny on this forum. … I should like to know what exactly that has to do with the price of tea in China or anyplace else.

No “witty repartee” needed …

I guess this character has 5 more days of optimism left because its going to be:

Bush/Palin/McCain 2008

“4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years”

BirishB says:

No “witty repartee” needed …   Witty enough already, hmmm?

I didn’t know McCain is a communist.

the tricky depths of satire - is there no one in this country living a life of quiet desperation? - especially now? - and will no one rent a movie on Nov 5th to try to assuage some of that desperation? It’s likely that parts of this country will ‘explode with joy’ at an Obama victory - and other parts will seethe with vengeful, racist righteousness - what happens here does NOT stay here.

Remember, in a text forum, such as this, the old BBS’s, USENET, and others, we don’t get the tone of voice and facial expressions of the person who posted a message. A lot of misunderstandings have come about because a reader took the message differently than the author intended.

Bubbie7,

I think “Lame” meant Bush is a communist. He’s failed at that, too.

Boo! I think some people here are afraid of the dark …

Susan001 says:

There is always the possibility that the election will be rigged so that McBush/Palin-in-the-ass will win. Just like in 2000.   I can’t believe you people are still ON about that! You know that some newspapers went down to Florida to find out what would happen if they’d finished the count, right? Well guess what? They found out, in using every possible methodology except one, including the the methodology preferred by Gore, that BUSH WOULD STILL HAVE WON.   And that single method where Gore would have won? By 3 votes.   Nevermind the Democrats didn’t want to recount votes in the Florida Panhandle, where the districts are predominately Republican. Nevermind they violated Florida law in using inconsistent rules to “guess” what the voter must have “meant”.   Your boy Gore lost, FAIR AND SQUARE, and you’re still pouting over it. Tsk.     But if Obama DOES win, I wonder what country UncaAlby will move to.   I’m not moving. And even if I did, I’d still have Internet access, so you wouldn’t be rid of me.

LameRandomName says:

I long for the days when voters were actually educated and knowledgeable.   I don’t think that’s ever really been the case. Sometimes we look at the past with rose-colored nostalgia.   I think would actually be a historic first to have a significant fraction of the voting population actually know as much about what they’re voting about as they should.   And Landowners too, actually.   I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think that requirement is a good idea. One can be a perfectly productive, tax-paying citizen, while still renting. Some people might even prefer renting, as it frees them to be more mobile.   What would be nice is if only people who pay taxes could vote. If you don’t contribute to the pot, you shouldn’t have any say in how it’s spent.   Right now, 30% of eligible American citizens pay ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Is it any wonder most of them vote Democrat for promises of income redistribution?

bubbie7 says:

I didn’t know McCain is a communist.   Make no mistake, both candidates have definite socialist/communist tendencies. Of course Obama is worse, but McCain isn’t really that far behind.   Note how they both jumped at the chance to “bail-out” a significant portion of the private economy by buying it. The government now owns outright 80% of AIG. You don’t get much more communist than that.   There isn’t going to be a revolution, people. The socialists are simply taking over, little by little, bit by bit, one program at a time, one election at a time, one eminent domain abuse at a time, one wealth redistributing tax rule at a time.

Frida Bonita says: From what I recall it wasn’t just Florida.   In 2000, it was just Florida.   There was a wee problem in Ohio and also in some of the Southern states with polling hours and long lines.   That was 2004. There was an investigation, and no wrong-doing was ever found.   Somehow, if the shoe was on the other foot the GOP would be slamming their fists   Oh, no doubt. But, having finally lost and the other side assuming command, I don’t think Republicans would still be harping about the election 8 years later.   Now, I’ll admit, Republicans still harp over Clinton’s – eh – “digressions.” But let’s face it, Clinton is funny. Plus, he manages to stay in the news constantly anyway, so he’s fair game.   It’s ancient history. Gore lost. It’s way past time to get over it.

EVERYONE know 2000 was rigged. It’s just amazing that the American people allowed it! And Trudeau rocks!

Unc,

You keep dreaming in your little world and I’ll keep dreaming in mine. See you over at Pibgorn : )

Ya know, unca, I do like getting on your case a bit, but when you actually bring issues to the table, you are coherent. Doesn’t mean you are right, or that your facts are in line. I’m going to agree that it’s time to let 2000 and 2004 be history; but, then again, past is prologue. What I can’t believe is that this “socialism” line has gotten out of line. What Obama was talking about was ensuring that market forces create an equitable playing field. The reference to “redistributing wealth” was an extraordinarily bad gaffe; the intention of the statement was to say that the opportunity for wealth generation should be equitable. I’m almost SURE you have something to say about that, but until I am convinced otherwise, I’m comfortable knowing that I measured the ideas of one candidate against the other and have not fallen victim to hearsay, fear or misinterpretation.

Susan001 says:

UncaAlby, most of that 30% who pay no federal income tax are retirees who have paid into the system all their working lives   MOST? What fraction, exactly?   And of that fraction, what fraction are receiving Social Security but are otherwise independently wealthy or well-off, and in no need to receive Socialist Security?   I await your response.     I HOPE you’re not saying that they should not be elegible to vote!   Those who pay the piper can call the tune. The rest just dance.

BirishB says:

The reference to “redistributing wealth” was an extraordinarily bad gaffe;   A “bad gaffe” that he has repeated numerous times. The only “gaffe” part about it is that Americans will never knowingly vote for Socialism. So, in order to get it, it has to be disguised. Obama knows that he can’t get elected if he calls it “wealth redistribution.”   But what exactly *do* you call it when you increase taxes on people making more than $X, then give money in the form of tax credits to people who make less than $Y, including people don’t pay any federal taxes at all?   It is impossible for government to manipulate the economy to “create a n equitable playing field.” Every nation that’s ever tried it has failed. The very most we should expect from the government is to enforce a very small set of rules to keep people from cheating.   Everything else it does takes the form of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Naturally, this is sure to get Paul’s vote.

Frida Bonita that is FUNNY!   But, like much humor, a few salient facts have to be left out to really make it zing.   Like this bit about this whole “red state/blue state” nonsense:   2004 Election Results by county http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredbluelarge.png   Where are you, blue counties? Most of you seem AWOL.   But, here’s the real skinny – read the whole thing, it’s very interesting.   http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

“But what exactly *do* you call it when you increase taxes on people making more than $X, then give money in the form of tax credits to people who make less than $Y, including people don’t pay any federal taxes at all?”

I call it equalizing the playing field. I call it righting an unjust tax code that has for too long favored the minority (the wealthy).

“It is impossible for government to manipulate the economy to “create a n equitable playing field.” Every nation that’s ever tried it has failed. The very most we should expect from the government is to enforce a very small set of rules to keep people from cheating.”

Exactly. Like fixing the antiquated, bought-for tax breaks for wealthy Americans that allow them to keep a greater percentage of their earnings than those in middle and lower classes, as well as those that create a market where competition is snuffed by market-dominating corporations.

We’re talking about the difference between regulated and unregulated markets. And I’m fine with anybody who wants to disagree with me at that level. I don’t, however, think or believe that an overt attempt at socialism is in the offing.

Oh, and some (no, I don’t have numbers) don’t pay taxes because they need their entire paycheck to live. That’s called working poverty, and that’s is a definite wrong that needs to be fixed, too, by allowing access to wealth-generation. Some may call that a bit of socialism; I call it compassion for (anger at?) an unreasonable situation.

BirishB says:

UA: “But what exactly do you call [income redistribution via the tax code]?”   I call it equalizing the playing field. I call it righting an unjust tax code that has for too long favored the minority (the wealthy).   How does this square with the fact that this tax code already has the wealthy paying far more in taxes than either their numbers or their aggregate income would suggest is “fair”?   Somebody posted the official statistics from the IRS. We are already soaking the rich. Half the nation pays barely 3% of federal tax revenue, leaving 97% to the other half, and you want STILL MORE?   And this is already after taking every available tax break allowed by law.   some (no, I don’t have numbers) don’t pay taxes because they need their entire paycheck to live.   I know you don’t have the numbers, because if you had them, you’d be far less concerned. If you use global standards for poverty, it is virtually non-existent in America.   Further, poverty statistics are fluid, a fact which tends to be ignored. Very few people find themselves in the bottom quintile forever. Very few find themselves in the top quintile forever. And the middle class is shrinking because people are moving UP.   Large numbers of the “working poor” that we all hear about will graduate high school and soon find themselves in the next higher tax bracket. Or they’re retired and sitting on a mountain of equity in a house that’s fully paid for.   The actual numbers of minimum wage single-income earners trying to survive and feed a family are much smaller. But talking about that fact doesn’t do any good when you’re trying to push more poverty programs.

FRIDA!!   If you’re gonna make partisan jokes, they oughta at least be funny.   See, your red-state-blue-state thing, that was funny. Inaccurate, sure, (as per my links), but it was funny.

Unc,

You’re right, there’s nothing funny about the GOP.

When one becomes a conservative, it is necessary to shed one’s sense of humor.

I wouldn’t mind the move toward socialism if there was a chance in expletive deleted that it would include socialized medicine. Since that is obviously out of the question within my lifetime (which I plan to be far too long for anyone who dislikes me), then I will prefer a strict market economy (or “oeconomy” as we spelled it in the good ol’ days).

runar… if politicians could actually laugh at themselves, wouldn’t it ruin the joke for the rest of us?

runar says:

When one becomes a conservative, it is necessary to shed one’s sense of humor.   Well, Dennis Miller might disagree with you there. And, I know you never listen to Rush Limbaugh, but he can be hilarious. That’s probably why his talk show stays on top.   Al Franken, on the other hand, appears to have traded in his funny-bone as the price to pay for entering radio broadcasting. On SNL, he was funny. On AirAmerica, he is NOT.

Roger says:

if politicians could actually laugh at themselves, wouldn’t it ruin the joke for the rest of us?   LOL!! I sure hope not!

Here’s a good one for you – you can even customize the ending –   A tourist wanders into a back-alley antique shop in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Picking through the objects on display he discovers a detailed, life-sized bronze sculpture of a rat. The sculpture is so interesting and unique that he picks it up and asks the shop owner what it costs. “Twelve dollars for the rat, sir,” says the shop owner, “and a thousand dollars more for the story behind it.” “You can keep the story, old man,” he replies, “but I’ll take the rat.”   The transaction complete, the tourist leaves the store with the bronze rat under his arm. As he crosses the street in front of the store, two live rats emerge from a sewer drain and fall into step behind him.   Nervously looking over his shoulder, he begins to walk faster, but every time he passes another sewer drain, more rats come out and follow him.   By the time he’s walked two blocks, at least a hundred rats are at his heels, and people begin to point and shout. He walks even faster, and soon breaks into a trot as multitudes of rats swarm from sewers, basements, vacant lots, and abandoned cars.   Rats by the thousands are at his heels, and as he sees the waterfront at the bottom of the hill, he panics and starts to run full tilt. No matter how fast he runs, the rats keep up, squealing hideously, now not just thousands but millions, so that by the time he comes rushing up to the water’s edge a trail of rats twelve city blocks long is behind him.   Making a mighty leap, he jumps up onto a light post, grasping it with one arm while he hurls the bronze rat into San Francisco Bay with the other, as far as he can heave it. Pulling his legs up and clinging to the light post, he watches in amazement as the seething tide of rats surges over the breakwater into the sea, where they drown.   Shaken and mumbling, he makes his way back to the antique shop. “Ah, so you’ve come back for the rest of the story,” says the owner. “No,” says the tourist, “I was wondering if you have a bronze Democrat?”

Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread? Consider this:

1: More than 98% of convicted felons are bread users.

2: Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.

3: In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

4: More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.

5: Bread is made from a substance called “dough.” It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!

6: Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, and osteoporosis.

7: Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.

8: Bread is often a “gateway” food item, leading the user to “harder” items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.

9: Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.

10: Newborn babies can choke on bread.

11: Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That can kill an adult in less than one minute.

12: Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.    

In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:

1: No sale of bread to minors.

2: A nationwide “Just Say No To Toast” campaign, complete with celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers.

3: A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.

4: No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.

5: The establishment of “bread-free” zones around schools.

Remember: Think idiotically, act globally.

doctortoon Yes, we love you too.

Since what concerns Unc about us liberals seems to be economic based, which is a sad statement re: what our responsibility is as humans who need to coexist, here is an excerpt from a recent news article re: taxes.

Who Really Pays Taxes in America? by Cheryl Woodard

Recent news articles about skyrocketing tax fraud and corporate tax dodging have prompted a high level of public concern about the overall fairness and effectiveness of our current tax system. AskQuestions.org – an online news site that addresses issues raised by public demand – released a report today on “Who Really Pays Taxes in America?”

Drawn primarily from government statistics, the report describes not only how the tax burden has shifted from corporations to private citizens over the past 20 years, but also a disturbing new twist: the richest American households pay about 30 percent less tax – which includes federal, state, and local taxes combined – than middle-income households pay. And the public apparently understands what’s going on: an AP poll released Tuesday reports that 49 percent of Americans believe their taxes have gone up, not down, as a result of the Bush tax cuts, consider all the new local and state taxes imposed in response to withering Federal grants to the states. And new CNN/Money Magazine poll reports that, “60% of Americans said the Bush tax cut did not personally help them.”

In his proposed budget for 2005, President Bush cuts another $6 billion in federal aide to states, even though 30 states already face shortfalls totaling about $40 billion next year and more cutbacks in state spending are inevitable, as well as more increases in local taxes. While there are no national statistics that add up the costs, anecdotal evidence is clear. One California couple received a $100 tax refund from President Bush for 2003, but paid $515 in new local taxes. A self-employed man living in Nassau County, NY got a $300 tax rebate last year, but his property taxes went up $2,250.

While honest taxpayers deal with their growing burden, the independent IRS Oversight Board reported that tax fraud is $311 billion dollars per year – more than federal spending on Medicare in 2003 and greater than the gross revenues of either Walmart or General Electric. The Board continually requests funding to strengthen resources for IRS enforcement, but because some of the biggest campaign contributors may be the country’s worst tax cheaters, the incentives for auditing tax cheats is nil. As a result, audits are focused on those at the bottom of the income scale.

For the full article: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0416-08.htm

Frida two things –   First, Corporations do not pay taxes. Any taxation applied to any business entity is simply a cost of doing business which passed down to the consumer.   Second, the reason there is so much fraud is because the rates are too high, and the system is too complex. That’s why I favor abolishing the current tax code completely and going either to the so-called “Fair Tax” proposal, or the so-called “Value Added Tax” (sales tax) proposal.   But I know neither proposal will ever be adopted. It would mean the politicians would have to abandon one of their favorite tools for controlling the masses and doling out favors.

Somehow I was led to believe that businesses paid taxes and that since the 1970’s there has been an ever increasing amount of legislation that has given big business a break ie: corporations.

Are you telling me they never paid into our tax system nor are they today?

Three things. The federal government shouldn’t be sending any money to the states. If the states are having money problems, they need to deal with it with their own taxpayers, instead of trying to sock it to the other states’ taxpayers. This means they either raise taxes, borrow (raise taxes later), or cut spending.   Unlike the federal government, they don’t have the luxury of just printing more money.   Since we’re on about “red vs. blue” states, has anyone noticed that all the blue states are having fiscal crises directly related to overspending? I know at least California certainly is.   So, like Frida’s facebook friend, if the blue states were to secede leaving behind the red states, it likely wouldn’t be too long before they came to the red states with their hats in their hands, begging for hand-outs.   Yes, doctortoon, I’m verbose. I can’t help it. It’s a character flaw.

Unc,

You didn’t answer my question.

Frida Bonita says:

Are you telling me [corporations] never paid into our tax system nor are they today?   ON PAPER, of course they pay taxes. IN REALITY the people who pay those taxes are the people who buy the product.   Take for example, you sell a widget for $10, and your sales minus costs, including $10,000/year in taxes, works out to $100,000/year. Uncle Sam comes up to you and says your taxes need to go up to $20,000. So, are you going to just sit there and now only make $90,000/year?   No, probably not, not if you can at all help it. What you’ll do is raise the price of your widget to $11, or whatever the arithmetic works out to be so you can get enough extra money to pay for the extra taxes.   Of course, this can get complicated in real life, such as you raise your price and lose sales to overseas competition that doesn’t pay taxes here. So raising the price, you might sell less, and still end up making less money. It can be a very precarious balancing act.   Of course, the other thing you can do is fire somebody who’s making $30,000/year, and just get everybody else to work harder. Which, again, might cause other problems, such as being unable to meet production quotas, so you still end up making less money.   Companies don’t pay taxes, pure and simple. People do.

Frida Bonita says:

Unc,

You didn’t answer my question.   Sorry, we crossed each other.

Now you’re playing a word game and not sticking to the rules.

I’ve heard paying taxes is the price of doing business.

AND if what you want isn’t going to happen no matter who’s in office, then what is your issue?

I’m in the middle of making granola (yes, very liberal and NOR CALish of me)

So, I’m not ignoring you and will be back.

Yeah this election going to be rigged….by acorn.

Frida Bonita says: Now you’re playing a word game and not sticking to the rules.   Hmmm? What rule did I break?   I’ve heard paying taxes is the price of doing business.   That’s correct, it’s a cost. But all business costs are passed to the consumer, if the business is to remain profitable.   See, that’s how it works – you make something, you sell it at a price, you pay out salaries, you pay out leases, you pay out taxes, you pay out advertising –   And at the end of the day, if you did everything right, you’ve got some profit leftover.   Taxation is one cost of doing business which is (outside of corruption) completely outside the control of most companies. You can hire cheaper labor – you can move to a lower-rent district – you can take short-cuts on production – but you must pay those taxes no matter what!   If they go up high enough until there’s no profit leftover at the end of the day – well, guess what happens to the business?   AND if what you want isn’t going to happen no matter who’s in office, then what is your issue?   That’s simple. Obama is moderately worse than McCain. McCain has a lot of faults (a LOT of faults), but at least he seems to recognize that “soaking the rich” is not the right way to run a government.

WickedCrazy says:

Yeah this election going to be rigged….by acorn.   Aren’t they under investigation? Or did that peter out for lack of media interest? Hopefully any shenanigans like that can be nipped in the bud.

Agree with Unca there. The pricing model for all businesses take care of all the costs associated. So in a nutshell, if business taxes are raised, consumers pay more.

Don’t get that either, I’m paying more for goods and big business CEO’s have the largest income per capita. Mean while those working for GM, AIG, Citicorp; their take home dollar has decreased in value.

You want to talk theory and econ 101 that’s one thing, you want to talk reality that’s another.

Frida Bonita says:

I’m paying more for goods and big business CEO’s have the largest income per capita.   CEO’s make the big bucks because they’re the only ones who can do that job. Any company who fails to shell out the big-bucks will find themselves losing money pretty fast. Many companies have found this out the hard way. The smart CEO’s go where the money is.   Yes, it’s unfortunate that some CEO’s are paid big bucks to run a company into the ground – but the low-cost cheap ones run it into the ground faster.   Also consider all the various perks like “golden parachutes” and stock options, etc. didn’t exist before the government meddled and put income caps on executive compensation.   In the meantime, Barbara Streisand can make a zillion bucks to stand up on the stage and sing for an hour, and nobody gives a rip.   You want to talk theory and econ 101 that’s one thing, you want to talk reality that’s another.   Econ 101 reflects reality or it’s of no value.