digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at editorialcartoonists.com

I'd Like To Buy A Vowel... [Political Cartoon]

editorialcartoonists.com — *****

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cashman57, on 05/05/2008, -63/+33This recession can't be denied even if the president can't bring himself up to recognize it.
    • whataboutdave, on 05/05/2008, -6/+106Congratulations you understood the joke.
      • vanimal, on 05/05/2008, -0/+41Maybe he's aware of the recession and is trying to stimulate the economy by spending more money on vowels.
      • ROFLance, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2If Bush buys a "U," it's as if he's saying to the American people: "I'd like to buy YOU." AKA rebate checks.
    • Retnuh730, on 05/05/2008, -7/+34I hate how obvious comments like this get dugg up like crazy, while the actually smart and funny ones usually go unnoticed.
      • aldenhg, on 05/05/2008, -3/+18That's why I've stopped commenting as much as I used to. There's no discussion anymore, just "OMG LOL I think that's really funny!" for the first 15 comments, and then they all have replies of a similar ilk. All the idiots with more time on their hands read the upcoming stories, so once the story hits the front page it's got a bunch of retarded comments stacked up, so I don't even bother joining in. *sigh*
    • souljaboytellem, on 05/05/2008, -2/+16I forgot my cookies and gold stars, I'll be right back
      • sarixe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2don't worry, i always have mine just in case.
    • SRSco, on 05/05/2008, -20/+49The recession can be denied because we aren't in one.
      • cerejota, on 05/05/2008, -8/+23"A recession is a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year."

        We had 0.6 percent growth in the last two quarters (2007 IV and 2008 I) according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.gov). So its strictly true that there is no recession. However, growth underneath one percentage point is growth well within the margin of error, and in the case of the USA, well beneath the birth rate. It means the per-capita real GDP has actually fallen. So hence there is a mild or borderline recession.

        In any case, the situation is much worse than what your triumphalism would argue for.

        • TheKingInYellow, on 05/05/2008, -13/+5like clouds. . . way way way over your head.
        • ronmexico, on 05/06/2008, -8/+3Feel free to manipulate the data so it conforms to your conclusion.
    • PhattyPhattMatt, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2@cashman57
      FAIL
      • sarixe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1interesting, i didn't know who you were replying to. thanks a lot for that!
        /s
    • wendelgee2, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6What, Cashman, no anti-Obama vitriole?
    • Gryffydd, on 05/05/2008, -1/+23"In macroeconomics, a recession is a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession
      So yeah, the recession can be denied if you take the actual definition of Recession.
      • LLLSecretChimp, on 05/05/2008, -1/+20Sure, if you want the economists' definition of recession. The journalists' definition of recession is "economic performance under Republican administrations during election years."
      • doublebummer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Stop being logical. We prefer to make our decisions about the health of the economy based soley on emotion.
    • elnerdo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+14"This recession can't be denied even if the president can't bring himself up to recognize it."
      (Since there are so many irrelevant comments before mine, I figured I'd quote it, anyway).
      The president is dumb, I'll give you that, but he's not blind. He, (like all current politicians) knows that there is a recession, BUT what you fail to understand is that if an elected official (or somebody like the freaking president) actually SAID that there's a recession, the entire stock market would panic. The idea is that if our government accepts that there's a recession, then a lot of investors will start selling, and then the recession will get worse. It's in the best interest of the country for our elected officials to continue to deny that we are in a recession.
    • RepubOperative, on 05/05/2008, -16/+2What was funny was that the character looking at the Wheel Of Fortune letters could be ***** jughead Obama....not Bush. Bush does not have ears that jut out six inches....but the black man Obama does.

      JUGHEAD OBAMA!
      JUGHEAD OBAMA!
      JUGHEAD OBAMA!
      JUGHEAD OBAMA!
      JUGHEAD OBAMA!
      JUGHEAD OBAMA!
      JUGHEAD OBAMA!
      JUGHEAD OBAMA!
      JUGHEAD OBAMA!
      • Godin7654, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2It's funny, I always thought that the purpose for the comments system was to get dug UP, not buried...
      • archiesteel, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The fact that you felt compelled to call him "the black man" further highlights your barely-concealed racism.

        And, just so you know, W. Bush is often depicted as having long ears by cartoonists.
    • senatorpjt, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2This cartoon has been subtitled for the intellectually impaired.
  • JimboLimbo, on 05/05/2008, -48/+11hey at least he's not trying pay the lady in yellow for sex
    • aliengoods, on 05/05/2008, -12/+33Yes, taking the country into a recession is much better than getting laid. Moron.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/05/2008, -14/+21Show me the actual numbers to support claims of a recession and I'll stop laughing at you and pointing.
        • thcobbs, on 05/05/2008, -3/+15Funny how "recession" now means that we aren't in an economic boom.
        • cerejota, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1http://www.bea.gov/
          • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3I know you probably put some feverish effort into that, son... But amazingly, I was unable to find a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. You weren't trying to pull numbers out of your ass now, were you?
        • Jus7in, on 05/05/2008, -4/+1Looks like it's time to get out of the basement, douchebag.
          • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4I noticed you don't have any actual numbers to show me, Sherlock. Bravo!
          • Jus7in, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2If you are serious, you aren't worth the time it would take for me to find statistics. Look at food prices. Look at gas prices. Look at mortgages. Look at banks collapsing. Look at the USD compared to other currencies. Open your ***** douchebag eyes and look around.

            If I was next to you, I would honestly spit in your face for being a complete moron.
          • djbon2112, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Commodities naturally increase in price as a product of inflation. Just because we've been trying to regulate the markets to keep our costs down (and exploiting developing countries) doesn't mean what we have now is a recession. This is just our efforts coming back to bite us in the ass.

            Oh, and yes, please do show us some numbers. All the ones I've seen point to GDP growth (albeit small), not decline, which is the defining characteristic of a recession.
          • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I can't help it you're an idiot, justin...but I'll take pity on you since that Women's Studies degree obviously isn't doing much for your comprehension of math and economics. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP decline. We have not had two or even ONE quarter of GDP decline. Therefore no recession has occurred. Let me know if you need any of the big words explained to you, dumbass.
    • elnerdo, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2This is Bush, not Clinton.
      • linagee, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3At least he's not trying to melt down the plastic letters to get the oil back from them.
        • ElAmo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That could be a good thing. Bush would never do that.
    • Black6x, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Bush is not Eliot Spitzer.
    • tewas, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3buddy if president can make sure i still have job, pay 1$ for gallon of gas and dollar is in par with Euro, for all i care he can screw anything moving
  • diggester, on 05/05/2008, -31/+46Mirror in case:
    http://image.linkinn.com/userfile/pictures_0805/Im ...
    • bshakil, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Mirror is slower than the original....
  • cr4ft, on 05/05/2008, -40/+15I wonder if buying a vowel after all the squares were shown was another indirect attack at Bushs' intelligence
  • mentallyinhell, on 05/05/2008, -19/+4At least he's no longer denying the recession, now he's just downplaying it.
  • alexhud, on 05/05/2008, -40/+28we are not in a recession, given the economy is barley growing but a recession is a lot worse then this. think about the 80's when we had -7.8% economic growth in a quarter. just put some money in high yield stocks and you will be fine.
    • dinsy, on 05/05/2008, -12/+6right, good one, no thanks.
    • KokomoNYC, on 05/05/2008, -5/+33That's right! We just need to grow more barley!
    • jaymzdean, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3Stop using then when than should be used. You people are driving me *****.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 05/05/2008, -9/+3You need to get laid.
        • jaymzdean, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4My sexual needs are satisfied, but KokomoNYC's grammar and your etiquette need a little work. Practice, practice!
        • Remmiz, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2RedTube is pretty awesome, ain't it jaymzdean?
        • Vindexus, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Get laid and than what?
    • Bean888, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5April 8, 2008, Greenspan: "...we are in the throes of a recession".
      http://www.cnbc.com/id/24016186
      I don't know who to believe anymore.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 05/05/2008, -2/+12We are not in a recession. We are on the brink of one. The economy isn't strong but we certainly aren't in a recession. Once the housing markets pick up again and people are smart enough to buy houses they actually CAN afford, things will be ok. We just need to work on the national debt so we can be more self sufficient rather than at the hands of China.
      • cupid311, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3The only problem is the guy in office wants to keep spending money that we don't have. And not in areas we need it either. But yes i do agree with you.
    • mycatsasha, on 05/05/2008, -2/+0Yay optimism...?
  • VandyB, on 05/05/2008, -18/+6I can't think of anything clever to say
    • souljaboytellem, on 05/05/2008, -3/+8There's an expression that can be used here...
  • redcolumbine, on 05/05/2008, -16/+54Sure thing, Mr. President! Sign here for a nice affordable loan. - Bank of China
    • Conwaysb0718, on 05/05/2008, -2/+14yea, followed up with "see you tomorrow!" said simultaneously.
      • brkhobowriter, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2More like "See you next Tuesday!"
      • EmerilLIVE, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1Wow, how are you so ignorant? The United States sells Bonds on the open market to cover the deficit. We operate in a mostly free market, which means China can buy them if they want to, so can you! China buys them as an investment, just like you can buy stocks, bonds, mutual funds, to make a return on investment.
        • poopmaster, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1how are you so worked up over this? BURY
    • senatorpjt, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2We want.... more money.
      Other countries have a lot of money, give us some of that money!
      • etceteraing, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I don't think world economy works like that, friend.
    • 533n, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It's actually funny that everyone blames Bush for the recession. As much as I hate Bush, every 10 years there is a recession. And historically speaking being at war helps a country out of recessions by increasing production and lowering unemployment rates within the country. The recession in 2001 after his inauguration started months before his candidacy and way before the war on terrorism started. This recession is not specific to the USA and is not caused by him.
  • smacksaw, on 05/05/2008, -29/+5Why does it have a cartoon of Ron Paul?
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+16That's not Ron Paul. Its Ross Perot.
  • frenchkick, on 05/05/2008, -84/+218goddamn
    we are not in a recession people

    from wikipedia:In macroeconomics, a recession is a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for four or more successive quarters of a year.

    our GDP has not been down in the last few months!
    check the facts!

    • aldenhg, on 05/05/2008, -35/+175Check it against inflation and you'll change your tune.
      • ostracize, on 05/05/2008, -19/+4Or the national debt.
      • Dibou, on 05/05/2008, -27/+33Except neither have anything to do with the definition of a recession.
        • seanc6610, on 05/05/2008, -5/+47if the dollar is worth less, and our GDP stays about the same, then it is actually worth less too. inflation has a lot to do with it.
          • thatsmyaibo, on 05/05/2008, -8/+3I agree with you but this is still not a recession.
          • terryskorski, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3ignorance is bliss... or is it ignorance is american education?
        • wburglett, on 05/05/2008, -7/+5Fact's have nothing to do with whether we are in a recession? Really?
      • GraveyBrains, on 05/05/2008, -3/+15Its that word "real" in the definition thats kicking us in the nuts. As long as inflation is out growing the GDP the GDP isn't "really" growing at all, leaving us with a recession
        • caboosemoose, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.6 percent in the first quarter of 2008, according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP also increased 0.6 percent."
          - http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpne ...

          Hush.
      • oxilite, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0Agreed, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/karlsson8.html
      • MacMan88, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1GDP deflator FTW.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_deflator
    • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -17/+80I think the problem is that the GDP is no longer an accurate measurement of the economic health of the majority of Americans.

      Republicans claim that the economy is doing fine because the rich and the ultra-rich are doing quite well for themselves.

      Because there is such an uneven distribution of wealth in this country, the success of the wealthy looks like success for the nation- but in fact MOST people in the country are hurting, but because their slice of the pie is so small, it doesn't really move the needle on the economic indicators which detect the nation's combined wealth.
      • shaka999, on 05/05/2008, -6/+11How is that a problem with the definition of a word.

        If we need a new word then great but recession has already been used.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 05/05/2008, -14/+7Because there is such an uneven distribution of wealth in this country,...
        Try looking at India where the top .0000001 % have $100 Trillion and the common folk live on $10 a year
        • FlagrantDrugUse, on 05/05/2008, -2/+11Which has nothing to do with our income disparity...
        • ArcOrion, on 05/05/2008, -1/+10Uh, what? India's total GDP is just under three trillion. Exaggeration much?

          https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ...
        • sleepwalkers, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Which means that there couldn't possibly be an income disparity in the United States as well, of course.
        • humpinillini, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1doing the math... the top 160 people in India are all the richest people in the world by about a factor of 10. Nice.
      • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -6/+13"Because there is such an uneven distribution of wealth in this country"

        Are you saying that's something we need (equal distribution)? Go ahead & try it, then enjoy your equal misery.
        • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -4/+6There are a lot of options between ridiculously uneven distribution and completely equal distribution.

          How about we have a proportional distribution that keeps all our people prosperous?

          It's not a crime for the rich to get richer- it is a crime when they achieve that goal by making the poor poorer.
          • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -11/+4The poor make themselves poorer. You are looking at wealth as if it's finite. It's there for those willing to go after it. Work smarter, not harder.
          • dexter411, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5"It's not a crime for the rich to get richer- it is a crime when they achieve that goal by making the poor poorer."

            1) ... Nope, definitely not a crime either way. If I want to increase profits at Walmart by raising prices, I'm getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and I've committed no crime. Alas, said poor people can shop at Target.
            2) The rich getting richer doesn't make the poor get poorer. Coming from someone born in the Soviet Union with family still there, any notion of "wealth redistribution" as a good thing should be seen in a very critical light.
          • Cepster, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2Isn't that communism?
          • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -4/+6#1) Romey: It's easy to say "work smarter, not harder"- the idea being that the US is a meritocracy, where upward mobility (the American dream) is accessible to all. Unfortunately this is fiction. You can read about it here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/mobi-m20 ...



            #2) dexter; Rich people get richer on the backs of the poor not through raising prices as you claim (which arguably the market should be able to correct for). The rich get richer on the backs of the poor when they outsource American jobs to China (thereby avoiding labor laws like safety standards and minimum wage), and when they cheat people out of their pensions, or when they lobby congress not raise the minimum wage for decades while inflation keeps skyrocketing (which in effect is just a huge pay cut for the very poorest workers), and where is all this extra money going to? Its going to CEO salaries- which have gone from being 10 times that of the lowest paid worker all the way to 10,000 times the lowest paid worker. Throw in a couple of Worldcom and Enron schemes which robbed people blind, just for good measure.
          • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4I applaud them for outsourcing. There is no reason why you should be paid $20/hr for something a trained monkey can do.

            As in immigrant from what used to be the USSR, "The American" dream is coming along nicely for me.
          • cupid311, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3@RomeyRome: I am extremely tempted to sling all sorts of expletives at you because of your ignorance. But that wouldn't do anything besides prove me to be an arrogant prick. But the fact of the matter is we do need jobs here. And with the inflation the way it is we need to be paid more. Tell me you can support yourself off of just minimum wage. I know it's near impossible here to do so and I live in a place where the cost of living is very low. Try minimum wage in a larger city, or supporting a family off of minimum wage. Doesn't work.
          • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3I couldn't do squat on minimum wage. That's why I worked graveyard & went to school during the day to get a degree. Now I don't even know what the minimum wage is as I know I'll never be anywhere near it. If my field goes to *****, I'll repeat it again. Get a new loan & a new degree. Markets change. You have to change with the times. Ask the TV repair men.
          • dexter411, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3"or when they lobby congress not raise the minimum wage for decades while inflation keeps skyrocketing (which in effect is just a huge pay cut for the very poorest workers),"

            Ever wonder how many Americans are on the minimum wage? Apparently not. In fact, most people on the minimum wage are either students, part-timers, or people in the workforce for six months or less. Raising the minimum wage is not a favorite of unions because they care about poor workers; they do it because of the way they negotiate salaries for people NOT on minimum wage. If you want to talk about helping along inflation, giving workers artificial wages through big government policies like the minimum wage is one way to do it.

            "and where is all this extra money going to? Its going to CEO salaries- which have gone from being 10 times that of the lowest paid worker all the way to 10,000 times the lowest paid worker."

            It was never ten times that of the lowest paid worker. Never in American history, that is. In the Soviet Union, things were different, obviously.

            "Throw in a couple of Worldcom and Enron schemes which robbed people blind, just for good measure."

            Thanks, straw man. So now you blame poor people being poor on Enron? Are you arguing against an income gap because of poor people not knowing how to make money or because a few corporations are run by corrupt people?

            "Tell me you can support yourself off of just minimum wage. I know it's near impossible here to do so and I live in a place where the cost of living is very low. Try minimum wage in a larger city, or supporting a family off of minimum wage. Doesn't work."

            To paraphrase Neal Boortz, I don't care if it's impossible to raise a family on the minimum wage. Guess what, it's also impossible to own and maintain a 200 foot yacht on a middle-class salary. Don't live outside of your means and you won't need to run to the government every time things don't go your work.
        • SSCrow, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6He is not saying that. Simply put, the contrast between rich and poor or even middle class has become increasingly great over the past few years.
          Record profits in the Medical, Insurance, and other social Service industries have been phenomenal. They are turning profits based of off corporate loopholes and degraded quality of service.
          I personally find that this whole "Legal obligation to turn a profit for shareholders" has gone too far to the point where companies are reducing the cost of production to the point of unhealthy products or ridiculous profit on items that have pennies of cost to produce.
          • quesi, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4to the point of it doesn't even matter if its bad news for the long term health of the companies, or the US, or the world. Immediate gains, now!!!!!111
          • dexter411, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2"Record profits in the Medical, Insurance, and other social Service industries have been phenomenal."

            As have increases in life span. Without exorbitant profits, the pharmaceutical industry would have no incentive to develop and market the next big drug. Note that lack of medical developments in the USSR is not because of a lack of intelligent people as much as a lack of profits.

            "I personally find that this whole "Legal obligation to turn a profit for shareholders" has gone too far to the point where companies are reducing the cost of production to the point of unhealthy products or ridiculous profit on items that have pennies of cost to produce."

            ... So don't buy those products. Legal obligations to turn profits are simply based on people wanting a guarantee of return on capital.
          • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5#1) Medicine is one of the very few industries where you DON'T need money to fuel innovation. People are pretty motivated to cure diseases as it is. If we had a system that wasn't so profit driven we might have a cure for aids and cancer instead of pills that give us erections and stop our hair from falling out.

            #2) Even in industries that are profit driven, we find companies making RECORD PROFITS but still have mass layoffs and salary cuts in the name of having even MORE ridiculous profits. Its a culture of unrestrained greed. Businesses no longer hurt their workforce when they must. Now they hurt their workforce whenever they CAN.

            Where the cure for this used to be unionization, outsourcing jobs has made organizing labor almost impossible.
          • dexter411, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2"Medicine is one of the very few industries where you DON'T need money to fuel innovation."

            Pure idiocy not supported by any facts. I point to you, once again, to the fact that not a single drug developed under the Soviet's is still in use today precisely because of a lack of motivation. These are the same people, however, who did amazing things with space and computer technology because those were the most well-funded ventures under the reds.

            "companies making RECORD PROFITS but still have mass layoffs and salary cuts in the name of having even MORE ridiculous profits."

            So don't support them. What exactly requires interference from the federal government here? The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there is no constitutional right to work (or education) so on what facts are you basing your big government rescue?
          • kingcam, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2"So don't support them. What exactly requires interference from the federal government here? The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there is no constitutional right to work (or education) so on what facts are you basing your big government rescue?"

            I hate when people decided that if we all boycotted the market would fix itself. That is not going to happen, firstly because there is not enough motivated/informed people out there to do it. Secondly, and this was his point, it is impossible because this type of amoral business behavior is infiltrated, in varying degrees, nearly every company in all industries.

            So what are we then to do about it? Use the government. I don't know why people cant seem to understand that in a democracy the government is to be the tool of the people. Certain business practices should be made to be illegal, especially when it is obvious that they are detrimental to society and can only be justified as maximizing profit. It should be the duty of the government - nay, it was the duty of the government - to regulate business activity in the state in order to maintain a balance of power in the economy, this balance has over time shifted.

            We can see this shift all around us, take for example the car manufacturer who builds cars that they know will explode in 1 in 10000 models but doesn't issue a recall because it will end up being cheaper to settle the lawsuit than fix the cars. There are a lot of people who will tell you a lot of ***** about how "The market will punish them" and all that jazz. Not only is this not the case but even if it was people were still hurt, why? Because the only obligation of a CEO is to maximize profit. Sooner or later we are going to find out the hard way that the government isn't the problem, not if we all pay attention, the government is - or should be - the people, you and me and everyone else that has a stake in the state. Its the purely oligarchical nature of capitalism that is really the problem.
          • dexter411, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1"I hate when people decided that if we all boycotted the market would fix itself. That is not going to happen, firstly because there is not enough motivated/informed people out there to do it."

            So then campaign for change. You remind me of people who call for activist Supreme Court judges to interpret the Constitution in whatever way they see fit instead of going the [correct] legislative route.

            "this type of amoral business behavior is infiltrated, in varying degrees, nearly every company in all industries."

            So you believe the government should be in charge of deciding what's moral? I sure hope you voted for Mike Huckabee...

            "I don't know why people cant seem to understand that in a democracy the government is to be the tool of the people."

            It is. They don't care to use it. You seem to and just assume that everyone else agrees with you.

            "We can see this shift all around us, take for example the car manufacturer who builds cars that they know will explode in 1 in 10000 models but doesn't issue a recall because it will end up being cheaper to settle the lawsuit than fix the cars."

            Congratulations on finally getting all the way through Fight Club in one sitting. I'm proud of you, champ.

            "Its the purely oligarchical nature of capitalism that is really the problem."

            Haha... I'm not even gonna touch this one.
          • archiesteel, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1"Haha... I'm not even gonna touch this one."

            Of course you won't, because he's right, and you know you won't find solid arguments against his point.

            Capitalism is oligarchic, mainly because of inheritance. To be fair, Capitalism needs a "level playing field", however the truth is that the field is never level. Even if it was magically made level, it wouldn't stay that way long. Wealth tends to concentrate in a Capitalist economy, and that by definition is antithesis to a level playing field.

            Pure Capitalism doesn't work, that's why you have mixed economies pretty much everywhere these days. Oh, and don't believe that because you come from the former USSR that gives you some kind of keen insight; despite its name, the USSR was never a Socialist country, except maybe in the very early years: it was a shining example of State Capitalism, and as such was just as unjust as Capitalism itself.
      • voncheese, on 05/05/2008, -3/+40Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

        The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
        The fifth would pay $1.
        The sixth would pay $3.
        The seventh would pay $7.
        The eighth would pay $12.
        The ninth would pay $18.
        The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

        So, that's what they decided to do.

        The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

        The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

        And so:

        The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
        The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
        The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
        The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
        The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
        The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

        Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

        "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

        "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

        "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

        "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

        The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

        The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

        And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

        David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
        Professor of Economics
        University of Georgia
        • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2I wish all the tenth men went overseas to say, Dubai. Just to see all the whiners squirm when all their social programs are gone. The middle class will become the super-rich target.
        • kingcam, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5"Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics." Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it."
          http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/
          Now that we have managed to get that out of the way, I have this to ask: Instead of splitting the $20, why not buy $20 more of beer per night? Then everyone is happy.
        • humpinillini, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2No, if it was like the US tax system, the 9 would have gone to the rich guys house, dragged him down to the bar, made him pay, and then imprisoned him for 3-5 for the trouble.
        • rjam710, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Interesting but in terms of income tax that story is irrelevant. That story takes the effect and makes it the cause. Yes, if you look at all taxes paid the wealthy obviously pay a higher percentage of that total, but if you look at percentage of income, it's a different story. Why is it fair to take 30% of a person's $50,000 a year income, but only take 10% of a $1M/year income? Sure $100K is a lot more than $15K, but it's a lot harder to live on the remaining $35K than it is that $900K. It's not fair giving so many tax breaks to those that can actually afford to pay them. Take from the poor and give to the rich.
        • da_bradler, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2The reason why that's a ***** analogy is because the 10th person made all his money off the backs of the other 9. The way the education and support system in western countries is set up is to give people just enough knowledge to get a minimum wage job, and if they want a chance at something better then that, they better be willing to pay for it.
        • flossdaily, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2It's too late to hope anyone will actually read this, but:

          The reason the analogy fails is because it assumes that all of customers get an equal benefit from the beer.

          In our tax system, it's important to recognize that the rich get a GREATER benefit from the government than do poor people.

          More importantly, the benefit that rich people get from the government is DISPROPORTIONATELY greater. Its not just that the rich get to drive 3 cars on the public highways, whereas the poor guy only gets to drive 1. Its the fact that the Rich guy gets to use fleets of cargo trucks on those highways to grow and maintain his business.
    • jazzboyrules, on 05/05/2008, -5/+16At the first glance, you digg username looked like frenchchick.
      • jazzboyrules, on 05/05/2008, -1/+10*your
        /sorry
      • Deodrus, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2strangely enough, I never look at anyone's username unless attention is drawn to it.
    • rockefeller2, on 05/05/2008, -7/+2"for four or more successive quarters of a year."
      Couldn't you have saved some typing by just saying "one year", because you know 4 * 1/4 = 1 ????
      • geniusj, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8You can end a year with negative growth but still not have had 4 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Think about it.
        • NoValidTitle, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2You guys also failed to point out that part of that statement isn't possible... four or MORE successive quarters of A year.

          We can have 5 quarters in a year?
        • aigulf, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2@NoValidTitle, try reading it this way, "four or more successive quarters-of-a-year"....as in, inclusion of the term 'year' tells you what your quarter is in reference to. Yeah, redundant...but when you're defining a word, it's good to be as clear as possible (so no one tries to redefine using quarters of a decade to avoid classifying a recession as such).
        • Iamthechamp, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Oh the cruelty of Digg, if your posts aren't better than perfect, you will regret it.
    • bgolds99, on 05/05/2008, -4/+432 comments. First off, a recession is defined as a negative growth for two, not four, consecutive quarters. Second at aldenhg, the GDP is measured in Real GDP. This mean it already accounts for changes in the price index, aka inflation or deflation. Nominal GDP is what you are talking about; no inflation taken in account for. The GDP has stayed at a constant .6% GROWTH for the last two quarters, therefore it is impossible for us to be in a recession unless the next two quarters (including this one) are negative growth. I swear, our education system should make all high schoolers take Macroeconomics 101, because I hate people who don't know anything about economics but talk like they do...
      • shadowspawn, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2By that interpretation, Rome wasn't in a recession right after its peak.
      • an0nymous, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5stolen shamelessly:
        Varied academic theories, often with strong political biases, have been used to alter the GDP model over the years, resulting in Pollyanna Creep, where changes made to the series invariably have had the effect of upping near-term economic growth. Whether the change was to deflate GDP using "chain-weighted" instead of "fixed-weighted" inflation measures, to capitalize rather than expense computer software purchases, or to smooth away the economic impact of the September 11th terrorist attacks, upside growth biases have been built into reported GDP with increasing regularity since the mid-1980s.

        The GDP numbers have been gimmicked for years and are unreliable.
        • heir0fisildur, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Just out of curiosity who did you shamelessly steal this from. Sources are funny little things after all.
      • tgunner, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well right or wrong, discussing it is better than plugging your ears and rocking back and fourth while watching Fox News say there is nothing wrong.
    • itstodd, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3The truth is people are idiots and sheep. They dint want to be confused by facts or the truth. If it gives them some bitching rights they will hang on to it. God forbid they be held responsible own personal choices.
      • harajukukei, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1English. Learn it, live it, love it.
        • Speed, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Ironically, you have a sentence fragment there. Try "English: learn it, live it, love it."
        • cupid311, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2You ever notice that a lot of people who attempt to correct other peoples comments and act smart usually have something screwed up in their's as well... especially when the original error was a simple mistype of 1 letter. Gotta love it.
    • UnFriendlyFire, on 05/05/2008, -5/+3From Wiki
      In macroeconomics, a recession is a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for TWO or more successive quarters of a year.

      ...with growing US deficits, increasing bankruptcies, the attainment of peak oil, plus other factors, the US is in the early stages of the next great depression.
      • Defuser, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4Oh, ***** you. Your desire for misery and despair doesn't automatically prove anything beyond the fact that you're a douchebag.
        • Wildog27, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Pot, meet Kettle.
        • an0nymous, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I think he's right-ish. He didn't mention the completely unchecked monetary supply and inflation *specifically* and they definitely deserve a shout out.
          By the way, "Defuser", you haven't countered any of his points.
      • msk275, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Easy bro. Step away from the bridge and take a deep breath. Great Depression? No.
        Will we still be the stand alone leader of the Free World at the end of this? No. I think we will relinquish this title because of poor management. The rest of the world has caught up to us. It's time to face the music.
    • calipan, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Idiot, I will repeat what other people have said because you really FAIL. 2Qs of consecutive negative GDP = Recession.

      To play devil's advocate you could have taken the intellectual road and provided evidence that there have been several recessions in the past that did not have 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP and disproven that shoddy and weak indicator of recession but you decided to tried to quote it and fell on your face, good job.

      To all of you. 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP are not necessary to have a recession. In this day an age of revising old data, adjusting for inflation, and floating numbers into the next month or even quarter it is very easy to prevent 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Look at the recession between 2001-2003. Try to find the 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Go ahead. I'll wait.... exactly, you won't find it. GDP is always in flux and and a global economy some segments of the economy can be in recession (housing 2005-208, finance 2008-current) others can be growing (healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, export)
      • ryanschmidt, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I feel like I just learned something... that doesn't happen much in these digg comments. Thank you.
    • bobbarkerbilly, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2One has to wonder why we even measure anything by the GDP. The GDP excludes energy and food.
      • an0nymous, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6You might be thinking of the CPI? Different set of numbers though supposedly the CPI is included in the GDP calculation.
        • bobbarkerbilly, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4You are right. I confused the two.
        • bernandoo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3looks like the price was wrong, bob barker.
        • cupid311, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Wow, a correction was made without either parties screaming at each other about how unintelligent and inbred the other party is. I'm so proud of both of you!! Gold Stars for each! But seriously, well done. I'm digging you both just for class alone.
    • moxley, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4No. we are headed into a global depression unlike anything that we have ever experienced before that will likely make the crash of '29 look tame.

      Our financial system (with the Fed and it's fiat curency) is likely on the verge of collapse. If you haven't done the research on all sides (most notably via the Fed's own pulbications) and don't understand how money operates in this country and how the dollar is used globally then what you think about our GDP, what it means in this day and age and whether or not we are in a recession is about as meaningful as your picks on who is going to win the superbowl in 2012.
      • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1We'll all be dead in 2012. I guess we all lose.
      • cupid311, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I pick the Vikings to win the Superbowl in 2012!!
    • springo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Well according to Mr. Kondratiev, it's about time recession starts...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave
    • Andrewbot, on 05/05/2008, -4/+1I too am sick of the "recession" claims.

      Last quarters stated growth of the economy: .6%. Granted thats not huge, and is struggling to keep up with inflation, but we are still positive.

      To be a recession, we need to have two negative quarters in a row. Go back to 12th grade economics everyone.
    • caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5I'm sure the millions of families that just had their homes foreclosed on would love to argue semantics with you.
      • nextyoyoma, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1well, part of me agrees with you, but this isn't simply semantics. How businesses should operate changes in a recession, and if we're not in one, they shouldn't act as if we are.
    • Phen0m24, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Funny, I just read this today:
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/karlsson8.html
      If you can get all the way through, it basically sheds some light on the GDP calculation - and that since our buying power has decreased more than nominal GDP has increased.... You guessed it.
    • ledguitar, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It's 2 consecutive negative quarters. Not four. Learn your facts before you say stuff. And yes we are in a recession. If you don't think we are, then you should join Bush's economic staff because they'll agree with you.
    • msk275, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Increase in Job Cuts, Home Foreclosures, Inflation, A War we're not actually funding, Increase Fed Rate Cuts, Increased Borrowing from foreign banks by top US Banks, etc. But yes, technically we are not in an 'official' recession...

      But seriously, I don't know what you are smoking, but please: do share.
    • keepingitcivil, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2This whole conversation is analogous to debating at what point an HIV patient has full-blown AIDS.

      Can we stop this pointless banter over semantics and agree that the economy isn't doing so well?
    • sw1nglinestaplr, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Alright, my perspective on this... The world is getting smaller, on the global economic scale we are now just one of many international labor markets; to be honest, we're not so good. We've relied heavily on deficit spending for far too long, and we seem to be reaching something of a tipping point. Soon, we will no longer be able to live drastically beyond our means, and we as a country will have to go back to work as our living standard drops. It's really just part of the business cycle, the only difference is that we're now playing on the global market and we'll have to equalize with other countries (many of whom have much lower living standards than ours).
    • Nitrodist88, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Forgot to mention the "[citation needed]" part of the quote, eh?
    • GaryChalmers, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Our GDP not being negative in prior quarters means that we weren't in a recession back then. We could be in one right now, but you can't determine if a period of time was a recession until after it has occurred. Therefore one can only speculate if we are in a recession or not.
    • metamethod, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1if your friend lost his job, its a recession.
      if you lost your job, its a depression.
  • cptshamrock, on 05/05/2008, -8/+71Even if we were in a recession, people don't seem to realize how basic economics work. There will be recessions and periods of growth its something that cannot be avoided, there are ways to curb growth and thus make any recession not as strong.
    • an0nymous, on 05/05/2008, -0/+13The time to curb growth was years ago. Now it's consequences time.
      • caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1No way! I'll bet we could fix it by dumping another trillion dollars into Iraq.
  • aragonii, on 05/05/2008, -8/+25it is not a recession, it is BAGEL.

    -quote from "The West Wing", not stupidity on my part.
  • Mast3rDigg3r, on 05/05/2008, -15/+7actually if a recession occurs the government should increase spending to boost the economy
    • iceman0113, on 05/05/2008, -7/+8As if we're not spending enough on the war?
      • Mast3rDigg3r, on 05/05/2008, -5/+4eh the comic just doesn't make sense
        • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/05/2008, -11/+2What do you expect? Most leftie cartoonists were liberal arts majors, and that's if they went to college at all.
        • hstege, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3just curious if you've got a couple examples to help illustrate your point?
          • gutistg, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1I have a couple of points to illustrate the examples he might come up with:

            ...
          • Mast3rDigg3r, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1ya, see below as to how we got out of the gd, or google keynes
          • hstege, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1yeah, thanks, i studied keynes in college (and some of his critics), but was more interested in those "leftie cartoonists" with liberal arts majors or high school diplomas running around en masse.
      • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -3/+4We could spend money on public works projects like we did to get ourselves out of the great depression.
        • halleyscomet, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4It was WWII that got us out of the Great Depression. The tide of public works projects were just a way to get some useful labor out of what was otherwise a welfare program.
          • thcobbs, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Which is why we need the public works projects back again.... instead of just paying people to stay home and *****.
          • quesi, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2the FED got us in the GD, the FED got us out. we're just playthings
          • CiXeL, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4WWIII is nukes, i doubt that would get us out of a recession/depression.
      • shaka999, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1That spending will help but the problem is we won't see the long term gain we would have if that money had been spent on roads/bridges/...
    • mateo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Oh, God help us if the government steps in...they can't do a damn thing right!
    • voncheese, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1lower taxes to boost the economy
    • an0nymous, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Keynesian, eh?
      Doesn't that model break down when the governments expenditures doesn't ever make it to the domestic workforce?
    • thecarpe, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Dollars are Federal Reserve Notes on which we are charged interest (Federal Reserve Interest Rate) for every bit of their value. We need to pay down our debt and start printing our own money if we want to get out of economic bondage to the Federal Reserve Banking system and China. Look up Monopoly Men on youtube.
  • Cajole55, on 05/05/2008, -29/+1No Af. Ams in the whitehouse. The Whitehouse is called the Whitehouse for a reason, it must stay pure.
    • etherreal, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1So in your opinion an uneducated redneck has more right to the white house than say...obama?
      • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8don't talk to him, just digg him down and report him as offensive. He isn't contributing anything to the conversation.
        • CiXeL, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1why do you assume all racists are rednecks? they could very well be white hispanics from south america.
          • etherreal, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I did not assume he was a redneck. His claim was that the White House should only have white people. So I compared the most uneducated of white people and compared them to an educated black man and asked if that made sense. capisce?
          • JulyZerg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I don't see how you can possibly think that McCain is a white "hispanics" from South America.
            But maybe that's just me.
    • Digger1218, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Obvious Troll is Obvious.
  • PDAIsAOk, on 05/05/2008, -6/+35A big part of the recession scare was the supposed housing crash. But the # of homeowners has just returned to its original # prior to all the sub-prime loans that were given out to people that shouldnt have been given a loan in the first place. They got some homes, didnt pay, lost their homes, everyone else is business as usual. The media just needs a crisis or scandal to cover. They are too stupid to cover things that actually matter so they have to go for cheap thrills
    • BigW, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Its not business as usual when the fed is scrambling to lower interest rates to save the BANKS that made these loans, creating higher inflation.
      • PDAIsAOk, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2As far as the average consumer it is business as usual, the corrupt fed is bailing out those companies who knew they would be in trouble which i think is totally ***** up, but try fighting it, it's a ***** system with an indifferent majority to let it slide.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4I disagree. My father is a CFO for a development company and he just had to lay a ton of people off because houses aren't selling. Here in CA the housing market is still very much in turmoil and with the Countrywide loan offices closing like crazy and bank foreclosed houses every block, you can't tell me the housing market is back to it's prior state. I bought my current home for 250k and it went up to 800k...it is now worth 500k. The housing market will take some time to fully recover.
      • CiXeL, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1here in south florida, Miami Dade County sheriff dept is evicting 35 families a day from their home due to the Landlord not paying the mortgage on the investment homes.
        my neighbor hasnt heard from his landlord in four months and thinks the banks must own the house now so he has money set aside in case they have to move really fast.
        my landlord SEEMS financially stable but we really dont know.
        youre going to see alot more collapse down here as time progresses and people give up.
        there are ALOT of desperate people down here which is why bodies are turning up every few days in canals, heinous murders, and even today a goodwill store got robbed at gunpoint. A FRICKIN GOODWILL STORE!!?
        that takes one hell of a desperate crook.
      • PDAIsAOk, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I woudn't try to apply your dad's business dealings to the entire country. If you actually look at the numbers and not rely on anecdotal evidence you will see the housing market is just fine. The percentage of people who own houses now is going back to the same as it was in 2002 prior to sub prime mortgages. Read up on it
        • thatsmyaibo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Well my father's company develops in the whole country.
    • Phen0m24, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Think the housing market was a "supposed" crash? Tell that to the companies that wrote off billions - Citigroup, UBS, Washington Mutual, Countrywide - Countrywide would have probably gone under (before getting acquired for pennies on the dollar a la Bear Stearns) Wachovia, Bank of America, Lehman, etc... And realize, someone is on the hook for the repackaged loans - look at what happened to insurers AMBAC and MBIA, who slapped the triple A ratings on the crap tranches and got left holding the bag, begging for money.. http://seekingalpha.com/article/71624-ambac-mbia-f ...
      And if you think the housing market is probably the "last shoe to drop", take a few minutes and learn a little about credit derivatives.... (Bear was a big player in these, hence JP Morgan and the Fed coming to the "rescue"...) Ever hear of a "credit default swap?"
      http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/amerman/2 ...
  • wiachy, on 05/05/2008, -23/+15anyone who thinks we are in a recession is and idiot for listening to the liberal media or just a liberal, meaning your a dumbass.
    • sykotik, on 05/05/2008, -6/+6Nice opinion *cough*, though I'm sure there less inflammatory (i.e. more eloquent or intelligent) ways of putting it. Try to look at the big picture a bit more, a lot people have been conditioned over the years to believe what the T.V. says, and to not question the people who appear on it, because they are the "experts" and have the "answers." I don't think it's fair to generalize as you did.
      • TrancePX, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3Yeah, way to make yourself seem intolerable wiachy.
    • birthofthecool, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5you're
    • fredrated, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Yeah, Warren Buffett is an idiot, probably for listening to the liberal media.
    • nextyoyoma, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2anyone who thinks you can write a sentence in which you call someone "and idiot," say "your" instead of "you're," and in general use very poor construction, has no right to call anyone else an idiot.
  • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -22/+8(I'm repeating myself from a reply I made above, but it now pertains to the general discussion:)

    The problem is that the GDP is no longer an accurate measurement of the economic health of the majority of Americans.

    Republicans claim that the economy is doing fine because the rich and the ultra-rich are doing quite well for themselves.

    Because there is such an uneven distribution of wealth in this country, the success of the wealthy looks like success for the nation- but in fact MOST people in the country are hurting, but because their slice of the pie is so small, it doesn't really move the needle on the economic indicators which detect the nation's combined wealth.
    • Versh, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2There's nothing wrong with the distribution of wealth when it is the result of free-market capitalism. And besides, the cause of economic indicators are directly linked to the spending habits of the large middle class of post-industrial nations like the US-- for example, the housing market is in the dumps because the average cost to buy or rent a house has went up, effecting namely, the middle-class consumers.
      Though I may agree that the Republican party have done unsavory favors for various companies and affluent individuals, if you were hinting at some socialistic or communistic solution to the recession, please apply elsewhere-- it won't work.
    • voncheese, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1and the democrats need the fear of a recession to scare people into voting for them. We are not in a recession. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/ ...
      • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1republicans are the ones who cultivate fear to get votes. it's the ultimate irony to accuse democrats of that offense.
    • blackgt93, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Got some facts to back that up?

      I'll go ahead and challenge your claim that MOST people in the country are hurting and say most people are doing just fine.
    • an0nymous, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3You are partially correct. The GDP is not an accurate number. The way that it is measured has been changed for years and it now bears no resemblance of reality. Any adjustment to the calculation inevitably has an upward effect and the changes to the methodology have been coming faster and faster.
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I'm a republican and I'm struggling. Don't lump all conservatives into the same group.
  • pbf444, on 05/05/2008, -12/+20We may not be in a recession yet but with out of control gas prices we are headed that way.
    • BlackJackJester, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10The gas prices are more a function of the value of the dollar going down than anything else.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Added to the fact that the CEOs of oil companies want to rape the general public.
        • skidooer, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3The oil companies see about 10% ROI. Considering that a secured investment will get you close to 5% ROI, 10% isn't out of line. If it were much lower, there'd be no point in being in the oil business.
        • Oea420, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Uhm............

          If the entire globe /needs/ to buy what you are selling, how do you not make a ***** even at, let's say, 2%?
      • nksoccer13, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I would say its more of a supply and demand issue with countries with populations such as China and India having more cars. Gasoline prices are high all over the world due to the low supply and high demand.
        • skidooer, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2Oil is sold in US currency. The lower US dollar means places outside of the US can afford to buy more oil for the same price in their currency, hence the increase in demand.
    • irisjune, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0well at least high gas prices will force people to turn to public transportation, even if they do suck
    • heucuva, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0You are right. We aren't in a recession.

      We are in a nightmare.
  • slantyeyed, on 05/05/2008, -4/+15who's that, H. Ross Perot?
  • sourceholder, on 05/05/2008, -5/+23Wait, I don't get it...
    • tyywebb, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6How can he buy a vowel when all the spaces are filled already? I'm lost.
    • MikeHoe, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3its saying that Bush doesn't want to recognized that we're in a state of recession
  • puppyfox, on 05/05/2008, -8/+59Obviously this is the Italian version of the game ("La Ruota della Fortuna") and the answer is "Recessione". Good work!
    • MJDub, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6But if "E" was already up there after "R," it would have to be up there at the end as well.
      • puppyfox, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Ha ha true! You caught me, I never actually watched the Wheel of Fortune in either language :)
  • Lane, on 05/05/2008, -8/+2I highly disagree with this comic, Bush seems to be easily bought and sold.
  • majorglory, on 05/05/2008, -8/+9i dont get it.
    • altgeeky1, on 05/05/2008, -1/+7wrap your statement in quotes, and then trail it with "-George", and THEN it starts making sense..
    • Swanston, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5The puzzle is solved and he wants to buy something to help solve it... You're a moron.
    • MikeHoe, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2its saying that Bush doesn't want to recognized that we're in a state of recession
  • Beatmiser, on 05/05/2008, -6/+30We are not in a recession. The economy experienced growth last month. Albeit a tiny amount of growth, but growth nonetheless, therefore we are not in a recession. We are seeing some inflation, that much is true, but as liberal as I am, even I know the R word is just fear mongering from all sides at this point.
    • bigdaddyguido, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Its not whether or not we experience growth, that is expected, its whether or not we are growing faster than before. So if you improved 2% last quarter, and only .5% this quarter, that is negative growth. Do that for two fiscal quarters in a row and you have yourself a "recession".
      • huszar02, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That makes no sense. Growth is growth.
  • RomeyRome, on 05/05/2008, -12/+14Sucks for you angry kids. I'm not in a recession. Doing quite well thank you.

    !/s
    • altgeeky1, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5Thank you Mr. Romney.
    • diggnitarial, on 05/05/2008, -3/+12You're also not the economy of the USA, not sure if you're aware of this....
      • Defuser, on 05/05/2008, -5/+1...and neither or you. His point was that just because a bunch of juvenile assholes WANT a recession so that they can wallow in the misery of their fellow man, it doesn't automatically mean that there's a recession.
    • licnyc, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2I guess we can all forget about the rest of the country now that RomeyRome is doing well. Thanks for playing "I am the most self-centered person in the world"
      • Defuser, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3Oh, ***** off. You're just as self-centered, only your selfishness revolves around a desire for your fellow man to suffer. Hell, you have even less grounds for your opinion than he has for his. At least he's saying "I'm doing ok, an therefore America is doing ok." All YOU'RE doing (along with your fellow kiddies in this thread) is saying "I'm doing ok, therefore I want everyone else to struggle, because that'll prove my political opinions about George Bush".
        • hammerpants, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Dugg bc I read your comment with a british accent. It's funny when they say, "Oh, ***** off."
        • licnyc, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1no - I am actually thinking about people who are struggling with gas prices, food prices and the sub prime crisis. Thats a bold statement to say I want everyone else to struggle. Your ***** rant is completely unfounded and like a typical spoiled child you are completely out of touch with reality. You can ***** off ***** nob.
          • hammerpants, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yours didn't sound british at all.
    • thankyousir, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3that is the first time I have ever seen a "not sarcastic" tag

      !/relevant
  • brion182, on 05/05/2008, -20/+15I'm surprise to see such a rip on Obama because this site has so many supporters. He is very sensitive about his big ears by the way.
    • nebbo, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4Yes, Obama does have white&gray hair.
      • Dmilla16, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0this is why digg is not a place to go for political advice.
    • blackgt93, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8Wow... people on Digg need to learn to grow a sense of humor... sheesh. I thought it was kinda funny.
  • Iztikeit, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Capitalist economies operated by a central bank through fiscal policy function in a cyclical manner, this is common sense and could easily be learned with a basic grasp of Macro. You can't always have the same luxury the 90s afforded us.
    • altgeeky1, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Those are all nice answers to different questions. "Bubble" is the answer to today's question, but you weren't listening (or you're using the Strawman Tactic to taint the discussion).
    • Iztikeit, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0Pretty sure that this cartoon makes no references to any economic bubbles. Bubbles are easily avoidable, but not everyone can be an economist.
  • tacroy, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8I find it humorous that in this "era" of recession and hard to get credit I still hear countless car dealerships telling you they can finance through your bankruptcy, missed payments, and debt.
  • davidg11, on 05/05/2008, -2/+161Oh...NAGGERS....
    • WillHutch5, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Literally just spit all over the place. Win.
  • dark, on 05/05/2008, -3/+6Can anyone explain the joke? There have been a few questions.
    • doomsquirrel, on 05/05/2008, -0/+21Certain people say we're in a recession. (Up for debate, not touching that.) Bush continues insisting we're not. The cartoon implies that Bush can't recognize (or is ignoring) what's right in front of his face.
      • antifreeze11, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3and here i was thinking it was because he was continuing to buy a vowel.
    • brammer, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7the "puzzle" has already been solved, but the "contestant" is still trying to figure it out...
    • ameba, on 05/05/2008, -1/+11and he still continues to buy
  • Alli3388, on 05/05/2008, -11/+1Yeah, you are in a recession. Sucks to be you. I know it's hard to admit, but facts are facts. The one talking about the distribution of wealth is totally right. So far the Wal-Marts of America haven't noticed, but that longer all those poorer people who had to forclose on their homes and are now barely able to afford rent are down, and the longer the only jobs being produced in the US are low-paying ones, everyone will start to feel the pressure. Just wait.
    • hexydes, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3lol, your comment is devoid of intelligence. I'd rather listen to political advice being given by the angsty emo kid listening to Manson.
  • StueyPidass, on 05/05/2008, -4/+9There are so many stupid people runnning around screaming recession causing other people to fear and stop spending thus will cause a recession. The Presidents job is to keep things cool thats what he doing... if he says we are in a recession, people will panic even more and stop spending totally. People are so stupid especially the media.
    • Jexie, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Recessions are a natural occurrence in the economy, maybe if people weren't so stupid about that fact they could handle a president who could actually tell them the truth.
      • StueyPidass, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0That just further reinforces my theory that people are stupid. whats your point?
  • BlackJackJester, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Hm, lets see, here in Silicon Valley, the house prices are still as high as always, the value of the dollar going down makes it easier for foreign investors to come in and buy land and houses, and the companies here are still raking hundreds of millions of dollars per day. Business as usual.
  • Shots, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6The official headline for U.S. Q1 GDP growth says a positive 0.6% growth
    We need to decline for 2 quarters consecutively before it's "OFFICIALLY" a recession.

    Of course... that doesn't mean that the economy seems to be heading towards a recession...

  • dark, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4I get the joke, thanks to cr4ft, who was dug down.

    Bush doesn't recognize that we are in a recession. Not very funny, oh well.
    • Jexie, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1He knows, but after failing at everything else he's tried to do as president he's now committed the cardinal Republican sin of being bad for business too.
    • tsotha, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0Maybe it's not funny because, as numerous other people have pointed out, we're not in a recession. In my mind it just makes the cartoonist look like an idiot.
  • TheMayor, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Wow, ingenious. I can't wait for his next cartoon, "What's the deal with airline food?"

    Very topical, pure magic.
  • pevil, on 05/05/2008, -2/+0It's easy to keep a recession from happening if you play with the inflation numbers the way the government does.
  • nailPuppy, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Stupid political cartoon. They should have left out the O so he is looking at "RECESSI_N", then asking to buy a consonant or something.
    • StueyPidass, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1You cant buy consonants. He should ask is there a consonant
      • Dmilla16, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2the point of the cartoon is not saying that bush is dumb. it is saying that he won't admit we're in a recession despite it being spelled out for him....

        besides, we're not in a recession
    • calipan, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2You don't get it. The cartoonist is saying that even when he has all the letters and is able to read the word RECESSION, he is in so much in denial that he can't see it right in front of him.
  • thatsmyaibo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2What I like is all the crazies that are screaming recession are probably avid fans of Obama. Now there is nothing wrong with Obama but the people who are pinned a bad name to the GOP for getting us into a "recession" are the same people that are going to vote for a candidate that wants to raise taxes. Taking money from people at a time like this will certainly push us towards a recession.
    • PeeEqualsNP, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1That's exactly what will happen. A lot of his (and Clinton's) proposed programs for universal health insurance, helping out the needy and such are great ideas, they would all be awesome programs, except for one thing. The nature of a lot of people in this country isn't to work hard and plan and when something goes wrong, get back on the horse. The nature of people in our country is to reap as many benefits as possible, with at little work as possible. That's exactly what most of those types of government programs end up accomplishing. Welfare is a perfect example, started off as an amazing program. Now, in my hometown, there are several people on welfare, at least half of which are perfectly capable of working some sort of job. But why work when the government just gives you the money? I completely understand there are people that do need these kinds of programs, but a lot more of these programs isn't the solution.
      Instead of all these wishful programs that basically end up creating a nation of freeloaders, start programs to promote attaining GED's easily. Colleges all over the country are going more and more electronic based for a lot of their classes. Give people more resources (scholarships/grants NOT just cash) needed to get that 2 year AA or Tech degree to get out (or back) into the working world. These types of solutions combined with a better tracking ability to monitor who's been on the programs and for how long and ENFORCING certain terms of said programs will help out those that really need it, and aid in filtering out the people who are trying to live beyond their means.
      As far as taxes go, according to an article in 2005 in the Chicago Sun Times;" Writes Daniel Mitchell at the Heritage Foundation, 'According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 35 percent of the income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay 65 percent; and the top 25 percent pay nearly 83 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay barely 4 percent of income taxes.'” So do Democrats just want the top 1 percent to pay all the tax burden and everyone else can use the programs they pay for? I would like to hear from Democrats in the top 1% and hear what they would like to say about that.
  • anillop, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Enjoy it George noting like being a 2 recession president. When you screw up you really know how to do it. 2 wars, 2 recessions, 2 financial scandals, all we need is another natural disaster and you would really be cooking.
  • timeshifter, on 05/05/2008, -4/+10QUIT THE ***** POLITICAL SPAM! THERE'S A CATEGORY FOR POLITICS. USE IT!
  • StueyPidass, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Why is everyone espeically the media focus only on the bad stuff to cause fear among the people. Last quarter they reported that there are a certain number of job losses however the unempoyment rate reduces that means there are more jobs created than job losses but they didnt report that.
  • Iztikeit, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2...to add to that....

    Fiscal policy expands and contracts the economy accordingly. The economy will always be fluctuating naturally and it is very wise (contrary to what many Ron Paul fans believe, but more on that later) to "artificially" maneuver the economy through the tempestuous waters of inflation and deflation (loss) by adjusting interest rates according to facts about the direction of the economy. Therefore, the economy is directed to expand and contract, but these contractions are usually much smaller than the expansions (the transition from the 80s to the 90s) . The debate should not be "Are we in a recession and why?", it should be "Is the recession better or worse than expected, why, and how can we learn from our mistakes?" (as there are countless mistakes when it comes to national fiscal policy and monetary policy. Macro might be the most complicated thing out there right now, as there are no right answers and you can never know all the factors)

    That's how it has worked in theory and practice but our debt hasn't been at this level in history. This is one of the many factors that I mentioned earlier, and no one really knows what it means. Some think it means that the contractions will become more frequent, some think they will become longer, some think it's natural, some think (Ron Paul economists) it spells the end of the American economy. til

    I hope this helps some of you out, because the media is all about buzz words and "alarmist" conclusions which is enough to befuddle almost anyone who hasn't actually studied Macro. Economic professors are usually unbiased sources for economy information.
  • mycatsasha, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I'm somewhat skeptical of any major issue or threat that comes up so close to an election. Especially when the facts don't seem to be all that clear. It's too easy for politicians to twist things to try to get more votes or use it to take the focus off of real issues they'd rather not address.
  • mwalker05, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3why does he need to buy a vowel? the puzzle is already solved...
    • waxenpi, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2because he's trying to avoid solving the OBVIOUS puzzle...
    • calipan, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3He is in denial. He doesn't believe that there is a recession.
    • puzzleman04, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Allow me to give you some valuable advice for situations like this:
      Step 1. Locate your buttocks.
      Step 2. Remove your head from said buttocks.
  • Henwood, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Don't worry guys we have reached a "new and permanently high plateau" just like in 1929.
  • DeFex, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Stupid Fmongers
  • SemiSarcastic, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2...We're all gonna die
  • fatTJ, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3And Let's See What You Would've Won... It's a Tax Rebate Check!!!
  • blaker00, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2if you take the stock market and average it out with the price of gold, our economy is in a recession.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.