This comic is fail on so many levels1) A vast majority of congress voted for the wars, voted for the military spending, and allowed it all to go on. Congress could have ended it whenever they damn well pleased.2) The tax cuts were actually a good thing. It was all the other crap that dragged down the economy. Of course, the democrats will never admit that it was some of their regulations that helped cause the housing bubble that lead to the collapse.3) The Iraq was is directly linked to number 1, it's a useless panel.4) When you actually do the math, they want to spend anywhere from 800billion to 1.5 trillion to insure anywhere from 8-13 million Americans ( the current bill is estimated to leave like 20-25 million Americans uninsured).
@Soulgrub: There have been plenty of sudden, radical changes to the system throughout our history. They just can't make those kinds of changes when it actually helps the American people. When wallstreet needs something, it's f**king urgent!
"From Pres. Hoover’s 52 percent increase in government spending to his running the third-largest budget deficit then in U.S. history – and from his creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to his signing of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act – Hoover’s hyperactive intervention nearly 80 years ago was not very different from Bush’s and Obama’s hyperactive interventions today."
I'm not using it as a defense, more as an observation. Look at the work ethic of people years ago to today. We live in an era of handouts, both to corporations and lazy citizens. I was against the bailout, I am against frivolous spending, and I'm against a government that is growing more by the day. I am not against healthcare reform, I am against a government. One of the BIGGEST problems with healthcare is it's price. None of the proposals offer any solution to driving down the price. This would come from tort\malpractice reform. The plans on the table do take care of pre-existing conditions which is good, but there is still so much lacking. Something this sweeping shouldn't be rushed.
yes, i did say the democrats couldn't do anything when Bush had a republican majority, but it's also very possible that the republicans won't be able to do anything now that there's a democratic majority. if the Blue Dog Democrats actually could have stopped some of bush's bad policies then yes, i would blame them for their inaction, just like i would blame republicans if they stop the health care bill.the whole point i was trying to make was that it doesn't make sense to for democrats to accuse people on their own side when there is a greater opponent in the republicans.i actually think the Blue Dogs are raising legitimate concerns - that's why i argue in their defense. the health care bill is expensive, we do need to find ways to pay for it, and we have to make sure it actually lowers health care costs in the long term. some republicans share these legitimate concerns, and i applaud them. these republicans need work together with democrats, reach workable compromises, and have the political courage to vote alongside democrats in support of those compromises. my concern is with the far-right, glenn beck-watching group that thinks that obama is an islamic extremist fascist apologist bent on turning america into a gay, hedonistic, socialist wasteland. they refuse to compromise, spew pointless inflammatory rhetoric, and will vote against the democrats period, regardless of the content of the bills.
drmangrumOct 9, 2009
This comic is fail on so many levels1) A vast majority of congress voted for the wars, voted for the military spending, and allowed it all to go on. Congress could have ended it whenever they damn well pleased.2) The tax cuts were actually a good thing. It was all the other crap that dragged down the economy. Of course, the democrats will never admit that it was some of their regulations that helped cause the housing bubble that lead to the collapse.3) The Iraq was is directly linked to number 1, it's a useless panel.4) When you actually do the math, they want to spend anywhere from 800billion to 1.5 trillion to insure anywhere from 8-13 million Americans ( the current bill is estimated to leave like 20-25 million Americans uninsured).
serinusOct 9, 2009
Buried for incompetent use of your/you're and they're/their/there. (Not the OP.)
bookantOct 9, 2009
Says the one-trick pony who can't go more than five words without saying "collective" or "collectivist."
strifeprimeOct 9, 2009
@Soulgrub: There have been plenty of sudden, radical changes to the system throughout our history. They just can't make those kinds of changes when it actually helps the American people. When wallstreet needs something, it's f**king urgent!
cursortnOct 10, 2009
Human nature: You will, or you'll be destroyed by the rabid pack of folks who are.
diggimatorOct 10, 2009
Sorry, I haven't been following the latest conspiracy theories.If Obama's intention is not fixing healthcare, what's he really trying to do?
phernoreeOct 10, 2009
"From Pres. Hoover’s 52 percent increase in government spending to his running the third-largest budget deficit then in U.S. history – and from his creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to his signing of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act – Hoover’s hyperactive intervention nearly 80 years ago was not very different from Bush’s and Obama’s hyperactive interventions today."
piieerrrreeOct 10, 2009
I'd rather be destroyed and maintain my principles than become that which I despise.
push350zOct 23, 2009
I'm not using it as a defense, more as an observation. Look at the work ethic of people years ago to today. We live in an era of handouts, both to corporations and lazy citizens. I was against the bailout, I am against frivolous spending, and I'm against a government that is growing more by the day. I am not against healthcare reform, I am against a government. One of the BIGGEST problems with healthcare is it's price. None of the proposals offer any solution to driving down the price. This would come from tort\malpractice reform. The plans on the table do take care of pre-existing conditions which is good, but there is still so much lacking. Something this sweeping shouldn't be rushed.
fqwgadsNov 15, 2009
yes, i did say the democrats couldn't do anything when Bush had a republican majority, but it's also very possible that the republicans won't be able to do anything now that there's a democratic majority. if the Blue Dog Democrats actually could have stopped some of bush's bad policies then yes, i would blame them for their inaction, just like i would blame republicans if they stop the health care bill.the whole point i was trying to make was that it doesn't make sense to for democrats to accuse people on their own side when there is a greater opponent in the republicans.i actually think the Blue Dogs are raising legitimate concerns - that's why i argue in their defense. the health care bill is expensive, we do need to find ways to pay for it, and we have to make sure it actually lowers health care costs in the long term. some republicans share these legitimate concerns, and i applaud them. these republicans need work together with democrats, reach workable compromises, and have the political courage to vote alongside democrats in support of those compromises. my concern is with the far-right, glenn beck-watching group that thinks that obama is an islamic extremist fascist apologist bent on turning america into a gay, hedonistic, socialist wasteland. they refuse to compromise, spew pointless inflammatory rhetoric, and will vote against the democrats period, regardless of the content of the bills.