Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 01/30/2011

Up, up and away

By Tom Toles

c_01302011.gif

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_01302011.gif

By Tom Toles  | January 30, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  Economy and jobs  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Monumental effort
Next: Fat chance

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

In 2o12 after another worse shellacking Toles will be calling everybody not on his side a racist and a SUV driver. Toles only has one gear which is commune ism !
Posted by: jornolibist

My Reply...
The only reason Obama took a shellacking is because he proved to be all talk and no action. He needed to address the needs of the working people instead of the greed's of wealthy financiers. His love of Republicans was another problem; especially when they were nailing him to the cross.
Maybe he will run as a Republican in 2012.

We have a capitalist system not a socialist or communist system.
There is a big difference between the capitalist oligarchy we have now and a communist dictatorship.
Dave



Posted by: OchamsRazor | January 31, 2011 1:57 AM | Report abuse

The question, Tom Toles sez, is:
"What now?"
The answer: CUT SPENDING.
Posted by: shred11

My Reply...
Cut spending when the economy does not have enough money in circulation to support its needs?

I hope you are not a doctor! If you were, you would be bleeding your patients when they are already bleeding to death.

The sad but true is that there is only one thing worse than a conservative and that is a stupid conservative.

My definition of a conservative is as follows.
A conservative is a sociopathic person who wants it all and does not want anyone else to have anything. They want everything to stay the same because change might benefit someone else.

What needs to be done is to use money constructively instead of destructively.
Creating poverty does nothing for anyone and hurts a lot of innocent people that are already hurting.
Dave


Posted by: OchamsRazor | January 31, 2011 1:32 AM | Report abuse

New money dave???
PLEASE....
Posted by: bertzel

My Reply...
OK smartass lady! You tell me where they got the money to rebuild Japan and all of Europe?
What they called it then was "Super Funds".
Super funds were the printing of new money.
Check it out.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | January 31, 2011 1:05 AM | Report abuse

~~This economic disaster was contrived and it is going to destroy our nation's financial stability if "new money' is not generated to refuel our economy before a total disaster.~~~dave

New money dave???
PLEASE....

Posted by: bertzel | January 30, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The question, Tom Toles sez, is:
"What now?"
The answer: CUT SPENDING.

Posted by: shred11 | January 30, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

In 2o12 after another worse shellacking Toles will be calling everybody not on his side a racist and a SUV driver. Toles only has one gear which is commune ism !

Posted by: jornolibist | January 30, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

I would argue our economy wasn't two feet from the ground looking at just sliding in with a rough landing on it's belly when Obama took office, to use your horrible analogy.
Posted by: jhnnywalkr

I will argue that the economy had been in a tail spin and had already hit the ground when Obama took office.
Check the date that the banks failed and you will find that "Pilot Bush" was still president.

We are trying to recover from a Republican dismantle job of banking regulation that allowed them to let greed run amuck.

Economics, financial instruments and fiscal responsibility belongs to the government through the Federal Reserve and the department of treasury. They have the authority to expand and contract the economy as required to maintain an efficient exchange of goods and services.
The bottom line is that the Republicans were responsible for the people of this nation losing home values, investments and jobs.
It is the government’s responsibility to rectify the situation by doing what ever is necessary to repair the damages.
This economic disaster was contrived and it is going to destroy our nation's financial stability if "new money' is not generated to refuel our economy before a total disaster.
Dave




Posted by: OchamsRazor | January 30, 2011 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Ha!!
Are you a politician daly?

Posted by: bertzel | January 30, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

And daly....Toles couldn't draw me. He could draw what you described

Exactly

but Trakkers insulting post did create a funny cartoon image of any of the 'cavemen' here in this fishbowl.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 30, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I would argue our economy wasn't two feet from the ground looking at just sliding in with a rough landing on it's belly when Obama took office, to use your horrible analogy.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 30, 2011 12:01 PM | Report abuse

~~~My analogy of our economy: Picture our country on a huge jumbo jet, We are told that the landing gear is not functioning properly but we are two feet from the ground. We could choose to crash land at two feet and take our lumps or we could fly higher and try to fix the problem,~~~~

The pilot (Obama) would not be the one to decide...The passengers would have a vote...pretty sure the majority...at least those with a brain would chose to land if only 2 feet off the ground....nice story though.


~~ A modern society....... has got to have an effective government to smooth things out and make sure people don't starve or kill each other. Don't like living with us, then don't slam the door on your way out.~~~~trakker

what a childish comment...however I will indulge....define Effective Government where people do not starve or kill each other. I have yet to witness that!

Posted by: bertzel | January 30, 2011 11:01 AM | Report abuse

~~bertzel
Are you a caveman or something?~~~

Not yet...but if things around the globe keep heading in the direction they are going then I hope to be one of the few survivors....I truly think the future of humankind would benefit from my offerings!

Ha, ha, ha!

seriously...taxes are always on the rise...didn't say FED did I? Much more 'tax collecting' going on above and beyond the Fed.
Inflation is also ridiculous...try doing your own experiment and visit the local markets...I pay twice for some items now compared to a mere 2-3 yrs ago!
I don't have to look up 'facts' on the internet....I live it buddy!


And daly....Toles couldn't draw me. He could draw what you described (you perhaps?) but not me.

Posted by: bertzel | January 30, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

My analogy of our economy: Picture our country on a huge jumbo jet, We are told that the landing gear is not functioning properly but we are two feet from the ground. We could choose to crash land at two feet and take our lumps or we could fly higher and try to fix the problem, but we are also short of fuel we are told.So we take the easy way for temporary safety. And we fly higher, now we face the fuel problem the fuel is running out and we decide to go higher, but we can borrow fuel from another country, so we do. Now we are at 30,000 feet and climbing. So we go a little further and we need more fuel so we borrow from said country and we climb higher even still. 50,000 feet now and we need more fuel to keep going, So we borrow more fuel, 75,000 feet now. And we decide to have a meeting and at this meeting we decide to break through the ceiling of space and borrow more fuel. 100,000 feet now and climbing.We scream more fuel more fuel and the other countries say but we can't climb that high to fuel you. So we crash after we finally run out of fuel and we all hit the ground and smash really hard.When in the first place most of us would have survived now we are all on this plane and have to crash with the rest of the country. Thanks Obama. You are no pilot.
-----------------------------------------
It's worse- only half the people think the landing gear is broken. No one is really sure.

Remember the politicians are in first class getting meals and free drinks while in the air.

Posted by: flyover22 | January 30, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

My analogy of our economy: Picture our country on a huge jumbo jet, We are told that the landing gear is not functioning properly but we are two feet from the ground. We could choose to crash land at two feet and take our lumps or we could fly higher and try to fix the problem, but we are also short of fuel we are told.So we take the easy way for temporary safety. And we fly higher, now we face the fuel problem the fuel is running out and we decide to go higher, but we can borrow fuel from another country, so we do. Now we are at 30,000 feet and climbing. So we go a little further and we need more fuel so we borrow from said country and we climb higher even still. 50,000 feet now and we need more fuel to keep going, So we borrow more fuel, 75,000 feet now. And we decide to have a meeting and at this meeting we decide to break through the ceiling of space and borrow more fuel. 100,000 feet now and climbing.We scream more fuel more fuel and the other countries say but we can't climb that high to fuel you. So we crash after we finally run out of fuel and we all hit the ground and smash really hard.When in the first place most of us would have survived now we are all on this plane and have to crash with the rest of the country. Thanks Obama. You are no pilot.

Posted by: annieandpauldonovan | January 30, 2011 7:53 AM | Report abuse

The sand bags of spending control were cut long ago.

PS If you want to bring a hot air balloon down you turn down the gas.

Posted by: flyover22 | January 30, 2011 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Toles is right. Warmer is improving many things. But colder would kill us.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | January 30, 2011 6:53 AM | Report abuse

jonroesler wrote:

["So, okay, let's integrate some facts:
1) ... 1/4 century must have begun between 1952 and 1956.
2) The top marginal tax rate ...
3) The inflation rates during the Carter years were 6.5, 7.6, 11.3 and 13.5%, even higher than the 6.2, 11.0, 5.8 and 6.5% rates of the four years previous, but nothing like 21%.
4) $400K in 1952 was a lot more in terms of spending power than $200K in '77-'81.

The reality is that, tax rates have been steadily decreasing since they peaked in 1944, a time when a majority of Americans still understood that we have to pay for the things we expect government to do on our behalf.

The lower tax rates fall, and the fewer dollars taken in by the federal government, the higher our national deficit becomes. So that now, rather than what some of us pretended was a crushing burden of taxation in the '70s because borrowing was just easier and because we could, has become a genuinely crushing burden of mounting debt.

Short-term thinking and the use of debt (rather than capital) in order to pay for what we want seem to have become a way of life in this country, and the time seems to have come to take a good, long look at where they've brought us. Misrepresenting reality does not help.

Like mathematics, facts are neither grumpy nor cheerful, conservative nor liberal; they are only facts. The good news is that, in this modern world of the internet, it's a simple thing to check them.

-----------------

1 - Correct - Dems dominated Congress for most of the period, actually, between 1954 and 1994.

2 - I never said taxes rose during that time. Democrats kept the top tax rate as high as possible (keeping the folks at the top of the pyramid from bolting) so they could keep their Liberal party going.

3 - Nothing like 21%? I was there dude, it was 21%. A quick internet scan produced a Time Cover story from 24 MAR 1980 titled 'Jimmy Carter versus Inflation'; here is the first paragraph:

"He promises budget cuts and credit curbs, but more is needed

As Jimmy Carter stepped before the television cameras in the East Room of the White House last Friday, his task was not just to proclaim another new anti-inflation program but to calm a national alarm that had begun to border on panic. Inflation and interest rates, both topping 18%, are so far beyond anything that Americans have experienced in peacetime—and so far beyond anything that U.S. financial markets are set up to handle—as to inspire a contagion of fear.

You see Jon, we had (on that date) 18% interest rates and 18% inflation. Who needs to check their facts now mr. 'nothing like 21%'??? Who needs to check their facts now mr. 'in the '70s because borrowing was just easier'???

Neither of your statements was correct.

The misery index 'inflation + unemployment' equaled 21.5% in 1980 btw.

Obviously, you didn't even bother to check your own facts. You just wanted to lecture about them.

Save your lectures until after you do your own homework.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 30, 2011 4:18 AM | Report abuse

I think describing unemployment as at an "all-time high" is a bit dishonest.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 30, 2011 2:34 AM | Report abuse

bertzel

Are you a caveman or something?

Posted by: Trakker

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 30, 2011 12:55 AM | Report abuse

caveman bertzel

the mental image !!! LOL

It's a cross between Fred Flintstone and that museum Diorama caveman on the 6th grade field trip.

At the computer !!!

Toles can draw this easy !!!

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 30, 2011 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: bertzel
don't recall exactly what taxes you are referring to since taxes are always on the increase...however...gas prices weren't over 3 bucks a gallon the price of a bag of potato chips wasn't 4 bucks, unemployment was not at an all time high and mega government control was not an issue as it is today...
=====================================

A. Try searching Wikipedia for "Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993" to refresh your memory.
B. Taxes are are always being pushed up? What planet do you live on? Really, federal tax revenue in the past year is the lowest since 1950!
C. You noted that unemployment is at an all time high. Many have been unemployed so long they've run out of benefits. Many are losing their homes and living in their cars. That bothers me and should bother all Americans. Do we: fire teachers and other government workers (and increasing the unemployment rate), raise taxes, or let the poor starve or freeze to death? No one likes to pay more taxes but sometimes we have to do it for the good of the country we supposedly love.
D. Mega government control? Are you a caveman or something? What is it this time? Guns? Health care reform? Don't tell me you just found out they put Flouride in your water. Look, this isn't the tenth century AD. A modern society with over 300 million people living together has got to have an effective government to smooth things out and make sure people don't starve or kill each other. Don't like living with us, then don't slam the door on your way out.

God, what whiners we've become...

Posted by: Trakker | January 30, 2011 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Tax rates WERE increased during the Clinton years, by the way, and look what happened to the deficit during that time. Funny how that happens.
Posted by: jonroesler~~~

don't recall exactly what taxes you are referring to since taxes are always on the increase...however...gas prices weren't over 3 bucks a gallon the price of a bag of potato chips wasn't 4 bucks, unemployment was not at an all time high and mega government control was not an issue as it is today...

Posted by: bertzel | January 29, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

The Bears explain the Bailouts....


http://www.zerohedge.com/article/step-aside-bernank-here-comes-timothy-jeethner-bears-explain-banker-bailouts-and-screwing-am

Posted by: pauldia | January 29, 2011 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Tax rates WERE increased during the Clinton years, by the way, and look what happened to the deficit during that time. Funny how that happens.

Posted by: jonroesler | January 29, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Ranger said, " In the 50s, we were the preeminent superpower, especially economically. The tax structure that was manageable then became the crushing burden of the late 70s. I know you two don't like to integrate any grumpy facts into your posts but during your beloved President Carter's heyday, we had 21% inflation, stagflation, and a country ripped apart by a 1/4 century of Liberal tax increases."

So, okay, let's integrate some facts:
1) Carter was inaugurated in January 1977 and finished his term January 1981, so your 1/4 century must have begun between 1952 and 1956.
2) The top marginal tax rate went DOWN from 92% of income over $400K in 1952 to 91% of over $400K in '56 to between 70-50% (differing between total and earned income) of about $200K between 1977-1981.
3) The inflation rates during the Carter years were 6.5, 7.6, 11.3 and 13.5%, even higher than the 6.2, 11.0, 5.8 and 6.5% rates of the four years previous, but nothing like 21%.
4) $400K in 1952 was a lot more in terms of spending power than $200K in '77-'81.

The reality is that, tax rates have been steadily decreasing since they peaked in 1944, a time when a majority of Americans still understood that we have to pay for the things we expect government to do on our behalf.

The lower tax rates fall, and the fewer dollars taken in by the federal government, the higher our national deficit becomes. So that now, rather than what some of us pretended was a crushing burden of taxation in the '70s because borrowing was just easier and because we could, has become a genuinely crushing burden of mounting debt.

Short-term thinking and the use of debt (rather than capital) in order to pay for what we want seem to have become a way of life in this country, and the time seems to have come to take a good, long look at where they've brought us. Misrepresenting reality does not help.

Like mathematics, facts are neither grumpy nor cheerful, conservative nor liberal; they are only facts. The good news is that, in this modern world of the internet, it's a simple thing to check them.

Posted by: jonroesler | January 29, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"Just cutting" sounds really good until you realize those cuts represent jobs that will be lost, programs that will no longer perform the services they do now and will have to be replaced somehow somewhere along the line, and functions the government performs now that we don't really want them to stop. Despite talk to the contrary, many people often don't realize where the government affects their everyday lives in a positive way, and when the government no longer does that, they aren't going to like it.

Like I said, spending needs to be cut, but it's not going to be "$100 billion BOOM there that's taken care of and SEE? no one even notices" that many Republicans are trying to make it sound like.

I can't say I disagree necessarily that we are "taxed enough," nor do I agree, as that is pretty subjective. we certainly need a debate on what government should and should not do, or will and will not do, and what that means to the average American. That is not the debate as it is right now. All we get is posturing and absolutes. No serious give-and-take of thoughts and ideas. You have REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL and DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL and no apparent real effort to combine the two. Whoever won the last election apparently just gets their way until the next one.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 29, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand people who think we can get out of this by just cutting spending. Yes, we need to do that, a lot, but there is just no way to get out of this hole without more taxes. It simply doesn't add up. Plus, we will fight over what to cut and how much, and it's not just Dems who spend, by the way.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr

------------------

Cutting spending is going to be hard; very tough on some folks. But the reality is we aren't under-taxed. It's a long con man. Congress will always want more and more and more. Our elected representatives, some of them who had no part in the nearly century long drum beat of more and more defense and social programs, will have to sacrifice their popularity, perhaps sacrifice their jobs, to fix our National checkbook.

I'm open to changes in the tax game but new donations out of my wallet to fix the beltway circus is a non-starter.

Rand Paul suggested cutting 500B out of the budget. Yes, I know it sounds nuts but that might be exactly what we need to do.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 29, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand people who think we can get out of this by just cutting spending. Yes, we need to do that, a lot, but there is just no way to get out of this hole without more taxes. It simply doesn't add up. Plus, we will fight over what to cut and how much, and it's not just Dems who spend, by the way.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 29, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I have to assume that congressional leaders, and most readers of the WP columns, have a basic understanding of arithmetic----not advanced math, just elementary school arithmetic. Wisconsin congressional Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican economic "guru", suggests that we cut the debt through deficit reduction of 60 to 100 billion dollars per year. To think that decreasing spending by 100 billion dollars for each coming year will make a dent in the debt is insane. Using figures for the 2010 budget, consider the following:
Revenue 2.381 Trillion
Spending 3.552Trillion
2010 Deficit 1.171 Trillion
If 100 billion had been trimmed from the 2010 budget, it would still have left A DEFICIT OF 1.11 TRILLION (eleven times the proposed 100 billion cut in spending), which would have to be ADDED TO THE DEBT. The same additions will be added each year until the budget is ACTUALLY BALANCED !! Consider the following arithmetic:

1. The current debt is reported as 14 trillion dollars.
2. If the annual deficit---now running in the trillion dollars + range---could be totally eliminated, we could use any "surplus" for each year to pay toward the debt. If the annual deficit were zero (balanced budget, but no surplus), nothing would be available to pay toward lowering the debt.
3. If we could have a surplus of 500 billion each year without fail-----this would require a change of 1.5 trillion, from one trillion dollar deficit to 500 billion surplus---we could pay off the debt in 28 years.
4. If we managed to eke out a surplus of only 100 billion each year (hasn't been done in past several decades except for one questionable year under Clinton) it would take 140 YEARS TO ELIMINATE THE DEBT.
If ALL expenditures, other than national defense and interest on the debt were eliminated-----that is NOTHING spent on any other item, zero, nada, zilch-----the debt could be paid off in 5 years and 2 months. Figures used are from the 2010 budget: Total expenditures 3.55 trillion, total defense spending 663.7 billion, interest on the debt 164 billion. Therefore 3.55 trillion minus (0.6637 trillion + 0.164 trillion) = 2.72 trillion. With national debt of 14 trillion, divide that figure by 2.72. and get 5.147 which is the number of years (approximately 5 years and 2 months) it would take to pay off the debt with NOTHING OTHER THAN DEFENSE AND INTEREST ON THE DEBT PAID.

In short, SPENDING CUTS WILL NEVER ELIMINATE THE DEBT. We have to grit our teeth and accept more taxes, or the alternative of "printing more money" with resultant, and unpredictable, INFLATION to pay off the debt. Take your choice. I would favor a ten percent surtax on our IRS payments such as we had during the Vietnam fiasco. Let's see what that would do to the budget, with a ban on any increase in spending.

Posted by: merhoff | January 29, 2011 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Dorothy: [as the Wizard's balloon goes off without her] Come back! Come back! Don't go without me! Please come back!

Wizard of Oz: I can't come back, I don't know how it works! Good-bye, folks!

Posted by: joel5 | January 29, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

When we talk about "tax cuts for the rich" we should remember that the dispute between Obama and Boehner about tax brackets amounted to a mere 70 billion dollars which represented retaining the Bush tax rates for everyone making over $250,000.

Too many Democrats do not know the arithmetic and do not appreciate that 70 billion dollars cannot come even near closing a deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars.

Our problem lies in runaway health care spending. Arizona spends 30% of its general budget on just medicaid. How long is this is going to go on?

Raise taxes on the rich (or better, on all of us), cut the defense budget and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. But you will STILL need to cut our health care expenditures.

Obama's most irresponsible action was to bring tens of millions of new people under a broken health care system. We need to work on this, and preferably (in fact necessarily) with the help of both parties.

There is no other way and I would say to Democrats, you have enjoyed bashing Republicans for quite a long time. But now is the time to get back to work and fix this country. WILL YOU DO IT?

Or will we just see more bellyaching?

Posted by: rjpal | January 29, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

No need to panic. Just take us back to full employment (as we were 12 years ago) and we can pay down the debit quickly.

Then I can explain again what a "lagging indicator" is.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | January 29, 2011 8:09 AM | Report abuse

OckamsRazor & PrairieDog60,

A few counter-points to your posts:

1 - Dave: We are not a poverty Nation nor are we becoming one. You always use the term 'poverty' so loosely. The UN and World bank standard for 'poverty' is $1.00 - $1.25 per day. How many Americans do you know with that living standard that aren't being looked after by family, municipalities, counties, parishes, State, or Federal programs? We can always do better but frankly, if you spent a day in Bangladesh or India, you would know what real poverty looks like. As a Nation, we're no where near that - not even in the same galaxy.

It is immoral for you and the Left to make this claim.

2 - I always love how the Liberals go 'populist' when it comes to tax cuts. Everyone got a tax cut but because our wealthier citizens (lets not forget they're Americans too) get a tax cut, that is somehow unfair.

2a - The great American socialist experiment is over (from the FDRs first day in office until Reagan's 1st day in office). In the 50s, we were the preeminent superpower, especially economically. The tax structure that was manageable then became the crushing burden of the late 70s. I know you two don't like to integrate any grumpy facts into your posts but during your beloved President Carter's heyday, we had 21% inflation, stagflation, and a country ripped apart by a 1/4 century of Liberal tax increases. Reagan and the '94 Contract with America (a politically bright Clinton went along), crushed welfare as we know it and reversed the economy-crippling socialist experiment forever. Or so we thought until 2008.

2b - The GOP does not hold Eisenhower up as a Conservative. He was a National hero, many times over, that was more than acceptable to the party .

2c - Kennedy believed in tax cuts; but why bother fighting with you about that?

2d - Lay it down, PD60: what taxes do you think we ought to pay? How much? Let's list what we pay now:

Tolls, Tariffs, Business, Sales, Income, Retirement, Gift, Excise, Property, Consumption, Capital Gains, Payroll, Social Security...the list goes on and on and on and on.

Why is it so pleasurable for you to continuously ask for more taxes when we pay so many now?

If you are losing hope, go see the High Commission for Canada and see if you can immigrate. Their style of government suits you better, eh?

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 29, 2011 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Tax cuts. Yes. An excellent idea. Tax cuts for the rich. Cut that rope. That will help balance the budget.

Okay, turn back the clock. It's 1956. America is prosperous. The income tax for the highest tax bracket is around 92% (compared to the mid-30s nowdays). A good Republican war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, is in the White House. So what does he think of this high tax bracket? He defended it, thought it was a good idea, and said taxes on the wealthy would not be lowered until, "the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."

Check out Rachal Maddow's quotes from Ike on her show from this past Wednesday. Ike the liberal??

"Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society."

"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice."

"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and"--and the president says--"their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Wow. America has been pushed so far to the right over the last 50 years that Ike sounds like Dennis Kucinich in these quotes; or as Maddow says, Bernie Sanders (the socialist).

Ike gets quoted often for his "beware the military-industrial complex" farewell speech. A speech that didn't seem to work, since our country has become exactly that. I would venture to say a "military-industrial-consumer complex". George W. Bush's sentiment shortly after 9/11, when some people started to get a little nervous about all the violations of the consitution and habeus corpus, and pre-emptive war, etc., was; shut up and shop.

This nation is in trouble. We're lulled asleep by gadgets, reality TV, and a media asleep on the job. And when media DOES try to tell us the real truth, they're branded "liberal". Get rid of that evil PBS. They're liberal. Yeah...liberal like Ike.

Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Palin, Bachmann, Hannity...today's Republican leaders. Don't offend them, ye RHINOs. They'll rake you over the coals and make you apologize for "straying". Never mind that they are, to borrow a word from Ike, "stupid".

Bipartisan? The word has no meaning anymore. Today's average Democrat would have to lean far to the left to govern like Ike. When the left is asked to be "bipartisan" these days, they're basically being asked to incorporate a little "stupid" into their platform. And sadly, they have.

I'm rapidly losing hope.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | January 29, 2011 2:39 AM | Report abuse

To Tom Toles...
Mixed medley for the thinking mudley…
Colonel Haughty, "Had a plan, all the time,” for our nation that has lost its way, that is!
Whisper, whisper, whisper; we will all split up and go in a different direction and if we spot our lost nation we will billow with our mighty trunks and all of the bad things that have happened will go away. Big business will grow a heart, politicians will get courage and the Tea Party People will get a brain.
The U.S. Treasury will have such fun; it could print all the money we need to support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They could print enough money to pay off the national debt and have loose change to bail out the states and put people to work rebuilding our infrastructure.

The exchange of goods and services is based on trust and fidelity. There is no gold standard.
Instead of becoming a poverty Nation; we could become the prosperous Nation our forefathers envisioned if we would only rethink what economics is all about.
Without fuel; not even a hot air balloon could get off of the ground
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | January 29, 2011 12:27 AM | Report abuse

BUDGET CUTS --What a great thinker Toles???
thrift, thrift, thrift

Posted by: jornolibist | January 28, 2011 9:57 PM | Report abuse

From NOAA regarding your Temp graph,

In the ERSST version 3 on this web page we have removed satellite data from ERSST and the merged product. The addition of satellite data caused problems for many of our users. Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse.

The residual bias led to a modest decrease in the global warming trend and modified global annual temperature rankings.


14 November 2008
Richard W. Reynolds
Thomas M. Smith
Chunying Liu

Science proves satellites provide more accurate temperature constructions than models or incomplete and inaccurate surface measurements.

Why throw out the real data and replace it with guesses ????

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 28, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Hope we don't have to jump ship, just because some entities hijacked it...

Wise spending should go with wise character: get rid of the guile or put it in straits.

Posted by: Tony-KS | January 28, 2011 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Hot Air Balloon Toles???
tsk,tsk, tsk..

Posted by: bertzel | January 28, 2011 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company