Political Cartoons

So, when that Bush refund check comes in you will cash it and keep it.

From:

I'd give it back if they would come up with a better way to spend $170 billion on the economy. Until then, I'll take what I can get.

From:

So you are keeping money instead of giving it back. You could give it back with a group of people if you were serious about it, but you are not. You will keep the money and say its wrong.

From:

tubaboy81.livejournal.com

His point is he'd give it back if he believed the government would do anything useful with it. Which is a good point.

From:

No, He stated that he doesn't believe that the government should give the refund, but he is going to take it anyway.

From:

Sorry if I'm kicking a dead horse here, but I want to be crystal clear. Tubaboy is saying he doesn't think the gov't should give the money to anyone. That would be his choice for the country. But he doesn't really control that, does he. (tubaboy, please let us know if you are actually George W. Bush, 'cause then I'd be wrong.) So, since it's being forced upon him, he is right to take it.

Here's an analogy for you. This stimulus package is the same as if the gov't said "spend an extra $1200 this month and put it on your credit card. And to make sure you do, whether you spend it or not, the debt will appear on your credit card bill next year, with interest."

So, I'm like, "Fuck, man. I better buy something with my $1200 since they're going to make me pay it anyway." Get it?

So, your whole "If you don't like it, don't take the money" argument is a flimsy straw man. It is ok to oppose the stimulus package and take the money. It is not hypocritical at all.

You may be surprized to learn that I actually like the idea of the stimulus package. Our economy does need a little bit of a boost and this will probably help. All my other comments are simply putting it into perspective and clarifying what we are doing: borrowing from ourselves (or our children) and it will be paid back by a different group of people than those who are benefitting now.

From:

Your whole argument is broken by one simple fact. The refund is not forced on him. The IRS is more than willing to take the money back if you want to give it back.

You keep saying it is going to have to be paid back. Now, here is where I need you to give me a good argument. No one has yet, no one can explain, with clarity this idea. How is the oweing this money, the deficiet if you will, going to hurt us? Have you not seen what is owed by the US? When does the amount get so large it actually does anything?

Please. no one has been able to explain this with out insulting or giving a clear case. Please try to do so. If you do, well then I might agree with you.

From:

I'll do my best to explain. I promise I won't insult.

There are two decisions being made here. What's being "forced upon" Tubaboy is the decision to give rebates to 150 million people. He can't control that macro-decision. If he had a choice, he'd choose for the federal government not to do this at all. But, given that decision is made against his personal desire, he is faced with a second decision: keep his portion or give it back. He can give it back if he wants, but it would be a hollow protest since it would have no significant effect on reversing the first decision. Choosing to return the rebate would be economically irrational.

So, the first decision is forced on him. The second is in his control. He can complain that the first decision is a bad one for the country as a whole while still making the economically rational choice to keep the money that they send to him.

OK. On to the debt. Some of us own US Treasury Securities or Savings Bonds. This is money I gave to the US Government and they have promised to pay me back in 10 years with interest. I own some of these. A lot of Americans own these. Maybe you do, too. China certainly owns a lot.

Now, when the Federal Government spends 1 trillion dollars this year and collects 900 billion in taxes, it needs to get 100 billion in cash somewhere. So, they go and sell China and me more Treasury Securities and promise they'll pay us back some day.

Since they owe me (and others) so much money (about 9 trillion now, I think) the gov't has to make interest payments every year. These interest payments are the 3rd largest part of the Federal Budget. Right now it's somewhere between $400 and $450 Billion each year. Here's an interesting site to help put it in perspective: http://www.federalbudget.com/

So, the problems are two-fold: First, that $400+ Billion has to be paid by our taxes every year. If the debt was not there, we could all get a huge tax cut and we'd still balance the budget. Secondly, we can't keep adding to this debt forever. If we do, at some point you, me, and China will say, "Hmmm, you've got an awful lot of debt there. If I give you money, I'm not so sure you'll be able to pay me back. Forget it, I'm investing my money elsewhere." If that happens, then we (the US Gov't) are forced to balance the budget. That means huge spending cuts (puts a lot of federal employees out of work) and huge tax increases. Together you'd have a depression that would dwarf the 1930's.

One time I heard someone ask, "Hey, if the federal debt is money that we essentially borrowed from ourselves, why don't we just wipe it out and start over?" What that person didn't really understand it that a lot of that debt is the personal savings of individuals. Hopefully it's clear to you why you just can't erase this debt.

Does that help?

From:

1. I do not think that giving the money back is a bad decision for people against the refund. Supposedly there is enough of them that if they were serious they could all do it and make a good protest if not a difference. The fact is that they want the money.

2. Ok, so generations such as mine, has not invested heavily into the government. My generation has a hard time investing money. So its not going to effect them that way. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2005-03-23-investing-cover_x.htm

China claims their debt. I had a debate with a college professor about this. We came to the conclusion that this would bring about depression here. Which would bring about further depression to the people we buy from and support. China falls into that boat. So if they were to claim their debt the world would fall into depression. Now, we disagree with China but they don't want to hurt themselves doing it.

From:

To your point #1 - I can accept your opinion here. I suppose some could think that it would be a good way to protest, I don't though. Although, you made me think of a great idea. Let's start a campaign to get as many people as we can to return their refunds in protest. If we can convince a few dozen million people to do this, we can have a pretty significant affect on the national debt. We'll keep our own rebates, of course!

To your point #2 - OK, so you and your buddies don't own savings bonds. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be terribly, terribly bad for you if the gov't decided not to pay its debt to your neighbors, to your company's pension plan, to your retired parents, etc.

I'm not worried about China saying "Pay me all the money you owe me right now!" That's not going to happen. But we do owe them money and we will pay them interest on that money every year. The more it grows, the more it is a burden on our federal budget. The more burden there is on the federal budget, the higher our taxes have to be to keep our gov't going....

So, again, keep in mind: When you get your rebate check, understand that your federal goverment borrowed that cash from China to cut you that check. So don't be surprized if your rebate is neatly starched and folded, tastes a little like MSG, and you find yourself hungry for another rebate an hour later. :-D

From:

Know what...I can see we will disagree here, but I do like your sence of humor. :-)

From:

I will take the refund, yes, because it will help me. Slightly. It will help a lot of lower- and middle-class people. Slightly. I would gladly give up my check - as would a many people, I bet - if they came up with a better plan to spend the $170 billion, like a New New Deal. It could have been an investment, but instead it's hardly even a drop in the bucket, a piss-poor short-term solution from a short-term outlook administration.

I have yet to see how this is hypocritical. Please explain it to me.

From:

So, you admit the refund will help you and others...yet you are going to bitch how it is wrong.

You admit that it is the best plan with the money because they do not have a better plan..yet you are going to bitch about it.

You have proven my point that you are going to bitch about the refund, yet you are going to take it anyway because you admit that it will help you and others, and that there is no better plan for it right now.

LOL. Seriously..do you vote?

From:

I can tell you're typing, but all I see is gibberish.

From:

Maybe you should learn to read.

From:

I'm sorry, but I plan on stealing this line in the future. I'm cracking up here.

From:

Go right ahead.

From:

tubaboy81.livejournal.com

Wow. You have the lowest reading comprehension I've ever seen, and I work at an urban elementary school.

From:

OK? back up your claim.

Also, your a waste of tax payers money and you just admitted it.

From:

OK, let me take this one:

lafinjack said: "I'd give it back if they would come up with a better way to spend $170 billion on the economy. Until then, I'll take what I can get."

From that you conclude: "He stated that he doesn't believe that the government should give the refund."

While he's open to the possibility that there may be better ways to use the money, he never says he doesn't like the idea. Conclusion: bad comprehension on your part.

And, by the way, I'm done taking you seriously. You've chosen an apt screen name "j0kerr" because you are a joke and you do err.

Seriously, writing "your a waste of tax payers money" to a school teacher is too funny. It would have been funnier if you had written "your a waist of tacks payers money." Try that next time, then we'd think you were doing it on purpose.

I can understand now why people insult you.

From:

Ok, I give, he didn't say the the government shouldn't give the refund. He did bitch about the refund even though he admits that there is not a better plan for it.

As for the personal insults...good job..thats predictable of your ilk.

From:

I did say the government shouldn't give me the refund. I didn't "admit" there wasn't a better plan for the money, I declared it up front.

...thats predictable of your ilk.

Stop being insulting. It's predictable of you.

From:

I'm not giving mine back to the gov't...my kids will! Ah, ha, ha, ha! And, actually, if I play my cards right and they change the tax code the way I want it, it will actually be YOUR kids who will give it back to the gov't! AAAAH, HA, HA, HA!

Back to the cartoon itself: I don't interpret this as a critique of the stimulus package. I don't think he's trying to be political as much as he's trying to be funny. And I think this is kinda funny.

From:

OK crazy...so you are keeping the money and bitching how wrong it is.

From:

Crazy? Try rational. I'm just looking out for my self interest. If I go to dinner with a group of people and the GROUP DECIDES that we'll split the check evenly, I'm getting the Surf and Turf, because if I get just a salad, I end up subsidizing everyone else's meal. But, if the GROUP DECIDES that we'll go with separate checks, I'll get the salad and save my money for the strip club afterward. The most economically rational thing would be to have separate checks - it minimizes the total bill and let's everyone make their own economic choice. But in the case of the economic stimulus package, it's a group choice to "split the check" so I'm getting mine before someone else does. Me giving up my check now does not lower my tax bill later.

And, by the way, I'm not bitching about how wrong it is. I'm just telling the truth: We are borrowing this money from ourselves. We (as a population) will have to pay it back some day.

What I didn't mention is how this (the economic stimulus package as I understand it) is, in effect, redistributing money from the wealthy to the poor and middle class. I don't have the exact numbers here, but I'm directionally correct when I say that the top 5% of earners contribute something like 80% of the tax revenue. Well, the top 5% are not getting any rebates in this stimulus package, but since they provide the vast majority of the tax dollars, it's essentially coming out of their pockets (or their children's pockets, really). So, I think this congress and W. deserve the Robin Hood award this year.

From:

Do you have a problem with taxing those who make a lot of money more than others?

From:

Drilling down to core values, eh? The short answer is "no." To me, it is entirely fair to have someone who earns X to pay Y, and someone who earns 100X to pay 100Y. In this case we are "taxing those who make a lot of money more than [we tax] others." I'm guessing this is not what you are asking about, though.

So I think your question is: Is it fair for the guy making 100X to pay 150Y? The answer to that is not 100% clear to me. From a philosophical point of view I can argue both ways. But from a pragmatic point of view, it simply has to be done. At the rate our government spends, the money has to come from somewhere. And you aren't gonna get anything from a guy with a wife and two kids who makes $20k/year. Yes, it's not fair that that guy gets to use the roads, gets protected by the police and fire department, his kids get to use the schools, and all these other services, but he pays nothing for it. So, the wealthy have to carry more of the financial burden of society. If they didn't, and we made this poor guy pay his "fair share," we'd all suffer (e.g. crime, drugs, blight, disease, etc.)

The key phrase above is "at the rate our government spends." I personally feel we should be spending less at the federal level (a little less war would be nice) and leave the rest of the economy up to the free market.

Does that answer your question?

From:

Actually the first part was all I was looking for. Good job though, this is the most though I have seen from answers on here.

I agree that we should spend less on the fed and state level. I am happily going to take the refund though. I will then invest the money or spend it, thus doing what it was given to me to do with. The same you will do too I think?

From:

tubaboy81.livejournal.com

I was with you until the last sentence. If this is funny, I'm missing something.

From: