Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 01/ 2/2011

Maximum security

By Tom Toles

c_01022011.gif

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_01022011.gif

By Tom Toles  | January 2, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  National Security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 2010 in cartoons
Next: Drop-in clinic

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

So Dave you and I are on the same page here for sure. Any thoughts on replacing all those good manufacture jobs that are leaving for overseas markets. Do you think Americas or some states corporate tax policies hurt our employment?
Posted by: dalyplanet

My Reply...
We need dynamic "new money" to create jobs to rebuild our infrastructure, our education system and raise the minimum wages to the cost of living as needed in demographic areas. The government needs to invest in new technology that is user friendly to take the stress out of life.
The only thing wrong with the supply side of economics is the anal retentive condition of our finance systems.
We have the technology and the resources but not the "capital" to make things happen.
Capitalism does not work without capital like I have posted many times.

When the demand side of economics has insufficient funds to fuel the supply side of economics the capitalist system fails, the quality of people's lives deteriorates and the government cannot provide the services that are required to retain an efficient social system.
Not to mention that we are vulnerable and our enemies rejoice.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | January 3, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

HA...HA..HA!!!

Posted by: bertzel | January 3, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money."
Another myth bites the dust.
Posted by: dalyplanet

My Rebuttal,
To start with...
The Salvation Army does not use buckets to collect money; it uses kettles.
In the second place...
No one asked if the people giving the money were liberals or conservatives.
In the third place..
There are as many liberal Christians as there are conservative Christians.
In the fourth place..
Christ would be considered a liberal...
("Give all you have to the poor and come follow me".)
In the fifth place...
The Salvation Army is a socialist organization and a good conservative would not give them money.
In the sixth place...
California is the birth place of the "me generation" not the "others generation".
In the seventh place...
True conservatives do not give away money because it is not conservative to give away money by definition.
I would say that the study was as phony as a three dollar bill just like the conservatives who call themselves conservative after causing trillions of dollars of national debt.

By the way, my grandfather was a Salvation Army Officer and my family was third generation Salvationists.
The Salvation Army is both a church and a social services organization.
When I was a teenager; I played Christmas music on my cornet on the streets of downtown Detroit at a Salvation Army kettle in weather so cold that my mouthpiece froze to my lips.
Dave



Posted by: OchamsRazor | January 3, 2011 3:04 AM | Report abuse

"The states of the so called "United states" which are no longer united because of the struggle to hold jobs are going bust because of revenue loss."

So Dave you and I are on the same page here for sure. Any thoughts on replacing all those good manufacture jobs that are leaving for overseas markets. Do you think Americas or some states corporate tax policies hurt our employment?

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 2, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

what WHAT???

Google conservative vs liberal charity for some interesting facts about who gives to charity. Here is an excerpt from John Stossel

"Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to that in a minute.

San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.

San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.

But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."


Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: "their religious participation." Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much.

But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?

"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money."

Another myth bites the dust.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 2, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Is this why dems\libs are generally poor givers compared to conservatives or it it because the church of AGW doesn't pass the donation plate every sunday.
Posted by: dalyplanet

My Comments...
Until recently, the Democrats/liberals were staunch supporters of the working people which included small businesses and the unemployed.
The Republicans/conservatives supported big business and big money interests.
The house supported social programs and the Senate supported the interests of the elite.
At times the Democrats were successful at improving people's lives and some times the Republicans were successful at improving the nation's industrial base.

Now the Republocrates are only concerned with their re-election and the country can go to hell. There is a lot of posturing going on and meaningless legislation which is mostly to the advantage of those who pay big bucks for elections.

Church and family used to be the big support for the poor and unemployed but now the Church is more concerned about its income then its love offerings. The family is being ruptured and spread out across the country to find work and the work is going out of the country.

The states of the so called "United states" which are no longer united because of the struggle to hold jobs are going bust because of revenue loss.

The economy is doing serious entropy because there is not enough available funds to support our financial needs.

More than fifty percent of the American workers make less than the cost of living.
The rich have the hog's share of available funds and they are afraid to invest their money because the economy is weak in the knees.

The only solution to the problems is a better organized society that can meet people's needs and a "funds as required" economic system that provides for cost of living wages, the rebuilding of our infrastructure and a quality environment.
Otherwise, we are at the mercy of our enemies.
One of which is ourselves.
Dave


Posted by: OckamsRazor | January 2, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

```Again, Socialism.

Funny how, anything that happens to be good for the entire community of citizens is labeled 'Socialism," and then summarily dismissed.~~~

Gotta have a 'happy medium.'

Then again...perhaps a line MUST be drawn.
lotta whiskey flowin' ..just...

Posted by: bertzel | January 2, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

~~Is this why dems\libs are generally poor givers compared to conservatives or it it because the church of AGW doesn't pass the donation plate every sunday.
Posted by: dalyplanet

WHAT???

Posted by: bertzel | January 2, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes." George Will

Is this why dems\libs are generally poor givers compared to conservatives or it it because the church of AGW doesn't pass the donation plate every sunday.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 2, 2011 1:19 PM | Report abuse

If higher taxes are so great why don't liberals put their money where their mouth is and just start paying higher taxes to the government on their own?

Posted by: jornolibist | January 2, 2011 5:02 AM | Report abuse

Why don't conservatives come up with some new smarmy arguments?

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 2, 2011 12:33 PM | Report abuse


papafritz571...I don't recall seeing or hearing any of the things you list. I follow the Washington Post mostly and most of the things I see are against Palin. I will admit I don't go looking for the kind of trash you mention.

Posted by: quiensabe | January 2, 2011 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Handing over ones personal responsibilities to government, including helping the less fortunate, is a lame cop out. America is loosing her luster because so many here expect government to do it all for us. The TSA is another example of the people expecting government to 'keep us safe'. What a great job they are doing.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 2, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse

If higher taxes are so great why don't liberals put their money where their mouth is and just start paying higher taxes to the government on their own?

Posted by: jornolibist | January 2, 2011 5:02 AM | Report abuse

Absolutely Priceless!

You and Telnaes and Oliphant make my Day...Every Day!

Thanks - And Wishing you the Best for 2011.

Posted by: lufrank1 | January 1, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Has anybody noticed that with body scans, laws on the books that make it possible for you to be detained indefinitely without knowing the charges against you, and the govt. trying its best to monitor your phone calls, e-mails, facebook and twitter communications, that we have become just like the Soviet Union we used to feel sorry for cause they didn't have the freedoms we had.
Posted by: WhiskeyJack

My concerns...
Why are we doing things that we used to consider to be repulsive?
Torture, humiliation, preemptive war, impoverishment, entrapment, maliciousness, apathy, defamation, lies, distortion, injustice, greed and obstruction are all becoming common place.
Add that to what WhiskyJack posted and we are definitely doing social moral decay.
We need New Year resolutions that get us back to moral high ground instead of the pits of hell.
We need to be fixing our attitudes and objectives while hating the sin ad loving the sinners.
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | January 1, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

All this tax and debt mess could be avoided if we just return to the tax rates pre-Nixon. The max income tax rate under Eisenhower was 90%, Nixon 70%, Reagan 50% and Bush 35%. Look it up! Back then we could afford wars, high tech research, pensions, and almost no debt. Howard Hughes earned his billion with inventions, drilling equipment, movies and aircraft. Today's billionaires inherit their money, sit on their butts and lend money

Posted by: OneidaJack | December 31, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse
***********
**********

"Compassionate Conservatism" changed all that. The compassion went to the wealthiest amongst us and stayed there. Conservatism destroyed the Unions one by one and labeled them communist while their corporate donors watched with glee. In fact Conservatism has given corporate America everything they asked for and then some. Middle class and lower classes got the Finger and now the conservatives call them socialists, marxists, etc because we mere peons are asking for the government to look our way for once.
As a middle of the road liberal voter, I do not resent one penny I pay in taxes for the privilege of being a citizen in this country. I do not resent helping my fellow citizens who do not and can not help themselves. I do not resent helping to pay for health care for those who cannot pay and I do not resent the scientist who are trying to restore and save this damaged planet.
I do resent seeing posters of our nation's President with bones through his nose and tribal clothing on his body.
I do resent hearing our nation's first lady's grandmother being discribed as an ape.
I do resent reading blogs where vile cretins call our President's little daughters "n---- wh----. You fill it in, I actually read someone's filthy post with this in it.
Conservatives scream about liberal class wars, but no single entity has done more to establish class war than they. They chose the plutocrats and ignored the working citizenry and they are willing to take this nation down to retain their tortured conservative ideals. Happy New Year to all. fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | January 1, 2011 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Has anybody noticed that with body scans, laws on the books that make it possible for you to be detained indefinitely without knowing the charges against you, and the govt. trying its best to monitor your phone calls, e-mails, facebook and twitter communications, that we have become just like the Soviet Union we used to feel sorry for cause they didn't have the freedoms we had.

Posted by: WhiskeyJack | January 1, 2011 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Good luck with that, OneidaJack. That was before Fox News.

Posted by: hayesap8 | January 1, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Am I the first of the new year?

Happy New Year's everybody... including you wing nuts at all ends of the political tug-of-war.

Posted by: egc52556 | January 1, 2011 9:32 AM | Report abuse

All this tax and debt mess could be avoided if we just return to the tax rates pre-Nixon. The max income tax rate under Eisenhower was 90%, Nixon 70%, Reagan 50% and Bush 35%. Look it up! Back then we could afford wars, high tech research, pensions, and almost no debt. Howard Hughes earned his billion with inventions, drilling equipment, movies and aircraft. Today's billionaires inherit their money, sit on their butts and lend money

Posted by: OneidaJack | December 31, 2010 3:56 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