61 responses to “RL Crabb, Heeeelp!!”

1. 

   Brad Croul

   20 November 2012

   The angry throng are 99%ers going after the 1%er’s money with blessing the supermajority in Cali congress.

   LikeLike

2. 

   George Rebane

   20 November 2012

   BradC 1139am – then what is the claimed “mandate” since the election provided none? Is it the de facto mandate provided by the pitchforks (i.e. force)?

   LikeLike

3. 

   Steve Enos

   20 November 2012

   When the last Bush was re-elected he said he had a mandate… guess it only works one-way.

   LikeLike

4. 

   MikeyMcD

   20 November 2012

   No disrespect to Mr. Crabb but this is the best comic strip of the day:
   http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/534545_516000325077617_1562363595_n.png

   LikeLike

5. 

   earlcrabb

   20 November 2012

   The ever-prescient Mr. Croul nailed it. I thought it was self-explanetory, but I suppose I should have pasted some labels on the castle or something. If I could change one thing, it would be the guy on the ramparts. It was supposed to be a captain’s hat, but I think a top hat would have worked better.
   We live in New France now. Liberty! Fraternity! Equality!

   LikeLike

6. 

   Steve Enos

   20 November 2012

   “claimed “mandate” since the election provided none?” George asks. Let’s review:
   In 2004 President Bush was re-elected with 286 electoral votes, defeating Sen. John Kerry by 3.3 million votes, the smallest popular vote margin since 1976 (excluding the 2000 election) and the lowest electoral vote count for an incumbent president’s re-election since Woodrow Wilson drew 277 electoral votes in 1916.
   In 2004 many echoed President Bush’s and Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that “the nation” gave Bush “a mandate” in the election.
   Now compare Barack Obama’s win of 364 electoral votes… a clear-cut win for a Change… a mandate larger than the “mandate’ claimed by Bush in 2004.
   Can you say double standard?

   LikeLike

7. 

   George Rebane

   20 November 2012

   earlcrabb 1240pm – Thanks Bob, glad to have your imprimatur on BradC’s 1139am. Yet the question of ‘mandate’ is still puzzling. What is the claimed mandate of the 99% since almost half of them voted for Romney?
   Agree with the American Left’s embrace of the French delusion. It didn’t work there, and (for reasons much labored on these pages) its attempt will be a disaster on our shores.

   LikeLike

8. 

   Steve Enos

   20 November 2012

   Correction… that was 332 electoral votes for President Obama in 2012.

   LikeLike

9. 

   Steve Enos

   20 November 2012

   RL… the hat is the correct hat. It represents the military industrial complex that helps keep the rich in power to profit from war.

   LikeLike

10. 

    George Rebane

    20 November 2012

    SteveE 1248pm – I don’t recall any “mandate” that Bush2 claimed to advance any public policy. Maybe Cheney thought so personally, but you can point us to that record.
    In any event, the cartoon, as explained, has the 99% claiming a mandate. This is a cohort that has never been 99% of anything here demanding something that is totally unclear, but can no doubt be attributed by any Leftist to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean.
    While not a direct link to this topic, recounting the ratio of electoral votes as evincing an equivalent weight of popular will is beyond naive. Politicians of all stripes do that to pander to the country’s ignorant, who then dutifully parrot the fiction to all ears within reach.

    LikeLike

11. 

    earlcrabb

    20 November 2012

    George 12:51PM – It was aimed more at the California mandate. No doubt about that one.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Steve Enos

    20 November 2012

    George 01:04Pm… Really? Bush and Cheney both said they had a “mandate” after the election. They said this a number of times as did the R’s. Just Google for the when’s and where’s.

    LikeLike

13. 

    Bill Tozer

    20 November 2012

    I thought it was the Froggies storming the Bastille demanding some yummy cake as well as clamoring for a new King to rule them. Did I get the Frog Legs part right?

    LikeLike

14. 

    George Rebane

    20 November 2012

    earlcrabb 104pm – that makes sense; and I agree with your comment about the more appropriate top hat.
    Wordsmiths and lexicographic scribblers can correct themselves in a newspaper’s errata section. Can you draw and The Union subsequently publish a little postage stamp paste-on with the corrected headgear, instructing subscribers to snip it out and apply it directly to Tuesday’s edition? Perhaps it would break new ground in journalism and fill a needed hole.

    LikeLike

15. 

    George Rebane

    20 November 2012

    SteveE 108pm – The best I could find was Bush2 claiming that his plurality margin of 3M votes gave him “political capital” to pursue conservative goals. Political capital comes in much tinier chunks than a mandate, the grand prize of political approval. And again, mandates are claimed by those elected, and not those electing, especially if they are arithmetically stunted. In any case, neither Bush2 nor Obama can make any reasonable claim of having been handed a mandate without subjecting that notion to a terminal injury.

    LikeLike

16. 

    Bill Tozer

    20 November 2012

    To the victor goes the spoils. “Loot the Treasury”, “power to the people” and “whats yours is mine and whats mine is mine”. Reminds me of the Occupy Oakland denizens complete with the addition of bucketheads, which are a nice touch Mr. Crabb.

    LikeLike

17. 

    Walt

    20 November 2012

    Despite who says what, and why,,, as I read this short graphic novel, ( and before I read all the explanations) I took it it as a ” mandate for free money and “stuff” promised by the “vote for me” people. Now the “people” want that promise fulfilled.
    But it appears the people saw the bait and switch. ( just no free phones are being tossed over the wall).
    The only thing missing is the line,,” Let them eat Twinkies”.

    LikeLike

18. 

    Gregory

    20 November 2012

    Unfortunately, the treasury has already been looted. Nothing but a pile of IOU’s that’s officially getting another $1,500,000,000,000 deeper every year, but with unfunded liabilities, it’s even deeper.

    LikeLike

19. 

    Todd Juvinall

    20 November 2012

    Bush said he gained some “political capital” and was going to use it to fix social security. The democrats trashed him and swiped the money. He nor Cheney ever said they had mandate.

    LikeLike

20. 

    bill tozer

    20 November 2012

    OK, if we are going to storm the castle, seize what is rightfully ours, and string up the 1%ers, why not go after where the real gold is: The 1% of the 1%. That’s right. Lets focus on the cream of the crop, the 400 or so that make up the 1% of the 1%ers. Bill Gates, Buffet and George Sores are in the Top 5. That is where the glory hole can be found. They make multimillionaires look like kids working the lemonade stand. We have a mandate. And Bill Gate’s wife could not be spared either. She is part of the problem, duh

    LikeLike

21. 

    Steve Frisch

    21 November 2012

    In another bow to irony Bill, all three of the Top 5 you identified have also given the great bulk of their fortunes to charity.

    LikeLike

22. 

    Walt

    21 November 2012

    Steve,,,, you mean the likes of Moveon, NPR,and Mediamatters? Not to mention the legalization of pot too. If someone follows the money trail far enough, I bet some of that “top 5” money has found it’s way to you, and Dizzy Izzy.
    YUP,, gouge the super wealthy Lefties first. They NEVER seem to be in the cross hairs of the so-called “99%”. OWS made that clear in one of their protest marches. They made a point NOT to cause a ruckus in front of Progressive “1%ers” homes on the same street as Conservative “1%ers”. But I do give credit where it is due. At least some of the OWS chased off Mikey Moore when he showed up. He’s one of those 1%ers that loves to say he ain’t.

    LikeLike

23. 

    Gregory

    21 November 2012

    Frisch, a pledge to leave 50% to charity isn’t quite the same as leaving 50% for Congress to use to fund the US Government for a day or two.

    LikeLike

24. 

    George Rebane

    21 November 2012

    Gregory 306pm – Well said.

    LikeLike

25. 

    Gregory

    21 November 2012

    George, what the usual suspects lack is a number sense. The US government alone spends about 10 BILLION dollars a day.
    “The combined net worth of the 2012 class of the 400 richest Americans is $1.7 trillion, up from $1.5 trillion a year ago. The average net worth of a Forbes 400 member is a staggering $4.2 billion, up from $3.8 billion”
    In short, if you could harvest the richest people in America to pay for current accounts, it would take on average two and a half of the critters every day for the first six months before you were through the first 400.
    “Tax the rich” is only the opening salvo meant to soften up the middle classes for the tax increases coming their way.

    LikeLike

26. 

    George Rebane

    21 November 2012

    “But as any mildly interested American knows, the objective here is visible class punishment, no matter how many businesses it hurts and jobs that get cut and/or are not created.”
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2012/11/the-liberal-mind-a-potpourri-of-revelations.html

    LikeLike

27. 

    Michael Anderson

    21 November 2012

    Maybe Tom has a way out?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/opinion/friedman-obamas-moment.html?hp

    LikeLike

28. 

    Gregory

    21 November 2012

    Mike, you’re still not getting it. The $111 million it took to stimulate Chattanooga’s choo choo is about 16 minutes of Federal spending.
    “I get why the president needs to stress that the wealthy will have to pay higher taxes before he can go to his base for spending cuts to restore long-term fiscal balance.”
    Tax increase now, spending cuts later is what got us here.

    LikeLike

29. 

    George Rebane

    22 November 2012

    MichaelA 1112pm – Friedman confounds two totally different govt actions with his attempted unification of reducing deficits through more taxes, some of which would apparently not reduce deficits, but go to a new broadband stimulus program. One could write a book about the contradictions of that on ‘how to restore an economy’ – take more money out of the private sector, and then give some of it back (cf. solyndrizing). And as Gregory said, that kind of thinking got us here. (It seems that Friedman again had some bad luck when he tried to think.)

    LikeLike

30. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2012

    More bad news for Grover. When you lose support from Georgia you’re in trouble. Look for an avalanche.
    “Sen. Saxby Chambliss took aim at Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist on Wednesday, telling a local television station he’s not worried about a potential primary challenge if he votes to raise taxes.
    “I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” said Chambliss, who signed Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” when he first ran for Senate. “If we do it his way, then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84176.html#ixzz2D4ThvRWS

    LikeLike

31. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2012

    There are always people who don’t keep their promises. No biggie. Hell, Obama was going to close Gitmo!

    LikeLike

32. 

    Michael Anderson

    23 November 2012

    Grover is not a patriotic American, first of all. There is no other way to describe his deeply narcissistic behavior that focuses solely on him, and excludes the best interests of his country. There are plenty of examples in history of public figures like Grover where hubris overcame utility. Norquist is the current definition of dis-ease.
    His focus on id is psychopathic, and I will pray for him. I hope he gets the emotional, psychological, physical, and spiritual help that he so dearly needs. He is not someone that anyone in this country should seek to follow, and he needs to find solace in a new personal journey of self-reflection and self-discovery. I wish him the best, but that “best” can no longer be in the public spotlight. His no tax pledge is defunct.
    George wrote: “One could write a book about the contradictions of that on ‘how to restore an economy’ – take more money out of the private sector, and then give some of it back (cf. solyndrizing).”
    Here’s my question list:
    1) Was the Interstate Highway System Solyndra?
    2) Was AT&T in the 1890s Solyndra?
    3) Was the Manhattan Project Solyndra?
    4) Were the early and mid-20th-century California penstocks of the most complex hydroelectric projects in the world Solyndra?
    5) Was the Trans-Continental railroad Solyndra?
    6) Was NASA Solyndra?
    7) Was Rosie the Riveter Solyndra?
    Let’s get real. Some public investments are better than others. Some public investments are squandering boondoggles. Others are envelopes into the age of enlightenment.
    Our public debt is currently less, percentage-wise, than it was during WWII. Yes, 16 trillion is a really big number, but only because we are a really big country with a really big population with a really big economy. Throwing babies out with bathwater makes me realize again how dangerous are our ideologues.
    Time to chill; time to reflect; time for circumspect and rational action. All radical calls-to-arm must be marginalized with earnest political opprobrium.

    LikeLike

33. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2012

    Also the Grover was up to his neck in money laundering schemes in the Abramoff debacle. According to a Forbes article released this week “Americans for Tax Reform served as a “conduit” for funds that flowed from Abramoff’s clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns.”
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/11/23/has-grover-norquist-and-his-anti-tax-pledge-reached-the-end-of-the-road/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    LikeLike

34. 

    Todd Juvinall

    24 November 2012

    Grover is an American hero. He knows where the power of government to control comes from. The money they take from us under the threat of jail. I am surprised that MichaelA, the oh so protective scribe of the term “patriot” would say such a thing about Grover (Obama wants to raise taxes yet MA adores him). It just shows us all what a bunch big government loving people the leftwingnuts are. Afraid of a pledge not to raise taxes scares the crap out of them. Wooses all. Next these spineless honeyfish will be taking on the Girl Scots for not allowing boys in membership.

    LikeLike

35. 

    George Rebane

    24 November 2012

    MichaelA 911pm – That’s quite a mix and match list. For the ones that qualify for even discussing solyndrizing, these are single strategic projects that were literally no brainers to launch some ONE NEW thing that was clearly needed. To solyndrize something is to pick specific companies in an established area (e.g. wind, solar, hydro, geothermal,…) and make the bet that injecting government money and mangling the appropriate markets will make failure successful.
    None of your examples even touch this. But you do come up with the oh-so-worn response to solyndrizing by citing a few strategic government projects into new or non-existing markets that worked.
    The one that comes closest to sustaining your government stimulus point is the ATT monopoly/oligopoly, but even that was an improvement over the established rapid communication telegraph which needed no government subsidies to spread. And even ATT was a screw-up as one can quickly surmise by thinking how our railroad industry and western development would have been stunted had the feds made the Union Pacific and Central Pacific oligopolies in the west after Promontory Point. (BTW, the usual list here should also include TVA, but throwing in Rosie the Riveter was a nice, if not ridiculous, touch).

    LikeLike

36. 

    Paul Emery

    24 November 2012

    We can also toss in the Cold War which served as a tax payer subsidy for high tech industry.

    LikeLike

37. 

    George Rebane

    24 November 2012

    PaulE 1027am – Do I correctly understand that you are adding ongoing government defense spending as a supporting reason for solydrizing non-defense private companies?

    LikeLike

38. 

    Paul Emery

    24 November 2012

    Pretty much. Billions (trillions) spent on non competitive research and development military projects for make believe unconstitutional wars. (Iraq, Vietnam, Grenada….)

    LikeLike

39. 

    Paul Emery

    24 November 2012

    Here’s a typical example
    http://www.dailytech.com/USAF+Concedes+1B+USD+Data+Project+Was+Pretty+Much+Useless/article29198.htm
    “The failed project may have been a big loss for USAF and U.S. taxpayers, but it was a big win for certain well-paid contractors. Oracle Corp. (ORCL) scored $88.5M USD for the preliminary work on the project, which it promised would merge 200 partially redundant USAF systems.
    Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC) then took over scoring, most of the remaining billion in funding to serve as lead systems integrator. In a response after being fired last year a CSC spokeswoman was unapologetic, writing to Defense News, “CSC demonstrated success in meeting all the major milestones and commitments for the first four years.”
    In other words, things were going great (or so the contractor says) the first four years, but then on the fifth year something inexplicably went wrong which the contractor was not at liberty to discuss or did not feel was important to discuss.
    Perhaps it’s understandable why CSC wouldn’t feel overly obligated to give a big explanation of why it failed, given that USAF has shown little signs of punishing it for the failure. In fact CSC’s baffling 2011 report on ECSS didn’t stop it from scoring at least one other major cybersecurity service contract from USAF that year. That contract was worth another $30M USD.
    “

    LikeLike

40. 

    George Rebane

    24 November 2012

    PaulE 1112am – People unfamiliar with government procurements are amazed more than they should be about how government wastes money in all such,and specifically in defense procurements. The main reason is that the procurement mavens mis-specify what they want, then change their minds, then balk at the resulting cost/schedule overruns. And like a twitch reflex, liberals immediately respond by blaming capitalism and private enterprise.
    The biggest intellectual hurdle bureaucrats have is not understanding that when you buy something, you cannot concurrently specify performance, schedule, and price. The rule is ‘pick any two’. But these are all fine points which collectivists from Marx through Stalin through Castro through Chavez, and all of our own double dummies in the big buildings have never understood.
    I also take it that you continue to believe that there was no need for the US to act as a and then the global hegemon since WW2.

    LikeLike

41. 

    Paul Emery

    24 November 2012

    That’s a very good question George. To the extent that we recklessly exert our power for primarily our own purposes I would say whatever justification for Empire for the good of the world has passed. Yes, I call it Empire A good example is the use of drones that violate national sovereignty and are an immoral form of self defense making us an equivalent outlaw state much like the IRA who would set off bombs in public buildings to target enemies despite civilian casualties they knew would be there or suicide bombers. We may argue that we have a justifiable purpose but so do the others. Either we are willing to abide by some form of international law or we just became another outlaw state. The “Onward Christian Soldiers” hymn sung in my church when I was a kid means little more that the justification of war for whatever purpose we feel is necessary and “god” will be on our side.

    LikeLike

42. 

    Russ Steele

    24 November 2012

    Paul11:12AM and George11:53AM
    Having been on both sides of the Government procurement, I am in agreement with George, most cost over runs are caused by the government not knowing what they want, writing down what they think they want and then somewhere along the away they keep changing their mind about what it was they were really buying. Cost over runs are the result.

    LikeLike

43. 

    Paul Emery

    24 November 2012

    Russ
    And don’t forget that many “contracts” are returns for political contributions, the Republicrats acting as collection agencies from special interest groups. That is indeed a bi-partisan effort.
    That’s why I support big cuts in military spending. They are the worst offenders. Plus the military suppliers do all they can to promote war. It’s been that way since the first arrow and sword makers realized that they can profit from war. WWI was started because of war profiteers fanning the flames of what began as a small regional outbreak.

    LikeLike

44. 

    Paul Emery

    24 November 2012

    Guss, George
    Check this out. This is sponsored from a Tea Party site- We the People http://www.lexrex.com/jml/index.php
    (Source : Gen. Smedley Butler’s WAR IS A RACKET
    MAJOR GENERAL SMEDLEY D. BUTLER, USMC – Retired
    TWO-TIME Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
    WWI
    Company Name Profits BEFORE the War Profits by The End Of The War
    DuPont (Gunpowder) $ 6,000,000 $ 58.000,000
    Bethlehem Steel $ 6,000,000 $ 49,000,000
    United States Steel $ 105,000,000 $ 240,000,000
    Anaconda $ 10,000,000 $ 34,000,000
    Utah Copper $ 5,000,000 $ 21,000,000
    Central Leather Company $ 3,500,000 $ 15,000,000
    International Nickel Company $ 4,000,000 $ 73,000,000
    American Sugar Refining Company $ 2,000,000 $ 6,000,000
    According to General Butler – 21,000 Millionaires were made in the USA during WWI.
    $ 16, 000,000,000 (Yep, BILLIONS) of Profits were made off of WWI in America – off of the BLOOD of it’s Citizens . . .
    And It seems to have ALWAYS been this way :
    “There is such a thirst for gain [among military suppliers]…that it is enough to make one curse their own Species, for possessing so little virtue and patriotism.” – President George Washington, 1778
    http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

    LikeLike

45. 

    Todd Juvinall

    25 November 2012

    Peace through strength is apparently a concept unknown to liberals.

    LikeLike

46. 

    George Rebane

    25 November 2012

    Arguably the world has been peaceful since WW2 by any modern measure. And peace through strength (ToddJ 709am) has not only provided an environment for recovery from war, development and independence of third world countries (retreat of colonialism), and ultimately the soft landings (collapses) of two mega tyrannies, and numerous smaller ones. But that peace did not stop governments killing their own people by the millions, only their killing other countries’ people by the millions (e.g. China’s Great Leap Forward 45M, Cultural Revolution 120M and counting).
    PaulE’s 828pm list is an ancient reality that accompanies wars, but only naifs and charlatans try to convince others that the profiting and wealthy arms manufacturers have been the historical causes of wars – their motivations have been much grander than just going for more filthy lucre. And for the last 70 years the US has been the (free) world’s sheriff, no matter how imperfectly.
    No doubt we could have done it better – the rear view mirror is always such a revealing window of wisdom. But the critics of our role, both Right and Left, have yet to provide a more perfect, let alone plausible, role we may have played. Given today’s realities, what geo-strategic nostrums do they offer us today that promise Americans a chicken in every pot and two cars in their garage?

    LikeLike

47. 

    Paul Emery

    25 November 2012

    George
    To put it simply there would be far fewer wars if there was no profit motivation. If you eliminate American taxpayer subsidy for high tech war industries we would save trillions and eliminate a major motivation for war. There is no reason to end the conflicts in the middle east as long as Americans open their wallets to keep the blood flowing.

    LikeLike

48. 

    George Rebane

    25 November 2012

    PaulE 1100am – Given that arms manufacturers do profit from wars, as do farmers and clothing manufacturers and food processors and furniture makers and …, which wars were fought solely for profit? We recall that WW2 was a great but temporary stimulus for a massively government depressed economy, an economy that immediately reverted to a deepening recession cum depression at the end of hostilities. It was Truman’s and Congress’ rolling back FDR’s handcuffs on the economy that let America rebuild and grow again. Which begs the question that if governments would permit the free flow of commerce, then would not there be fewer pressures to foment war in order to make a buck.
    How do high tech war industries get subsidized? We’re interested here in whether you have anything here beyond the new liberal definition that buying something needed from somebody is called subsidizing the seller.
    Does anyone think that the mideast wars would have been pursued, especially with massive US ‘leadership’, if that region were not a major source of oil that powers the world at an appropriately low price of energy? Most certainly, does anyone really think that it is the world’s armament industries that keep that region at the boiling point?

    LikeLike

49. 

    Todd Juvinall

    25 November 2012

    Just wondering here. Alexander the Great conquered the middle east in the BC era. Was he looking for oil PaulE?

    LikeLike

50. 

    Bill Tozer

    25 November 2012

    Alexander the Grape was a purple guy. He conquered our local wineries.

    LikeLike