Skip to main content

Join the INNER HIVE for early access to @RubenBolling's Tom the Dancing Bug comics and more fun stuff.

"I used to spend 20 dollars a year on TOM THE DANCING BUG collections… Happy to support him and pass the word." -Neil Gaiman, Charter Member of the INNER HIVE

Please click HERE for information.

Originally posted to Comics on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  i was thinking about this (4+ / 0-)

    and not everything congress passes is a law.

    NASA is not a law. It is a department with a budget. And every year the budget needs to be appropriated.

    Making kidnapping illegal is a law. It requires no annual budgeting.

    The ACA has elements of both. And since no Republican voted for it, they have no allegiance to it. So they have no vested interest in funding the program.

    •  Exactly. So the cartoon is actually right until (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      it gets to the diamond studded laser.

    •  Let me add something unpopular (0+ / 0-)

      Our system of government is built on compromise.  Even if one party has a majority that does not mean that it gets to ignore the other party.

      The Republicans understand that, probably because they have never had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Democrats sometimes forget it - a professional hazard when you're out to save the world.

      For example, when you look at the key legislative initiatives of George Bush - NCLB and Patriot Act - you see that bother were approved by huge bipartisan majorities (only 45 Representatives and 8 Senators voted against NCLB - and  only 57 Representatives and 1 Senator voted against the Patriot Act -

      In contrast, ACA passed the Senate on a strict party line vote and the House with every Republican and 34 Democrats voting against it (

      I cannot think of any major bill in the last 40 years that went through with this kind of totally single party support.  Can you?

      When you do this kind of thing, obviously you lack all support in the other party and any sense by the other party that they have any obligation to play by the normal rules.  It's like what happens in a soccer game when one side starts playing rough, the other side responds, and pretty soon you have fights breaking out every time two players contest the ball.

      Well, that's what we've got now.

      •  Don't really care about party support in the vote (16+ / 0-)

        It's a law that was crafted down from original intent, due to Republican/conservative Democrat demands.

        Compromise was already built into the legislation that passed.

        You don't shut down the government because the law-creation process worked, especially for something that does not actually hurt real people - that is, we're not talking about a law that eradicates everyone over the age of 49 in order to keep budgets in check somehow.  No, this is simply funding healthcare beyond what Medicare already does today.

        Republicans have no principle on which to stand for this extraordinary, out-of-process measure.

        And, they don't really care much about the ACA.  Or abortion rights.  Or LGBT rights, etc.

        These are all wedge positions to attract their mouth-breathing portion of the electorate and/or to obtain EVEN MORE libertarian-driven welfare for the wealthy ideas from the eventual compromises.  Start with something batshite extreme and you'll eventually get a result that includes only some extreme elements - but, every victory in that direction further topples society towards the fewest, wealthiest men driving money flows through this country.

        So, let's keep some larger perspective here and not fall into right-wing narrowness.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:49:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think any changes were made for (0+ / 0-)

          Republicans because none of them peeled off to vote for ACA.

          It's a law that was crafted down from original intent, due to Republican/conservative Democrat demands.
          I agree that changes were made to keep all 60 Democratic votes in the Senate, but I fail to see why compromises between liberal and conservative Democrats should somehow be binding on Republicans.
          You don't shut down the government because the law-creation process worked
          Why not?  It's called "Power of the Purse".  Both House and Senate have the right to refuse to appropriate money for any program.
          especially for something that does not actually hurt real people - that is, we're not talking about a law that eradicates everyone over the age of 49 in order to keep budgets in check somehow.  No, this is simply funding healthcare beyond what Medicare already does today.
          And there is no obligation for the Republicans to fund healthcare beyond what Medicare already does today (or even that, in fact).
          And, they don't really care much about the ACA.  Or abortion rights.  Or LGBT rights, etc.
          I disagree.  ACA is the first big new government program in decades.  Of course the party that wants a smaller government is gong to violently object.  As for abortion, and LGBT, don't underestimate the power of religious objections.
          •  I don't think you'll last long here (8+ / 0-)

            with those right wing lies.


            Throughout the debate on health insurance reform, Republican concepts and proposals have been included in legislation.  In fact, hundreds of Republican amendments were adopted during the committee mark-up process.  As a result, both the Senate and the House passed key Republican proposals that are incorporated into the President’s Proposal.

            Review a few of the Republican initiatives included in legislation passed by Congress:

            Follow the link for more.

            Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

            by Just Bob on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 09:39:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  For a short time, I was inculcated into (6+ / 0-)

            far-right, white entitled thinking and registered as a Republican.  Hey, I was young and the community was my primary, cultural influencer at the time.

            There are no limits in the methods used towards goal-seeking with these people, none.  They also wear their public badges of anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, etc. with as much depth and pride as lapel flags: it's part of their toolset and what is expected of their peers.

            Anyone falling outside the strict, constantly reinforced guidelines of what is expected to be offered publicly - regardless of how you act privately - is quick grounds for being ostracized.  Which you desperately do not want, because this closed loop of people pretends to be your closest set of friends and associates, the same way you pretend towards them.

            You think in absolutes on these public issues, regardless of how you might truly feel about them - it's part of the cult.  The Entitled Cult, people who feel above so many others in what is perceived as a dog-eat-dog world for limited resources at every level.  Greed is a virtue, it's just not called greed . . . instead, it's "success."

            Most of what you offered in rebuttal seeks to justify the breaking of government for a private agenda - i.e., not the common good.  That private agenda remains the entitlement of a minority of wealthy, primarily white men in this country who don't see the harm in getting more of what they want: assets, power, influence.  The Koch brothers see no relationship between their machinations of undermining our shared, democratic republic: there's never a harm in supporting greed/success.

            This is deadly, guaranteed-to-burn-the-town-to-ashes cultural programming that brings in supporters who want to feel that same level of certain membership in the Entitled ranks.  This is a subculture based on fear and proactive defensiveness.  This is what you are making excuses beyond reasonableness or logic for.

            I've been on the other side and truly walked the walk, even though I didn't realize at the time that what I though vs what I felt were in true conflict until after deprogramming myself - how about you?

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 10:47:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, Republicans requested many (12+ / 0-)

        amendments to the ACA when it was originally being discussed in Congress, and 174 of those amendments were accepted by Democrats--a source of considerable frustration to their constituents.

        Even after all of that, no Republicans voted for the ACA anyway. Why should they, when they got so much of what they wanted without even voting for it.

        I'm amazed by people's courage and kindness in the face of everything and life.

        by LaraJones on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 08:42:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I get what you are saying. (0+ / 0-)

        However, I can see pros and cons of such.  People will need to understand they are voting for a party platform, and not a person.  Do you want the mix of goodies in Box A, or do you want the mix of goodies in Box B?  You get the whole box as it is with no trading out anything.  Sort of takes away the question of whether you want to have a beer with a candidate.

        Here in MI, we had the state congress, all repub controlled, vote in favor for restrictive reproductive rights for women and the repub gov signed some of those into law.  With absolutely NO input from Dems and also shutting down dems on the house floor.  So we are there already in MI.  Just need to draw shaper lines at this point to get the Box voting understood.  

        1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

        by alwaysquestion on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 08:57:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, and I bet the Democrats are not being (0+ / 0-)

          very cooperative.

          Kind of reminds me of Wisconsin when the Democrats headed out of state to deny Walker a quorum.

          I don't remember anyone here demanding that the Democrats show up at the statehouse and do their jobs.

          •  You could bet that if you wanted to. (3+ / 0-)

            And you could be that pubs are being uncooperative if you wanted to.  Anyone can guess anything they want.  Kind of hard to cooperate with someone trying to take away the basic human right to do with one's body as they wish without state interruption.  But whatever.  We'll put aside which kid ALWAYS starts the fights for now.

            Again, I think we are talking about political evolution in this nation....we are getting down to voting for BoxA or BoxB and people will have to vote for a platform, not so much a candidate.  I can see the plus side of that given this current choice given we just had a national election based on healthcare in this nation.  And people chose BoxDem.  That works for me.

            1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

            by alwaysquestion on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 10:00:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then what happened in 2010? (0+ / 0-)
              •  I am going to guess you will say that (0+ / 0-)

                Dems started a fight, AGAIN, like they always do, because it is ALWAYS their fault and the evolution of politics has them losing because people recognize they started a fight, AGAIN.  Damn them for always starting fights!!  God, when will they learn???

                I am not suggesting the evolution of politics is linear.  Nor do I suggest this evolution started in 2010.  Am saying the awareness is just getting started and evolution with current environment is choice of platforms.

                1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

                by alwaysquestion on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 10:53:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you have no answer about what happened (0+ / 0-)

                  in 2010?

                  •  What do you suggest the dems do? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    You seem perfectly willing to guess that it is the dems fault for being uncorporative in a state like MI by guessing they are just like those uncorporative dems in Wisconsin.

                    Let's reverse this discussion.  Instead of saying dems are being uncooperative, tell us what you would have the republicans in congress do at this point.  You are new here and it would be a great way for you to introduce yourself to this community.

                    1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

                    by alwaysquestion on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 12:42:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  off year election happened (4+ / 0-)

                    with same results that usual happen during trying economic times.  Nothing unusual at all.  What is unusual and without precedent is for a president to be re-elected with such high unemployment and economic problems still occurring.

                    Thats how just how poor republicans are as a party.  Without gerrymadering, the dems would recontrol the house as well.

      •  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (4+ / 0-)

        was passed by Congressional Democrats plus 8 Republicans - 5 in the Senate and 3 in the House.

        I consider that a pretty major piece of legislation; perhaps all will not agree.

        The truth always matters.

        by texasmom on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 09:00:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  not unpopular (4+ / 0-)

        simply incorrect.  The Republican have governed the house via the Hastert rule for decades.  It goes against the very concept of compromise.

        So sorry you are completely wrong. Simply because you dont like a law doesnt make it ok to wreck it.  Dont like a law,  win some elections, take control of gov and change it.

        You dont get to whine like selfish children because of laws that are LAW.

    •  I Think You Have Misconstrued the Terms (3+ / 0-)
      The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare, is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010.

      "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

      by midnight lurker on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:44:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When Congress approriates money for NASA (4+ / 0-)

      it is a law. If the executive doesn't spend money on the International Space Station when Congress says they should, a lot of trouble ensues.

      Working NASA Orion program right now. Believe me, when Congress says a particular program gets $X, it gets $X.

      I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 09:00:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  OMG that is so true! (5+ / 0-)

    Framing really matters - the republicans should be hammered every day for the lack of adherence to the constitution and bedrock principles of our government. They are unpatriotic

  •  i find the essential websites, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and relay them to you. so we can celebrate together another success.

    @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution. * Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:10:13 AM PDT

  •  Someone might (10+ / 0-)

    want to start calling FEMA workers and NHC folks back to work. We have a TS entering the GoM that could be a Hurricane when it makes landfall on the Northern Gulf Coast Saturday. We also have a major winter storm hitting the upper MidWest and possible tornadoes on top of the ongoing recovery in Colorado from floods. Hey asshats! It's time to get to work.

    ~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

    by Kristina40 on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:12:49 AM PDT

  •  Reminds me of this oldie but goodie: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, alwaysquestion, PSzymeczek, jds1978


    "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance" - Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by dzog on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:28:51 AM PDT

  •  If you "pull the camera back" and look at this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alwaysquestion, Oh Mary Oh

    whole incident the way a future historian might, this is not just a "squabble" between Democrats and Republicans.

    This is a sign of the real collapse of this once proud Republic.

    In more than fifty years of watching the political scene in this country, I've never seen the political fabric so rent.

    Imagine Jefferson, Franklin, Payne, and the rest looking at this sorry mess.

    Robinson Jeffers: "Shine, Perishing Republic."

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:34:56 AM PDT

  •  Ok, they want a trade.... (5+ / 0-)

    For raising the debt ceiling we make this trade....

    Chief Justice Roberts steps down like it never happened (as long as we're going for things already a done deal, you know, like the ACA.)  So that's what the dems get...


    Cutting the pork from the ACA by paying bills directly to the healthcare providers thereby eliminating the porkish insurance company in the middle  AND...we also cut corporate welfare because we know how much welfare sticks in the craw of all republicans.  So that's what repub get.

    Yes, I know, I give them two while we only get one, but I am generous that way.

    As long as the pubs want to push the "undo a law" thing, why not make that ridiculousness obvious by asking for similar "undo" things.

    1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

    by alwaysquestion on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:54:05 AM PDT

  •  Well done ! Now darn near anyone should be able (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to understand the idiocy of the republicans stand..
    One lump or twooooo

    "Round up the usual suspects"

    by NanaoKnows on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 08:05:33 AM PDT

  •  run away!! (3+ / 0-)

    Quick Bill! Run upstairs, lock yourself in the bathroom and watch this kabuki on your iphone. Clean bill! Move down!

    " last in virtue's narrow cell, the wretched bondsman sits"-Auden

    by pixelate on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 08:26:04 AM PDT

  •  Well, if we get to the orbital lasers part of this (4+ / 0-)

    Can we enlist the Brits to help? If there's one thing Hollywood has taught me, it's that the CIA is useless for such things but that MI-6 kicks ass.

    Or, at least, if we are going to have to listen to people with doomsday devices, that they at least have as much concern about their workers as Hank Scorpio?

  •  I took a Public Policy class at UC Berkeley (5+ / 0-)

    a long time ago, from Prof. Eugene Bardach, on "Implementation", and this cartoon reminded me of it.

    Sort of "Ok, now you have a law, let's see you do something with it, nya nya nya." In other words, getting a law passed really is just the beginning of the battle when it comes to effective public policy.

    PS we did NOT take space-going lasers into account in the class, and probably should have!

Click here for the mobile view of the site