Categories
Blog

Cartoons about the Nation's Jobless

The big news today is May’s rotten jobs report, which shows a paltry 69,000 new jobs added and an unemployment rate that has inched up to 8.2 percent. Even more scary is corporate America continues to be able to make more money with about the same labor force, causing stock prices to soar but doing little for the growing number of unemployed workers looking for a job.

Here are six hard-hitting cartoons about the extended unemployment problem the U.S. faces. Anyone have a solution?

Pat Bagley / Salt Lake Tribune (click to view more cartoons by Bagley)
David Fitzsimmons / Arizona Daily Star (click to view more cartoons by Fitzsimmons)
Pat Bagley / Salt Lake Tribune (click to view more cartoons by Bagley)
Jim Day / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Day)
Jeff Parker / Florida Today (click to view more cartoons by Parker)
Joe Heller / Green Bay Press-Gazette (click to view more cartoons by Heller)

By Daryl Cagle

Daryl Cagle is the founder and owner of Cagle Cartoons, Inc. He is one of the most widely published editorial cartoonists and is also the editor of The Cagle Post.

11 replies on “Cartoons about the Nation's Jobless”

We have a small business. Our main problem is government regulations. We keep getting new rules that cost us time and money. Some of these rules must have been written by someone who has never been involved in the business. But, HEY! that's OK. It looks good on paper and creates another government job.

How in the world does President Obama get a pass about the STILL dismal unemployment rates 3.5 years after taking office? He promised the rate wouldn't go above 8%, and it's not been BELOW that number ever since. He's more than doubled the national debt in the meantime. What happened to the once HOPEful president? It seems like all he does is blame world events and everyone else for his failures. When are people going to wise up and finally jump off the sinking Obama ship before he takes the country down with it?

Hey, stop complaining and fall in line! Don't you understand the government knows what's best for everyone???

Redneck….we also have a small business, which has been growing 15% per year during the recession. Government regulations have helped us keep costs low and succeed. Maybe you should stop blaming others for your failure. Govt jobs have been on the decline over the past 3 years. Bush created negative private sector jobs, with his deregulation laissez faire policies but added 2 million government jobs.

Maybe someone has been lying to you about who supports small business and who destroyed the economy a few years back.

The estimate of unemployment was based on data that the Bush administration published. It was wrong.
Under budgets approved by Obama, the debt has risen from 12.5 trillion to about 15.5 trillion, or 30%.

Under Bush's budgets (the 2009 budget, which was well over a trillion, was proposed and approved by Bush before Obama was even elected. The first Bush budget (2002) had a debt of 5.5 trillion, and by the time the 2008 approved budget (for 2009) played out, the debt was over 12 trillion. Bush doubled the debt, unless you count the Bush proposed/approved 2009 budget as the responsiblity of Obama.

Bush started with surpluses and doubled the debt (add up all deficits from 2002 to 2009 budgets); Obama started with a freefall into a deep recession and has since his first budget took effect in 2010 raised the debt by about 30%, in the process of paying for the benefits of the unemployed, creating 4 milllion jobs after getting the huge losses under control within his first year, and returning 280 billion to US middle class taxpayers.

You can only say Obama doubled the debt if you lie. You can only deny Bush doubled the debt if you lie.

At Wikipedia, Presidents and National Debt, the facts are laid out for all to see. Remember, each new President inherits a budget proposed and approved by the previous President. That debt (the 2009 budget debt) cannot be blamed on the new President, regardless of party. When Bush inherited the recession caused the bursting of the tech bubble, that was Clinton's responsibility. All political scientists know that you cannot blame a budget proposed and approved in 2008 on the President who takes office in 2009; he inherits the budget. Obama did add about 400 billion to the 2009 budget, so that can be added to his total and subtracted from Bush. The results then are: Bush doubled the debt; Obama raised it about 35%. What Bush got for his doubling was 2 trillion dollar wars and economic collapse and loss of 8 million jobs during the recession. What Obama did with his 35% debt was return money to taxpayers, pay for the social safety net cost resulting from the recession, and create or save about 4 million jobs.

You accuse Obama of blaming others (well, who did start those wars and destroy the eonomy and 8 million jobs?) but you are engaged in the blame game yourself, tho you want to blame Obama for the Bush budget approved in 2008. That won't work, my friend. Blame must go where it belongs. There is much to criticize with Obama, but blaming him for Bush's debt is dishonest and can only lead to flawed judgements.

Here is evidence for my above post on who doubled the debt, Obama or Bush. Under Obama budgets, the debt has risen about 3 trillion. Under Bush, the debt went from 5.5 trillion to about 12 trillion.

Here are the facts about the 2009 budget (approved before Obama was even elected) from Wikipedia, the 2009 Federal Budget:

2009 Budget of the United States federal government
‹ 2008 · · 2010 ›
Submitted byGeorge W. Bush
Submitted to110th Congress
Total revenue$2.7 trillion (requested)
$2.105 trillion (enacted)[1]
Total expenditures$3.107 trillion (requested)
$3.518 trillion (enacted)[1]
Deficit$407 billion (requested)
$1.413 trillion (enacted)[1]
Debt$12.867455 trillion (requested)
WebsiteUS Government Printing Office

Note that the Bush figures were way off..his team predicted a deficit of 407 billion, but it more than tripled.
This deficit left the budget at 12.87 trillion. When Bush enacted his first budget in 2002, the debt was about 6 trillion; his last budget left the debt over 12 trillion. Today it is about 15.5 trillion. The 3.5 trillion rise in debt has occurred under Obama; Bush doubled the debt (and don't forget the champ of debt, Reagan, who tripled the debt).

"Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness." Wikipedia (you can see the exact figures at Presidents and National Debt).

Dale, great points! I'm so glad you helped me to see the light, quoting such accurate and respected sources of information such as WIKIPEDIA. So, it really is all Bush's fault!!!!!

Wikipedia is highly rated among encylopedias. It documents its assertions, and when documentation is not provided, that lack is highlighted. If you find a factual error in Wikipedia, you can have it corrected with supportive documentation. Since Wikipedia documents its claims, you can go to the original sources to verify that the data has been accurately represented.

Here is the link to one study which found Wikipedia reliable, compared to the gold standard of Britannica.

" Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature." news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

In many ways, the Wikipedia model is superior; it is self-correcting and it stresses documentation vs "expert opinion." It is more up to date and covers issues and events which will not appear in traditional encyclopedias in a timely way.

You clearly are not familiar with the methodology and high respect in which Wikipedia is held.

Perhaps you are one of those who gets his views from Fox, and consequently knows less than those who watch no news at all. Did you check the Chart in President's and National debts which documents the spending of Dems vs Republicans? Do you question the data in the chart.

You want to mock the messenger because you dislike the message. But you only reveal your own ignorance and arrogance, a lethal combination which achieves a kind of proud stupidity.

Can you document some errors in Wikipedia? Fine, let them know and it will be corrected. Or are you trying to hide from painful knowledge (that the "fiscal conservatives" are the most wasteful spenders and increase the debt most) by attempting (and failing ) to degrade Wikipedia.? It's as good as the best. So check it out…you could learn a lot.

It really Is Bush's fault (and his entire team): the wars, the economic collapse, the 8 million lost jobs, the doubling of the debt. Yes, it is factually the responsibility of the Bush regime. So buck up and face the facts, Michael: it really is Bush (and Cheney, and Paulson, and Rice, and Rumsfeld, et al)'s fault that we have had to borrow 3 trillion for wars in which hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, for causing a financial meltdown and economic collapse the worst in 80 years. If you can't face that, you are deluded or brainwashed.

Michael, check this out:

" Between 2008 and 2010, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology[7] and pharmaceuticals[8] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. "

This is from Wikipedia and I will provide the documentation so you can personally verify that their assertion is accurate:

Footnotes"

5. Wood, A; Struthers, K (2010). "Pathology education, Wikipedia and the Net generation.". Medical teacher 32 (7): 618. DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2010.497719. PMID 20653388. "We have identified Wikipedia as an informative and accurate source for Pathology education and believe that Wikipedia is potentially an important learning tool for of the ‘Net Generation’."

6. S. Robert Lichter, Ph.D,,: Are chemicals killing us? Statistical Assessment Service, May 21, 2009

7. Leithner, A; Maurer-Ertl, W, Glehr, M, Friesenbichler, J, Leithner, K, Windhager, R (2010 Jul-Aug). "Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 17 (4): 373–4. DOI:10.1136/jamia.2010.004507. PMC 2995655. PMID 20595302.

8.Clauson KA, Polen HH, Kamel Boulos MN, Dzenowagis JH (2008). "Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia" (PDF). Ann Pharmacother 42 (12): 1814. DOI:10.1345/aph.1L474. PMID 19017825. Lay summary – Reuters (2008-11-24). accessed 25 Sept 09

Go ahead, check them out yourself to find out whether Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, even on complex medical issues.

What are your sources of information?

Comments are closed.