another round of TERRIBLE POLITICAL CARTOONS

[TithonusSyndrome]

Can't be. Maybe no taxes on his salary as President, but having to pay no taxes whatsoever on other assets and revenue would just be too tempting of an opportunity to abuse it... unless some scrupulous former office holder has made it happen.

[eion]

But to answer your question, IIRC the POTUS gets 400 000 a year, and of course his living expenses are all paid for, so I guess his family has plenty to spend on themselves.

Some living expenses. If I recall correctly POTUS pays for all private meals but any state dinners are paid for by the government. (EDIT: I seem to have recalled correctly, if Answers.com is to be believed)

And unless I am very mistaken, POTUS pays income tax on his salary, but someone can double check me here.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Hmph. Not what I'd expected. As much as I loathe lolbertarian arguments about the inherent "inefficiency" of taxation, this would probably be an ideal case to simply just pay POTUS and other big-timers a tax-adjusted salary and retain the rest as income tax.

Of course, then it might appear to the public that he's getting off the hook or something, so maybe it's best for appearances sake.

[spaceviking]

Amazingly the President of my university gets paid more (600,000 if I recall) then the president of the United States. In the end despite the hoopla over Michelle’s spending I bet they live a more modest lifestyle then other Presidents, senators and the like.

[PeZook]

Amazingly the President of my university gets paid more (600,000 if I recall) then the president of the United States. In the end despite the hoopla over Michelle’s spending I bet they live a more modest lifestyle then other Presidents, senators and the like.

Does it matter if they live modestly, really? It's not like Obama goes "Hey Joe I ran out of money for useless stuff ; Run along to the Treasury and bring me two million in small notes.", like the cartoon would suggest.

He gets a salary from the taxpayer's money, yeah ; But so what? It's pretty modest for a man in charge of the world's most powerful nation, and he spends it for whatever the fuck he wants just like Joe the Hamburger Flipper (or Jack the fat-cat CEO, for that matter).

There's plenty of criticism of Obama as President without pulling out ridiculous red herrings like OMG MICHELLE LIKES TO BUY EXPENSIVE STUFF WITH OUR MONEY. It's not like the wife of our late president who fucking cleaned out the palace when moving out after her husban'd death.

[Scottish Ninja]

In any case, according to Newsweek, Obama gets millions a year in book royalties, so it's not like his personal cashflow is going to be particularly tight.

[eion]

It's also worth noting that the President and First lady donated more than $500,000 to charity in 2009, which means he essentially donated his salary to charity. I'd be curious how many past presidents have done the same.

[Zixinus]

Isn't the President already rich to begin with? I mean, you can't exactly run a Presidential campaign with pocket cash to begin with.

[eion]

IIRC, Obama wasn't that affluent prior to writing his books. Upper income certainly, but not buy-a-football-team, run-an-oil-company-into-the-ground wealthy.

[Crossroads Inc.]

What I want to know is just how much the India trip actually cost, and just how much of Obama's personal money was spent on it. The notion that the trip cost billions has been much put about in the right wing blogosphere.


Also I am baffled about the following one:

Following his trip through Asia, most of his meetings, especially in India seemed to go rather well. One would think a better negative cartoon would have Obama returning to some sort of monster rather then what we get here. Do conservatives simply make sht up in the hopes people take it at face value?

[Themightytom]

maybe the prediction is that is trip to Asia will bite him in the ass?

I dunno all my conservies are talking about this week is the Federal reserve.

[D.Turtle]

That second one is not a TERRIBLE political cartoon at all. His trip pretty much ended with a big fuck off to any of his plans for exporting countries (read: China and Germany) to cut back their exports.

[Serafina]

That second one is not a TERRIBLE political cartoon at all. His trip pretty much ended with a big fuck off to any of his plans for exporting countries (read: China and Germany) to cut back their exports.

Agreed. I actually agree with what you can read from the cartoon.
Hwoever, that's beside the point, because it's not terrible for other reasons:
-it's accurate and contains no blatant lies etc.
-it's clear and has an easily understandable message
-it has a message and isn't just some standard drivel

[Thanas]

Yeah, crossroads, I think it would be better if you restrain yourself a bit in the future with regards to that kind of thing.

[eion]

Speaking of Presidential tax returns, here's a pretty interesting page.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Yeah, crossroads, I think it would be better if you restrain yourself a bit in the future with regards to that kind of thing.

I will apoligize for that, I guess after seeing so many blatant lies, distortions and falshoods, i end up reading too far into something that I guess is more straight forward.

[Serafina]

Yeah, crossroads, I think it would be better if you restrain yourself a bit in the future with regards to that kind of thing.

I will apoligize for that, I guess after seeing so many blatant lies, distortions and falshoods, i end up reading too far into something that I guess is more straight forward.

I suppose that, depending on the author, he might have meant something stupid.
So i would advise you to judge cartoons without respect to their authors - ignore their possible intent and judge it by it's own merits. And just because you disagree with something it's not terrible, that classification has other criteria.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ok, going to submit the following under the grounds of being "terrible" for ranting about things that no one mentioned under Bush. IE airport security and the recent screaming on the right about "invasive searches"


This one I find grating because of the blatant antigay vibe I get from this.

This one is more confusing, the statment "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" is totally correct and apt. But A: where the hell was this outrage under bush, and B:What is up with the obvious Islamic walking away? Is it trying to say that increased security will cause terrosim? Is it "fleasing" americans in some way?

[Sinewmire]

I guess it's saying that Terrorists profit from fleecing US Air Travel? The whole "by imposing draconian restrictions to save us from terrorists, we're giving the terrorists what they want, our Fear" shtick.

[Morilore]

Ok, going to submit the following under the grounds of being "terrible" for ranting about things that no one mentioned under Bush.

I do not agree that that is, by itself, a legitimate use of the word "terrible." I sympathize with anger at the gay-baiting vibe in number one, but I see very little wrong with number two in the cartoon itself and the message it is communicating (unless you want to talk about art style). People can be hypocritical without the things they say actually being wrong. I'm starting to suspect that you are an anger junkie, Crossroads. You may have a substance-abuse problem with offendedness, and your apparent addiction to partisan opprobrium has ruined your discriminating taste. There were some truly inspiringly bad comics early in this thread, but for the last 30 pages it's been Crossroad's Townhall Tour.

[Serafina]

Actually, given how blatant the homophobia in the first cartoon is, i would classify it as terrible. After all, homosexuality has NOTHING to do with the issue - it's just randomly thrown in, as if "cavity search=gay sex".
It would be mediocre cartoon without the speech bubble, but with the speech bubble it's just an anti-gay rant grafted onto a current issue.

Pretty much the same goes for the second cartoon, although one could argue that the terrorists got what they wanted (destroy our civil liberties) - except that's not what they wanted, so that point is still stupid.

[SAMAS]

I don't think it's anti-gay as much as it is, as you mentioned, about equating the new invasiveness of the procedures with a sexual activity. The scariness is not because the inspector's a man, but rather because he has about three or four times the traveler's mass.

[Morilore]

Actually, given how blatant the homophobia in the first cartoon is, i would classify it as terrible. After all, homosexuality has NOTHING to do with the issue - it's just randomly thrown in, as if "cavity search=gay sex".
It would be mediocre cartoon without the speech bubble, but with the speech bubble it's just an anti-gay rant grafted onto a current issue.

OK, but I stand by the statement that the hypocrisy of the artist ("artist") has nothing to do with whether a cartoon as a cartoon is terrible or not.

Pretty much the same goes for the second cartoon, although one could argue that the terrorists got what they wanted (destroy our civil liberties) - except that's not what they wanted, so that point is still stupid.

Pretty much what is the same for the second cartoon? Is there an antigay vibe that I am missing? Or is it entirely about the man in the coat being a caricature of an Islamist radical? I agree that that's crass, but not that it's so terrible that it deserves a spot in the thread. The point is entirely correct, sensible, and easy to understand: ridiculously invasive security procedures disrespect and inconvenience passengers without contributing to their security in any way, while simultaneously pleasing and comforting terrorists whose whole goal, after all, is to spread fear.

[TimothyC]

Would someone please explain to me how the first of the two most recent is homophobic, because I'm not seeing it.

[Samuel]

Would someone please explain to me how the first of the two most recent is homophobic, because I'm not seeing it.

I think they are assuming asking for a drink after groping a mans crotch looking for terrorists means the TSA agent is gay... I'm not sure if that is the actual intent.