Tax breaks for the 1%
It doesn't even refer to the Republicans' abject refusal to raise taxes on millionaires. This refusal is the best proof that you and your fellow conservatives are lying hypocrites when you say you want to reduce the deficit. It's all we need to prove that conservatives do indeed care only about helping the rich.
No, it refers to things like this, dummy:
Top 1% get big bang from tax breaks
Nice try to change the subject from the Republicans' present defense of their wealthy donors to the Bush tax cuts of a decade ago, but no sale. Read what the cartoon says, idiot, rather than making up an almost unrelated argument.
Big money politics
Here, educate yourself on another topic, dummy:
2012 Election Spending Will Reach $6 Billion, Center for Responsive Politics Predicts
While it is likely that much of the business money coming into the elections was funneled through dark money sources such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent at least $36 million on races nationwide according to the Center for Responsive Politics, business corporations remain the second largest source of Super PAC money, accounting for $71.8 million, or 11% of all Super PAC funds.
Some of the largest and most active Super PACs receive a significant portion of their funding from businesses: pro-Romney Restore Our Future received 20% of its funds from for-profit corporations.
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
Just 34 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center correctly said that TARP was enacted by the Bush administration. Almost half--47 percent--think Mr. Obama started the bank bailout, according to the survey, conducted July 1-5. There was no partisan divide on the issue.
The Tea Party didn't exist until Obama took office. There were no large-scale protests against Bush's bailouts ("There was no partisan divide on the issue"). These protests didn't happen until Tea Party racists decided to demonize the black president as a Kenyan Muslim socialist.
No protests against white president; protests against black president. I'm still waiting for you or any conservative to explain this. Go ahead, dumbass...explain why Tea Party fanatics didn't demonstrate against Bush but did against Obama for continuing Bush's programs.
As for Solyndra (aka your "green scam"), let's take a look:
Fact check: Romney misses mark on Solyndra claim
An independent review indicates that the government could lose nearly $3 billion on green energy loans—just under one-third of the $10 billion Congress set aside.
We have Obama's reinvestment act, which may lead to $3 billion in losses.
And we have this:
Corporate Welfare Grows to $154 Billion even in Midst of Major Government Cuts
Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget
$100 billion or more every year vs. a one-time loss of $3 billion. Which number is bigger, you flippin' idiot? Which problem area should be the biggest concern among Republicans who claim to be fiscally responsible?
To be fair, many Democrats also support these corporate subsidies. But I'd say it's relatively rare for Democrats to seek a corporate subsidy that Republicans oppose. In most cases, Republicans are leading the charge to protect their wealthy donors, again.
In short....better luck next time, loser. You haven't made a single valid argument about economics since you began reading Newspaper Rock. And your asinine comments on this cartoon haven't come close to breaking that record.
For more on the subject, see "Defund Obamacare" = "Nigger, Nigger" and Where Obama Went Wrong.
P.S. No, we aren't debating the conservative worship of the wealthy in my blog. Post a response in your own blog if you want. But I'm not wasting any more time educating you on the basics of government spending.