Faith in humanity temporarily restored. . Selfaware millionaire Harris Rosen. waisted a Floride neighborhood celled Tamale Park, cut the mime rate in half, and  Faith in humanity temporarily restored Selfaware millionaire Harris Rosen waisted a Floride neighborhood celled Tamale Park cut the mime rate half and
Upload
Login or register

Faith in humanity temporarily restored

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
Selfaware millionaire Harris Rosen. waisted
a Floride neighborhood celled Tamale Park,
cut the mime rate in half, and increased the
high wheel , rate from 25% to 100114',
by giving every: - free daycare and all high
school graduates scholarships
...
+1448
Views: 61336 Submitted: 11/15/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (239)
[ 239 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
User avatar #9 - nayytayisgod
Reply +214 123456789123345869
(11/15/2013) [-]
And what has Paris Hilton done?
Got caught with Cocaine, has a DUI, and is one of the most uneducated people in the US.
Proving that self-making millionaires are better than ones who inherited the money.
#10 to #9 - I Am Monkey
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #12 to #10 - Shramin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/15/2013) [-]
"Proving that self-making millionaires are better than ones who inherited the money."
last line of the comment you responded to.
#13 to #12 - I Am Monkey
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/15/2013) [-]
Well looks like I didn't read.   
Sorry.
Well looks like I didn't read.
Sorry.
User avatar #27 to #9 - strikingeight
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Like the Clintons, right?
User avatar #139 to #27 - niggastolemyname
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
damnit
#34 to #9 - anon id: 307e7afa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
if i end up making millions, i'd want it to go to wherever i'd like. and whether you like it or not, my kids would end up getting some of it. you can't just prevent people from inheriting money. it might not be fair to you, but you had nothing to do with the earning of that money or the rights to it. it isn't yours.
#116 to #34 - anon id: cb33b522
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Last time I checked, your hypothetical kids wouldn't have anything to do with your money either, and it wouldn't be theirs. In fact, they'd be a drain on your money more than anything.
#189 to #116 - anon id: 307e7afa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
nope. i have the rights to that money. dead or alive. mine.
if i wanna toss that **** in the toilet you can't do ****.
if i wanna give it to my kids, that's my choice.
#119 to #9 - anon id: 3a7ffc3a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
what have you done?
User avatar #150 to #119 - bagguhsleep
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
your mom
User avatar #134 to #119 - nayytayisgod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Actually I do a lot of charity work in my Town, when I am not on the computer of course
#212 to #9 - uberbunk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
**uberbunk rolled a random image posted in comment #26 at fuck titles ** well has anyone ever said otherwise?
User avatar #51 to #9 - hawaiianhappysauce
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
That's because Paris Hilton is a legacy, she didn't earn the money.
User avatar #52 to #51 - nayytayisgod
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
I know, that's the point
#53 to #52 - hawaiianhappysauce
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
**** I didn't read the whole thing. It's 3 AM here.
User avatar #70 to #53 - assdoreponyfucker
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
east coast man eh?
User avatar #54 to #53 - nayytayisgod
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
it's k
#213 to #53 - pernis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Youtube Poop: Sonic's the Name Speed's His Game?!
User avatar #215 to #213 - hawaiianhappysauce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
I'm glad I'm not the only one who watches those YTP videos.
#112 to #9 - jamiemsm
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
but batman inherited his money
User avatar #137 to #112 - niggastolemyname
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
I must post to let you know that I laughed
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA XDXDSXDXDXDXL LOLOLOLOLOLOL
User avatar #165 to #137 - tomahawkit **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
that spoiler really spoiled your comment
#190 to #165 - atma
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
So that's why they're called that
User avatar #214 to #112 - nayytayisgod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
but, his parents were shot in front of him
User avatar #14 to #9 - crampers
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(11/15/2013) [-]
Too be fair that kind of makes sense doesn't it? a person who actually worked for their status and the likes will always be able to relate as opposed to those who are "born with a silver spoon in hand"
#25 - anon id: cb8281fd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
He cut the crime rate in half...just like that...What is he ******* Batman?
#39 to #25 - kirkbot
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
you should go there too
User avatar #183 to #25 - eclecticparadigm **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
He legalized 50% of what was illegal in the past.
#26 to #25 - captnpl
Reply +160 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
How else could you get Batman to come visit?
How else could you get Batman to come visit?
#87 to #26 - Rei
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #161 to #26 - greenstrongworld
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
MOM I DON'T GET IT.
User avatar #21 - herbolifee
Reply +71 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
I have mixed feelings about this.

Harris is a ******* awesome guy. If we had more people like him the world would be better off.

It's kinda ridiculous that Harris has to do this. Why does he have to do what the government should be doing?
User avatar #216 to #21 - FreakinCortez
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Well we don't, so shut the **** up.
#217 to #216 - herbolifee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Make me, bitch
User avatar #36 to #21 - invshika
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
because government shouldn't be doing that
User avatar #125 to #21 - undeadwill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Because the government is incapable of doing any of those things. You see those fact those are called results. You'll never find it in any government program.
User avatar #173 to #21 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
People don't want the government to do this since it's considered "social welfare" and they're worried people would become dependent on handouts. As you can see here, however, that doesn't happen if you do it correctly.
#192 to #21 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Because nanny states are ******* expensive.
User avatar #208 to #21 - thereoncewasaman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
The reason the government isn't doing this is because when they try there is a huge uproar from conservatives (and some weirdo liberals) who don't want their tax dollars going to support "people who sit on their asses and don't benefit society". They think that people who get support with these welfare and safety net systems are just gonna accept the money and decide that they don't have to work or do anything else because they are getting payed. There are some people who do that, but the majority of the people who get this support use it to further themselves in life, beyond what it would have been possible to achieve without it. If someone opposes welfare systems, they are an inhuman bastard who is intentionally condemning people to be stuck in a poverty cycle because it doesn't affect them and they don't care.
User avatar #43 to #21 - noblexfenrir
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
"Why does he have to do what the government should be doing?"
And who do you intend to pay for the government to do something like?
User avatar #101 to #21 - hudis
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Because people think that the government helping people stay off the streets would be socialism. Which I myself, being from Sweden, don't really see as a bad thing.
User avatar #24 to #21 - Ruspanic
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Because the government is funded by tax dollars and the people who live there contribute very little in taxes. And because there are countless neighborhoods like this and the government cannot possibly afford to give everyone in every poor neighborhood free day care and scholarships. And because giving everyone "free" scholarships artificially inflates demand and causes tuition prices to go up. And because the government has lots of other **** to do.
#202 to #24 - johrny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Like smokin' weed and ****.   
Or spyin' on the germans....
Like smokin' weed and ****.
Or spyin' on the germans....
#60 to #24 - anon id: 933c61e4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Pay more taxes.
Reforms in the education system.
User avatar #144 to #60 - roflsaucer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Try to get voted into any part of the government with significance on the concept of "We need to pay more taxes!"
User avatar #126 to #60 - undeadwill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
We need to spend less, And taxes need to be lowered not hired.
User avatar #180 to #126 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
What would maintain the country if taxes were lowered even more? Sure, the current military budget of the U.S. is ridiculous, but even if that was halved, most of that would have to go into other things (like healthcare) that are presently neglected because of the military budget. Either way, lower taxes would most likely cause more trouble for the country and the people than it would benefit them.
User avatar #184 to #180 - undeadwill
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Okay maybe get this.
When taxes are lowered, people keep more of their income, when they keep more of their income they spend more, which builds up the economy, when the economy is good, income is increased, when income is increased tax revenue is higher. Thus you you give up a lot of money but you keep more when it comes to the citizens and the government gets more in revenue for taxes despite being lower.

And if we raised taxes on the top 20 percent of Americans to 89 percent higher than France we still wouldn't make enough not counting the economic draw back to this as less companies invest in the US leading to less revenue. If we raised taxes on the 2nd to the top 20% percent along with the 89% it still wouldn't be enough to meet our spending or pay off our debts.

Welfare is twice as much as military spending when you count social security, Medicaid, medicare, and other such programs. And these programs have meh success rates, with social security and healthcare funds being stolen to pay for other programs leaving people who paid for the system, with no money and when you do get social security the money you earn is more the half the money you paid in.
Welfare is being used as more of a tool of bribery than actual social justice. And under medicaid and medicare healthcare costs have risen on everyone including those who need it the most.
User avatar #174 to #126 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
I agree. We could probably do whatever we wanted domestically if we closed all foreign military bases and cut military spending by two thirds.
User avatar #218 to #174 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
If we cut the entire military we would still not have a balanced budget.
User avatar #219 to #218 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
I didn't say the entire military though, did I? With a third of current military spending we would still have a military fully capable of defending out nation.
#221 to #219 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Not the point. I'm saying if you want to cut 2/3 of the military as a means of balancing the budget, it wouldn't be enough.

Of course, the question is whether we actually need a balanced budget...
User avatar #223 to #221 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Ah, I see what you mean. Of course other things would have to be cut as well, it's just frustrating to see people laud spending cuts as the end all, be all of budget fixes but not mention the military in those cuts. Too often they focus entirely on social programs and welfare instead of defense spending as well.
User avatar #175 to #174 - undeadwill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Eh. We need a lot of military spending but not as much as we have now.
User avatar #220 to #175 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
No, we don't; it's not the Cold War anymore. You want to cut spending? The really beneficial cuts would come from the military. Everybody is always all for cuts until you mention the military, then suddenly that's off limits for cuts.
User avatar #224 to #220 - undeadwill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Are you forgetting that a lot of veteran services are counted into that defense budget?

And that we do need to keep our defensive military strong. Because believe or not we do have some pretty strong enemies. Most of our defense budget comes in the form of aid to the UN and countries like, Israel, Egypt, North and South Korea, Japan (A country without much of a military other than a defense force) And many others. Now many of these are not necessary.

Problem is that we have become the world's police dog. Everyone is able to their military spending because we have increased ours. No other country is willing to police their neck of the woods. If a country attacks Poland the only person to come to its aid is the US. Not France, not Russia, not England, No one. We basically have now become the only military that matters.

I'm not against cuts to military spending but we do need a military and need to be careful about how much we cut. 2/3 is far too much unless it is 2/3 is of overseas operations. I agree that we need to cut spending but cutting to

Look above for a far better target to cut spending to.
#203 to #175 - anon id: 6a3ba602
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
You mean we need a lot of military spending for all of these impending wars?
User avatar #225 to #203 - undeadwill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
Look above.
#5 - dashgamer
Reply +57 123456789123345869
(11/15/2013) [-]
Proving with the money he made from what he learned in academia that school is cool.
#45 - fuckinfuckinfuck
Reply +51 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
You can adopt a whole neighborhood?
#17 - adunsaveme
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #46 - klokwork
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
That's gotta be weird as hell though.
"Umm Mr. Rosen? Can we get some more water?"
"Please. Everyone call me Daddy Harris."
#138 - stillnotbob
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
#55 - lolollo
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
Yet businessmen still think the best way to improve the economy is to maintain the ridiculous amounts of money in their own pockets, and **** over their employees.
User avatar #75 to #55 - DrPeppir
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
america.jpg
User avatar #142 to #55 - trowlernotparas
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
They dont think that's the best way to improve the economy that isn't their goal.
#182 - monkeybrains
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(11/16/2013) [-]
They're not Oranges. They're Tangellos.