Society Today!. .. I'm not afraid to comment while logged in. Your view of the market is shallow and you have no idea how economics work. The gap between the rich and the poor is
Home Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

Society Today!

+185
Views: 10258
Favorited: 9
Submitted: 05/07/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to ertards E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(64):

[ 64 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #47 - rhetoricalfunny (05/08/2013) [-]
Consider it a non economic viewpoint. Our economy should first take care of human needs
User avatar #45 - rhetoricalfunny (05/08/2013) [-]
I see a lot of people complaining about welfare.
But so few about the lack of accessible, well paying jobs.

I mean, I think every single person can agree that the 19.7 Million children living on welfare doesn't need to increase.
And there should be less than 46 million people, living in poverty. (In the US)
Of which 72% are employed.

One's circumstance is not one's own fault, and responsibility for it needs to be taken. But goddamn it. There's a ******* you cannot control and what you can certainly isn't enough to compensate.
User avatar #42 - nockae (05/08/2013) [-]
Society always dick ******
#40 - TehFunnyMan (05/08/2013) [-]
Someone should tell that poor guy there's a whole basket of **** behind him.
It appears the 99%'s biggest problem is that they keep looking forward.
#38 - anonymous (05/08/2013) [-]
I think it's the other way around. Wellfare, social security, unemployment, etc...
#37 - anonymous (05/08/2013) [-]
this isn't accurate. the guy on the left is clearly vintage, which as we all know costs a lot of money at Urban Outfitters or fake thrift stores.

obviously the guy on the left is richer, just look at that sepia-tone hat, scraggly stubble and tight jeans.
#36 - anonymous (05/08/2013) [-]
Society Today

As though this has only been going on for a few years...
#35 - evilfungas (05/08/2013) [-]
B-b-but you forgot government onee-chan...
#33 - anonymous (05/08/2013) [-]
By that logic the rich are the ones getting Welfare, since that is literary stealing.
User avatar #32 - jammingjam (05/08/2013) [-]
Capitalism

"Sell a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and you lose a wonderful business opportunity."- idk who said this
#30 - anonymous (05/08/2013) [-]
Wouldn't that mean the poor are rich. and the rich are poor?
#27 - trickytrickster (05/08/2013) [-]
Because rich people don't work hard.
User avatar #26 - natedizzie (05/08/2013) [-]
You do realize the rich people you are depicting aren't the ones who own the oil companies or other large businesses. No I won't call them saints, they do do bad stuff in the name of money but you should look at people like Obama, Nancy pelosi, and other politicians who pull in millions from being professional politicians. They just passed a law allowing inside trading. Which you must realize allows them and wall street to make deals using insider information. Which if you didn't know is what causes depressions because they get a tip that something is failing before everyone else and all of them buy out and all us regular folks lose our pensions and 401ks
User avatar #46 to #26 - rhetoricalfunny (05/08/2013) [-]
Now I won't dispute what you put there, it's all perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned.

But there's no disputing the rich, (specifically corporations) have a serious hand in it. Use to be you could raise a family off of a factory job. But they found that if they paid you less they could make more money. (In the shortest terms.) Now they pay you far below the poverty line. Give your jobs to foreign workers, they send your jobs to other countries. You get what I mean. They effectively take everything they can from you to
maintain their already absurd margin of profit.

Now I hate economics, simply because it focuses so little on human needs, so my understanding here may be a little small, or simplified.
User avatar #48 to #46 - natedizzie (05/08/2013) [-]
It goes back to politicians with their hands in the pot allowing those companies to get away with it. They could easily force companies that are "American" like ford and chevy to have to open factories in America since they bailed them out.
I am a person that is against Govt involvement but I personally am for isolationism to force companies to come back to America
User avatar #49 to #48 - rhetoricalfunny (05/08/2013) [-]
Then Corporations are all like, " **** your free trade barriers!"
Then take the case to the WTO
and win

I'm not saying governments don't have a hand, but when they try. They're still ****** over.
User avatar #50 to #49 - natedizzie (05/08/2013) [-]
governments and lobbyists wrote the free trade agreement. They gave the corporations the power. Plus the corporations couldn't do jack **** if America said **** you to the WTO and the Corporations what are they not going to comply and lose out on their largest consumer market. Plus im 90% sure that America runs the WTO just like the UN so they can pretty much do whatever they want.
User avatar #51 to #50 - rhetoricalfunny (05/08/2013) [-]
Like I said, I wasn't disputing the governments hand.
Forgive my leftist, "Corporations" are evil rallying call, but I can't see anyone with significant wealth and pull who isn't to blame for the disappearance of a middle class.
Maybe Gates... he's a cool dude...
User avatar #25 - douthit (05/08/2013) [-]
It's funny how the OP ************* left out any mention of the immoral government stealing from them both.
User avatar #13 - ShadeElement (05/07/2013) [-]
There are some inaccuracies in this comic.

1. The poor man is fishing.
2. The rich man is fishing.
3. There is no middle class.

For this comic to be accurate-
1. There would be many skilled middle class fishermen selling their fish to a few rich people.
2. These few rich would then turn and sell the fish they just bought to the poor, who are poor because they lack the skill to fish and spend what little money they have buying it from someone else.
#12 - anonymous (05/07/2013) [-]
I could've sworn this site was funnyjunk
User avatar #10 - largeheadphones (05/07/2013) [-]
The rich people pay proportionality more taxes, for stuff like welfare and other bullcrap, so really this gif is BS.
User avatar #31 to #10 - ericzxvc (05/08/2013) [-]
I don't think you're aware of what the word "proportionally" means.
User avatar #57 to #31 - largeheadphones (05/08/2013) [-]
Richer people may have to pay (im just making up numbers here) 20% of what they make, while poorer people have to pay only 10%
#11 to #10 - anonymous (05/07/2013) [-]
but its a jpg
User avatar #29 to #11 - largeheadphones (05/08/2013) [-]
I noticed this afterwards, and i was to lazy to add to it.
#6 - belthool (05/07/2013) [-]
Its all about convincing the feeble minded and their offspring they need your service or product. Do that and you wont have to "fish money" from the poor like the picture above because they will give it to you.
User avatar #3 - therealpokemon (05/07/2013) [-]
I'm not afraid to comment while logged in.

Your view of the market is shallow and you have no idea how economics work. The gap between the rich and the poor is being perpetuated by government, not the rich or left (though the Left helps a lot) or right. You want the poor to come out of poverty? Deregulate the market and lower taxes and unnecessary spending. The only rich people you should blame are in the government.
User avatar #44 to #3 - rhetoricalfunny (05/08/2013) [-]
While I strongly disagree with you I respect your lack of fear to post while logged in.

Respect in the form of not starting a ********* !
User avatar #41 to #3 - whipptron (05/08/2013) [-]
Actually you're wrong. Countries that have less income inequality than the US have more regulations, more taxes and more social spending.

Less government increases, not decreases, income inequality.

Study the robber barons of early 20th century america for examples of how inadequate government intervention makes huge income gaps.
User avatar #52 to #41 - therealpokemon (05/08/2013) [-]
Yeah and those countries are about to head into financial disaster. Look at almost all of Europe. Germany is of course the European rebuttal, but they have a significant degree of socialism going on there and it will not work out in the long run. Someone will get greedy and throw the whole thing into a tailspin. Just wait for it. Furthermore, the gap would naturally shorten without governments help if the free market was just left alone.
User avatar #58 to #52 - whipptron (05/09/2013) [-]
the stories you've heard of economic collapse in Europe are overstated by the people on the right. Really only greece, spain and italy are in real trouble, and those are among the least socialized nations in 'western' europe. Iceland, a very socialized nation, pulled out of its recession while increasing welfare.

In fact the countries that best weathered the recession of a couple years ago in terms of unemployment and average income were the nordic countries, the most socialized in the world with free healthcare, right to food, and slightly over 50% marginal tax rate. They're more stable than we are.
User avatar #59 to #58 - therealpokemon (05/09/2013) [-]
Well that's just fine for THEM. It CANNOT work for us. And it hasn't been able to since 1913. Go ahead, ask me why.
User avatar #60 to #59 - whipptron (05/09/2013) [-]
I reject that argument, we're not special, we're just another country.

A big rich one who could probably better afford to do things for its citizens than those other nations, and yet they manage just fine.
User avatar #61 to #60 - therealpokemon (05/09/2013) [-]
Wrong. We have something they don't have: The Federal Reserve. Because of that, our currency is worth whatever a group of men in expensive suits decides its worth on a day-to-day basis. Because the value of the dollar is fluctuating constantly(with a constant negative trend, mind you), the value of items we are going to acquire via socializing our government and economic system, it does not correspond with the availability of resources. If our currency had a constant worth, then MAYBE socialism would be feasible in the US. MAYBE. But with fiat money, which is what we have, we cannot do what you say we can do.
User avatar #62 to #61 - whipptron (05/09/2013) [-]
Um, all the nordic countries have fiat currencies too. And they all have inflation too. Inflation is actually good since it makes it so that debtors debts slowly decrease in size without interest.

In fact, every first world country in the world has a fiat currency.
User avatar #67 to #62 - therealpokemon (05/12/2013) [-]
Sorry about the delay, I was busy driving across the country. Now, to answer your (well placed, I might add) rebuttal, you will have to understand that there is indeed a difference. See, what makes the Fed different from other fiat monetary systems is that our Fed is constantly printing money that is being given to our Gov't as a loan with crazy interest rates. Other countries are not doing such a thing, as their money is owned by the government and not a private bank. THAT is the key difference.
User avatar #15 to #3 - ShadeElement (05/07/2013) [-]
I agree with most of what you just said.
All except lowering taxes.

I do agree we need to cut excessive government spending, but unfortunately I think that alone won't be enough. We need to increase revenue.

Besides, once people start having to shell out more taxes, they might start paying closer attention to what the government is doing with it.
User avatar #18 to #15 - therealpokemon (05/07/2013) [-]
I doubt your last line. I doubt it highly. People are stupid, don't forget that XD
User avatar #21 to #18 - ShadeElement (05/07/2013) [-]
Start reaching into people's wallets and they get smart real fast.

I feel your average citizen is just that-average. Average intelligence capable of noticing when their hard earned money is being wasted.

Their problem is taxes aren't enough of a burden for them to care. Taxes go up, people are gonna be pissed. Pissed enough to start demanding to know where their money is going.
User avatar #22 to #21 - therealpokemon (05/08/2013) [-]
Oh please tell me that's a joke. We just had a tax increase THIS YEAR, and people would, by your logic, start scrutinizing where their tax dollars are going, and, on average, we care no more or less than we did last year. This is evident by the fact that Obama is still in office.
User avatar #24 to #22 - ShadeElement (05/08/2013) [-]
ooooh, you're one of THOSE.

Ok, first, not a huge fan of Obama. Don't hate him. Think he got handed a raw deal, but also no overly impressed with his performance either.

But I do think people need to get off his nuts. Conservatives handed him a huge mess they made, and now their roasting him for not cleaning it up fast enough.
(btw I'm neither conservative or liberal, more libertarian than anything).

And Obama has not pushed through any serious tax hikes. You're over exaggerating. Which for some reason most Anti- Obama peeps do. A lot.

Hence the "Thanks Obama" series of jokes you see daily on this site.
User avatar #28 to #24 - therealpokemon (05/08/2013) [-]
I, too, am Libertarian. Obama was indeed handed a mess to clean up. But the fact is that he has only perpetuated said mess and has not even made an EFFORT to make the economy better. If people actually gave a crap about government spending then Obama would be out of office. He DOUBLED our national debt in 3 (might be 4, I forget) years in office, and now it's not even slowing down. If people cared, they wouldn't stand for this and would do whatever they could, WE would do whatever WE could, as a nation, to GET HIM OUT. Is Obama the sole cause of everything wrong in our country? No. Not by a long shot. Is he easily the biggest perpetuator of said issues in the country? In my opinion yes.
#9 to #3 - jakatackka (05/07/2013) [-]
I completely disagree with your philosophy, although I respect you for speaking your mind.

Have you ever lived around poor people? Heck, have you ever yourself lived in poverty? I have, and I can tell you, what you hear about from others is nothing compared to the reality of being poor. Thankfully I've never had to suffer, but I know many who have. I know many kids in high school that live their lives sleeping on their friend's couch every night, hopping from house to house, hoping for a meal to eat. My best friend had a nasty infection that his family couldn't afford to treat for three years - he now has permanent damage. Living off of one meal a day, moving from rental to rental because you don't have enough money for even your most basic needs, THAT is what poverty really is.

Lowering their taxes and cutting back on government spending is the least helpful thing you can do. Most poor families are so poor they pay very little taxes to begin with. The problem is that they can't get a job that pays well enough. Some of it is indeed laziness, yes, but once you are trapped in the cycle of poverty, you and your kids will almost never escape. Do you think people can even focus on their school work when they only have one meal a day? Or do homework when they live in an abusive household?

If you aren't familiar with Moslin's Hierarchy of Needs, it basically states that basic needs have to be satisfied before more complex ones. In order to get out of poverty, you need to have some higher-level education. Do you think they can pay for college when they can't even make rent or put food on the table? The whole point of government subsistence programs is to give people enough to survive, so that they can focus on bettering their situation instead of grasping on to life by the end of their fingernails. Cutting taxes only cuts the amount of assistance that the government can pay for, so all you're doing is ******* them over more.
User avatar #16 to #9 - ShadeElement (05/07/2013) [-]
I HAVE lived in poverty.
I spent many years of my childhood living out of a car with my single mom.

Unfortunately, I was born a white, straight, male.
Know how much assistance I get? Not a lot.

You know what I learned about being poor (besides the fact that it sucks?) There's no reason for it to be anything more than temporary.
The problem I noticed about poor people, is they don't grasp the concept of investment. I'm not just talking about monetary investment. I'm talking about time and work investment as well.

The basic principle of investment is you give up something now, for a greater return later. The problem poor people have (most of them) is they want it now. All of it.
Go to your poorest section of town. The slums, the projects, whatever. Start counting DirecTV dishes and cable lines. Start counting smart phones and ipads. Start counting rims and other frivolous signs of *********** consumption.

Poor people don't save. They don't budget. They don't invest in their futures. They get stuck in a hand to mouth, day to day mentality. The ones that are frugal, and DO budget, and make smart choices (key word SMART) don't stay poor forever.

My mother got into a situation of homelessness partly do to poor choices, partly do to some serious bad luck.
But she started making better choices, and worked HARD. Good god that woman worked hard. More importantly she passed those lessons on to me.
Now I live extremely comfortably, without financial worry, and my mother is coming up on a well deserved retirement she funded herself.

So sorry, I don't have the over whelming sympathy for the poor. If I could do it, they can too.
#20 to #16 - jakatackka (05/07/2013) [-]
As I said below, these life lessons don't just pop up out of thin air. You can learn them from school, but you usually learn it from your role models. If the parents work their asses off yet don't succeed (which happens a lot) or have given up, then the kids adopt a defeated attitude as well. It's one thing when the parents aren't able to sustain themselves, but it's a whole other thing when the kids get dragged into it.
User avatar #14 to #9 - zzforrest (05/07/2013) [-]
I heard of a girl in collage who quite literally lived in a dump, yet she made straight A's. She studied with all of her time, and every day she would come to school early and go to the chem labs to get her ******* shower, and yet she graduated. Her family spent all of their money sending her to school and she managed to get straight A's.
How does lowering taxes not help? If rich people have more money with less restrictive ability to spend, will they not be more comfortable spending it? Will they not hire more people? Oh and if you haven't caught on yet, the government is ******* around with the money. They spent 2 million on stimulus package on police donut contests. That is a lot of money.
#17 to #14 - jakatackka (05/07/2013) [-]
Well, I know dozens more people that live in those same conditions, and do poorly in school anyways. Strong work ethic doesn't just come from thin air. Most people that live in poverty don't have parents that are willing or able to sacrifice everything for them. They already are sacrificing all that they have by giving them three meals a day and sending them to school (not college). Many have given up on life, and their children have the same dejected attitude. Others work as hard as they can yet still can't provide for their family, or have been unemployed for a long time and businesses won't hire them.

And lowering taxes won't help. First off, the top 10% of Americans constitute 19% of charitable donations, even though they own nearly 75% of the wealth. They have much, much more disposable income than the rest of us, yet statistics show that they aren't being nearly as charitable as the rest of us. And deregulation isn't going to help us at all. Bill Clinton passed laws that deregulated the economy, and look what happened ten years later. Worse, when AIG was given tens of billions of dollars in bailout money, they had the gall to give out $165 million in executive bonuses. Deregulation means that businesses don't have to be accountable to the government, and this would only get worse.
User avatar #19 to #17 - zzforrest (05/07/2013) [-]
Where did "Charity" suddenly come from? We are talking about jobs. Rich people are responsible for jobs. If you constrict the rich people and strip their wealth then they won't hire people, and why should they? They won't be able to hold up the cars, the houses, the companies, and pay their workers, advertise, etc. etc. if they lose too much money.
#23 to #19 - jakatackka (05/08/2013) [-]
(My mistake, I thought that might be what you were angling at)

Rich people aren't responsible for jobs. Businesses run by rich people are responsible for jobs. Case in point, look at the economic recovery of the past few years. Businesses have been pulling in record profits, yet hiring is sluggish, work hours have skyrocketed, and pay hasn't risen at all. Businesses aren't hiring more people, they are working their employees harder. Why? Largely because they can, in the name of "efficiency".

When there's a public-wide expectation that you work so many hours for so much pay, then people won't settle for less. However, if the economy is fragile and people are aware how valuable their jobs really are (and how hard it would be to switch), they will go to greater lengths to keep their jobs. Employers will push their employees to work harder, because if the employee doesn't work harder, they can find a replacement willing to work that hard. Businesses (at least large ones) don't hire people because they want to. They do it only if it becomes more profitable to do so.
#5 to #3 - taintedangel (05/07/2013) [-]
Government AND the rich people are both to blame.
User avatar #8 to #5 - therealpokemon (05/07/2013) [-]
False. The Federal Reserve system (American bank system, in case you are not from America) is a private bank. The government has a deal with them basically. The Federal Reserve prints out money, causing inflation, and all that money goes straight to the government. This in turn causes a percentage fluctuation in the total amount of wealth owned in America to shift in the governments favor (supposing we are only distinguishing between the public sector and private sector), and in time they acquire a greater percentage of TOTAL wealth, or numerically superior amount of US Dollars. Because of this, inflation occurs and it impacts everyone. However, the impact on the rich is minimal because they have more options available to them to keep their wealth protected. These options are also somewhat available to the upper middle class as well. The rich really have nothing to do with it.
User avatar #7 to #5 - sketchE (05/07/2013) [-]
a good 80 percent of the people on welfare do not need it
User avatar #53 to #7 - rhetoricalfunny (05/08/2013) [-]
Proof for statistic?
User avatar #54 to #53 - sketchE (05/08/2013) [-]
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
my number was an estimate based on my personal experiences and another article i read about a year ago. this is not the same article but gives the same general idea. the one i read reported that of the 40 percent of americans considered poor less than 2 percent said they didnt have a place to live and 8 percent said they went hungry.
User avatar #55 to #54 - rhetoricalfunny (05/08/2013) [-]
So it's a fake statistic
Don't make fake statistics
90% of people will believe them
User avatar #56 to #55 - sketchE (05/08/2013) [-]
it was more of a geustimate based on real statistics i had forgotten. it was actually lower than what the reports had said
User avatar #4 to #3 - therealpokemon (05/07/2013) [-]
*works
#2 - anonymous (05/07/2013) [-]
it's actually the other way around
[ 64 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)