Fucking polatiks. If repost, I'll delete it .. No, no, fair enough. I have no problem people who CAN work working for a living. There ARE too many people living of government tit who should not be. Solution  politics
x

Comments(622):

[ 622 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#32 - Thevaultboy (09/01/2012) [-]
This comment section.
#44 to #32 - dustyshane (09/01/2012) [-]
I like this one.
#5 - anon (08/31/2012) [-]
"Americas two party system is like a bowl of **** looking at itself in the mirror."
-Lewis Black.

Truer words have never been spoken
+1
#272 to #5 - gagrgorgrs **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #316 to #272 - eddievh (09/01/2012) [-]
If I'm not mistaken, it's pretty much saying that both parties are just as bad as a each other
User avatar #6 to #5 - Lambda (08/31/2012) [-]
Pretty much.
User avatar #434 to #5 - shitshitshit (09/01/2012) [-]
as an american, i agree fully
User avatar #498 to #434 - evilpapagali (09/01/2012) [-]
As a fully, I agree american.
User avatar #518 to #498 - Iritis (09/01/2012) [-]
I as fully, American a agree.
#51 - mjdjoy (09/01/2012) [-]
User avatar #60 to #51 - theugandanhero (09/01/2012) [-]
"Mott Romnoy"
#194 - Devvo (09/01/2012) [-]
Always puzzles me why America only have 2 choices...
User avatar #228 to #194 - icedmantwo ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
canada has an astounding 3 choices (what with the ndp coming into to power the way they did last election
#352 to #194 - ggear (09/01/2012) [-]
It's because America has a single vote system, where if one person votes for a party that doesn't get the majority, there vote is "wasted", not counted in the battle between the top 2.

A work around to this would be to employ sequential or run-off voting, where people give precedence to who they want most. When the votes get counted, if a person has voted for someone that doesn't get the majority, their next choice would be counted. This would continue until only votes for the top two remained.
User avatar #208 to #194 - bestestname (09/01/2012) [-]
still better than in my country where there are dozens of parties all claming to have differend ideologies but them wishing the same thing : to fill their pockets.
User avatar #215 to #208 - vassia (09/01/2012) [-]
I guess you're in Lebanon???
User avatar #217 to #215 - bestestname (09/01/2012) [-]
neh. Romania. But **** like this happens in many more countries I guess. Voting is just choosing who will butt-rape you.
User avatar #218 to #217 - vassia (09/01/2012) [-]
It's all the same brotha
User avatar #69 - xxpiexx (09/01/2012) [-]
I'm American, mind you, but I hate this about America. If something isn't one thing, it absolutely has to be the complete opposite. Can't we have a little grey area once in a damn while? To quote Daniel Tosh, "Does everything have to be so black and white in this kindergarten country of ours?"

/mini-rant
User avatar #130 to #69 - haxorman (09/01/2012) [-]
^ Agreed
+1
#501 to #69 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#58 - Sammael (09/01/2012) [-]
No, no, fair enough.

I have no problem people who CAN work working for a living. There ARE too many people living of government tit who should not be.

Solution is changing and streamlining the programs. Republicans want to abolish them.

And who gets screwed then? People who CANT work. People with serious disabilites, **** them let them starve. People who work minimum wage and can't afford insurance, **** them let them die, people with preexisting conditions who insurance companies refuse to insure, **** them let them die.

Problem is that we have no middle ground. Its like having an infected finger. Democrats want to ignore it untill it gets gangrenous and kills you and republicans want to cut off entire leg, few fingers and one testicle.
User avatar #132 to #58 - haxorman (09/01/2012) [-]
you are exactly right +1thumb
User avatar #586 to #58 - trololoface (09/01/2012) [-]
Well the only thing about those who work at minimum wage, they probably did that to themselves.

Those are the people who thought it would be cool to fail high school, smoke weed everyday, go to a ****** college, and expect to become a CEO of some company.
There are a few exceptions, but the truth is, thats the majority of them


But about those with disabilities, I do have to agree that they do need support
#74 to #58 - Sockopolis (09/01/2012) [-]
WE WILL LET THE DISEASED, HANDICAPPED, AND UNABLE TO WORK DIE IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE AMERICAN MASTER RACE
#85 to #58 - pyrusd (09/01/2012) [-]
Not taking sides, but the healthcare law that Obama pushed for and had passed "obamacare" never addresses the issues of people who can't afford it or the people with pre-existing conditions. He says that they'll be covered but they actually won't be because it will still cost them money. So, people who do make minimum wage and can't afford it, are now going to be charged for not buying it, making affording it even harder. I think it's around 900-1000$ a year per person up to 3 people living in a household. They passed this law and never actually addressed the issues of cost and affordability so it doesn't really help anyone who can't afford it, they aren't automatically covered.
#147 to #85 - Sammael (09/01/2012) [-]
Obamacare has huge amount of faults. Best I can say about it is that is a bit better then current state.
Obamacare, like Romneycare in Massachusetts, does address those things. It makes rejection based on previous condition and not covering preexisting conditions illegal. And those that actually can't afford it will get it partially subsidized and only pay part of the cost, based on percentage of the income. They will ofcorse not get to pick which insurance they want, they will go into basic state care, but that is better then none. Also it makes companies cover preventive care which will long term save everyone money.
With member of my family having trouble getting insured because of their preexisting condition I really did my research on this.
#76 to #58 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
******** .

There are very few Republicans that want to get rid of welfare programs. All of them are in the minority and shunned by politicians. Even Ron Paul doesn't want tot do away with the "safety net." They want to make it better, get rid of waste, and make sure only the people that need it are getting it.

No Republican would ever get elected if they said they wanted to get rid of welfare.
#152 to #76 - Sammael (09/01/2012) [-]
Problem is what they want to cut.
One of their prominent cuts is reeducation programs. Programs designed to give adults who don't have education or have education in field that has very low chance of employment education in defficient fields.
Probably best program there is, completely "teach them to fish" and not "give them a fish" program. Under Ryan plan that program would be cut 95%!!! pretty much ending it.
And don't even let me get started on "abolish obamacare, kill medicare and give elderly vouchers" plan which is beyond idiotic. Without obamacare provision to make refusing insurance or coverage of preexisting condition illegal elderly who are already sick could stick those vouchers in their asses and die, since no one would insure them.
Oh btw, medicaid spends less then 4% of money on operational costs. Average private insurance company? 30%. (biggest difference is advertisement. Insurance companies spend billions on it, medicare spends nothing) if medicare was abolished and elderly given to private companies, government would ahve to spend MORE for same amount of coverage. Or let those elderly who are already sick die off.
Problem with current republican plans is that they do a horrible hatchet job on welfare. Its not a good reform, its killing off good with the bad. Its not reform at all its just cutting without any long term thinking.
User avatar #66 to #58 - oberon (09/01/2012) [-]
it would probably help if the tea party members in congress hadn't taken an oath to block everything obama puts forward, even if they agree with it. passing new reforms and bills has always been about compromise, but now we dont even have that... so how can we move forward?
#250 to #66 - awsomepk (09/01/2012) [-]
I don't believe that they should have said no to EVERYTHING, but, As the son of a small business owner, I get to see how the government, and mainly democrats (like Obama) want to take more than what's fair away from business owners. For every dollar taken out to put into social security, my dad has to pay that x2, just because the tax laws are written that way currently. If my dad hadn't had the strong set of values he has today, he wouldn't have been able to make it and the business would have gone under.

Looking for an intelligent respectful debate with a democrat
User avatar #259 to #250 - admiralen (09/01/2012) [-]
if you are from america i somehow doubt that the taxes are that high, and besides look at greece, taxes are the for a reason you know
#578 to #259 - awsomepk (09/01/2012) [-]
Yes, but my dad is losing almost 50% to taxes. I'm not whining, I'm just pointing out how ****** up it is that most of the money is going into useless **** , and if you want to know why taxes are so high in Europe, you should look into the federal reserve and the bank systems
They don't only affect America
User avatar #626 to #578 - admiralen (09/01/2012) [-]
and btw, taxes go to everything, the more you earn the higher the price for things become so you need to earn more, etc, a country cant live without proper taxes, america is going down on that regard and should definitly increase taxes of you ask me
User avatar #623 to #578 - admiralen (09/01/2012) [-]
swedens tax system is about 40% to taxes, we used to have a tax that was for that the more money you earn the more % you pay, our famous author astrid lindgren had to pay 103% taxes, basically it cost her to make her books
#627 to #623 - awsomepk (09/01/2012) [-]
Ok, that's pretty cool, but i guess what's the difference between that and socialism? If you earn the same amount no matter what you do, where's the incentive to do good in school and become a doctor when you can just sweep streets for the rest of your life. I don't see why we don't have a flat tax rate, but not as crazy as Europe's taxes, we just cut or pull back on things from the government. Also, in Wisconsin, my state of residence, Governor Walker has managed to save over $14 billion in taxes, and all that's happening is the union healthcare provider is getting less money. Please, extend on why you think higher taxes are a good thing though, because i simply can't comprehend it. You're a working man, no? And you're ok with all of your taxes going to do something that doesn't directly affect you? I'm sincere when i say, please tell me why you fell that way.
#662 to #627 - Sammael (09/18/2012) [-]
Hey I just found this so I thought to reply.
Why higher taxes are good thing? They aren't unless you also set up rule that reinvested money is tax free.
Right now, lets say you are wealthy, and you make 1.000.000 dollar a year. Your tax rate is 30%. Investments are risky so what you do is put most of it into something safe and static, like German state bonds and pay those 300.000k.
BUT if tax rate is 80% and investments are not taxed, then you put as much money as you can into an investment, help build a company, build jobs, buy something expensive and luxury to get a deductible, thus increasing spending, building an economy and pay tax from the remaineder.
That's how high taxes are good for the economy and are not communist at all.
User avatar #629 to #627 - admiralen (09/01/2012) [-]
fact is that capitalism is flawed, it goes up then it goes down, the state uses taxes and loans to balance out the ups and downs, the taxes arent so high as to that you will make the same wage, its just that people who earn a 100 grand a month can afford to pay a little more out of their salary then someone who earns 10 grand a month
#641 to #629 - awsomepk (09/02/2012) [-]
So you actually support communism? Well, your arguments make a lot more sense now, but i don't agree.
While communism is Idealistic, the idea that everyone can get paid the same for different jobs is unrealistic.
Also, You're right the person who makes $100,000 can spare more than the man who makes $10,000 , and he probably should pay a little more, and that's how a flat tax rate works but i don't think they should make the same amount of money
User avatar #643 to #641 - admiralen (09/02/2012) [-]
thats so american... hurr durr you believe that taxes should be high youre a communist, most countries have debts they need to pay, they use taxes to do it, they think that people dont need a 100 grand a month, they make up a tax, you cant apply the tax to someone with 10grand since they need every penny as the one with 100 grand probably wont suffer for another 5 %
#654 to #250 - Sammael (09/02/2012) [-]
And here is the crux of the problem. Your dad pays high taxes.
How do we fix it?
Lower spending, yes. But you can't cut all the spending or you would be destroying infrastructure, defense and killing people who really can't work. So money has to come from somewhere anyhow, even with lower spending.
Do you think its fair that your dad paid more taxes then General Electric? Their net income was 14 billion dollars. But they paid... nothing in taxes. Using tax loopholes.
Repblicans led by tea party members blocked closing off the loopholes. Even though if those loopholes are closed and billion dollar corporations start paying their share, taxes on people like your dad could be lower.
Because right now small and middle size businesses are paying of most of the tax burden, because big guys, really rich ones, pay sqat. And that is what Republicans are fighting to keep.
User avatar #650 to #250 - oberon (09/02/2012) [-]
haha i would consider myself a democrat, though i try to remain as neutral as possible. i have no problems with republicans, some of my best friends are. My main issue is with the way the party has gone in the last couple years or so. i dont even think its fair to call the party the republicans anymore honestly... the tea party has seen to that and its saddening to see how disrespectful, ignorant, and destructive they are as a whole. what were you wanting to debate?
#161 to #66 - Sammael (09/01/2012) [-]
Exactly we need more people like conservative democrat Evan Bayh and liberal republican Jon Huntsman. We need people who are willing to compromise and find solutions. People who are willing to come to middle ground.
As long as everyone is sitting in their own corner yelling at others "you suck and your plans suck and I won't even look at them or talk to you about them. Because they suck" nothing gets done and we just sink faster.
#255 - fapingbeatle (09/01/2012) [-]
the truth
User avatar #271 to #255 - Pacboy (09/01/2012) [-]
Hmm... Literally? Or symbolically.
#310 to #271 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
the two are not mutually exclusive
#291 to #271 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
Symbolically.
User avatar #284 to #255 - darudelink (09/01/2012) [-]
care to elaborate? being "awake" doesnt say much
#241 - sulaco (09/01/2012) [-]
>Having a two party system
>Having a two party system
User avatar #262 to #241 - drunkenmercenary (09/01/2012) [-]
there are other partys just nobody likes them.
#239 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
Our political parties should be, "People who actually get **** done" and "People who actually get **** done, but in a different way that still works".
#234 - emazegenociide (09/01/2012) [-]
It would appear that so many people who majored in politics in college are commenting their different beliefs; each one of them thinking they are right.
It would appear that so many people who majored in politics in college are commenting their different beliefs; each one of them thinking they are right.
#238 to #234 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
The "Anti circlejerk" circlejerk's mantra

" I am above you all , because unlike you , I have no opinion at all "
User avatar #252 to #234 - Ruspanic (09/01/2012) [-]
No everyone thinks their beliefs are right. If they thought they were wrong, they wouldn't hold those beliefs.
User avatar #46 - swittig (09/01/2012) [-]
Since she didn't say anything about forcing morality on others, she sounds more like a Libertarian
#411 - qazzuiop (09/01/2012) [-]
mfw we should vote Saxon.
mfw we should vote Saxon.
User avatar #447 to #411 - daslasher (09/01/2012) [-]
but what if morgan freeman became president.....how would life be
#433 to #411 - heartlessrobot ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Or Saxton.
#364 - archiferd (09/01/2012) [-]
My grandparents just switched from republican to democrat because they like obama. And then they go off on these long republican-beliefs rants.

All because they liked obama.
#414 to #364 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
Maybe...
Well...
lolidunno
User avatar #282 - sphinxe (09/01/2012) [-]
It's a tricky subject. Some people really do need help, and are sometimes incapable of doing it themselves, that they need a helping hand.

And some are just lazy ***** who make me want to slap their **** .
User avatar #356 to #282 - vicedets (09/01/2012) [-]
I know someone who's on welfare, who's capable of working, and is getting $500 a week with government aid. I'm working 30 hours a week, trying to find a second job, and I'm only making 250-300.

Welfare is broken, but even then, this comic was more about people like the 99% crowd who want living wages and universal debt forgiveness.
#294 to #282 - eruptinganus (09/01/2012) [-]
This guy knows what the **** is up.
#309 to #294 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
yeah, 20% of the people want to work, 60% just wants money given to them.
#332 to #309 - JustaPeek (09/01/2012) [-]
20%+60% = 80%
I think forgot to math
User avatar #335 to #309 - starvaggi (09/01/2012) [-]
Do you know how I know you don't know what you're talking about? Your math doesn't even add up.
User avatar #333 to #309 - perronfan (09/01/2012) [-]
over half of all households are on givernment assistance in one form or another
#166 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
Ha, you have two-party system!
(Its funny because it doesn't work in modern age)

'Merica, Y u no reform your system?!
#124 - chooseme (09/01/2012) [-]
and if you look below and most likely above this comment you will see democrats with some underlying mad
#464 - bigbawser (09/01/2012) [-]
Mfw I see the comments on this thread.
Mfw I see the comments on this thread.
#258 - mikemont (09/01/2012) [-]
>mfw people think welfare issues can be reduced to this simple of an explanation
#266 to #258 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
it IS that simple
#287 to #266 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
This is a ****** explanation. It would be better if the man mentioned the fact that he would not employ a homeless person at the end.
User avatar #261 to #258 - Rockaman ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
TBH it is not a bad explanation.
#134 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
It bothers me that there are people who disagree with this. I don't have to much of a problem with charity, but I think that if someone can work, they should. I've heard the argument that people can't get jobs, the truth is that they're not looking hard enough. The job doesn't have to be glamourous, it just needs to bring in money. There's the army, which lets almost anyone in. There are places outside the country offering jobs that pay fairly well, not jobs paid by foreigners, jobs paid by americans.

Tl;dr: You can find a job if you look hard enough.
#144 to #134 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
It's hard to get into the army, you can't have asthma, flat feet, be overweight, do drugs, have much of a criminal record, be a felon and much much more.
User avatar #145 to #144 - YoDawgWeHeard (09/01/2012) [-]
But you can still flip burgers at mcdonalds with all of those.
#150 to #145 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
That's right, I'm glad to see that at least one person understands that.
User avatar #202 to #145 - sailorstarsun (09/01/2012) [-]
But I wonder - and I'm actually asking this as a serious question, not snarky, since I've never been part of a hiring process - if a homeless person/bum walked into McDonald's and filled out an application, what are the chances he'd get hired?
User avatar #660 to #202 - YoDawgWeHeard (09/03/2012) [-]
Good question. After a background check, if nothing he has done (assuming most homeless people have some sort of criminal background) is too serious, there's a good chance a macho company like so would give him the opportunity. They are all always looking for ways to make themselves look better, and what better way to do that than to employ those who have nothing and are willing to work?
#148 to #144 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
I very much doubt the thing about flat feet. Drugs are pretty simple things to avoid. As for the asthma thing, if it's true, it's unfortunate. Very few people however have asthma. There is also the matter of the out of country jobs that I mentioned: jobs in phases like Thule Greenland and ascension. They (the jobs) are owned and paid for by American companies and they tend to be desperate for workers.
Back to the drug thing, no one should feel sorry for people with addictions, they got them by taking various drugs, they knew the risks and chose to do it anyway.
#273 to #148 - solinvictus (09/01/2012) [-]
I couldn't get into the army because of asthma. It really all depends on how bad your asthma is. I'm still on inhalers and prescriptions, so they can't take me. But if you've gone a certain amount of time without having to use an inhaler or having an asthma attack, then its safe. Same thing happened to my grandpa when he tried to join the army during WWII. he actually joined and ended up having an asthma attack during PT, so they kicked him out. So its nothing new.
User avatar #199 to #148 - teoferrazzi (09/01/2012) [-]
you're everything that's wrong with this world
#269 to #144 - femalealert (09/01/2012) [-]
my cousin got in with asthma, a criminal record, and doing drugs. Not hard to get in.
[ 622 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)