this post was submitted on
556 points (59% like it)
1,763 up votes 1,207 down votes
shortlink:

pics

subscribe2,329,774 readers

14,513 users here now

Looking for an image subreddit with minimal rules? Check out /r/images

A place to share interesting photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

Spoiler code

Please mark spoilers like this:
[text here](/spoiler)

Hover over to read.

Rules

  1. No screenshots, or pictures with added or superimposed text. This includes image macros, comics, info-graphics and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt.

  2. No gore or porn. NSFW content must be tagged.

  3. No personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder. Stalking & harassment will not be tolerated.

  4. No solicitation of votes (including "cake day" posts), posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor, or [FIXED] posts. DAE posts go in /r/DoesAnybodyElse. "Fixed" posts should be added as a comment to the original image.

  5. Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to an image hosting website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited.

  • If your submission appears to be filtered but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!

  • If you come across any rule violations, please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!

Please also try to come up with original post titles. Submissions that use certain clichés/memes will be automatically tagged with a warning.

Links

If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

Comics  
/r/comics /r/webcomics
/r/vertical /r/f7u12
/r/ragenovels /r/AdviceAtheists
Image macros Screenshots/text
/r/lolcats /r/screenshots
/r/AdviceAnimals /r/desktops
/r/Demotivational /r/facepalm (Facebook)
/r/reactiongifs /r/DesktopDetective
Wallpaper Animals
/r/wallpaper /r/aww
/r/wallpapers /r/cats
The SFWPorn Network /r/TrollingAnimals
  /r/deadpets
  /r/birdpics
  /r/foxes
Photography Un-moderated pics
/r/photography /r/AnythingGoesPics
/r/photocritique /r/images
/r/HDR
/r/windowshots
/r/PictureChallenge
Misc New reddits
/r/misc /r/britpics
/r/gifs Imaginary Network
/r/dataisbeautiful /r/thennnow
/r/picrequests /r/SpecArt
  /r/LookWhoIMet
  /r/timelinecovers
  /r/MemesIRL
  /r/OldSchoolCool
  /r/photoshopbattles

Also check out http://irc.reddit.com

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

555
556

The 50 Dollar Lesson (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by lanedr

top 200 commentsshow all 329
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]allankcrain 168 points169 points ago

Obvious response: How many times have you offered the homeless guy $50 to come over to your house and do chores for you?

[–]4-bit 228 points229 points ago

Never. I hire illegals to do that for $10.

[–]Technoslave 255 points256 points ago

Welcome to the Republican Party.

[–]Thydamine 17 points18 points ago

Wait... you aren't gay though, right?

[–]old_rebel_yeller 10 points11 points ago

Well, technically it's ok -- just so long as you're willing to vote against the interests of other gay people.

load more comments (2 replies)

    [–]Deftonez 6 points7 points ago

    Good on ya Jim!

    [–]adidasman100 10 points11 points ago

    pshh.. $9.25. Hell, I COULD do that if I WANTED. This is basically a charity me giving you 2 dollars more than minimum wage.

    amirite?

    [–]IsABot 2 points3 points ago

    You are over paying.

    /s

    [–]12etcetera 53 points54 points ago

    I was talking to a friend's little boy who mows my lawn. I was telling him that I found someone else to mow my lawn.

    "What do you mean?" he started tearing up. "Haven't I done a good job?". "It's not that" I said. "I pay you $20 to mow my lawn and I found a mexican guy who will do it for $10. Sorry, it's market forces at work". "I thought you hated illegal immmigrants?" the boy said. "I do" I replied "but business is business". The boy paused and thought for a moment. "So even though we don't like illegal immigrants we can still hire them? All this time I could have just outsourced it to this guy and made $10 a week for doing nothing while still hating his guts?"

    And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party"

    [–]PKM135 22 points23 points ago

    A friend of mine who owns a photography business that does exclusively location photography does this very thing all of the time. On several occasions I have assisted him with large shoots and have seen him stop and offer to pay between $50 and $100 for a few hours to a half day of work hauling equipment, to someone begging at an intersection or off ramp. Every time I have witnessed this, the person begging has refused the offer. According to my friend in the 20+ years he has been doing this only 1 person has accepted the offer.

    [–]gingergenes 58 points59 points ago

    To be fair, if I was on the street and I got this offer, my first impression would be "this guys a serial killer"

    [–]rybones 16 points17 points ago

    "I need a hunting guide on my private island, you'll do nicely."

    [–]jmls10thfloor 35 points36 points ago

    Thats because people begging on the street are for the most part panhandlers who probably make more money than that by doing nothing.

    [–]Ticodude 13 points14 points ago

    Also many have schizophrenia or other mental health problems and may not have the social skills to perform a job, which is why they are begging.

    [–]Ralt 5 points6 points ago

    To be honest, it's much more likely that they are a drug addict. I never met a single person in my life who would be willing to go around begging for money in parking lots and off the highway until I met heroin addicts. Don't get me wrong, heroin, mental instability, and homelessness share a lot of space on the Venn diagram of life, but if I see someone holding a sign, I just go "Junkie" in my head. Most I'll give them is a cigarette.

    Credentials: I was a Junkie.

    [–]DutchPrisoner 7 points8 points ago

    The sad thing is that those people generally make pretty good money just standing out begging. They're probably making the most rational choice when they turn down the work for money.

    [–]elementalist467 5 points6 points ago

    Not only that, it is tax free cash. There are plenty of people who go out and beg who have other income.

    [–]old_rebel_yeller 1 point2 points ago

    I have this same issue. Sometimes I stop and tell people if they want to make some money just get in my van, cause I'm going to do this remote shoot. People are so stupid and lazy though, they never do.

    [–]slapded 3 points4 points ago

    I know a family in utah that did.

    load more comments (1 reply)

      [–]glasseskindagirl 157 points158 points ago

      If only politics were that simple...

      [–]lanedr[S] 13 points14 points ago

      Agreed

      load more comments (13 replies)

        [–]Ody0genesO 104 points105 points ago

        Little girl is actually a chair

        [–]elasticbingbong 12 points13 points ago

        But the chair's parents were still pissed.

        [–]Ody0genesO 17 points18 points ago

        Probably lazy boys, being liberal and all.

        [–]Dyolf_Knip 0 points1 point ago

        Directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

        [–]Jonesty 259 points260 points ago

        RE: RE: FWD: RE: Re: FWD: Liberal Parents... LOL!!!1

        [–]CRSPHC 32 points33 points ago

        /r/forwardsfromgrandma

        [–]blacksunseven 4 points5 points ago

        how is it that i've seen this sub referenced twice today when it was previously unbeknownst to me?!

        [–]CRSPHC 4 points5 points ago

        It flairs up from time to time. Like herpes.

        [–]Snapples 0 points1 point ago

        flares*

        [–]Mr_Streetlamp 1 point2 points ago

        No, flair. Needs sixteen pieces of it, at least. Duh

        [–]lanedr[S] 0 points1 point ago

        We reallllly want you to express yourself. Don't you want to express yourself?

        load more comments (1 reply)

          [–]Eckus 82 points83 points ago

          Could you please post this in a lower resolution? I was able to read most of it.

          [–]strippy 71 points72 points ago

          Fixed.

          [–]VoiceOfWisdom 25 points26 points ago

          I can still read the title, could you pixelate it more?

          [–]strippy 42 points43 points ago

          Sorry bout that. Fixed.

          [–]VoiceOfWisdom 29 points30 points ago

          Much better. You are a Photoshop god.

          [–]Rangoris 59 points60 points ago

          http://i.imgur.com/7yIU6.png

          [–]UncleJesticle 4 points5 points ago

          Wow, that looks like a 4chan screen shot.

          [–]MetalHeel 1 point2 points ago

          You guys can have all of my upvotes.

          [–]P3ngu1n48 5 points6 points ago

          I can still tell that there are letters behind all that blur.

          [–]strippy 4 points5 points ago

          Sorry bout that. Not sure what's gotten into me today! Fixed.

          [–]beadsarenotcheap 4 points5 points ago

          Enhance!

          [–]Handyland[!] 8 points9 points ago

          http://imgur.com/iWapx

          [–]W4ff1e 1 point2 points ago

          Got 'em!

          [–]aforu 162 points163 points ago

          It's funny because poor people are all lazy and don't want to work because of the free ride they get with food stamps. Am I right, Republicans?!

          [–]Deftonez 58 points59 points ago

          YER GERDAMNED RIGHT SKEETER!!!! 'MERICA!

          [–]Hurm 23 points24 points ago

          If only there was a way to use screaming bald eagles instead of exclamation points.

          [–]Deftonez 51 points52 points ago

                                    /
           \             / /
            \\\' ,      / //
             \\\//,   _/ //,
              \_-//' /  //<,
                \ ///  >  \\\`__/_
                /,)-^>> _\` \\\
                (/   \\ //\\
                    // _//\\\\
                  ((` ((

          [–]AhhhClem 2 points3 points ago

          alt.ascii-art

          [–]chrosCHRINIC 0 points1 point ago

          i upvoted your name.......the eagle's pretty cool, too.

          [–]Deftonez 0 points1 point ago

          *nod*

          [–]bockh 40 points41 points ago

          Seriously, though, I've met some lazy-ass poor people.

          [–]aforu 47 points48 points ago

          No doubt. But there are people trying to game the system at every level. Poor people have no monopoly on that. And honestly, which hurts you more, the 'welfare queen' taking a hundred every month, or Goldman Sachs taking billions?

          [–]bockh 20 points21 points ago

          Oh, Goldman Sachs, and all the big banks, are causing huge problems. But, living in Philadelphia, I can tell you that there are some unbelievably lazy poor people.

          [–]arsewhisperer 12 points13 points ago

          Dude(tte), have you ever been to a place of employment? Everyone is lazy.

          Most people will barely do the minimum to stay employed, and enough employers are okay with it that the only division between success and homelessness is the departmental budget.

          Now get the fuck off Reddit, people! The boss is coming!

          [–]citizensnipz 0 points1 point ago

          Meh, I work in a pretty lively place. I think you're thinking of the State dept. office.

          load more comments (1 reply)

            [–]Twonix 21 points22 points ago

            and I myself have met some ridiculously lazy rich people. You just don't see them much.... at least until they make it to congress.

            [–]bockh -1 points0 points ago

            I rarely count "daddy's money rich" as actually rich, cause they usually do what rich people are supposed to do, reinvigorating the economy. Well, the luxury lapdog economy.

            [–]mrkurtz 10 points11 points ago

            cause they usually do what rich people are supposed to do, reinvigorating the economy.

            ha, wow.

            [–]thepwnguin 3 points4 points ago

            Well, the luxury lapdog economy.

            load more comments (1 reply)

              load more comments (2 replies)

                [–]_mach 9 points10 points ago

                yeah, and I've never ever ever met a lazy rich person.

                [–]pseud0nym 0 points1 point ago

                The laziest poor person that I have met can't hold a candle to the throngs of lazy wealthy people I know. In general, the more money you make, the less hard you work. The people at the top work the least and make the most while those at the bottom work the most and get paid the least. This idea that being wealthy is the natural reward of hard work is completely and utter bullshit.

                [–]Fronesis 7 points8 points ago

                This idea that being wealthy is the natural reward of hard work is completely and utter bullshit.

                Right. We liberals don't think that wealth shouldn't be a reward for hard work, we just think that's not already how our economy works.

                [–]pseud0nym 0 points1 point ago

                in an ideal world, wealth would be the reward for hard work, but the reality is it isn't. Compare two hard working people, one poor and one not both with the same education. You will find the defining difference between the two to be nothing other than luck and opportunity. Hard work is not a defining characteristic of either group.

                [–]cainunable 0 points1 point ago

                This is definitely true to a point. So getting ahead in life is not a single generational thing. Sure, you could go from poor to wealthy in just your lifetime through hard work, but it is more likely that the class change (if it does occur) would happen of a few generations of hard work.

                If you work hard to do what is best for your children, and they do the same for their children, if your grandchildren continue on with a strong work ethic there is a huge chance they will have climbed a couple rungs of the financial ladder.

                Obviously, luck (good or bad) can affect this as well.

                [–]pseud0nym 0 points1 point ago

                That used to be far more true than it is now. The US now has the lowest upward social mobility out of all western countries. If you want to pull yourself or your family out of poverty, you are better off in Canada or the UK.

                [–]brianw824 9 points10 points ago

                I would probably say the opposite is true from what I've observed.One of my friends works full time doing graveyard shifts at a gas station making about minimum wage. He works graveyards for the explicit reason that he doesn't have to do any work and he can just sit around on his phone all night. Another friend of mine graduated high school and has done lterally nothing else with his life in the past 6 years, no school, no work, no volunteering, just dicks around on the internet all day. He will be the first one to tell you about how un-fair capitalism is. My dad on the other hand who is doing very well for himself spent most of my childhood living out of hotel rooms and working 90hr weeks to make a living for his family.

                It's more about working smarter than harder. You are rewarded for your ability to provide useful services to society. Working as a waiter is simply not that important or all that useful in the grand scheme of things, especially when compared to doing something important like designing micro-processors.

                [–]hypnobean 4 points5 points ago

                The most important people to our civilization and our economy are farmers. They are not the most well compensated. I think your view of how the world works is shockingly naive. Electrical engineers are well paid professionals in many cases - particularly the ones who actually do design micro-processors - but the people who are in fact most well compensated are essentially middle-men who play with pieces of paper. You can argue until you're red in the face that what they do is utterly important and essential and no one else could do it, but the fact remains that the more these people skim off the top and play with their pieces of paper (or now, its all electronic, but the euphemism works all the same), the more likely it is that the entire system collapses.

                The person who owns a stack of paper that says he is entitled to the value produced by tens of thousands of people who actually work every day is in no meaningful way more important than those people who actually work.

                Of course, these perspectives that are informed by two or three personal encounters lack any sort of meaning whatsoever. I have met rich people who work hard, and rich people who are lazy and privileged. I have met poor people who are lazy, and poor people who work harder than I ever have and remain poor. Perhaps it is a reality of life and not capitalism (and perhaps not), but luck plays a major role here. A role that people who value these myths of rugged individualism and economic self-determination utterly reject.

                [–]paket 2 points3 points ago

                ... the people who are in fact most well compensated are essentially middle-men who play with pieces of paper. You can argue until you're red in the face that what they do is utterly important and essential and no one else could do it...

                The people who voluntarily pay those middle-men must think their work is valuable. Why else would they pay them? Whether or not you see the value is immaterial.

                but luck plays a major role here

                Not nearly as much as making smart life decisions, working smart, working hard and persistence. Some call that "luck".

                [–]hypnobean 0 points1 point ago

                An alternative way to look at it is that people don't "think their work is valuable" as much as they exist in an economy that has rules, the rules have been written and the institutions built over time by people who had a stake in the outcomes of the decisions. And look, I'm not talking about accountants or business managers, I'm talking about bankers, shareholders, investment managers. I get that there is a "conventional wisdom" about what these guys do, but I also see in reality that the more they do, the more they skim off the top of the honest labor that actually produces what we call wealth, etc., the more likely it is that everything shuts down. I also see that there are alternative business models that function fine without them, or at least without them skimming literally billions off the top.

                My point here is in response to this naive idea that the most "important" things are valued the highest. It's simply nonsense. What is valued the highest is the manipulation of the corporate system from the inside, not the actual labor that produces food, clothing, and so on. The people who do that work are often not compensated well despite the fact that it is unappealing, difficult work that requires a lot of perseverance, and a lot of discipline to do well. Perhaps instead of viewing the world through this naive lens, we should instead grasp that the world is no different than it was five hundred or a thousand years ago at the core of social relations - institutions are built and change over time, they set the rules for prevailing social conduct. Ideologies are developed over time to reinforce the interests of the powerful. This is a view that requires more history and less economics 101, though I think that only makes for a healthier mind in general.

                [–]brianw824 0 points1 point ago

                I believe you would have a hard time finding any business that operated well without any "paper pushers". Accounting, marketing, management, operations are rather important roles in any company. If any individual company were to fill their ranks with "paper pushers" then you are right they would collapse, but typically most companies try to avoid that.

                Again I'm not simply trying to say that all those who are poor are lazy, and those who are rich work hard. I will say though that is an obvious contributing factor in your level of success. The second factor is how highly society values your services/skills at any given time. Now that is not to say that society is perfect, fair or even practical in making these valuations. These valuations change every minuet of every day of how much any given product/skill/resource is worth. I will say that I believe that if you work hard in an area that is valued highly by society you will do well, perhaps you will not be a millionaire but you should at least be able to live reasonably.

                [–]hypnobean 0 points1 point ago

                I'm talking less about professionals and more about financiers, investment managers, stockholders, etc. That's not to say the job that financiers do is worthless, but the share of the value created in the economic process is absurd, as is the political clout they hold. In the last few hundred years, Britain and the United States in particular have developed specific, history rules governing how finance operates, the "rights" (but not "responsibilities") of shareholders, the rules governing investment companies, and so on. These are written by men, often men who had a specific stake in the outcome of the rulemaking process, and often, therefore, men who benefited from writing the rules a specific way.

                Markets do certainly play a role, sure, but they do not place value on anything. They are generally driven - at least by commonly held wisdom - by profit seeking. So markets may approve of paying one person hundreds of millions of dollars if that person is willing to reduce wages on a group of twenty thousand laborers by, in the aggregate, 10x that. There is no operation of "society valuing certain labor over other" there, but markets - driven by big institutions, big banks and investors - compelling an internal change on a particular industry only to increase profit. That may also be achieved through simply firing a few thousand people as well, even when the company is profitable.

                load more comments (1 reply)

                  [–]pseud0nym 0 points1 point ago

                  So, because one of your friends is lazy, that means that everyone working that job is ALSO lazy? And just because your Dad works hard, it means that anyone like your Dad must ALSO work hard?

                  That is some rather bad logic there dude. It is called an informal fallacy and is, by definition, incorrect.

                  [–]brianw824 0 points1 point ago

                  thats not at all what I said. In my experience many of the people I know that are poor, are poor because of their own dooing. Most of these people have opprotunites that they choose not to undertake that would improve their work situation, things like getting a GED or high school diploma. That's not to say that all poor people are lazy or all rich people are hard working. But I would say that for most people there will be a coorelation between how much effort they put in and how well they do in life. Not a 100% correlation mind you, but a coorelation. Obviously there are people who are born wealthy and do nothing to earn it, but I tend to think they are in the minority. something like 90% of millionares are people who were not born wealthy, but rather accumulated that wealth over their lifetime.

                  [–]pseud0nym 0 points1 point ago

                  Perhaps you should read this and then revise what you are saying:

                  http://moneyland.time.com/2012/01/05/the-loss-of-upward-mobility-in-the-u-s/

                  I think you need to revise your facts. You have been taking in some heavy doses of propaganda if you think 90% of millionaires are people were not born wealthy. You would actually have to be wilfully blind to reality to believe that.

                  I am less and less surprised every day that the GoP can get away with bald faced lies and slander. It seems that some Americans will buy just about any line as long as it "feels" right.

                  [–]brianw824 0 points1 point ago

                  This dosen't disprove what I said previously. It says no-where in that article anything to contridict that stat. Nor dose it say that there is no economic mobility and it is impossible to achieve anything regardless of what you do. I hate this idea that everyone seems to think that the system is rigged and you can't achieve anything or make any money unless you were born rich.

                  http://news.discovery.com/human/millionaires-120722.html "The study by Fidelity Investments found that 86 percent of today's millionaires are self made" Ok I was 4% off, maybe its only 86%

                  I will agree that

                  [–]pseud0nym 0 points1 point ago

                  You need to actually read the study. here is what it actually said:

                  1. Path to Wealth
                    Eighty-six percent of today’s millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy growing up (“self-made”), while only 14 percent said they grew up wealthy (“born-wealthy”).

                  Most of those in the 1% would NOT class them selves as wealthy, or rich despite being so. Your stat is about their own opinions of themselves and has nothing to do with fact.

                  Very misleading study over all.

                  [–]brianw824 0 points1 point ago

                  Here is another one then. http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

                  Can you find anything that says the opposite?

                  [–]SnOrfys 2 points3 points ago

                  This idea that being wealthy is the natural reward of hard work is completely and utter bullshit.

                  Certainly is, but don't confuse hard work with smart work. Most of the wealthy people I've met that look lazy are, in fact, brilliant.

                  [–]pseud0nym -1 points0 points ago

                  Most of the wealthy people I have met who look lazy are actually far lazier than they look. Hate to break it to you, but I grew up and am part of that mythical 1%. In general, rich people are just as stupid and lazy as everyone else. What sets them apart is luck and opportunity and very little else.

                  [–]isubird33 1 point2 points ago

                  Wealth in theory is based on the scarcity of the work, not how hard it is.

                  [–]pseud0nym -1 points0 points ago

                  One would think that. But it would be ignoring the last 30 years of wealth transfer from youth to baby boomers and from the middle class to the rich. Pretty much ALL wealth gains due to increasing worker productivity (IE: the non-rich working harder) have gone towards the upper 1% of earners in the last 30 or more years. That has nothing to do with "Scarcity of work" but rather has to do with diverting profits from those who do the work to earn them, into the pockets of those who rely on investment income rather than actually working for their living.

                  load more comments (2 replies)

                    [–]Ozwaldo 7 points8 points ago

                    seems surprisingly accurate

                    [–]theDudeRules 1 point2 points ago

                    I see this over and over again with my shitty relatives. They all get some sort of money from uncle Sam, and they belittle me for working and not taking advantage of free stuff.

                    The shittier of my relatives has a free home and buys toys like 4 wheelers and kayaks. He is almost 30, and prefers retirement (he calls it) rather than working.

                    So, Yes they are lazy and want a free ride.

                    [–]erchamion 20 points21 points ago

                    "They" are not lazy. Your shitty relatives are lazy. The majority of poor, unemployed people would rather be working than living in shit hole houses in awful neighborhoods.

                    [–]nathanrice 8 points9 points ago

                    The majority of poor, unemployed people would rather be working than living in shit hole houses in awful neighborhoods.

                    I don't mean to go all anecdotal on you, my experience has been the exact opposite.

                    I'm not going to use the word lazy. Sometimes it's appropriate, but it's a charged word, and it really doesn't do a good job of explaining the psychology of things like generational welfare, and middle class entitlement.

                    Talk to people who know nothing but poverty, and their aspirations are alarmingly low. What aspirations they do have are either unreasonable (movie star, sports star, recording artist, etc.) or ridiculously low (shift manager at McDonalds).

                    Honestly, I can't explain it. It's this weird, depressed outlook on what success looks like, and it rarely includes getting off public assistance.

                    Then there are the recently poor. People who lost their jobs in the recession, unemployed for 2 years, looking for jobs.

                    I'm not making this up, one of my good friends told me his dad has been offered full time work, but because it's "only a little more than my unemployment", he's holding out for the kind of job he lost.

                    I thought this had to be an exception ... nope. I've heard similar similar stories from two more friends recently. This is the middle class entitlement I mentioned above. It's not really laziness, it's practicality. It's an unwillingness to do THAT job, because its beneath them.

                    I just don't see your "majority of poor would rather be working" argument being true in real life. Most of the very poor I've had contact with in my life are perfectly content where they are. At least, content enough to not do very much to change it. Of course, I live in the south. Maybe it's different where you live.

                    [–]GCS_3 1 point2 points ago

                    Think of it this way, you may not have known that you met someone living below the poverty line. Also, it's hard to see a noticeable percentage of those people.

                    In 2008, there were 39.8 million people living below the poverty line. If you met one person per day for 85 years that would be 31,025 or .0785% of them. Since you're probably not 85, chances are you either haven't met one of them yet or you didn't realize you did.

                    [–]nathanrice -1 points0 points ago

                    I won't go into details, but you're wrong. My wife especially, since her last job put her in contact with sub-poverty individuals almost daily.

                    The majority of poor, unemployed people would rather be working than living in shit hole houses in awful neighborhoods.

                    This is the statement that I take issue with the most, from the comment I was replying to initially. Such conjecture. As middle classers, we assume that no one would ever, EVER want to live on foodstamps and public housing, and would therefore be beating a path to get out of that situation. If it were us, that might be true. But when it's all you've ever known, it evidently doesn't seem that bad.

                    [–]GCS_3 0 points1 point ago

                    I was just pointing out that anecdotal evidence is a poor basis for your conclusions. Furthermore you're making just as many assumptions that you think are valid because you have "experience." Here's some educational reading on some of the major myths of poverty that I think you'd benefit from.

                    [–]nathanrice -1 points0 points ago

                    Anecdotal evidence is a poor basis for any conclusion, yes. And I didn't mean to indicate that my experience is sufficient to draw any conclusions of a general nature.

                    Here's some educational reading on some of the major myths of poverty that I think you'd benefit from.

                    One of the biggest problems I have with research like this is that it takes what is already a disadvantage, poverty itself, and punctuates it with the further disadvantage of victimhood. It is particularly egregious to suggest that if one is poor, his own action or inaction is not, in any significant sense, the source of his poverty.

                    The implication of this reasoning is that you, as a poor person, cannot do much, if anything at all, to achieve prosperity. Someone else must rescue you from your dire circumstances.

                    As someone who has belonged to nearly every income class, such a suggestion would have been severely depressing when I entered the labor force.

                    [–]jas1290 16 points17 points ago

                    that homeless man's name?

                    [–]Mordecai_Fluke[!] 27 points28 points ago

                    Einstein.

                    [–]Killfile 24 points25 points ago

                    Joseph Einstein (no relation). He was a shift supervisor for a chemical products company before he lost most of his retirement savings in the dot-com crash and was bankrupted by his wife's chemotherapy bills. Too proud to ask his kids for help, he makes excuses for not visiting them and sleeps in the park.

                    load more comments (4 replies)

                      [–]bheklilr 3 points4 points ago

                      If only there were thousands jobs to be had, and the jobless were in close proximity to all of these jobs, and by some miracle they were all qualified to do skilled labor because the higher education system in this country wasn't prohibitively overpriced to people with low incomes, and yet still effective at educating students.

                      [–]handsNfeetRmangos 14 points15 points ago

                      /r/politics is that way.

                      [–]Spiralyst 14 points15 points ago

                      This kind of thinking is why we have 3 times as many vacant/foreclosed properties in this country than we do homeless people. Fuck those street people. They didn't earn anything. Let 'em starve.

                      Perhaps if rights to shelter and food were inalienable, we wouldn't care if the homeless earned their keep. Last time I checked, nobody living on this planet volunteered to be born in to this place. Perhaps we can all stop pretending like everyone on planet Earth got hired for a job here and has to pay some sort of dues to survive.

                      Our species should be moving towards a place where we judge ourselves on how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. This...joke(?)....seems to completely negate all of the factors that go in to people becoming homeless , especially the aspects of mental illness and lack of familial support. It just neatly sums it up (a popular Republican theme) that each and every homeless person is there merely because their lazy and lack ambition.

                      Kind of one-dimensional, don't you think?

                      [–]bockh 1 point2 points ago

                      Really, the "homeless" problem is one-dimensional as well. Most of the people you see begging for money on the sidewalk in major cities are actually not even homeless. In Philadelphia, you can't take furniture into your house without someone wandering in from the street pretending to require money or food and not leaving unless forced. This happened to me yesterday, and when I refused the guy, he said "I'm not scared of you." The reason I'm trying to quit smoking isn't because it is bad for me, but because I can't even smoke outside without four or five people asking me if I have an extra and then asking for a short if I tell them to leave. These people have brand new hundred dollar shoes on, clothes with no stains or holes, they are not homeless. I had little kids run up to me on the street last week and ask for me to donate to the "poor little kids fund" then start screaming at me when I didn't give them any money. Their mother was there, she did nothing. Several days before that, a group of middle school aged girls ran up to me and started singing, then got bitchy and screamed when I didn't pay them for their performance, so they pelted random cars with rocks, thinking I owned them. Last year massive groups of random intercity kids would form in the rich centers of the city and essentially steal everything from restaurants. This became so bad that a curfew was put in effect. None of the people who begged at me or did these things even needed money to survive. This is why I cannot support giving tax breaks or free health care to the poor. If they were deserving, I may have to reevaluate, but from what I have seen, there is much more bad than good and being well-off enough to survive has not made these people less likely to beg from me.

                      /tirade

                      Bonus, a news story from about a year ago regarding a murder of a white girl by three black teenagers who lived off of an intercity college campus (read: poor). They shot her in the head from a second story building while she was walking on the street. When imprisoned and asked why they did it, the response was that they wanted to see if they could hit her.

                      [–]Spiralyst 1 point2 points ago

                      I'm not sure I know what to respond to. It seems like you've taken some negative experiences with homeless people or panhandlers and surmised that each and every person on the street acts this way. I still don't think this is an accurate representation of the issue. I'm not saying in my previous post that all homeless people are just misplaced angels, but to seriously consider that for every person you see begging you for change or trying to rip you off, there's many more who you don't see/hear because they aren't actively attempting to swindle you.

                      The comment about the poor black kids killing a white girl is kind of besides the point as 1) they aren't homeless and 2) aren't representatives for an entire group of people. Some bankers steal, some police officers beat their spouses, some priests molest children...but it's not accurate to say that just because a some stories of abuse are valid that the entire group is at fault or just worthy of our prejudices.

                      I'm not saying that there aren't complete pieces of shit walking around on the streets. Some of them actively choose to live this sort of lifestyle. But many more do not and their image in our society is further marginalized when we just predict that because they are homeless they are somehow sub-human and we shouldn't waste our efforts on them due to the fact that last year this one guy threw a rock at my car because I didn't give him a dollar.

                      I am sorry, however, that these circumstances happened to you. It's easy to see why lots of people, especially in Philadelphia and New York and other major urban areas have prejudices against the homeless because there are so many homeless that your chances of encountering someone who, perhaps due to their abusive/neglected upbringing or mental instability, may lack for some of the social graces that we come to expect. I live in a major urban area, as well, and have had my moments of frustration with people on the streets...but I have to keep bringing myself back to the reflection that these people's living circumstances and history is probably much, much different than my own and plays a significant role in their current character. If I stop trying to understand this then I run the risk of not caring.

                      [–]bockh 2 points3 points ago

                      Yeah, the bonus wasn't in the argument because it was besides the point. I was just describing how messed up the city is.

                      My point is that most of the people who would receive benefits from system changes are not actually homeless. The actual homeless people don't do stuff like that in the city, it is the entitled fucks who think you should give them stuff because they were brazen enough to bother you. This is not caused by them being poor, as they are not actually needing, but most likely by a zero accountability culture in the area. Most actual homeless people I've met in the city are legitimately crazy, which is actually why they are homeless. They are runaways from shelters or families and not people who have fallen on hard times. The reason dealing with them is so difficult is because they mostly refuse real help or require professional psychiatric treatment.

                      [–]fitzydog 0 points1 point ago

                      Have you ever been to Portland? Probably 75-80% of the homeless people you see (Which is a LOT; practically every street corner, and under bridges), are 'vagabonds' choosing to panhandle. It's a easy lifestyle to live off of for them. I see a lot of them with iPads, smart phones, a dog or two, tents, sleeping bags, etc

                      [–]niko2000 0 points1 point ago

                      Hey, its capitalism right?

                      [–]fitzydog 0 points1 point ago

                      I.... I don't know how to answer this.

                      [–]Lots42 0 points1 point ago

                      I care. This is why I donate to a reputable homeless shelter.

                      [–]Spiralyst 0 points1 point ago

                      =D <3

                      [–]citizensnipz 0 points1 point ago

                      Do you even live in a city? Shit like this happens all the time, in every major city

                      [–]Spiralyst 0 points1 point ago

                      I do. I live in Atlanta.

                      [–]gloomdoom 66 points67 points ago

                      Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.

                      During our friendly conversation, I asked their 12 year old daughter what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President someday.

                      Both of her parents – raging right wing Republicans – were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

                      She replied, “I’d take all of the wealth I could squeeze out of the poor and middle class and give it to the ultra wealthy!” Her parents beamed with pride!

                      “Wow…what a worthy goal!” I said. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that!” I told her.

                      “What do you mean?” she replied. So I told her, “You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I’ll pay you $14.50. Why $14.50 instead of $50? Because I can hire illegal immigrants to do it for $10 if I wanted to. Anyone can do yard work and I'll expect it done in under 2 hours. Minimum wage x 2 hour = $14.50. Then I'll tax that money at the same rate billionaires are taxed and you'll end up with about $11.60. And that extra $1.60 allows me to justify hiring you rather than an illegal immigrant and I'll sent that extra $2.90 in taxes so we can pay for all of the wars we're going to start! And until we can figure out a process to send my lawn over to China and have those people do it, that's what I'll have to pay you instead of the $2.00 I would pay to have them do it. But we're working on that technology right now and your tax dollars are going to help pay for that!"

                      She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why in the fuck would I even want to work when you're not even offering me a wage that I can live on, even as a 12-year-old? I'd rather demand a higher wage, do a better job on your lawn and not pay for wars.”

                      I said, “Welcome to the Democrat Party.”

                      Her parents aren’t speaking to me.

                      [–]BillDino 7 points8 points ago

                      It was perfect until "not pay for wars." Democrats fund wars as much as Republicans, you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise

                      [–]evilawesome 30 points31 points ago

                      close:

                      I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President someday. Both of her parents – conservative Republicans – were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

                      She replied, “I'd remove all laws and regulations so people could be free!” Her parents beamed with pride!

                      “Wow…what a worthy goal!” I said. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that! You can come over to my house today and do yard work, but you have to have to do it for less money than any other child in the neighborhood, you have to use the cheapest equipment even if it's really dangerous, and if you get hurt or sick during the process then it's your fault and not my problem."

                      She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why is it fair for me to do all the work and take all the risk but then you to keep all the money?"

                      I said, “Welcome to the Democratic Party.”

                      Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.

                      [–]Dracomister7 52 points53 points ago

                      A little closer but:

                      I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be president of the united states. Both of her parents - conservative republicans - sere standing there, so I asked her, "If you were president, what would be the first thing you would do?"

                      She thought for a moment then replied, "I'd make my birthday a national holiday and everyone gets free ice cream." I said that's nice and carried on with my day. There were no extensive ramifications.

                      [–]Always_Complainin 15 points16 points ago

                      I didn't recently ask my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up because I had to get home to do some yard work I'd been putting off.

                      [–]coolcool23 45 points46 points ago

                      That was trying too hard, and written in anger.

                      [–]ephyoosecay 4 points5 points ago

                      at least someone said it.

                      [–]DutchPrisoner 2 points3 points ago

                      Maybe not perfect, but overall a nice effort.

                      [–]desertrat 1 point2 points ago

                      I agree. Try this instead: A republican woman will never be president. Have a nice day.

                      [–]CodeRedFox 2 points3 points ago

                      Thank you for providing an excellent come back when this crap shows up on our facebook feeds in about a week.

                      [–][deleted] ago

                      [deleted]

                      [–]bockh 18 points19 points ago

                      Well, this is biased and completely ignorant.

                      edit: The above deleted comment essentially said that anyone who is a Republican is so because they are mentally retarded.

                      [–]xhephaestusx 13 points14 points ago

                      GGbockh:
                      sees the comment he replied to was delorted

                      summarizes comment for the rest of us

                      [–]joshuad80 1 point2 points ago

                      Delorted. I like that. It's like a time traveling delete.

                      [–]xhephaestusx 1 point2 points ago

                      It's a Strongbad delete!

                      [–]Barzano 3 points4 points ago

                      Well shit, I'm republican... but I have the common sense to see a theiving crazy mormon when I see one.

                      Which is what kind of upsets me, we were supposed to be the "whatever it takes, by the numbers, who cares about the plight of the people" party. Now we're a bunch of ignorant theists who inherited the most powerful country in the world, and then getting fucked like Paris Hilton while the whole world watches.

                      No one is more upset with republicans than republicans

                      [–]randomrealitycheck 1 point2 points ago

                      I'm old enough to remember a Republican Party that I could not only respect but support. I can't say that I agreed with everything Barry Goldwater said but I do believe he would have made a better president than any of the Republicans who were subsequently elected to the office. I honestly believe that Dwight David Eisenhower to be one of our most underrated presidents and possibly one of the very best we ever had.

                      What happened to the party of Eisenhower? What happened to the Bill Buckley conservatives? How the hell did a respectable party turn into the incredible disaster that is has become today.

                      What this country needs is an effective opposition party, not some sort of hate-fueled propaganda machine hell bent on raping our country's prosperity.

                      Please, I'm begging you, vote in this election but do so to send a message to these people who have stolen and perverted what used to be a party with vision. Hatred has no place in a political platform and vision is so rare nowadays that we need a refresher course in what a leader with true vision would actually sound like.

                      [–]Barzano 0 points1 point ago

                      Your comment deserves more upvotes than I can give, this is exactly why I still tell people I am a Republican, because I'm not going to let shitty politicians dictate my party. Thank you for the eloquent comment, I'm definitely voting this election. I still need to do more research on whether it's going to be Gary Johnson or Obama

                      [–]randomrealitycheck 1 point2 points ago

                      I'm deeply grateful that my comment was understood in context as I was afraid it would be seen as a partisan attack.

                      I live in a state that will undoubtedly go to Obama - so I feel that I can safely vote third party, as I did in the last election. This is a luxury that many others cannot enjoy and if they instead choose to vote third party and the candidate they really do not want gets elected, they should feel guilty, to a minimal extent.

                      Let me amplify on the statements I made previously, as I feel it is important. I will be voting against the Republicans who are seeking reelection for Congress in my state because I believe that the only way for the Republican party to behead (not literally, of course) their leadership is for a catastrophic loss, I mean epic.

                      Among the many steps taken during this migration from sanity to stupidity was after the 2008 election when the cries for "move farther to the right" and "the reason why we lost was because we weren't conservative enough" is a need to show the leadership that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do not speak for all conservatives nor do they have the power with their listeners that they claim to have.

                      I should point out that one of the Republicans I will be voting against has an excellent challenger this time around and was swept into office during the "Contract with America" promising to serve only one term. That would make his time in office some 18 years.

                      [–]Barzano 0 points1 point ago

                      But see, I consider myself a conservative republican. It just seems to me that there are keywords that supporters of the party seem to be forgetting, like the difference between socialism and communism (IE, France vs North Korea) and the difference between theocrat and republican.

                      I've always argued for very changes only because it doesn't make sense on a federal level to manage. Abortion? Gay marriage? There are wars going on in the middle east, actions in the horn of Africa that are injuring soldiers more than the ones being injured in Afghanistan and an economy that can no longer support us in any way shape or form.

                      It's terrible, but I'll never be partisan about anything. I became a republican because at one point they were in line with what I believe, but not vice versa.

                      Also, if you ever find that I attack you for something you said, I was just being a moron at the time and didn't get it. I do try and be patient with people on reddit though, there are some brilliant minds here

                      [–]randomrealitycheck 1 point2 points ago

                      You bring up some excellent points and do a very good job of delineating what you believe in from the rhetoric.

                      I would suggest that it will be people like ourselves, people who are willing to look at what we believe should be done, find the necessary compromises where this needs to occur, and work together to put this country right. The reasons why this divisiveness was introduced escapes me but I can assume that it was part of a divide and conquer strategy.

                      I first registered to vote in 1973 and did so as unaffiliated at that time. Mind you, I was from a decidedly Democratic family and this pissed them all off to no end. When they asked, I said point blank, "How can I pretend to support a party that doesn't represent me?"

                      Since that time, I would be somewhat dishonest if I didn't admit to voting for more Democrats than Republicans but in every case, I voted for the candidate that I felt best represented my views. When I lived in Massachusetts, I supported and voted for Bill Weld and would have liked to see him run for president. Later, I supported John McCain in 2000 but after seeing how he handled his campaign in 2008, I am glad he lost.

                      In closing, no, I don't think I have ever run across you being ill-tempered in any discussion to date but would ask that you grant me the same leeway as sometimes I do lose my patience here. Let me also say that I do agree with you, there are some brilliant people who participate on Reddit and this is one thing I have grown to love about this site since I joined a little over a year ago. I wish I had joined sooner.

                      [–]Nociceptors 0 points1 point ago

                      In a perfect world. Unfortunately this is the hand we've been dealt.

                      [–]isubird33 0 points1 point ago

                      Because if she doesn't do it thats 11.60 she doesn't have. If someone can do it for an equal quality for less pay....then why overpay?

                      [–]MarleyandtheWhalers 1 point2 points ago

                      You think you turned this around, but it's actually just illogical.

                      load more comments (38 replies)

                        [–]fotorobot 10 points11 points ago

                        ... so why didn't he just hire the homeless guy to begin with? He clearly has a job that needs doing and funds to pay for it. He doesn't even think about it until he gets into an argument with a 12 year-old girl.

                        This "job creator" isn't creating very many jobs...

                        [–]Lots42 3 points4 points ago

                        Last time I hired a homeless man he turned insane and I had to call the cops.

                        Anectodes are evidence!

                        But seriously, cops were called.

                        [–]fotorobot 0 points1 point ago

                        a lot of them are insane.

                        Mental illness is not covered by insurance very well and a lot of it goes untreated, especially for poor people. Inability to cope with reality does not bode well for job prospects, so it is easy to go unemployed and then homeless if you are mentally ill and do not have family support.

                        On the flip side, being homeless, always being cold and hungry, sustaining on godknowswhat, and being virtually isolated from the rest of society isn't exactly healthy for one's mental health. So homeless may itself be a cause or exacerbation of mental illness.

                        [–]rawbdor 5 points6 points ago

                        This "job creator" isn't creating very many jobs...

                        Sure he is... for 12 year olds. I'm still a little curious why the moneyed republican wants a 12 year old girl over his house to do "chores"

                        [–]ModRod 3 points4 points ago

                        Yeah, they should have made it a 12 year old boy if they really wanted people to believe it.

                        [–]NewYorkFan115 0 points1 point ago

                        someone has a good idea; for someone in need to earn money, and all you have to say is he should have thought of it earlier? disagree just to disagree. Typical party politics bullshit

                        [–]mizike 21 points22 points ago

                        This may be the stupidest thing I've ever read...

                        [–]ZekeDelsken 18 points19 points ago

                        It strikes a point. ddfreedom states it best.

                        The problem isnt republican or democratic, both sides are going about it wrong. We should be helping people, not giving them stuff. If they can work? Then they should.

                        [–]nobodynose 37 points38 points ago

                        Democrats aren't really about giving able people stuff for free.

                        They want to help people who need help, but they're ok with some people taking advantage because they think helping those in need is worth giving free stuff to a fair share of entitled lazy assholes (who they also despise).

                        The Republican party wants to help people who need help but would rather NOT help a fair share of people who need the help if it meant entitled assholes "win" (because they even MORE so than the dems hate entitled, lazy assholes).

                        There's no perfect solution. A lot of people are going to get screwed, or a lot of unworthy people are going to take advantage of the system. Both are bad, but in this case you have to pick which pisses you off less: people who are needy not getting help, or people who don't deserve help getting help.

                        [–]xanthine_junkie 8 points9 points ago

                        My grandpa (independent) always said:

                        The Republicans want you to believe we will be overrun at any minute by foreign nations and they need your votes and taxes to support defense or we will fall. They use that money to fund the war machine and put their buddies in position of power to become rich.

                        The Democrats want you to believe they will help the needy to secure your vote and will spend your tax money on government programs. They use that money to fund big government oversight and put their buddies in positions of power to become rich.

                        [–]DrToker 4 points5 points ago

                        This is the only comment in this entire thread that made me stop and say "...huh, he's right."

                        The really sad thing is that even though there will never be a perfect program, there can be one that's much better than the current plan, and neither side is willing to compromise to find it.

                        [–]DerangedGecko 1 point2 points ago

                        If only this was only thing the two parties disagreed on, I would be able to put up with politics better. Unfortunately, politics is run by law school pricks and goes into matters far deeper than the monetary needs of the country.

                        load more comments (2 replies)

                          [–]4-bit 5 points6 points ago

                          The best difference I've heaver heard between Dems and Repubs:

                          If they were walking along a pier and saw a man drowning, the Dem would throw a rope out to him, and walk away.

                          The republican would throw it half way out, and wait for him to swim to it before pulling him in.

                          [–]rasputine 7 points8 points ago

                          You think a republican would pull it in? You haven't ever looked at the republican platform. Unless you mean the republican plans on pulling the rope in before the drowning man can get to it, then offer to sell it to a private corporation nearby who promisses to use the rope to save drowning people who can pay out of pocket or who have drowning insurance.

                          Then use the rope to tie up their yacht.

                          [–]4-bit 1 point2 points ago

                          The last 1/2 is tax breaks for the rich.

                          [–]AhhhClem 0 points1 point ago

                          If the drowning man were wearing a suit they would rescue him. If he looked poor they would walk away.

                          load more comments (8 replies)

                            [–]rawbdor 3 points4 points ago

                            The republican would throw it half way out, and wait for him to swim to it before pulling him in.

                            Pulling HIM in? Or pulling the rope out of his hands and in?, and then yelling 'See, you were able to swim halfway! Now swim the other half!!!"

                            [–]deltarob -1 points0 points ago

                            This seems more about the Republican party of old (the one that was actually good and conservative not batshit crazy)

                            [–]Eliot_2000 0 points1 point ago

                            If your political ideology has to be oversimplified to the point of sounding like a kindergarten primer before it sounds reasonable, you're doing it wrong.

                            [–]robo23 0 points1 point ago

                            Take this shit somewhere else.

                            [–]cenobyte40k 2 points3 points ago

                            It fails the to ask how those people became homeless. The assumption is that they are just lazy which is very unlikely.

                            [–]binermoots 2 points3 points ago

                            GET THIS THE FUCK OUT OF /r/pics YOU MOTHER FUCKER THERE IS A REASON I DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO /r/politics FUCK

                            [–]Skacoreal 5 points6 points ago

                            This was stupefyingly simplistic when it was posted 2 weeks ago. Yep, still stupefyingly simplistic. Thanks, Dad, you mind taking me off the mailing list?

                            [–]erichermit 3 points4 points ago

                            The accurate answer he could have made would be: "Oh, but I wont hire him."

                            [–]fotorobot 11 points12 points ago

                            "but why not?"

                            "Because he is homeless and I assume he smells weird. Because he might have an untreated mental health condition that is either the root of his homelessness or is exacerbated by it. Because he might have an untreated addiction problem. He might lack the education necessary to operate the lawnmower. He has probably been homeless so long that he became isolated from the rest of society and is therefore not someone I want to deal with. Because there is little public transportation between the corner he lives on and my suburban home. Because he thinks I may try to stiff him and he may be right."

                            [–]Lots42 -1 points0 points ago

                            I'd trust the little girl to get it done then some J. Random Panhandler.

                            load more comments (1 reply)

                              [–]DrMoomoo 2 points3 points ago

                              Im just going to spill out what i think about his here as i saw this a few weeks ago and have a job with requires little mental work so i stew things over quite a bit for hours a day.

                              A ) This scenario proposes a 100% tax rate which is just asinine.

                              B ) The basis for conflict(a homeless man panhandling) only exists because government assistance for the poor is such a joke that people who are unemployed(for whatever reason) cannot survive on it alone and need to turn either to panhandling or die(starvation, exposure, etc...)

                              C ) Those who are not in immediate danger from their current economic state see that point B is a thing and turn to it themselves for additional income. Any solution to B, housing programs, job assistance, addiction treatment, mental health care....anything that reduces homelessness also reduces people seeing panhandling as a valid alternative to actual work as those people are just mimicking the homeless's only option.

                              D) Actual Economic growth in a humanitarian method. The majority of the newly homeless are in that predicament because their former employers had a reduction in demand for the product they produced and had to lay off workers so that the company's workforce was in line with that newly depreciated demand. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, tax credits for the less affluent as it will almost immediately go back into the economy, breaking with "free trade" agreements causing domestic made good cheaper than those imported keeping more money in the local economies, an increase in the minimum wage resulting in increased consumer demand for many products because it is no longer a choice between a food or new bed sheets or clothing or whatever.

                              Anyway i think i may have gone off track a bit but politics and economics in specific is complicated, saying a 100% tax rate is bad is not the same as saying a 0% tax rate is good. Their are many shades of grey in the whole debacle(more or less than 50). If you take only and give none your society will whither and die and you never deserved to take part in its bounty, and if you give only and take none you will whither and die and society will learn nothing from your sacrifice.

                              [–]DrMoomoo 1 point2 points ago

                              I almost forgot and i dont want to bother editing.

                              Any society with wishes to get the most from its people must both allow everyone to give what they are able and not shut them out, and must allow those in need to get what they require so they may prosper.

                              [–]NolanRoss 1 point2 points ago

                              Because the homeless man is physically disabled and cannot do it. And because there are no social safety nets for him, he can't afford to get treatment.

                              [–]Lots42 0 points1 point ago

                              Are we in 1948?

                              [–]NolanRoss -1 points0 points ago

                              No, we are in the USA. This guy probably would have had better luck in 1948 though.

                              [–]panpenumbra 2 points3 points ago

                              Hahahaha. Marginalizing the needs of a group that is overwhelmingly comprised of traumatized veterans and individuals in need of mental healthcare is just adorable!

                              [–]TradeShoes 2 points3 points ago

                              But where's the part where he teaches her to hate the gays?!?!

                              [–]aeyamar 2 points3 points ago

                              This should have been the answer to the girl's question. "The homeless guy can't come over and do the work, because I won't hire someone who looks/acts like a homeless person."

                              [–]IComeCrashing 0 points1 point ago

                              Welcome to the Republican Party!

                              [–]FynXoyk 3 points4 points ago

                              This isn't republicanism... I just... no

                              [–]NOLA_LOVE -1 points0 points ago

                              And then you can explain to her that this homeless man is probably a veteran that fought for your freedom.

                              [–]atouchofclass -1 points0 points ago

                              Its like we only have 2 political parties.

                              [–]Lots42 0 points1 point ago

                              And then the homeless guy kidnaps the little girl and keeps her as her sex slave for twelve years.

                              Hey, don't look at me, it's happened!

                              [–]Unqualified_Opinion 0 points1 point ago

                              That homeless man.

                              [–]rybones -1 points0 points ago

                              $20 says I get this in my inbox from a coworker this month.

                              [–]reidrhollander -2 points-1 points ago

                              I remember my first day on the internet.

                              [–]toilet_bowler -1 points0 points ago

                              Pretty horseshit. Since when do Republicans want to create jobs in America?

                              [–]shootx -1 points0 points ago

                              Because homeless people are just unemployed workers waiting for their dream lawn job.

                              No offense landscapers of Reddit.

                              [–]shundread -1 points0 points ago

                              Why doesn't he put a fucking job offer somewhere visible, rather than trying to hire a minor who should be studying instead.

                              [–]jambox888 1 point2 points ago

                              Unfortunately the homeless guy couldn't do it himself because he had his legs blown off in fucking Afghanistan.

                              [–]h8bit 0 points1 point ago

                              ho ho ho redneck humor

                              [–]pyrosim 1 point2 points ago

                              As it turns out, VFWs literally freeze to death on the streets of New York because they're too lazy to get jobs, not because the issues are more complicated than that.

                              [–]admiral_snugglebutt 1 point2 points ago

                              Ah yes, because the person you want mowing your lawn is the guy with untreated schizophrenia that the state has been neglecting.

                              [–]vooglie 0 points1 point ago

                              This is retarded.

                              [–]abraxsis 0 points1 point ago

                              You forgot the part where they take half of it and give it to the wealthy.

                              [–]redacteduserid 0 points1 point ago

                              What Republican would trust a homeless person with a lawn mower, much less give them $50 for anything?

                              [–]old_rebel_yeller 1 point2 points ago

                              I know this is fake because women aren't welcome in the Republican Party.

                              [–]Huckorris 0 points1 point ago

                              The homeless guy doesn't work because he has PTSD from 'Nam. So don't bother helping him after risking his life.

                              Just one perspective.

                              [–]DanThe2Man 0 points1 point ago

                              Because the homeless guy has untreated mental disorders.

                              [–]12etcetera 1 point2 points ago

                              I am a Karl Rove, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Middle East, 'It belongs to Allah.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... The Republican Party

                              [–]R0gue_H3r0 0 points1 point ago

                              Oh no! This insightful comment made by a child has completely invalidated years of my education on the complex structures of government and human interaction, oh well, back to the basics I guess.

                              [–]jermikemike 0 points1 point ago

                              Not quite. That little girl probably values her right to have an abortion if she needs it.

                              [–]stanleytape -1 points0 points ago

                              Ha ha.. i see how it is funny because it is completely untrue.

                              If we are going to tell a fairy tale lets make it more realistic and at least continue to the point where they talk to the homeless guy to figure out that he was homeless because his wife had cancer and he had to put every dime into her care and lost his house due to medical bills.

                              Welcome to the Republican Party.

                              [–]Lemm 0 points1 point ago

                              Give the homeless man $50 to fucking eat and cut your own damn lawn?

                              [–]fixyn 0 points1 point ago

                              Wanting poor/homeless people to work for their money instead of giving them donations, is not a "republican" or "democratic" view... I think everyone could agree we would rather have these people work for their money. But you can't ignore the genuine people who are actually in desperate need of help. It's kinda like the difference between a shit-head and a good person. The thing is... Republicans are ok with being shit-heads....

                              [–]User_name_taken_1111 -1 points0 points ago

                              Perfectly explains the Republican mindset. They are less giving to society's unfortunate and think they work harder than anyone who does.

                              [–]libbykino 2 points3 points ago

                              They are less giving to society's unfortunate

                              What? Says who? Republicans on average give far more to charities than democrats do.

                              Republicans generally give to the needy with their own money, democrats give to the needy with other people's money.

                              [–]Antagonistic_Comment 0 points1 point ago

                              Whyyyyyy only 2 upvotes? :'(

                              Get your fangled 'facts' and 'statistics' out of here! This is a republican-bashing thread!

                              [–]mcellucci -1 points0 points ago

                              You mean you'd pay the little girl 5-cents. Welcome to the Republican party.

                              [–]Ozzimo -3 points-2 points ago

                              Is it funny because we assume Republicans have the thought process of 9 year-olds?

                              [–]illfuckstartyourhead -3 points-2 points ago

                              So Republicans are a bunch of little girls who are incapable of critical thinking?

                              [–]ramareport 6 points7 points ago

                              So as a liberal ( I assume ) you just painted an entire group of people with the same brush. Did the cognitive dissonance feel good?

                              load more comments (5 replies)

                                [–]dbroyles 0 points1 point ago

                                I found this funny but just because you have a certain view point you shouldn't lump yourself into a party

                                load more comments (42 replies)

                                  Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

                                  REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

                                  π Rendered by PID 15020 on app-77 running c4781a9.