boingboing at December 18th, 2013 11:40 — #1
msa8645 at December 18th, 2013 11:49 — #2
He should only have one penny in that last panel, most of the people I know in the bottom rung are down to their last penny.
bry4321 at December 18th, 2013 11:52 — #3
mindysan33 at December 18th, 2013 11:59 — #4
What isn't illustrated is that a dollar is worth a whole lot less in real spending power than it was in 1980... so it's almost like having a penny.
spunkytws at December 18th, 2013 12:08 — #5
For true accuracy I think it would be more appropriate for Hollingsworth Hound to say, "Be thankful that you have something," especially at this time of year.
coolvoodoo at December 18th, 2013 12:18 — #6
Hahahaha! It's funny cuz it's true! Oh...wait..
pour_la_tete at December 18th, 2013 12:29 — #7
I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND....
-slowly closes window
brainspore at December 18th, 2013 12:41 — #8
Margaret Thatcher was a deluded nimrod if she didn't understand how gross income inequality is harmful to a democratic society, especially in an era when unlimited campaign contributions are a legally protected form of "free speech." Money isn't just a means of living in luxury, it's a measure of one's power to shape the world around them.
Imagine, if you will, a scenario in which the bottom 42% of all Americans banded together to raise money for a common cause—only to be outspent by a single ultra-rich family. Does that sound like a "free, democratic society" to you?
kiptw at December 18th, 2013 12:42 — #9
Poor Hollingsworth Hound! Nobody cares about his Affluenza, except judges and like that.
rocketpj at December 18th, 2013 12:48 — #10
Quickly checks to see his anonymizing software is running, then clicks 'like'.
salgak at December 18th, 2013 12:50 — #11
Actually, the "middle 20%" is more like the "lower 95%".
The gap between the top 5% or so (and really, the top 1%) and the rest of us is still pretty astounding.
Not that I'd mind being quite a few points higher than I am now. . . it would be nice to, every once in a while, get ahead on bills, take the wife and kids out to a decent restaurant, and maybe, just maybe go on a real "Hollywood" vacation to an actual resort. . . .as opposed to a week off at home, doing chores during a "staycation". . . .
ratel at December 18th, 2013 13:09 — #12
She wasn't deluded, she was just a sociopath and a liar.
jasonlanejson at December 18th, 2013 13:17 — #13
Oh how I wish she was here in the room with me now. I'd drop kick her straight in the nuts
brainspore at December 18th, 2013 13:28 — #14
Also likely, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt. Some sociopaths excel at self-delusion.
raybert at December 18th, 2013 13:45 — #15
But hey, she invented soft ice!
crenquis at December 18th, 2013 13:51 — #16
Within certain definitions of "free" and "democratic".
brainspore at December 18th, 2013 13:55 — #17
Point taken. I suppose the masses are still free to starve, or to vote for one of two corporate-financed puppets selected for them by the plutocracy.
ratel at December 18th, 2013 13:55 — #18
She ravaged her country to satisfy her ego and her patrons, she consorted with torturers and mass murderers, but that is what she went to hell for.
nemomeno at December 18th, 2013 14:05 — #19
That's not an honest response to the position that government policy has shaped society to benefit the wealthiest at the cost of the poor and middle class. Behind it she's making the profoundly stupid claim that the order of society has to either be a bunch of poor and a handful of rich people, or all poor people. Nobody believes that, and it actually flies in the basic fact behind the criticism, which is that society has been shrinking the share of wealth of the poor and middle class in favor of the rich.
holly_mcbeal at December 18th, 2013 14:22 — #20
The argument presented is a non sequitur. Someone makes an effort and gets a reward. Another person makes a different effort and gets a different reward. To imply that the more successful effort diminished the other persons reward is nonsense. The presentation is based on envy.
next page →