Matt Bors by Matt Bors

Matt Bors

Comments (25) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. DoctorUmmmNo

    DoctorUmmmNo said, over 2 years ago

    There are winners & losers in any economic system. I find the best insurance is a well stocked armory & an electric fence.

  2. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago


    You sound like a winner in the next war against economic growth. All the best socialist masterminds have employed weapons and defenses to maintain their supremacy while enforcing equality among those over whom they rule.
    Well done, sir!

  3. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Any dynamic system requires inequality.
    Any system with total equality is a dead system.

  4. omQ R

    omQ R said, over 2 years ago


    Watched Jeremy Paxman interview Thomas Piketty and Piketty doesn’t deny inequality’s role within the capitalist system; it’s the degree of the inequality that’s the problem.

  5. JmcaRice

    JmcaRice GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    If we made personal finance mandatory in public education, there would be a lot less poverty. Saving money should be compulsory; via wages or government handouts. Once people build a small nest egg (that they are not allowed to touch) and were educated to maintain, we would all be better off.

  6. Ted Lind

    Ted Lind GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    If income inequality becomes great enough, large numbers of people with little or nothing to lose will exist. At that point your electric fence and all the ammo you can buy won’t be enough..

  7. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, over 2 years ago

    “Where did you find that article?”
    “It was in my jacket lining,”

  8. D Lee

    D Lee GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    The only thing that is going to save the Middle Class is the Middle Class. We are the 99%—- that means we have the votes to elect people who will actually represent middle class workers and provide a safety net for those who are trying to get into the middle class.We all need to know who is supporting the candidates. That is who they will be working for. They have no choice if they want to stay in office. You have to do the bidding of whoever is paying your way, just the same as we all do in our jobs. So, before going to vote, look it up on the internet. Open Secrets is a good site, but there are plenty.

    If the candidate is getting their money from small donors or from unions, they are going to be working for middle class working people. If their donations are from corporations or from 1%ers, that’s who their votes are going to be working for. They are not going to go against them and do anything to help the middle class.

    It would be political suicide.

  9. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, over 2 years ago

    Yes, but many of us can do without the roadblocks and detours.

  10. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Absolutely nothing wrong with “well regulated” Capitalism, just like militias, but when banking and “investment companies” become legalized Mafia operations (my retired banker brother-in-law’s statement, not mine) then some corrections are needed.

  11. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    If these darn poor people would just show some initiative and go out and inherit a billion dollar business like the Koch Brothers did, all them inequality problems would just go away.

  12. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    @omQ R

    I would have to disagree with that view. It is the depth of the depression of the economy, not the breadth of the disparity of wealth, that creates poverty. If you are living well, and want for nothing, then do you really care that somebody else has an immense fortune?
    Our economy is laboring under monetary methods and policies that do not uplift the whole of the people, but only some, and it has only been worse in the past five years.
    There is no reason that the currency has to be inflated and the real wealth for which the currency is needed for exchange rises. The purpose of government should be to maintain an economy in which the currency is worth something and the means of living are cheap and plentiful so that all may enjoy them without harm to their economic well being.
    Instead, we subsidize poverty and reward those who keep poverty a miserable state, rather than a mere inconvenience in obtaining luxuries. Food and medicine should not be luxuries. They should be cheap, but not free. Upping income by law will do nothing to keep affordable the necessities of life.

  13. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, over 2 years ago


    “It is the depth of the depression of the economy, not the breadth of the disparity of the wealth”

    Well, I think it is both. Yes, many Americans (myself included) feel there is a depression going on, one that afflicts the middle class.

    How do we get out of it?
    I have read many pundits on these pages decry those who questioning the status quo. “Waaah! They have more than I do. TAX THEM!” There are millions of unemployed, and under-employed people out there who have worked, and paid their taxes, insurance premiums, mortgages and had some left over to treat their significant other, or their children to a day at the amusement park, or to a nice restaurant, new clothes, toys, etc.
    Then, as the owners of their company decided to move operations overseas, paying less in wages, no benefits, no environmental laws, these people were laid off. This scenario still plays out today! Toss in increased computerization and robotics/automation, and you have a class of, let’s say, “discontented”. Should we be angry? These owners are making huge profits, and millions of American people suffer for that. Not just the individual, but his family as well. We read in the papers, or hear in the news of all kinds of shenanigans
    practiced by Wall Street Houses & bankers, how the are now using super-high-speed computers to snatch up shares as soon as you push the “buy” button, then they up the price to sell! The middle class was asleep while the wealthy geared up to re-tool the system in their favor. And, in my opinion, they invited Congress in on the game. We now have the wealthiest bunch of pols on Capitol Hill ever! And to make one even angrier, how would you feel if your company was spiraling downward, and the CEO laid off hundreds, or thousands, and then awarded himself and other top corporate officers “retention” bonuses! It’s not illegal, but certainly not fair. And Executive salaries have been, and continue to rise into the ionosphere. You are right; simply raising the wages (at least at our level) will not solve the problem.
    What we need is a new culture in Washington, and a new SCOTUS, who realize that our Constitution, and the freedoms won by our forefathers are for PEOPLE. All People (except illegal aliens).
    That this nation is composed of PEOPLE, not corporations.
    Yeah, I know: LOL.
    As much as I want to hope, I feel that if the current trends and attitude by Washington continues to be bias toward the 1%, and indifferent, to contemptuous to the other 99%, then the future holds for some serious, perhaps violent social upheaval.

  14. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Right! Just like the Kochs did.

  15. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago


    Government serves the 1%, because that is where the intelligence that drives elections resides.
    There is no harm in a corporation that employs a million people paying its top executives wages and bonuses equal to several hundred dollars for every employee.
    That money comes from the consumers, and is acceptable to them, or they would buy a rival product, if there is one.
    That becomes a problem. Maybe we need a cap on corporate asset protection, like we have on FDIC savings, so the assets of a corporation beyond that cap are not protected by incorporation and must be disbursed. That would limit the size of corporations in fact. There might still be ownership groups, but competition would be less stifled, and the people would have a greater range of possibilities open to them.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (10).