Matt Wuerker by Matt Wuerker

Matt Wuerker

Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    How many of those jobs are now overseas?

  2. sw10mm

    sw10mm said, over 2 years ago

    How many are looking? With 1/3 of the US on govt welfare, I’d be curious.

  3. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, over 2 years ago

    Grow the economy; grow the opportunity.
    Slow the economy; restrict the opportunity.
    Restrict opportunity long enough and how do the young males of ANY race, religion or ethical background behave? Do anybody have to GUESS?
    Get out the vote, people. If we don’t vote, we cannot expect to live in a democracy.

  4. t b

    t b GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    @Gresch – I am very liberal and I think I would support that general idea. I might choose 1970 instead of 1960. I might say parent as of 1960 instead of grandparent. It would take some serious thought. But, the general idea is not bad.

  5. Sample the air

    Sample the air GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago


    sw110mm – 1/3 on welfare, that’s ludicrous. That would mean close to 1/3 of the people I know should be on welfare, I live in a poor rural area, but I don’t know anyone on welfare. Methinks your numbers are wrong.

  6. Beavis

    Beavis said, over 2 years ago

    @Sandy and others, read Walter Williams articles. He points out the number of two parent black families has been drastically reduced by liberal welfare.

  7. derdave969

    derdave969 said, over 2 years ago

    In 2011 HHS reported 23.1% of the population received assistance from 3 programs (Aid to Families w/Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income, and SNAP – food stamps). Their definition of receiving is living in a family where one or more individuals receives assistance. The Census Bureau counts a welfare recipient as living in a family where one or more members receive benefits from any of the 185 means-tested programs. Using that criterion 35.4% are on welfare. If you toss in non-tested programs (social security, unemployment, veterans benefits) 49.2% of the population are receiving government assistance. I don’t consider most of social security or veterans benefits to be a handout, the folks getting them earned them. Unemployment, I’m up in the air about. Some is necessary, 18-24 months, I’m not so sure.
    The scary part of this is one half of the population has a dog in the fight to raise benefits.
    As to Sandy67’s comment on poor rural areas. I live in a poor rural area, NE Georgia) and while I do not know what percentage of the population is receiving welfare (as defined above) I do know that every large business I go into has signs proclaiming that they participate in all the various government programs. And with “food stamps” now being a debit card that you swipe at checkout I can’t see how you can tell who is receiving assistance and who is maxing out their credit card.

  8. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 2 years ago

    And now that we all know that corporations are people too…..let’s consider the corporate welfare we provide to agribusiness and energy companies, and all the loopholes that allow companies like General Electric to not only pay no taxes, but to get a “refund”. Also, consider the popular ploy of “inversion”, where a company headquartered in the US with a small subsidiary in Ireland can suddenly declare that the headquarters are in Ireland and that the larger, totally unchanged US company is now Ireland’s subsidiary. This practice is predicted to cost the country $19 billion within the next ten years.

    Add to this government make-work projects like building tanks even the Pentagon does not want, only to create employment in Ohio, the only state in the Union that counts when it comes to presidential elections. This is only one example of pork that provides short-term answers to long-term problems.

    So, not only are real, living people depending on government assistance, non-real, non-living “people” are also “takers”. It’s endemic in our system.

    Two points here: one is that there is more than one group that is dependent on the government, and that to point fingers at only one is to be unwilling to face the problem head-on. The other is that we must closely examine why people and people-corporations seem to need this assistance, and what we can do to encourage them to improve their lot to the point where assistance is unnecessary. A total re-work of the tax code would be a great place to start, as the tax code makes it more profitable for businesses to take their jobs out of the country, while using our country’s educated people, roadways, and other infrastructure without paying for them.

    Another way that we can turn things around is to stop coddling the banking industry, and to “encourage” them to do their jobs. We loan them money at essentially no interest to stimulate their investment into our economy. However, these banks are still unwilling to loan for small businesses either to open or to expand. After over 30 years of being a doctor, and proving a loyal patient base, I had to go far from my hometown banks to find one that would be willing to provide a business line of credit to open a new practice. If a doctor with a proven track record cannot easily get a loan, I can just imagine the problems of a young entrepreneur. If we encourage big business to leave our country, and discourage small business from ever starting, we leave our children with a very ugly legacy.

    Do your homework. Vote out the dead wood. Keep any good representatives, but be sure they really are as good as you think they are. We don’t want to lose value, but we could stand to lose a lot of “representatives” who do nothing but posture and point fingers.

  9. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, over 2 years ago

    Oh come on now. Everyone knows that if you’re working, you’re rich. And if you’re not rich, you’re not working.

  10. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, over 2 years ago


    And how many of those 1/3rd you keep trotting out are in those dyed-in-the-wool red states?

  11. Caligulla

    Caligulla said, over 2 years ago


    Not as many as you might think. Most of our overseas job loss has been in manufacturing, which in 1950 was a white union dominated by invitation only machine. The job loss was in the service sector as more people who lost jobs in the manufacturing sector retrained to jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise taken, leaving but the most menial and difficult jobs (try to match the speed of a professional picker sometime) for the taking, making it, quite frankly, easier to live on the dole. Illegal and legal immigrants fill many of those jobs.

  12. sw10mm

    sw10mm said, over 2 years ago

    @Sample the air

    Don’t just think, do research.

  13. sw10mm

    sw10mm said, over 2 years ago

    Yes, but you’re not disputing my point.

  14. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Those who want to see where the really big bucks of “welfare” are going, should start with the oil, coal, timber, and mining corporations doing “business” on government lands and resources. Then of course, there’s the MIC getting R & D money to produce junk the military will still buy, even though it’s overpriced, and well, just doesn’t work.

  15. omQ R

    omQ R said, over 2 years ago

    I see what you meant by mods were “busy”. Yet, only after I protested that my initial objection to ConservGov’s more obnoxious comment had been deleted, was ConservGov’s comment removed as well. Interesting to note what they see as more grievious. Greggy is still a hypocrite.
    I also see the comment where I voiced my annoyance of someone’s mantra spam didn’t make it either. Spam is fine so long one is religious about it.

  16. Refresh Comments.