Stuart Carlson by Stuart Carlson

Stuart Carlson

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    The working man’s in for a heck of a fight.

  2. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon said, about 1 year ago

    I wonder when (or how) the conservative shills on these boards will figure out they’ve been had. Or maybe they’ll just continue to eat up the propaganda that is fed to them by their media masters.

  3. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Zuhlamon

    If they are deluded enough to identify with the few and super rich they will take all kinds of abuse to imagine being among them.

  4. Taxemlike1938

    Taxemlike1938 said, about 1 year ago

    Supreme Court sells out the 99% again. We need to tax the rich like FDR did and all the presidents following, until Reagan’s Trickle Down Bullshit. We need 30 tax brackets from 5% for all income up to $50K, progressively going up to a top marginal rate of 60% for income over $30Million.

  5. mdavis4183

    mdavis4183 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    says Taxemlike1938 24 minutes ago

    Supreme Court sells out the 99% again.

    ===

    No such entity exists. There are no set in stone classes in America. Democrats have unions who give them hundreds of millions of dollars and their own pert billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffet.

  6. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, about 1 year ago

    If any of you republicans out there read any history, Rome and Athens grew into great empires. But, at their peaks, corruption spread throughout their governments and they were overrun by their enemies in short order.

  7. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @mdavis4183

    Right now we are losing the Middle Class that came about in 1945 and reached its height in 1980 before the weakening and destruction of it began by the Plutocrats who want most of the wealth and all of the power.

  8. Michyle Glen

    Michyle Glen said, about 1 year ago

    This could be a good thing.
    If the people realize that the incumbents are bought and paid for by the Corps, maybe they will vote anti-incumbents?

  9. DLee4144

    DLee4144 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    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 the person who 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 his money from small donors or from unions which are just groups of small donors, he is going to be working for the middle class. If his donations are from corporations or 1%ers, his votes are going to serve to make them richer at the expense of everyone else. The person who is supposed to represent you will actually be working for them, just as you have to do as your boss wants. To work for the middle class would be political suicide.

  10. DLee4144

    DLee4144 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Michyle Glen

    And what makes you think that the anti-incumbents aren’t financed by the rich? You could be voting out the person who is working for the middle class and voting in a person working for the 1%ers.

  11. DLee4144

    DLee4144 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @mdavis4183

    Unions are made up of middle class people. Their dues do not go to PACs— I was a union treasurer for a few years, and the PAC money has to be kept separate from dues. It’s audited yearly. So if unions are giving money, it’s from their members who chose to give it through the union to increase the union’s influence.

  12. sukiec

    sukiec said, about 1 year ago

    Reduction of the Middle Class is economically the most destabilizing factor that can occur.

    I like that this plays also on the period in the Ancient Roman Empire (which had a series of different political forms in practice over time) when the number of votes a male citizen had was based upon that citizen’s worth. (At some other points Political Party had a different meaning then since there would be large neighborhood parties thrown by some candidates to get votes.)

  13. Chris C

    Chris C GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Oh good grief. They did not strike down the total amount one can give to a candidate. They struck down how many candidates you could support. The limits per candidate are the same, but now you can support as few or as many as you want.
    Since individuals can now contribute to as many candidates as they want, they no longer need to route money through political action committees. This may, in fact, add transparency to the whole donation process..
    I still think the amount of money spent by all people and parties on elections is ridiculous on the face alone – and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

  14. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, about 1 year ago

    @Chris C

    Chris, every person has one vote, but not every person has a lot of money to make that vote heavier. Please scroll back and look at Jeff Danziger’s ’toon.

  15. SABRSteve

    SABRSteve said, about 1 year ago

    I see the ruling as an equalizer. I wish it didn’t have to be so, but both sides are guilty or maybe realistic about the costs for gaining political power. Thanks Chris C for clarifying.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).