US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2548

On November 22 2015 04:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Times like this always make the whole Media conspiracy theorists all the more amusing. Journalists and news reporters can't create the story, they can only publicize it and create attention.

Hilarious as it is to say, it seems like the internet kiddies of the 90's and early 2000's are the ones best adjusted to the new social media world. Don't believe everything you hear on the internet. Don't feed the trolls. The two most basic rules, and yet everyone keeps breaking them.

On November 21 2015 03:54 cLutZ wrote:

Well, price capping actually contributes to long term crises, like what exists in NYC and the West coast. And real estate is all about long term thinking, there really is no place for a short term plan. It not only discourages new development (even if you guarantee new buildings won't have caps, because they correctly don't believe such promises, and real estate is a very long term investment), it also discourages proper tenet-landlord relations in the existing housing.

On November 21 2015 17:05 KwarK wrote:
If we were content living with the standard of living from just a few decades ago we could already exist on a 6 hour week. Instead every member of society now attempts to purchase goods that were luxuries beyond imagining in their grandparents generation. They spend the first few hours of the first day of the week earning enough to put meat and potatoes on the table and the rest on car payments, cable tv and paying a legion of Chinese workers to make shit for them. And that's fine, if that's what they want to do then so be it. They are trading their time for the things they want, which is their prerogative. But if they wanted to work a 6 hour week and spend the other 34 caring for their family they could just as easily buy that with their time.

On November 22 2015 07:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Wow, rent must basically be free where you live. And I guess heating isn't a concern for wherever you live either. Or electricity. Or gas. Or water. Or cleaning products to maintain a clean home and clothes and body. Or things like washing machines. Rivers aren't safe to wash in where I live. Working 6 hours a week on minimum wage barely covers water and food.

Actually stuff that, I dispute that you can afford meat and potatoes on the table on 6 hours a week. Maybe use a carboard box for a table, sure. Potatoes? No problem. You still need cutlery and pots and pans an plates and a source of heat. That costs money, unless you like to eat potatoes raw. Don't eat potatoes raw, it's dangerous. Meat? No way. Meat is expensive. And I aren't even taking into account of transportation costs to live near a place of work. How can anybody afford to live on 6 hours of work a week? Smell and live and eat like a homeless person?

On November 22 2015 07:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Wow, rent must basically be free where you live. And I guess heating isn't a concern for wherever you live either. Or electricity. Or gas. Or water. Or cleaning products to maintain a clean home and clothes and body. Or things like washing machines. Rivers aren't safe to wash in where I live. Working 6 hours a week on minimum wage barely covers water and food.

Actually stuff that, I dispute that you can afford meat and potatoes on the table on 6 hours a week. Maybe use a carboard box for a table, sure. Potatoes? No problem. You still need cutlery and pots and pans an plates and a source of heat. That costs money, unless you like to eat potatoes raw. Don't eat potatoes raw, it's dangerous. Meat? No way. Meat is expensive. And I aren't even taking into account of transportation costs to live near a place of work. How can anybody afford to live on 6 hours of work a week? Smell and live and eat like a homeless person?

On November 22 2015 07:36 KwarK wrote:

You need to stop using a new table for every meal. That's where you're leaking the money. You can reuse them. Same with pots and pans.

But yeah, the 6 hours a week would also cover rent and heating.

On November 22 2015 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Actually, he moved to the US for his cheap housing, so rent probably is practically free for him.

He's basically just riding one of the largest real estate crashes in history, and thinks that's a good basis for financial and economic wisdom.

On November 22 2015 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Actually, he moved to the US for his cheap housing, so rent probably is practically free for him.

He's basically just riding one of the largest real estate crashes in history, and thinks that's a good basis for financial and economic wisdom.

On November 22 2015 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:

Where is it that less than $200 a month covers that stuff? Or even ~$240 if you make well above minimum wage?

On November 22 2015 07:59 KwarK wrote:

I'd go with median wage rather than minimum. I'm also talking about living the way your grandparents did so cable isn't included in that budget.

But I ran the numbers. Using a 40 hour work week as a basis for the median wage of the US I multiplied it by 6/40 to get an annual estimate for that. You can totally live on that in a two income household out here if you don't view having a giant truck, cable, internet, dining out four times a week and so forth as your birthright. There are luxuries which would have been unimaginable fifty years ago that are now considered basic necessities.

People choose to work beyond that because they want all that extra stuff and that's absolutely fine by me, I do the same. I don't want to live with the conditions of the richest country in the world just a few decades ago, that's unacceptably poor, I want to live with the conditions of the richest country today. But that does not mean that I'm not making a choice with resource allocation.

Every single person posting on this forum is rich beyond imagining in the eyes of their ancestors. When you claim poverty it's a comparative poverty, not an absolute poverty. Being unable to afford a townhouse in a city that cannot possibly fit all the people who feel entitled to live there does not make you poor.

On November 22 2015 07:59 KwarK wrote:

I'd go with median wage rather than minimum. I'm also talking about living the way your grandparents did so cable isn't included in that budget.

But I ran the numbers. Using a 40 hour work week as a basis for the median wage of the US I multiplied it by 6/40 to get an annual estimate for that. You can totally live on that in a two income household out here if you don't view having a giant truck, cable, internet, dining out four times a week and so forth as your birthright. There are luxuries which would have been unimaginable fifty years ago that are now considered basic necessities.

People choose to work beyond that because they want all that extra stuff and that's absolutely fine by me, I do the same. I don't want to live with the conditions of the richest country in the world just a few decades ago, that's unacceptably poor, I want to live with the conditions of the richest country today. But that does not mean that I'm not making a choice with resource allocation.

Every single person posting on this forum is rich beyond imagining in the eyes of their ancestors. When you claim poverty it's a comparative poverty, not an absolute poverty. Being unable to afford a townhouse in a city that cannot possibly fit all the people who feel entitled to live there does not make you poor.

Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) tough proposals aimed at limiting the admission of refugees in the wake of the Paris terror attacks are disappointing libertarian opinion leaders, days after a presidential debate performance in which he appeared to return to his independent roots.

Paul said on Saturday that the United States and Europe "have to be very careful about bringing refugees to our country that might attack us.” He introduced a bill on Thursday that would, among other things, put a moratorium on resettlement of refugees from 34 “high-risk” countries. The list includes predominantly Muslim countries, Russia and North Korea.

Paul also introduced an amendment to a housing and transportation funding bill this week that would bar federally-funded social welfare assistance for refugees from those “high-risk” nations. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) canceled a planned vote on the omnibus bill on Thursday after Paul insisted that his amendment receive a vote.

Libertarians, who have looked to Paul as a rare kindred spirit in Congress and the Republican presidential field, are not generally fans of federal assistance to U.S. citizens, let alone refugees and other immigrants. But two leading libertarian policy experts told The Huffington Post they oppose reforms to the welfare state that would discriminate against people from certain countries.

“It would be wrong to establish national origin-based criteria for deciding who gets access to what benefits,” said David Bier, director of immigration policy at the libertarian Niskanen Center. “That is not really in accord with the libertarian ideal of equality under the law.”

Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, co-authored a 2013 paper calling for an end to all means-tested assistance programs, which would “build a wall around the welfare state, not the country.” Paul expressed similar sentiments during the debate over the comprehensive immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2013.

But Nowrasteh said he objects to Paul’s new amendment selectively restricting benefits, noting that the legislation fuels an inaccurate narrative that refugees are seeking entry to the U.S. primarily to take advantage of government benefits.

On November 22 2015 08:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If you are going to work 6 hours a week, you are working minimum wage almost guaranteed. It's simple rubbish to claim that you can live on 6 hours a week of work. You can barely afford to find a place to live. Why presume a two household income? You'll then have two mouths that need feeding. Also, I didn't realise that carboard boxes cost money. Damn. Carboard boxes are expensive where you live, but meat and rent are basically nothing. Interesting world you must live in. Your argument simply doesn't make sense. I can agree that a lot of people can live well without luxury, but this 6 weeks working week is just pure and utter BS. Go on, go make a budget involving a 6 hour working week on minimum wage. You'll stumble at the first step which would be a place to live.