In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
WASHINGTON -- In a rebuke to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) has released the full transcript of a key interview with an IRS employee at the heart of the agency's scandal.
The 200-page transcript sheds additional light on the decision by the IRS to screen out tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status during the months and years leading up to the 2012 elections.
Republican and Democratic committee staffers interviewed IRS official John Shafer on June 6 about the agency's decision to scrutinize a tea party group's application for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. Shafer, who identified himself as "a conservative Republican" and said he'd worked for the IRS since 1992, said that he and a fellow screener initially flagged a tea party group and continued to do so with subsequent applications in order to maintain consistency in the process.
Throughout much of the interview, Shafer describes the mundane bureaucratic challenges of dealing with incoming applications for nonprofit status. He said his team flagged the first tea party application because it appeared to be a high-profile case, and he wanted to make sure all high-profile cases received similar attention.
"What I'm talking here is that if we end up with four applications coming into the group that are pretty similar, and we assign them to four different agents, we don't want four different determinations," he said. "It's just not good business. It's not good customer service."
Asked plainly, "do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases?" Shafer replied, "I have no reason to believe that."
One can hope that this is a good sign that Issa's White Whale is now out of his grasp so we can move onto other matters, but that's probably not going to happen...
The so-called Senate Gang of Eight immigration reform bill, which includes a path to citizenship for millions of the nation's undocumented immigrants, would increase U.S. population by 10.4 million and would decrease federal budget deficits by $197 billion over the next ten years, according to a new report published Tuesday by the independent Congressional Budget Office.
CBO projects that about 8 million undocumented immigrants would seek to obtain legal status if the bill was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.
The legislation is also projected to decrease federal budget deficits by about $700 billion over the 2024-2033 period, as well as spur a net increase of 16 million to the U.S. population.
“This report is a huge momentum boost for immigration reform." said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who helped author the bill, in a statement. "This debunks the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a boon to our economy, and robs the bill’s opponents of one of their last remaining arguments."
A study released by the conservative Heritage Foundation in May found that the bill would cost $6.3 trillion over the entire lifetime of the 11 million undocumented immigrants who could potentially gain legal status through the bill.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a key conservative author who has danced around his support for the bill in recent days, also praised the report as good news for immigration reform.
On June 19 2013 07:09 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: Mabye Dubya wasent so bad after all?
Nah, Dubya was pretty awful. I've always found approval ratings a pretty poor indicator of how well someone is doing, to be honest, since they're very relative, and I extent this same suspension of merit to Bush's low ratings. The thing is, people tend to approve of a political leader based on like one hot-button issue of the moment, which really doesn't tell you a lot about how good the leader actually is. Bush's ratings skyrocketed in the aftermath of 9/11, but was he really so radically different a few years later that his ratings should have dipped so much, or did people just move on to the next issue? I suspect we'll see the same thing happen to Obama once the scandal clears, assuming it does.
Republicans in Congress are pushing for major cuts across the federal budget, but so far, they’re not willing to sacrifice a plan to build a moon colony.
In fact, Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee are eyeing an even more ambitious goal: building a base on Mars, too.
Those calls will be part of new legislation to be released Wednesday reauthorizing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for two more years, and though the bill doesn’t use the term “moon base,” the goal is clear.
“The [NASA] Administrator shall establish a program to develop a sustained human presence on the Moon and the surface of Mars,” states a recent discussion draft obtained by POLITICO.
New language in the bill also says that while the NASA chief is authorized to develop international partnerships to establish a “sustained presence” on the two celestial bodies, “the absence of an international partner may not be justification for failure to pursue such program in a timely manner.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich famously said during last year’s presidential campaign that the U.S. would have a permanent base on the moon by the end of his second term, drawing mockery from Mitt Romney, who said he’d fire someone for proposing to spend billions on such a project.
But the new NASA authorization isn’t quite as ambitious as Gingrich’s plan.
Republicans in Congress are pushing for major cuts across the federal budget, but so far, they’re not willing to sacrifice a plan to build a moon colony.
In fact, Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee are eyeing an even more ambitious goal: building a base on Mars, too.
Those calls will be part of new legislation to be released Wednesday reauthorizing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for two more years, and though the bill doesn’t use the term “moon base,” the goal is clear.
“The [NASA] Administrator shall establish a program to develop a sustained human presence on the Moon and the surface of Mars,” states a recent discussion draft obtained by POLITICO.
New language in the bill also says that while the NASA chief is authorized to develop international partnerships to establish a “sustained presence” on the two celestial bodies, “the absence of an international partner may not be justification for failure to pursue such program in a timely manner.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich famously said during last year’s presidential campaign that the U.S. would have a permanent base on the moon by the end of his second term, drawing mockery from Mitt Romney, who said he’d fire someone for proposing to spend billions on such a project.
But the new NASA authorization isn’t quite as ambitious as Gingrich’s plan.
On June 18 2013 11:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: A topic we can all agree on - the rich: Defending the One Percent.
This is a pretty good representation of my own take on inequality. Though I have to stress that I don't see fighting inequality as a bad, or inefficient thing. In my view the remedy needs to focus on the root causes (supply and demand imbalances, rent seeking, social ills and the like) rather than tax and transfer schemes (though they can still be used - I'm not speaking in absolutes here).
A blog rebuttal from The Economist with good comments below.
I agree with you in many ways, but I still support the situation in place (mostly). The truth is that it is easier to simply say "poor people can't afford healthcare, so let's make it a possibility" than it is to say "poor people can't afford healthcare because of [societal factor] so let's do [solution]." Also, societal change takes a long time. Even if we put a lot of resources towards, say, providing low-income children a better education, we'd still have to deal with poorly educated adults who can't earn enough to support a family for decades.
Also, as a liberal myself, I don't see why people obsess so much over inequality. Some professions, such as being an electrical engineer, simply merit more compensation than dish-washing. If you are poor you can make quite a good living by getting an education, getting a degree in something in demand and getting some work experience while you study, and then getting a job. You don't even need a degree for things like web security or creating a web-business or even software (though it would help). You can also be a handyman: plumber, electrician, carpenter, etc. without much education. I frankly don't have much sympathy for the poor in this country. $15k per year is actually enough for one person to live in some comfort, and I see a lot of poor people toting around iphones and the like.
I assure you that there are a great many places in this country that require that one make more than 15k a year in order to live with any degree of comfort, particularly if one happens to be sick or in some previously accrued amount of debt.
I remember when I stopped feeling any sympathy for "poor" people in rich countries. It was in 2001 when I first visited India. I found that once I'd seen real poverty right in my face, the idea of living below the "poverty line" in Canada didn't seem so bad.
Spoken like a person that's never struggled in their life. Just because "poor" in India is worse than it is in the U.S./Canada doesn't mean that the "poor" here have it easy by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm not saying they have it "easy". In fact I don't consider my upper middle class life particularly "easy" either. But if I'm going to get all upset and start feeling sorry for people, its going to be who are poor in absolute terms. Not people who are just less rich than I am.
Not necessary. Cable/Internet is a luxury and pay as you go cell phones are very cheap.
renters insurance
$10-20 per month
furnishings
bed+ mattress, a refrigerator, a chair, a table, a desk, and a couch doesn't cost much.
I've never paid electric bills so I probably did overestimate them, but keep in mind that it is including heat. Food costs really don't need to be $5-8 per day, and I don't know why it matters if it's a full-time job since you can just bring food for lunch. Also, you can still have variety and healthy food for cheap. Bananas and apples are pretty cheap, and a lot of soup is cheap too. Milk+ oatmeal with a banana is a good breakfast, a good lunch could be a salad with some chicken and some cheap dressing, and for dinner you have lots of options with cheap food like beans, potatoes, bread, rice, corn, soups, noodles, chicken, etc. Multivitamins are like 200 for $10 at Walmart too. I also forgot health insurance, good catch. Still, there was leeway in the budget with over $200 per month unaccounted for, so if you really want to splurge on entertainment (I would do internet+ computer) you could still have money left over. You could also save if you wanted to, but personally if I were a non-university educated, HS degree holding person in the hypothetical situation I would be going to community college in preparation for a transfer to a 4-year university to get a STEM degree. That would take a lot of time and you might not have much time for entertainment.
Indeed pay-as-you-go phones are cheap. Probably about ~$30 a month. The food situation comes from personal experience. Last summer I had a factory job working from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm every weekday. I would wake up at 6:45, get ready for work, get home around 5:00, shower/clean up until 5:30. Entertainment and dinner until ~9:00 pm, and then bed. That gives me 3.5 hours for relaxation and errands daily. Cooking a meal normally takes anywhere from 30-90 minutes, and prepping a meal that isn't leftovers for lunch takes another 10-15 minutes. If you're cooking, this reduces your free/errand/chore time down to 2-2.5 hours a day (on weekdays), which isn't much. Meanwhile, eating out shrinks that time requirement down to ~15 minutes, and eliminates the "next-day-lunch" prep altogether. Consuming the ~2200-2500 calories for an active job will cost you at least $6 a day if you eat fast food 2-3 times a week. This is where the disconnect on food comes in, as foods that look cheap (like fruit and vegetables) are actually really light on calories as well. Their cost/calorie ratio (which I know isn't the END ALL measurement, but can be a metric) isn't that great or different from a fast food meal. I currently budget myself to <$7 a day on average, and I have plenty of time to cook my own meals.
Power for me in my current ~600 sq ft. efficiency is close to $95 a month, water and trash is about $25. I admittedly overpay for rent, but that's because I can afford to do so for now, but I do know of some really shady places you can get for ~$425-450, and any apartment I have found that includes water/gas/trash and/or electricity in the bill are not places you want to be even temporarily. Furniture and home cleaning supplies get expensive really, really fast and easily. It's not uncommon for me to spend $50 on 2 weeks of groceries, and another $50 on a month worth of home supplies. While living alone, I have also noticed a tendency for me to have some sort of unexpected expense of ~$200 a month relating to either car trouble, medical expenses, or replacing/fixing something broken at home.
As I read this post I couldn't help thinking what a moving target "poverty" really is. But this is actually a pretty good picture of what is means to be "poor" in a rich country. "Poor" people have TVs, computers, cable, cell phones, cars, and many other things that truly poor people would consider to be absurd luxuries. "Poor" people in the US are often obese because they consume too many calories.
Meanwhile, millions of truly poor people in the 3rd world subsist on less than a dollar a day. It's hard for me to feel sorry for a "poor" person because car insurance in North America is expensive.
It's not really the number of calories as it is the cheap food that is terrible for your body but designed to be addictive. But that is neither here nor there in this thread but I don't think obesity is an argument to be made for poor people having more than enough food. One of the things I feel most strongly about that can be influenced by government in the US is education about nutrition and finding solutions so everyone has access to real quality foods, which doesn't come cheap. Not this crap backed up by research that's bought and paid for by big business. I'm not sure what the solution is or could be but it makes me angry. So that's good. aaaaand end rant
Not necessary. Cable/Internet is a luxury and pay as you go cell phones are very cheap.
renters insurance
$10-20 per month
furnishings
bed+ mattress, a refrigerator, a chair, a table, a desk, and a couch doesn't cost much.
I've never paid electric bills so I probably did overestimate them, but keep in mind that it is including heat. Food costs really don't need to be $5-8 per day, and I don't know why it matters if it's a full-time job since you can just bring food for lunch. Also, you can still have variety and healthy food for cheap. Bananas and apples are pretty cheap, and a lot of soup is cheap too. Milk+ oatmeal with a banana is a good breakfast, a good lunch could be a salad with some chicken and some cheap dressing, and for dinner you have lots of options with cheap food like beans, potatoes, bread, rice, corn, soups, noodles, chicken, etc. Multivitamins are like 200 for $10 at Walmart too. I also forgot health insurance, good catch. Still, there was leeway in the budget with over $200 per month unaccounted for, so if you really want to splurge on entertainment (I would do internet+ computer) you could still have money left over. You could also save if you wanted to, but personally if I were a non-university educated, HS degree holding person in the hypothetical situation I would be going to community college in preparation for a transfer to a 4-year university to get a STEM degree. That would take a lot of time and you might not have much time for entertainment.
Indeed pay-as-you-go phones are cheap. Probably about ~$30 a month. The food situation comes from personal experience. Last summer I had a factory job working from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm every weekday. I would wake up at 6:45, get ready for work, get home around 5:00, shower/clean up until 5:30. Entertainment and dinner until ~9:00 pm, and then bed. That gives me 3.5 hours for relaxation and errands daily. Cooking a meal normally takes anywhere from 30-90 minutes, and prepping a meal that isn't leftovers for lunch takes another 10-15 minutes. If you're cooking, this reduces your free/errand/chore time down to 2-2.5 hours a day (on weekdays), which isn't much. Meanwhile, eating out shrinks that time requirement down to ~15 minutes, and eliminates the "next-day-lunch" prep altogether. Consuming the ~2200-2500 calories for an active job will cost you at least $6 a day if you eat fast food 2-3 times a week. This is where the disconnect on food comes in, as foods that look cheap (like fruit and vegetables) are actually really light on calories as well. Their cost/calorie ratio (which I know isn't the END ALL measurement, but can be a metric) isn't that great or different from a fast food meal. I currently budget myself to <$7 a day on average, and I have plenty of time to cook my own meals.
Power for me in my current ~600 sq ft. efficiency is close to $95 a month, water and trash is about $25. I admittedly overpay for rent, but that's because I can afford to do so for now, but I do know of some really shady places you can get for ~$425-450, and any apartment I have found that includes water/gas/trash and/or electricity in the bill are not places you want to be even temporarily. Furniture and home cleaning supplies get expensive really, really fast and easily. It's not uncommon for me to spend $50 on 2 weeks of groceries, and another $50 on a month worth of home supplies. While living alone, I have also noticed a tendency for me to have some sort of unexpected expense of ~$200 a month relating to either car trouble, medical expenses, or replacing/fixing something broken at home.
As I read this post I couldn't help thinking what a moving target "poverty" really is. But this is actually a pretty good picture of what is means to be "poor" in a rich country. "Poor" people have TVs, computers, cable, cell phones, cars, and many other things that truly poor people would consider to be absurd luxuries. "Poor" people in the US are often obese because they consume too many calories.
Meanwhile, millions of truly poor people in the 3rd world subsist on less than a dollar a day. It's hard for me to feel sorry for a "poor" person because car insurance in North America is expensive.
Poor people in America die significantly earlier than people of higher classes.
On June 19 2013 03:17 mordek wrote: "Be careful because that's a low cut dress. I'm only flesh and blood, I have instincts."
I don't really want to be the advocate of something considered a rape joke but I'm struggling to see where you're getting "super creepy vibe" from. I hear joke the entire time.
How would you interpret that if not "your dress is going to make my instincts force me to have sex with you so you should be careful and avoid leaning forward again because I can't help myself"?
How is that different from the "she was asking for it by her clothing" rape defence? He was not serious that he would do it but nor did his telling of it make it clear he was parodying people who believe that clothes can force a man to have sex with someone due to instinct, he wasn't joking about how stupid that rape apologism was, the joke was that he was being so forward with her. Being forward is not the same thing as being creepy.
Is your view basically that it's never okay to joke about rape? Or, more precisely, it's only okay to joke about rape if the butt of the joke is someone with regressive views about rape?
Will Obamacare Hurt Jobs? It's Already Happening, Poll Finds
Small business owners' fear of the effect of the new health-care reform law on their bottom line is prompting many to hold off on hiring and even to shed jobs in some cases, a recent poll found.
"We were startled because we know that employers were concerned about the Affordable Care Act and the effects it would have on their business, but we didn't realize the extent they were concerned, or that the businesses were being proactive to make sure the effects of the ACA actually were minimized," said attorney Steven Friedman of Littler Mendelson. His firm, which specializes in employment law, commissioned the Gallup poll.
"If the small businesses' fears are reasonable, then it could mean that the small business sector grows slower than what economic conditions otherwise would indicate. And small businesses have been a growth engine in the economy," Friedman told CNBC.
Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."
The poll was taken by 603 owners whose businesses have under $20 million in annual sales. ...
One group that favors Obamacare for small businesses said the findings reflect misconceptions about its true effects as well as the need for continued outreach by reform advocates to the small business community.
Hopefully things pan out better than expected. There weren't a lot of job losses in MA from the healthcare reforms. Though the uninsured issue was smaller and the economy was stronger.
Not necessary. Cable/Internet is a luxury and pay as you go cell phones are very cheap.
renters insurance
$10-20 per month
furnishings
bed+ mattress, a refrigerator, a chair, a table, a desk, and a couch doesn't cost much.
I've never paid electric bills so I probably did overestimate them, but keep in mind that it is including heat. Food costs really don't need to be $5-8 per day, and I don't know why it matters if it's a full-time job since you can just bring food for lunch. Also, you can still have variety and healthy food for cheap. Bananas and apples are pretty cheap, and a lot of soup is cheap too. Milk+ oatmeal with a banana is a good breakfast, a good lunch could be a salad with some chicken and some cheap dressing, and for dinner you have lots of options with cheap food like beans, potatoes, bread, rice, corn, soups, noodles, chicken, etc. Multivitamins are like 200 for $10 at Walmart too. I also forgot health insurance, good catch. Still, there was leeway in the budget with over $200 per month unaccounted for, so if you really want to splurge on entertainment (I would do internet+ computer) you could still have money left over. You could also save if you wanted to, but personally if I were a non-university educated, HS degree holding person in the hypothetical situation I would be going to community college in preparation for a transfer to a 4-year university to get a STEM degree. That would take a lot of time and you might not have much time for entertainment.
Indeed pay-as-you-go phones are cheap. Probably about ~$30 a month. The food situation comes from personal experience. Last summer I had a factory job working from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm every weekday. I would wake up at 6:45, get ready for work, get home around 5:00, shower/clean up until 5:30. Entertainment and dinner until ~9:00 pm, and then bed. That gives me 3.5 hours for relaxation and errands daily. Cooking a meal normally takes anywhere from 30-90 minutes, and prepping a meal that isn't leftovers for lunch takes another 10-15 minutes. If you're cooking, this reduces your free/errand/chore time down to 2-2.5 hours a day (on weekdays), which isn't much. Meanwhile, eating out shrinks that time requirement down to ~15 minutes, and eliminates the "next-day-lunch" prep altogether. Consuming the ~2200-2500 calories for an active job will cost you at least $6 a day if you eat fast food 2-3 times a week. This is where the disconnect on food comes in, as foods that look cheap (like fruit and vegetables) are actually really light on calories as well. Their cost/calorie ratio (which I know isn't the END ALL measurement, but can be a metric) isn't that great or different from a fast food meal. I currently budget myself to <$7 a day on average, and I have plenty of time to cook my own meals.
Power for me in my current ~600 sq ft. efficiency is close to $95 a month, water and trash is about $25. I admittedly overpay for rent, but that's because I can afford to do so for now, but I do know of some really shady places you can get for ~$425-450, and any apartment I have found that includes water/gas/trash and/or electricity in the bill are not places you want to be even temporarily. Furniture and home cleaning supplies get expensive really, really fast and easily. It's not uncommon for me to spend $50 on 2 weeks of groceries, and another $50 on a month worth of home supplies. While living alone, I have also noticed a tendency for me to have some sort of unexpected expense of ~$200 a month relating to either car trouble, medical expenses, or replacing/fixing something broken at home.
As I read this post I couldn't help thinking what a moving target "poverty" really is. But this is actually a pretty good picture of what is means to be "poor" in a rich country. "Poor" people have TVs, computers, cable, cell phones, cars, and many other things that truly poor people would consider to be absurd luxuries. "Poor" people in the US are often obese because they consume too many calories.
Meanwhile, millions of truly poor people in the 3rd world subsist on less than a dollar a day. It's hard for me to feel sorry for a "poor" person because car insurance in North America is expensive.
Poor people in America die significantly earlier than people of higher classes.
In many ways this is more due to education and demographics than living conditions. Poor people don't have to eat fast food at significantly higher rates than the rest of the population, and fast food in many ways isn't even that cheap. Poor people might also have higher chances of getting involved in gang activity, drug trafficking and use, alcoholism. I would say that poor people typically make poorer choices and/or are less intelligent (THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE SO DON'T YELL AT ME) than the rest of the population so poverty correlates with other results of bad choices.
On June 19 2013 10:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Finally some real debate, Space Policy;
Republicans in Congress are pushing for major cuts across the federal budget, but so far, they’re not willing to sacrifice a plan to build a moon colony.
In fact, Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee are eyeing an even more ambitious goal: building a base on Mars, too.
Those calls will be part of new legislation to be released Wednesday reauthorizing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for two more years, and though the bill doesn’t use the term “moon base,” the goal is clear.
“The [NASA] Administrator shall establish a program to develop a sustained human presence on the Moon and the surface of Mars,” states a recent discussion draft obtained by POLITICO.
New language in the bill also says that while the NASA chief is authorized to develop international partnerships to establish a “sustained presence” on the two celestial bodies, “the absence of an international partner may not be justification for failure to pursue such program in a timely manner.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich famously said during last year’s presidential campaign that the U.S. would have a permanent base on the moon by the end of his second term, drawing mockery from Mitt Romney, who said he’d fire someone for proposing to spend billions on such a project.
But the new NASA authorization isn’t quite as ambitious as Gingrich’s plan.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers that his agency currently uses drones for surveillance.
"I will tell you that our footprint is very small," Mueller said. "We have very few and have limited use and we're exploring not only the use, but also the necessary guidelines for that use."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Mueller if the FBI uses drones on "U.S. soil."
"Yes," Mueller said. "Let me just put it in context. [In a] very, very minimal way. And very seldom."
I take that to mean that a few FBI agents with a knack for RC heli's and planes have taken out a few toys on fly and spy's. One can be guaranteed that the internet will interpret it to mean that miniature FBI death machines roam our skies in secret.
Not necessary. Cable/Internet is a luxury and pay as you go cell phones are very cheap.
renters insurance
$10-20 per month
furnishings
bed+ mattress, a refrigerator, a chair, a table, a desk, and a couch doesn't cost much.
I've never paid electric bills so I probably did overestimate them, but keep in mind that it is including heat. Food costs really don't need to be $5-8 per day, and I don't know why it matters if it's a full-time job since you can just bring food for lunch. Also, you can still have variety and healthy food for cheap. Bananas and apples are pretty cheap, and a lot of soup is cheap too. Milk+ oatmeal with a banana is a good breakfast, a good lunch could be a salad with some chicken and some cheap dressing, and for dinner you have lots of options with cheap food like beans, potatoes, bread, rice, corn, soups, noodles, chicken, etc. Multivitamins are like 200 for $10 at Walmart too. I also forgot health insurance, good catch. Still, there was leeway in the budget with over $200 per month unaccounted for, so if you really want to splurge on entertainment (I would do internet+ computer) you could still have money left over. You could also save if you wanted to, but personally if I were a non-university educated, HS degree holding person in the hypothetical situation I would be going to community college in preparation for a transfer to a 4-year university to get a STEM degree. That would take a lot of time and you might not have much time for entertainment.
Indeed pay-as-you-go phones are cheap. Probably about ~$30 a month. The food situation comes from personal experience. Last summer I had a factory job working from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm every weekday. I would wake up at 6:45, get ready for work, get home around 5:00, shower/clean up until 5:30. Entertainment and dinner until ~9:00 pm, and then bed. That gives me 3.5 hours for relaxation and errands daily. Cooking a meal normally takes anywhere from 30-90 minutes, and prepping a meal that isn't leftovers for lunch takes another 10-15 minutes. If you're cooking, this reduces your free/errand/chore time down to 2-2.5 hours a day (on weekdays), which isn't much. Meanwhile, eating out shrinks that time requirement down to ~15 minutes, and eliminates the "next-day-lunch" prep altogether. Consuming the ~2200-2500 calories for an active job will cost you at least $6 a day if you eat fast food 2-3 times a week. This is where the disconnect on food comes in, as foods that look cheap (like fruit and vegetables) are actually really light on calories as well. Their cost/calorie ratio (which I know isn't the END ALL measurement, but can be a metric) isn't that great or different from a fast food meal. I currently budget myself to <$7 a day on average, and I have plenty of time to cook my own meals.
Power for me in my current ~600 sq ft. efficiency is close to $95 a month, water and trash is about $25. I admittedly overpay for rent, but that's because I can afford to do so for now, but I do know of some really shady places you can get for ~$425-450, and any apartment I have found that includes water/gas/trash and/or electricity in the bill are not places you want to be even temporarily. Furniture and home cleaning supplies get expensive really, really fast and easily. It's not uncommon for me to spend $50 on 2 weeks of groceries, and another $50 on a month worth of home supplies. While living alone, I have also noticed a tendency for me to have some sort of unexpected expense of ~$200 a month relating to either car trouble, medical expenses, or replacing/fixing something broken at home.
As I read this post I couldn't help thinking what a moving target "poverty" really is. But this is actually a pretty good picture of what is means to be "poor" in a rich country. "Poor" people have TVs, computers, cable, cell phones, cars, and many other things that truly poor people would consider to be absurd luxuries. "Poor" people in the US are often obese because they consume too many calories.
Meanwhile, millions of truly poor people in the 3rd world subsist on less than a dollar a day. It's hard for me to feel sorry for a "poor" person because car insurance in North America is expensive.
Poor people in America die significantly earlier than people of higher classes.
In many ways this is more due to education and demographics than living conditions. Poor people don't have to eat fast food at significantly higher rates than the rest of the population, and fast food in many ways isn't even that cheap. Poor people might also have higher chances of getting involved in gang activity, drug trafficking and use, alcoholism. I would say that poor people typically make poorer choices and/or are less intelligent (THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE SO DON'T YELL AT ME) than the rest of the population so poverty correlates with other results of bad choices.
Doesn't really matter what it's due to. Lack of education is pretty correlative with poverty for obvious reasons (i.e. education is fucking expensive and requires effort and parental input for optimal reward) whereas demographics are descriptions of existing situations rather than explanations.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers that his agency currently uses drones for surveillance.
"I will tell you that our footprint is very small," Mueller said. "We have very few and have limited use and we're exploring not only the use, but also the necessary guidelines for that use."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Mueller if the FBI uses drones on "U.S. soil."
"Yes," Mueller said. "Let me just put it in context. [In a] very, very minimal way. And very seldom."
Some police forces in Texas were looking to use drones. My first thought was "I wonder how long it'll be before some redneck shoots one out of the sky and the police realize that Texans are as well armed as they are."
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers that his agency currently uses drones for surveillance.
"I will tell you that our footprint is very small," Mueller said. "We have very few and have limited use and we're exploring not only the use, but also the necessary guidelines for that use."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Mueller if the FBI uses drones on "U.S. soil."
"Yes," Mueller said. "Let me just put it in context. [In a] very, very minimal way. And very seldom."
Some police forces in Texas were looking to use drones. My first thought was "I wonder how long it'll be before some redneck shoots one out of the sky and the police realize that Texans are as well armed as they are."
You realize actual drones fly well out of range right?
Approval ratings are pretty meaningless to a president's actual quality of work in the office. Bush is rated as one of the three worst presidents in U.S. history by expert historians, and I wouldn't be surprised if Obama doesn't get out of the top-ten worst. His good intentions have been marred by a half-assed attempt at universal healthcare that no one likes and a string of scandals that makes Bush look like a civil liberties champion.
EPT
