Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't necessary agree. If the average American would give up one of the two cars, all cell phones, cable TV, internet, electronic gadgets, eating out, curtail shopping and consider making some of their own clothes and general household items...just as it was back in the day, we might not be so bad off on that type of salary. OTOH, considering inflation and housing costs vs salary much has changed over the past several decades. But, that doesn't mean all our needs are actually needs.
Ah the idea that everyone enjoys those things, or don't need two cars.
Many families have to have two cars, especially with children, because of the high activity based around todays school schedule, and after school activities. There are a lot of parents who have to go to two different cities for football every Saturday. Hard to do that with one car, and catching a ride with a friend or another football parent isn't always possible.
Cell phones have pretty much replaced home phones. When looking for jobs many employers will drop you from their search if they can't get in touch with you immediately.
Cable TV is cheap, 20 bucks a month in most places.
Internet, again, if you have children is a must in the home. My sons teacher sends home work that must be done online. Since the library closes at 4, and he gets out of school at 3, that doesn't lend much time for homework at the library.
I can go on with your examples, but living today without a cell phone, internet in the home, and two cars would be much like telling people in 1920's America that they don't need electricity.
I don't necessary agree. If the average American would give up one of the two cars, all cell phones, cable TV, internet, electronic gadgets, eating out, curtail shopping and consider making some of their own clothes and general household items...just as it was back in the day, we might not be so bad off on that type of salary. OTOH, considering inflation and housing costs vs salary much has changed over the past several decades. But, that doesn't mean all our needs are actually needs.
I have to agree with you mostly. People who are working and have working incomes tend to spend most of it on things that they could get along without if they would reset their priorities, tighten their belts and learn to get along on less.
You missed the point also. The water infrastructure is complete, however requires maintenance, power to keep the pressure up, chemicals to ensure the water remains drinkable, and something that people gloss over, processing of the "USED" water.
Use your creativity, and take yourself off the grid. "Double Entendre intended"
However, the water system operators, whether they be private or municipal, are by and large using the systems to make a profit, raise revenue, and use it to control people, instead of simply supplying a need.
Entirely off grid is my goal. I'm not using electric lighting, in fact. But don't think off grid means no internet either. There are people in the bush in Alaska on the internet...
I have to agree with you mostly. People who are working and have working incomes tend to spend most of it on things that they could get along without if they would reset their priorities, tighten their belts and learn to get along on less.
That's really the key, I think. My dh and I live really well on 24k because we don't have a mortgage or car payments. But we drive cars that are 11 and 16 years old and they are well maintained so there aren't many expensive repairs. We live very modestly in a small 760 square foot home with ONE bathroom (yes one).
If it were not for an outrageous amount of consumer debt (credit cards), we could live on 18k or even less if we cut out our dining out.
Besides the fact that this argument of yours is ridiculous, since the entire nation's debt is that figure, even 38k given to each person is not going to get folk out of financial trouble. Why? At the heart of financial trouble is stupidity and stupidity isn't going any where as evidenced by this thread. To start, the millions who are unemployed, and those who simply do not want to work, would survive for a year on 38k. Instead of unemployment, home bailouts, 401k fed back insurance, medicaid and medicare, welfare, etc, lets just give everybody 38k. You know, in the long term that would be a far better deal. Of course, a year would go by and people would need another 38k.
What has giving the banks that money accomplished? Doing what I suggested would do more in kickstarting the economy than handing it to a greedy bankster to hoard.
I say follow Iceland's example and gut the banksters' power, prosecute the bankers responsible for the problems, etc.
Quote:
But, lets look at what your link says. Where is the vast majority of expenses going? As an insurer, it's minimal. Lending, and things involved in lending, are the culprit. And what exactly catapulted us into this mess in the first place that would lead the gov to lending? Subprime lending. Who took out those loans? Folk in the earning bracket of 38k and less. Folk who barely contribute to the fed tax base. The lot of these people have already been given more than deserved. You (general you from now on) have all clearly shown that you cannot handle money any better than the feds or the unscrupulous banking industry. It's the American population. That's just the reality of it.
Banksters, free trade and outsourcing, regulating away the ability to build one's home reasonably, etc., are to blame for the problems of middle and low earners. The banks got us in this mess, let them suffer. Yank their charters and abolish the debt owed to them and start anew.
What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations | Addicting Info (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/04/what-the-founding-fathers-thought-about-corporations/ - broken link)
Quote:
At the heart of this whole thing is welfare. Either welfare via home loans for people who have no business thinking about owning a home or corporate welfare to the deviants who gave you these loans in the first place. You guys are two sides of the same coin and you want the tax payer, those of us who actually pay significant fed income taxes, to bail you out as usual. I would prefer to keep my tax dollars. I don't want to give it to the banks and I don't want to give it to you. You're both irresponsible.
You say you pay substantial taxes (btw I definately paid taxes last year), yet many of the largest earners pay little in taxes. How much in income taxes did GE pay?
I say raise the taxes through the roof on the greedy, yank their precious scraps of toilet paper away and let them cry.
Some men far smarter than I made these observations on banks and corporations:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.†-Thomas Jefferson
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.†-Thomas Jefferson
“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.†-John Adams
“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.†-Abraham Lincoln
“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.†-Abraham Lincoln
Ah the idea that everyone enjoys those things, or don't need two cars.
Many families have to have two cars, especially with children, because of the high activity based around todays school schedule, and after school activities. There are a lot of parents who have to go to two different cities for football every Saturday. Hard to do that with one car, and catching a ride with a friend or another football parent isn't always possible.
It's still an excuse and it's still not necessary. Kids weren't going to different cities back in the day. Do they need to now? If so, why?
Quote:
Cell phones have pretty much replaced home phones. When looking for jobs many employers will drop you from their search if they can't get in touch with you immediately.
Any person can have a $25/mo land line or a pay by use cell phone. There is no reason for it to impede jobs. Use the phone for necessity only. Really, that's not a solid argument for $100/mo cell phones, which way too many have.
Quote:
Cable TV is cheap, 20 bucks a month in most places.
The average cable TV bill is $75/mo. I think most folk who can't afford it should take your advice here.
Quote:
Internet, again, if you have children is a must in the home. My sons teacher sends home work that must be done online. Since the library closes at 4, and he gets out of school at 3, that doesn't lend much time for homework at the library.
Where do you live? Ideally, you will have a local university library within reach. If you're in the sticks I can see why it's necessary. Although, my not so wild guess isn't that rural living is providing the challenges to most subscribers.
Quote:
I can go on with your examples, but living today without a cell phone, internet in the home, and two cars would be much like telling people in 1920's America that they don't need electricity.
At almost 40 that's difficult to fathom. These things are not necessary. All of these things are luxuries, nothing more. You don't need luxuries. They cost hundreds of dollars per month. I guess, to a degree, it's a matter of self-perpetuating scams.
It's still an excuse and it's still not necessary. Kids weren't going to different cities back in the day. Do they need to now? If so, why?
Any person can have a $25/mo land line or a pay by use cell phone. There is no reason for it to impede jobs. Use the phone for necessity only. Really, that's not a solid argument for $100/mo cell phones, which way too many have.
The average cable TV bill is $75/mo. I think most folk who can't afford it should take your advice here.
Where do you live? Ideally, you will have a local university library within reach. If you're in the sticks I can see why it's necessary. Although, my not so wild guess isn't that rural living is providing the challenges to most subscribers.
At almost 40 that's difficult to fathom. These things are not necessary. All of these things are luxuries, nothing more. You don't need luxuries. They cost hundreds of dollars per month. I guess, to a degree, it's a matter of self-perpetuating scams.
Average cable bill, and yes, some employers will not hire you if you don't answer their call, when they call.
No, no local university library within reach. Closest is in Fort Walton, at least 25 miles away, and gas ain't cheap. Of course I have internet access so it isn't a problem for me, is for others.
And schools today aren't like they were "back in the day". You try sending a 7 year old to school without a laptop and internet access, your child will fall behind quickly.
I have to agree with you mostly. People who are working and have working incomes tend to spend most of it on things that they could get along without if they would reset their priorities, tighten their belts and learn to get along on less.
Imo, that's a huge part of the issue when considering individuals. And for many it's unbelievable to suggest that they consider giving up luxuries that were not enjoyed in the past. The past that is deemed superior to the present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson
That's really the key, I think. My dh and I live really well on 24k because we don't have a mortgage or car payments. But we drive cars that are 11 and 16 years old and they are well maintained so there aren't many expensive repairs. We live very modestly in a small 760 square foot home with ONE bathroom (yes one).
20yrsinBranson
The average sq footage for the blessed days of the past wasn't too far off at roughly 900 sq ft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
What has giving the banks that money accomplished? Doing what I suggested would do more in kickstarting the economy than handing it to a greedy bankster to hoard.
Um, no it wouldn't. If you actually digest your own link you would see why. Putting poor earners into home ownership was supposed to be good for the economy. Giving freebees to poor earners is supposed to be good for the economy. Clearly, the stimulus bills have proven that is not the case. Creating jobs, and insuring investments, is the only thing that will be good for the economy.
Quote:
I say follow Iceland's example and gut the banksters' power, prosecute the bankers responsible for the problems, etc.
Banksters, free trade and outsourcing, regulating away the ability to build one's home reasonably, etc., are to blame for the problems of middle and low earners. The banks got us in this mess, let them suffer. Yank their charters and abolish the debt owed to them and start anew.
I have no issue with the banks suffering. I also have no issue with the folk taking the loans suffering as well. What you fail to address, as expected, is the American populace borrowing as usual. I'm on board with folk losing their homes, but they should not have been borrowing in the first place. Where, exactly, does your sense of personal responsibility fit here? Do you also support the case that it's both the banks and populace that have the welfare pulled from them? You will probably ignore that question
Quote:
You say you pay substantial taxes (btw I definately paid taxes last year), yet many of the largest earners pay little in taxes. How much in income taxes did GE pay?
The largest earners may pay a smaller percentage of total income, but they certainly pay more than you, me, and probably our entire tax lineage combined. That's not to say that I'm anti capital tax or anti progressive tax. I'm just honest about it. It's not your pittance or my pittance that is floating the economy. It's definitively not the "NO" pittance from the OP.
Quote:
I say raise the taxes through the roof on the greedy, yank their precious scraps of toilet paper away and let them cry.
How about a flat tax and just raise it on everyone across the board? Why should any of us get a free pass? What makes you (general you), as a poor earner, so special? We crap in a toilet provided to by the state via sewage and water works. We use the filtered water to cook provided to us by our government. We drive on roads, walk to stores, buy our food, use the internet, conduct every activity in life, from sex, to romance, to education, to entertainment that is wholly regulated by a government and financial global system that would be unachievable on our own. Ahh, but you don't want to pay that pittance of tax.
What's amazing to me is that it's always those of us who really don't contribute shyte that are complaining. Not that folk shouldn't complain, but it is mind numbing.
Average cable bill, and yes, some employers will not hire you if you don't answer their call, when they call.
Point being, you don't have to have that bill. I have just had an experience with a close friend who couldn't fight her way out of a financial paper bag. She lost her job during the recession. Was on unemployment for two years. Really, she piddled those years away. I offered her the option of joining my family plan. It would be $10/mo. Of course, there would be no data plan for the smart phone, but she would at least have the phone. She turned it town. She wanted to have the internet even tho she could bike 15 minutes or walk 30 minutes to her local library. Now? She has no phone. I have no idea what's going on with her. It's simply a matter of stupidity.
Quote:
No, no local university library within reach. Closest is in Fort Walton, at least 25 miles away, and gas ain't cheap. Of course I have internet access so it isn't a problem for me, is for others.
And schools today aren't like they were "back in the day". You try sending a 7 year old to school without a laptop and internet access, your child will fall behind quickly.
Certainly, every child deserves to have as much as possible available to them. Still, a dial up with internet phone will due for those chewing on straw. That, and a bit of free sex education to learn why they shouldn't have children in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
