- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Middle America wasn't feeling the boom and with half the country earning less then 30k likely being most effected in this area.
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,983 comments
- 1,695,957 views
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Likely not, but I gave you a reason why they likely voted that way.
- 29,699
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Is it really that enigmatic? He pushes their preferred narratives and agendas. Why go to such lengths when it's much easier to dismiss reports by invoking "TDS" or "Orang Man Bad", suggesting that the only reason these things are problematic is hatred for Trump?
It also bears mentioning that a number of these individuals latched onto the notion that Obama was born in Kenya; I question their capacity for critical thought.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
Interesting, I'm adding up the numbers from here (2017, All races):
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hinc/hinc-01.html
And I get 24.5%
(Households making less than $30k annually)
I wonder if there is a household vs. individual issue here. If one person is working in that household, for example, then the other one is making less than $30k annually, and so that's 1:1. But then, what's the point of that chart? To show that lots of people don't work?
Edit:
All you have to do to suss out terrible misleading statistics is just look at what someone is quoting and if you think "wait, that doesn't sound right", it probably is bunk. Granted you can't assume that until you actually go get data.
Edit 2:
O..M...G...
The numbers are so much worse than I thought. The mean number of workers for the statistics I quoted (roughly a quarter of households are making less than $30k) is less than one.
Holy crap. 60% of those households (the ones with less than $30k of income) have ZERO earners.
Edit 3:
Ok yea, so clearly the difference is household vs. individual. And clearly again the big looming issue is people not working. The "half of people making less than $30k" figure includes people in poor households not working, and also includes people in extremely rich households not working. For example, if only one member of a household is bringing in $300k annually, and the other doesn't work... well that person goes down as making less than $30k.
Nonsense.
Last edited:
- 11,785
- Marin County
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
That's federal taxable income. That's not "working". That's any income source that you have to pay federal income tax on, very different. In fact, I believe you can qualify for that just from receiving a state income tax refund. Although I'd have to look into that a bit more.
Edit:
Answer is... sometimes.
Edit 2:
Just look at the spreadsheet that I linked that had gobs of entire households bringing in less than $30k with ZERO earners who reported POSITIVE income.
Edit 3:
Ok, take for example... I know someone in her late 60s who is a retired millionaire. She does a little consulting on the side, probably nets about $10k per year. Her husband doesn't work, but they have dividends, annuities, etc. So that gets counted too. Lots of ways to not really have a job and still report income, even wages.
Edit 4:
Ok, just to drive my point home harder. In the spreadsheet I linked, 38% of the households that had between $25k and $30k of income had zero earners.
Last edited:
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
This would be done on a individual basis, it's all good to work out house hold income. But not all households share their income people share rentals all the time but they are not a family etc.
The Unemployment rate would say otherwise surely if you had such a real sizeable unemployment rate.
The Unemployment rate would say otherwise surely if you had such a real sizeable unemployment rate.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
Unemployment doesn't include people who choose not to work. Household does not include room mates, it's a tax concept. You're not filing jointly with or claiming your room mates.
- 11,785
- Marin County
Please be right Tucker. Listening to him (I try not to, generally) leaves me with a few takeaways:
-He reminds me a lot of Doug DeMuro in the way he talks
-He has perfected his art of instructional 'journalism'. The 'reporting' component is completely gone and it even goes far beyond editorializing; he's simply directing you what to think. Evidently this is very effective with his listeners.
Say what you want about liberal leaning media outlets like Vox, Atlantic, and others (and even late night comedians who really shouldn't even feel compelled to be objective) they at least try to qualify their opinions and provide opposing viewpoints.
-He reminds me a lot of Doug DeMuro in the way he talks
-He has perfected his art of instructional 'journalism'. The 'reporting' component is completely gone and it even goes far beyond editorializing; he's simply directing you what to think. Evidently this is very effective with his listeners.
Say what you want about liberal leaning media outlets like Vox, Atlantic, and others (and even late night comedians who really shouldn't even feel compelled to be objective) they at least try to qualify their opinions and provide opposing viewpoints.
Last edited:
- 13,847
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Er, we already know that people within the campaign had contacts with Russian officials.
Sure is. Big enough to throw away the idea of innocent until proven guilty?
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Looks like Trump is building this nonsense up since Venezuela is filled with Russian Soldiers.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/10983118
It's Soo easy to see through this crap when America bend over backwards for the Saudis who actually support the Terrorism.
Must be a low profit time for Lockheed Martin.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/10983118
It's Soo easy to see through this crap when America bend over backwards for the Saudis who actually support the Terrorism.
Must be a low profit time for Lockheed Martin.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Just watched "Ree" something-or-other making macaroni cheese on an American TV cooking programme. Apart from the fact she didn't use macaroni (she used conchiglie that she kept calling macaroni) the cheese was... bouncy looking like memory foam. Is that a real American thing? No roux for the sauce, just milk, butter and cheese. And then extra salt. It looked a state and I'm sure most schoolchildren could make it like that.
So here's my America question: I know that the US has some of the finest ingredients (and chefs) in the world, are all the cooking programmes like this or was it likely for a particularly low-rent market?
I won't even go into the cream-in-a-squirty-can dressed with Kit Kat bars that she did for dessert.
EDIT: She's called "Ree EDIT: Drummond", and she just made "noodles" but with linguine/fettucini. Looked much nicer than the "macaroni". Google says she's incredibly rich - vanity project maybe?
So here's my America question: I know that the US has some of the finest ingredients (and chefs) in the world, are all the cooking programmes like this or was it likely for a particularly low-rent market?
I won't even go into the cream-in-a-squirty-can dressed with Kit Kat bars that she did for dessert.
EDIT: She's called "Ree EDIT: Drummond", and she just made "noodles" but with linguine/fettucini. Looked much nicer than the "macaroni". Google says she's incredibly rich - vanity project maybe?
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
It used to be girls were taught to cook in school (Home Economics) while the boys took Metal Shop and Wood Shop. Then along came Women's Liberation 1 and Julia Child, the ex-CIA agent, had a charming cooking show on TV. Since then food preparation has devolved into entertainment. Just like Rome with its orgies, the US is in its degenerate phase.
It used to be 49¢, but still available for only 99¢.
I remember the day my total assets amounted to one dollar and one box of these.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 29,628
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Irrespective of whether it is seen as peasant food, I have at times boiled meat in order to reduce its salt content. I do hope that that is even true. But I wonder... does boiling chicken get rid of the chlorine?
- 11,785
- Marin County
The Trump administration is basically trying to criminalize being Iranian. For those who don't know, military service is mandatory in Iran for most males. If you are in the 'best and brightest' category (grades, etc) then, from my understanding, serving in the IRGC is not really a choice. All of these conscripts are now classified as terrorists.
This has John Bolton all over it. That man is doing everything he can to engineer pretexts for starting wars with other countries. I'm pretty sure he is praying for Iran to launch an assault on US troops stationed in the middle east.
I keep hearing how the Trump admin wants to 'help the people of Iran'. In practice, they are only hurting them while greatly strengthening the more rogue/militaristic elements. The truth is, the Trump administration doesn't care even slightly about the people of Iran.
If we get Trump for a second term, I fully expect to have multiple theaters of War going on by 2022.
In lighter news, this is just comically stupid.
So the IRS has the capability of automating the tax paying process, for free, for most Americans. But they won't because the middle-men want their share? I can't use the free version of turbotax because I need to pay on investment income, so I'm stuck paying a fee for really no reason. This is so American, 2019.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I have a feeling a war, any war, would be wildly unpopular with the American public. I mean I'm 31, almost 32 and we've been in a constant war for over half my life. It's kind of ridiculous and I can't imagine the military is getting the recruiting numbers they used to.
- 11,785
- Marin County
I don't think John Bolton cares about how popular it would be. Trump is an empty vessel. He currently is Stephen Miller domestic policy & John Bolton foreign policy. The only identifiable thread through the staff that he has maintained, is that they are all cruel. That's really the only driver of Trump's policy it seems. Rewarding his base via cruelty to literally everyone else. I bet you could ask 99% of Trump's core supporters if they would be ok with launching a nuclear attack on Tehran or Kabul or Tijuana or all of Honduras (hell, San Francisco while we're at it) and they would just say "**** yeah!". Vindictive cruelty is all these people want. From that perspective, a war with any of these countries would be wildly popular with his base.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
I'm going on 38 and we're have been in some conflict or another nearly my entire life.
Don't worry about the military though, or current social paradigm creates plenty of volunteers. Enough in fact that when I got out in 2010, they raised the prerequisites to be recruited and pushed out a lot of soldiers looking to reenlist.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
Do you think someone at some point callously realized:
"look, we have to pay for the soliders, and pay for the ammo, and pay for the technology... and we'll have to do it again in a few years anyway... and we need training... so... let's just actually go use it all to push our interests everywhere instead of just sitting around."
I don't like it either, but there's no better training ground, or testing ground, or development environment than actual conflict.
- 29,699
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Okay, so...whether it's correct or not, it's not uncommon for dried pastas made from durum wheat flour to be referred to as a macaroni product, as
I sure hope not. It's certainly not something I'd consider acceptable.
That, however, I do consider acceptable. Executed properly, a butter-cream* emulsion is a great base to add pasta and then cheese because more of the cheese flavor comes through when you eliminate the roux. The problem is that it tends to break when reheated, so don't make more than will be eaten in a sitting.
*Or milk.
Aren't they mostly reality shows now anyway? "You've been 'Chopped'!"
As I was cutting back my TV watching, I had a simple method of deciding which cooking shows to stop watching...if the host had a line of cookware and/or lifestyle products, they got the axe. Too often it's just too much emphasis on the personality behind the
Get rid of it? I don't know, but it may be reduced as a result of the equilibrium that is found during the process. That said, I can't imagine it would be more than thorough rinsing with multiple changes of water. But I'd emphasize rinsing it in a water bath rather than under flowing water because the latter can result in splatter that may be perfect for growing some nasty bacteria where you prepare food that isn't necessarily cooked.
Pretty sure the objections from the opposition would be just gravy too.
Last edited:
- 11,785
- Marin County
I don't think this is particularly revelatory, but I do start to wonder if there are ANY large sectors of our economy that don't have toxic or at least problematic foundations.
Big pharma / opioid epidemic
Real estate / housing affordability/shortage crisis
MIC / persistent/perennial state of war
Finance / all manner of corrupt ****, from payday loan scams, wells fargo opening accounts without authorization, etc
Healthcare / out of control costs
Technology / invasiveness, divisiveness, ethics concerns
It's almost as if 'fixing' any of the issues with these big sectors would actually cause them to fail (maybe fail is the wrong word). For instance, if you eliminate the opioid crisis/prescription drug abuse or if you manage to get the cost of prescription medicine down, will big pharma still be big pharma? If you fix the problem of housing shortage (by increasing supply) will it cause real estate investment to tank? If you manage to bring down healthcare costs, how will the healthcare industry support its good paying jobs and exorbitant staffing? If you stop fighting or at least supplying wars, what will everyone in the MIC do? If you slow down or otherwise tighten the reigns on the tech industry to mitigate its problems, will it even be profitable? I guess what I'm trying to get at is ask the question, are fixing the persistent problems in the USA diametrically opposed to the economic prosperity of the country? Sometimes I feel like most of our economy is profiting off of misery.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
Sortof...
Most of the "problems" that you identify aren't "problems" and so "fixing" them is indeed opposed to the economic prosperity of the country. Opiods are what people choose. Housing can't be guaranteed to be affordable. Payday loans are providing customers with what they want, and technology invasiveness is also what people choose. Mostly this list seems like you complaining about what people choose to do.
The MIC and healthcare issues are primarily government problems. Healthcare is worth its own thread, but the MIC issue is debatable from the perspective of whether it's profiting off of misery or simply being more "active" in the affairs of others than we need to be, but not necessarily more active than we are entitled to be.
For example, let's say some country governmentally doesn't allow women some basic freedoms (education, freedom to peacefully move, associate, speak, vote, etc.). From a human rights perspective, we can overthrow that government. Should we? That's debatable. It's expensive, but one could argue that it makes our armed forces better and more capable. I think there's not enough setup in this hypothetical to determine what the right answer would be.
- 11,785
- Marin County
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
We'd need to address what it means to choose to do something. Many times people choose to do something that results in a consequence which they would not choose in isolation. We can even get deep into a discussion about how much free choice any human being has in any circumstance.
The short answer is, to the extent that I think choice is possible, I think everyone who is an opioid addict (in the absence of physical force or the threat of physical force) has chosen to be.
- 11,785
- Marin County
Right. Somebody could very well choose to take a prescription pain killer. That choice could be informed, uninformed, it could be completely naive, it could be with the worst intentions possible. That's fine. That's a choice, at least sometimes. I don't think many people would be suspicious/critical of their doctor's recommendation/prescription. If somebody has pain, they will probably uncriticially take the medication their doctor prescribes, plausibly even unaware it even is an opioid So I'm still not fully onboard with your claim that even the initiation of taking opioids is a choice, at least not an informed one.
But to say that it's a choice to be addicted because of some abstract/philosophical notion of free choice is nonsense. Addiction is a biochemical reality.
I mean this half in jest, but do you think the residential building code (arc fault interruptors) is a bigger problem than opioid addiction?
