BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BBL, you lost this one.

It's okay, but you need to be honest you failed and ... as you suggested, move on.

---

You're still here? Good for you.

---

Some get to be omnipotent, I settle for omnipresent.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BBL, you lost this one.

It's okay, but you need to be honest you failed and ... as you suggested, move on.

---

You're still here? Good for you.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

One hundred and forty million poor and low-income people in America are a $400 emergency away from not being able to pay their bills next month. That's 43.5% of the population in the world's richest nation.

43.5% of the country is a $400 medical bill away from being in some sort of default.

This isn't theoretical.

After 10 years of growth, this is where we are. And y'all are saying that's fine?

---

As always with you, you poorly site your source and "cherry pick" data or quotes to make a point.

I assume that your numbers are based on articles related to a dated version of a Federal Reserve Report on the Economic Well-Being of US Households.

Per the latest report from May 2019.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf

"When asked about their finances, 75 percent of adults say they are either doing okay or living comfortably. This result in 2018 is similar to 2017 and is 12 percentage points higher than 2013. "

"Dealing with Unexpected Expenses

"While self-reported ability to handle unexpected expenses has improved substantially since the survey began in 2013, a sizeable share of adults nonetheless say that they would have some difficulty with a modest unexpected expense.

If faced with an unexpected expense of $400, 61 percent of adults say they would cover it with cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement a modest improvement from the prior year. Similar to the prior year, 27 percent would borrow or sell something to pay for the expense, and 12 percent would not be able to cover the expense at all. "

Also to note the statistics are based of a total of 11,440 completed responses.

Interesting that you don't consider it "theoretical" to apply a self-reported survey of 11,440+ to the entire US population to determine your estimate of the number of people in America that are close to default.

---

Lol, actually, it was a study from 2018. Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)

I think it's adorable that you think you know something about statistics. 11,000 responses is incredibly strong. Especially given the metrics and sampling data.

I get that you're just a dude who obviously doesn't work much in research (from your positions, that's clear) but this is solid data. Almost half the country couldn't handle a $400 expense without going into debt or defaulting. That's quite literally the point the OP was making. Some people are doing amazing in this economy.

Most of that benefit is going to a few.

---

I never professed to having any particular knowledge of statistics and find your deduction of my background interesting.

Because you omitted my point for context (as normal with you) my quote was" self-reported survey of 11,440+".

As I am limited in my knowledge are self reporting surveys incredibly stronger than exit polling data?

To illustrate your logic in this discussion.

"Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)."

"Most of that benefit is going to a few."

US Population x 3% = +9,600,000 situation has improved. (Compared to OP: The Real Economy isn't Booming)

---

A self-reported poll with that N is pretty great, from my understanding. You can have a non-self-reported poll of 1,000 and not be as accurate.

And it's weird that you missed the point. ALMOST HALF THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD A $400 UNEXPECTED EXPENSE. 9 million more can in the last two years of a supposedly booming economy and historically low unemployment.

But almost HALF still can't. That's insanely wild. Can you really say this is the best economy ever when, even after 10 years of growth, half of the country could be forced into some sort of ruin by an expected car repair?

---

These kinds of numbers are really annoying.
You can't afford a $400 bill, but you and your spouse each have a $700 iPhone??
I have been in those situations before, and it isn't as dire as you make it out to be. Most people (sadly) do not save anything. Instead, they go into debt to get a more expensive car, house, phone, clothes, vacation.... etc
The vast majority of working Americans have over $1,000 worth of items which they can sell for that unexpected $400 bill. What they are saying is that there current burn rate doesn't allow for an extra $400 of expenses. If you look into their actual spending vs. income... there is more than enough there, but it would require some hard choices. You would have us all believe that almost half of the country is working, and they don't eat out, don't buy expensive clothes, don't have smart phones, don't buy expensive cars, don't go on any vacations, don't go to movies, don't buy ear buds, don't own jewelry, don't own electronics, don't own much of anything.... and after ALL of that thrifty living... they still have no savings and cannot afford an unexpected $400 bill??? That's total BS. If that were true, then Amazon and Best Buy would be bankrupt from a lack of customers. FYI, Best Buy reported better than expected sales increases last year and the year before that. They also reported a better Q1 than the Q1 the year before. The overall revenue for Q1 was up, even though the international revenue was lower... the stronger domestic sales more than made up the difference.
So people are flocking to Best Buy to buy crap that they don't need... but they can't afford a $400 bill.
In reality, people are responding to a question, and realizing that they are spending everything they have, rather than saving for a rainy day.

---

Internet access is a requirement for life,

---

Ummmmmmmmm..........................................no, it is not.

---

Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline).

You serious?

---

It's a privilege and not a requirement. How the fulk do you think folks got jobs before the advent of the internet? I'd had 3 serious jobs (one with a major energy company) after BU graduation before I ever had a cell phone or internet.

---

You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

http://www.digitalresponsibility.org/digital-divide-the-technology-gap-between-rich-and-poor

https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/What-Low-Income-Students-Miss-When-Their-Only-Internet-Access-is-Through-Their-Phone.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0203/Why-many-low-income-families-have-Internet-access-but-remain-under-connected

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-16/internet-access-a-staple-of-american-life-yet-millions-remain-under-connected

---

Hahaha!!! I guess I just glummed along for the first 28 years of my life without internet and a cell phone. Shlt I'm surprised that ExxonMobil even hired me or made a few dollars less than 6 figures before that! Maybe you've never realized that companies actually had technical libraries, training documents, group networking, and real, experienced people passing knowledge down.

---

Cool. You think you could do that job without access to email or a phone, now?

Try selling your new "we don't need the internet" plan to your board. Sure it will go over JUST great.

---

You might be surprised to learn that my peers on the Exxon side did not have internet access whereas we had limited access at our heritage-Mobil site (mid 1990s). Which company bought Mobil?

We landed guys on the moon using slide rules and tech documents. The internet is not a requirement for daily living. I feel sorry that you've had no life untethered from cell phones and the internet.

---

Lol. That's your argument? People don't need antibiotics. Mankind existed before antibiotics, so medicine is just kind of a fad?

This is such a beautiful example of old conservative men groupthink... it's almost beautiful.

Take the "L" on this one and move on.

---

---

Find a way to respond to this without using the internet.

---

It's a tool only. It's not necessary for daily living.

---

It is. Name a sector of the economy where someone can exist without using the internet in perpetuity.

I come from a farm community. Even farmers rely on in depth and real-time satellite information and connectivity to get the best yield.

You cannot make the argument that the average person can reasonably exist, pay bills, job search, maintain connectivity, etc WITHOUT access to the internet.

You might as well argue that electricity isn't required.

Move on. You had a bad take. It's okay. I don't think you're dumb. Just stubborn.

---

Every. Single. Industrial. Sector. Did without the internet until the late 1990s. It's an efficiency tool not a requirement for daily living.

My ranching family does without the internet as well as many farmers I know because they know their fields, their crop, and how to run a plow. I paid bills by cash money hand-delivery or via a check and snail mail up until 2 years ago. My first job searches consisted of buying newspapers from Houston, San Antonio, Austin, etc. and looking in the classified section. I was plenty connected via a landline. Civilization did not begin in the late 1990s despite what you think.

I think all we can surmise is that some people can live without internet and some can't because they know no different.

Not sure what would happen to those that can't if the internet went down...I guess they just stare at their rectangles until something happens, and if it doesn't, then they meet their demise.

It appears to be a really critical requirement for some in order to reasonably function.

Glad I'm not on that team.

blackie said:

---

What this country absolutely cannot exist on is an absence of electricity. See how things function without it next time you have a power failure because of storms. It is actually scary. If a country or persons ever figure out a way to disable a country's power grid in a manner that is not readily fixed in a reasonable time, they will hold the upper hand regardless of other considerations.

The bad part is that there are cosmic events that can do this as well. Such events have happened in the past prior to the high reliance on electricity. No big deal then.....BIG deal now. That to me, is our achilles heel and from what I have seen we aren't really in a good position to react or recover.

---

Osodecentex has some good sources about blackouts as a weapon.

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

One hundred and forty million poor and low-income people in America are a $400 emergency away from not being able to pay their bills next month. That's 43.5% of the population in the world's richest nation.

43.5% of the country is a $400 medical bill away from being in some sort of default.

This isn't theoretical.

After 10 years of growth, this is where we are. And y'all are saying that's fine?

---

As always with you, you poorly site your source and "cherry pick" data or quotes to make a point.

I assume that your numbers are based on articles related to a dated version of a Federal Reserve Report on the Economic Well-Being of US Households.

Per the latest report from May 2019.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf

"When asked about their finances, 75 percent of adults say they are either doing okay or living comfortably. This result in 2018 is similar to 2017 and is 12 percentage points higher than 2013. "

"Dealing with Unexpected Expenses

"While self-reported ability to handle unexpected expenses has improved substantially since the survey began in 2013, a sizeable share of adults nonetheless say that they would have some difficulty with a modest unexpected expense.

If faced with an unexpected expense of $400, 61 percent of adults say they would cover it with cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement a modest improvement from the prior year. Similar to the prior year, 27 percent would borrow or sell something to pay for the expense, and 12 percent would not be able to cover the expense at all. "

Also to note the statistics are based of a total of 11,440 completed responses.

Interesting that you don't consider it "theoretical" to apply a self-reported survey of 11,440+ to the entire US population to determine your estimate of the number of people in America that are close to default.

---

Lol, actually, it was a study from 2018. Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)

I think it's adorable that you think you know something about statistics. 11,000 responses is incredibly strong. Especially given the metrics and sampling data.

I get that you're just a dude who obviously doesn't work much in research (from your positions, that's clear) but this is solid data. Almost half the country couldn't handle a $400 expense without going into debt or defaulting. That's quite literally the point the OP was making. Some people are doing amazing in this economy.

Most of that benefit is going to a few.

---

I never professed to having any particular knowledge of statistics and find your deduction of my background interesting.

Because you omitted my point for context (as normal with you) my quote was" self-reported survey of 11,440+".

As I am limited in my knowledge are self reporting surveys incredibly stronger than exit polling data?

To illustrate your logic in this discussion.

"Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)."

"Most of that benefit is going to a few."

US Population x 3% = +9,600,000 situation has improved. (Compared to OP: The Real Economy isn't Booming)

---

A self-reported poll with that N is pretty great, from my understanding. You can have a non-self-reported poll of 1,000 and not be as accurate.

And it's weird that you missed the point. ALMOST HALF THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD A $400 UNEXPECTED EXPENSE. 9 million more can in the last two years of a supposedly booming economy and historically low unemployment.

But almost HALF still can't. That's insanely wild. Can you really say this is the best economy ever when, even after 10 years of growth, half of the country could be forced into some sort of ruin by an expected car repair?

---

These kinds of numbers are really annoying.
You can't afford a $400 bill, but you and your spouse each have a $700 iPhone??
I have been in those situations before, and it isn't as dire as you make it out to be. Most people (sadly) do not save anything. Instead, they go into debt to get a more expensive car, house, phone, clothes, vacation.... etc
The vast majority of working Americans have over $1,000 worth of items which they can sell for that unexpected $400 bill. What they are saying is that there current burn rate doesn't allow for an extra $400 of expenses. If you look into their actual spending vs. income... there is more than enough there, but it would require some hard choices. You would have us all believe that almost half of the country is working, and they don't eat out, don't buy expensive clothes, don't have smart phones, don't buy expensive cars, don't go on any vacations, don't go to movies, don't buy ear buds, don't own jewelry, don't own electronics, don't own much of anything.... and after ALL of that thrifty living... they still have no savings and cannot afford an unexpected $400 bill??? That's total BS. If that were true, then Amazon and Best Buy would be bankrupt from a lack of customers. FYI, Best Buy reported better than expected sales increases last year and the year before that. They also reported a better Q1 than the Q1 the year before. The overall revenue for Q1 was up, even though the international revenue was lower... the stronger domestic sales more than made up the difference.
So people are flocking to Best Buy to buy crap that they don't need... but they can't afford a $400 bill.
In reality, people are responding to a question, and realizing that they are spending everything they have, rather than saving for a rainy day.

---

Internet access is a requirement for life,

---

Ummmmmmmmm..........................................no, it is not.

---

Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline).

You serious?

---

It's a privilege and not a requirement. How the fulk do you think folks got jobs before the advent of the internet? I'd had 3 serious jobs (one with a major energy company) after BU graduation before I ever had a cell phone or internet.

---

You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

http://www.digitalresponsibility.org/digital-divide-the-technology-gap-between-rich-and-poor

https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/What-Low-Income-Students-Miss-When-Their-Only-Internet-Access-is-Through-Their-Phone.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0203/Why-many-low-income-families-have-Internet-access-but-remain-under-connected

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-16/internet-access-a-staple-of-american-life-yet-millions-remain-under-connected

---

Hahaha!!! I guess I just glummed along for the first 28 years of my life without internet and a cell phone. Shlt I'm surprised that ExxonMobil even hired me or made a few dollars less than 6 figures before that! Maybe you've never realized that companies actually had technical libraries, training documents, group networking, and real, experienced people passing knowledge down.

---

Cool. You think you could do that job without access to email or a phone, now?

Try selling your new "we don't need the internet" plan to your board. Sure it will go over JUST great.

---

You might be surprised to learn that my peers on the Exxon side did not have internet access whereas we had limited access at our heritage-Mobil site (mid 1990s). Which company bought Mobil?

We landed guys on the moon using slide rules and tech documents. The internet is not a requirement for daily living. I feel sorry that you've had no life untethered from cell phones and the internet.

---

Lol. That's your argument? People don't need antibiotics. Mankind existed before antibiotics, so medicine is just kind of a fad?

This is such a beautiful example of old conservative men groupthink... it's almost beautiful.

Take the "L" on this one and move on.

---

---

Find a way to respond to this without using the internet.

---

It's a tool only. It's not necessary for daily living.

---

It is. Name a sector of the economy where someone can exist without using the internet in perpetuity.

I come from a farm community. Even farmers rely on in depth and real-time satellite information and connectivity to get the best yield.

You cannot make the argument that the average person can reasonably exist, pay bills, job search, maintain connectivity, etc WITHOUT access to the internet.

You might as well argue that electricity isn't required.

Move on. You had a bad take. It's okay. I don't think you're dumb. Just stubborn.

---

Every. Single. Industrial. Sector. Did without the internet until the late 1990s. It's an efficiency tool not a requirement for daily living.

My ranching family does without the internet as well as many farmers I know because they know their fields, their crop, and how to run a plow. I paid bills by cash money hand-delivery or via a check and snail mail up until 2 years ago. My first job searches consisted of buying newspapers from Houston, San Antonio, Austin, etc. and looking in the classified section. I was plenty connected via a landline. Civilization did not begin in the late 1990s despite what you think.

---

You DO realize how technology works, right? It advances.

We've gone far afield from ten original premise. But that's fine. You're digging yourself a hole.

Every sector USED to be able to work without electricity. Now it cannot. Are you seriously saying your company could go without internet for a whole day? You couldn't go without email for an hour.

Why are we even talking about this? It's reducto as absurdum.

If we lost internet, the country would grind to a halt.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-fundamentals/201711/the-economy-is-too-dependent-the-internet%3Famp

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

One hundred and forty million poor and low-income people in America are a $400 emergency away from not being able to pay their bills next month. That's 43.5% of the population in the world's richest nation.

43.5% of the country is a $400 medical bill away from being in some sort of default.

This isn't theoretical.

After 10 years of growth, this is where we are. And y'all are saying that's fine?

---

As always with you, you poorly site your source and "cherry pick" data or quotes to make a point.

I assume that your numbers are based on articles related to a dated version of a Federal Reserve Report on the Economic Well-Being of US Households.

Per the latest report from May 2019.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf

"When asked about their finances, 75 percent of adults say they are either doing okay or living comfortably. This result in 2018 is similar to 2017 and is 12 percentage points higher than 2013. "

"Dealing with Unexpected Expenses

"While self-reported ability to handle unexpected expenses has improved substantially since the survey began in 2013, a sizeable share of adults nonetheless say that they would have some difficulty with a modest unexpected expense.

If faced with an unexpected expense of $400, 61 percent of adults say they would cover it with cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement a modest improvement from the prior year. Similar to the prior year, 27 percent would borrow or sell something to pay for the expense, and 12 percent would not be able to cover the expense at all. "

Also to note the statistics are based of a total of 11,440 completed responses.

Interesting that you don't consider it "theoretical" to apply a self-reported survey of 11,440+ to the entire US population to determine your estimate of the number of people in America that are close to default.

---

Lol, actually, it was a study from 2018. Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)

I think it's adorable that you think you know something about statistics. 11,000 responses is incredibly strong. Especially given the metrics and sampling data.

I get that you're just a dude who obviously doesn't work much in research (from your positions, that's clear) but this is solid data. Almost half the country couldn't handle a $400 expense without going into debt or defaulting. That's quite literally the point the OP was making. Some people are doing amazing in this economy.

Most of that benefit is going to a few.

---

I never professed to having any particular knowledge of statistics and find your deduction of my background interesting.

Because you omitted my point for context (as normal with you) my quote was" self-reported survey of 11,440+".

As I am limited in my knowledge are self reporting surveys incredibly stronger than exit polling data?

To illustrate your logic in this discussion.

"Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)."

"Most of that benefit is going to a few."

US Population x 3% = +9,600,000 situation has improved. (Compared to OP: The Real Economy isn't Booming)

---

A self-reported poll with that N is pretty great, from my understanding. You can have a non-self-reported poll of 1,000 and not be as accurate.

And it's weird that you missed the point. ALMOST HALF THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD A $400 UNEXPECTED EXPENSE. 9 million more can in the last two years of a supposedly booming economy and historically low unemployment.

But almost HALF still can't. That's insanely wild. Can you really say this is the best economy ever when, even after 10 years of growth, half of the country could be forced into some sort of ruin by an expected car repair?

---

These kinds of numbers are really annoying.
You can't afford a $400 bill, but you and your spouse each have a $700 iPhone??
I have been in those situations before, and it isn't as dire as you make it out to be. Most people (sadly) do not save anything. Instead, they go into debt to get a more expensive car, house, phone, clothes, vacation.... etc
The vast majority of working Americans have over $1,000 worth of items which they can sell for that unexpected $400 bill. What they are saying is that there current burn rate doesn't allow for an extra $400 of expenses. If you look into their actual spending vs. income... there is more than enough there, but it would require some hard choices. You would have us all believe that almost half of the country is working, and they don't eat out, don't buy expensive clothes, don't have smart phones, don't buy expensive cars, don't go on any vacations, don't go to movies, don't buy ear buds, don't own jewelry, don't own electronics, don't own much of anything.... and after ALL of that thrifty living... they still have no savings and cannot afford an unexpected $400 bill??? That's total BS. If that were true, then Amazon and Best Buy would be bankrupt from a lack of customers. FYI, Best Buy reported better than expected sales increases last year and the year before that. They also reported a better Q1 than the Q1 the year before. The overall revenue for Q1 was up, even though the international revenue was lower... the stronger domestic sales more than made up the difference.
So people are flocking to Best Buy to buy crap that they don't need... but they can't afford a $400 bill.
In reality, people are responding to a question, and realizing that they are spending everything they have, rather than saving for a rainy day.

---

Internet access is a requirement for life,

---

Ummmmmmmmm..........................................no, it is not.

---

Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline).

You serious?

---

It's a privilege and not a requirement. How the fulk do you think folks got jobs before the advent of the internet? I'd had 3 serious jobs (one with a major energy company) after BU graduation before I ever had a cell phone or internet.

---

You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

http://www.digitalresponsibility.org/digital-divide-the-technology-gap-between-rich-and-poor

https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/What-Low-Income-Students-Miss-When-Their-Only-Internet-Access-is-Through-Their-Phone.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0203/Why-many-low-income-families-have-Internet-access-but-remain-under-connected

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-16/internet-access-a-staple-of-american-life-yet-millions-remain-under-connected

---

I know people who reasonably function in society yet do not utilize personal Internet access. It is unreasonable to say he is completely nuts since these people do actually exist.

"Typical millennial. Proven wrong then petulantly argues. Adios mofo."


Fascinating really when you consider his original post.

BrooksBearLives said:

From original statement:

"Internet access is a requirement for life,"

To if wanting a job:
"Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline)."

To functioning in society:
You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

To nonsensical:
"Find a way to respond to this without using the internet."

To economic sector sustainability:
"It is. Name a sector of the economy where someone can exist without using the internet in perpetuity."

To maintaining connectivity:
"You cannot make the argument that the average person can reasonably exist, pay bills, job search, maintain connectivity, etc WITHOUT access to the internet."

To individual company and country:
"Every sector USED to be able to work without electricity. Now it cannot. Are you seriously saying your company could go without internet for a whole day? You couldn't go without email for an hour.

Why are we even talking about this? It's reducto as absurdum.
If we lost internet, the country would grind to a halt."

I generally love watching you guys argue with BBL and, as a rule, think his politics are completely ridiculous. However, you're out of your damned mind if you think the average business can go without internet. I was at target the other day. Their registers didn't work because of an internet issue. They were down for hours. I shutter to think what the cost was to that business.

I was at sketchers and their POS was having internet issues the lines were INSANE.

You're right, a small handful of people could be fine without for about a day...until they went to get gas and couldn't (the pumps that authorize cards do so with the internet) then went to the ATM and couldn't get cash (they operate on the internet).

This isn't 1999 any more. Depending on how you view the stats only 35ish % of transactions in the US use cash. All the rest would rely on the internet.

The stance that the internet isn't necessity is almost as asinine as virtually all of BBLs political stances.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

One hundred and forty million poor and low-income people in America are a $400 emergency away from not being able to pay their bills next month. That's 43.5% of the population in the world's richest nation.

43.5% of the country is a $400 medical bill away from being in some sort of default.

This isn't theoretical.

After 10 years of growth, this is where we are. And y'all are saying that's fine?

---

As always with you, you poorly site your source and "cherry pick" data or quotes to make a point.

I assume that your numbers are based on articles related to a dated version of a Federal Reserve Report on the Economic Well-Being of US Households.

Per the latest report from May 2019.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf

"When asked about their finances, 75 percent of adults say they are either doing okay or living comfortably. This result in 2018 is similar to 2017 and is 12 percentage points higher than 2013. "

"Dealing with Unexpected Expenses

"While self-reported ability to handle unexpected expenses has improved substantially since the survey began in 2013, a sizeable share of adults nonetheless say that they would have some difficulty with a modest unexpected expense.

If faced with an unexpected expense of $400, 61 percent of adults say they would cover it with cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement a modest improvement from the prior year. Similar to the prior year, 27 percent would borrow or sell something to pay for the expense, and 12 percent would not be able to cover the expense at all. "

Also to note the statistics are based of a total of 11,440 completed responses.

Interesting that you don't consider it "theoretical" to apply a self-reported survey of 11,440+ to the entire US population to determine your estimate of the number of people in America that are close to default.

---

Lol, actually, it was a study from 2018. Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)

I think it's adorable that you think you know something about statistics. 11,000 responses is incredibly strong. Especially given the metrics and sampling data.

I get that you're just a dude who obviously doesn't work much in research (from your positions, that's clear) but this is solid data. Almost half the country couldn't handle a $400 expense without going into debt or defaulting. That's quite literally the point the OP was making. Some people are doing amazing in this economy.

Most of that benefit is going to a few.

---

I never professed to having any particular knowledge of statistics and find your deduction of my background interesting.

Because you omitted my point for context (as normal with you) my quote was" self-reported survey of 11,440+".

As I am limited in my knowledge are self reporting surveys incredibly stronger than exit polling data?

To illustrate your logic in this discussion.

"Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)."

"Most of that benefit is going to a few."

US Population x 3% = +9,600,000 situation has improved. (Compared to OP: The Real Economy isn't Booming)

---

A self-reported poll with that N is pretty great, from my understanding. You can have a non-self-reported poll of 1,000 and not be as accurate.

And it's weird that you missed the point. ALMOST HALF THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD A $400 UNEXPECTED EXPENSE. 9 million more can in the last two years of a supposedly booming economy and historically low unemployment.

But almost HALF still can't. That's insanely wild. Can you really say this is the best economy ever when, even after 10 years of growth, half of the country could be forced into some sort of ruin by an expected car repair?

---

These kinds of numbers are really annoying.
You can't afford a $400 bill, but you and your spouse each have a $700 iPhone??
I have been in those situations before, and it isn't as dire as you make it out to be. Most people (sadly) do not save anything. Instead, they go into debt to get a more expensive car, house, phone, clothes, vacation.... etc
The vast majority of working Americans have over $1,000 worth of items which they can sell for that unexpected $400 bill. What they are saying is that there current burn rate doesn't allow for an extra $400 of expenses. If you look into their actual spending vs. income... there is more than enough there, but it would require some hard choices. You would have us all believe that almost half of the country is working, and they don't eat out, don't buy expensive clothes, don't have smart phones, don't buy expensive cars, don't go on any vacations, don't go to movies, don't buy ear buds, don't own jewelry, don't own electronics, don't own much of anything.... and after ALL of that thrifty living... they still have no savings and cannot afford an unexpected $400 bill??? That's total BS. If that were true, then Amazon and Best Buy would be bankrupt from a lack of customers. FYI, Best Buy reported better than expected sales increases last year and the year before that. They also reported a better Q1 than the Q1 the year before. The overall revenue for Q1 was up, even though the international revenue was lower... the stronger domestic sales more than made up the difference.
So people are flocking to Best Buy to buy crap that they don't need... but they can't afford a $400 bill.
In reality, people are responding to a question, and realizing that they are spending everything they have, rather than saving for a rainy day.

---

Internet access is a requirement for life,

---

Ummmmmmmmm..........................................no, it is not.

---

Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline).

You serious?

---

It's a privilege and not a requirement. How the fulk do you think folks got jobs before the advent of the internet? I'd had 3 serious jobs (one with a major energy company) after BU graduation before I ever had a cell phone or internet.

---

You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

http://www.digitalresponsibility.org/digital-divide-the-technology-gap-between-rich-and-poor

https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/What-Low-Income-Students-Miss-When-Their-Only-Internet-Access-is-Through-Their-Phone.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0203/Why-many-low-income-families-have-Internet-access-but-remain-under-connected

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-16/internet-access-a-staple-of-american-life-yet-millions-remain-under-connected

---

I know people who reasonably function in society yet do not utilize personal Internet access. It is unreasonable to say he is completely nuts since these people do actually exist.

---

Any of these people working class?

Bruce Leroy said:

---

"Typical millennial. Proven wrong then petulantly argues. Adios mofo."


Fascinating really when you consider his original post.

BrooksBearLives said:

From original statement:

"Internet access is a requirement for life,"

To if wanting a job:
"Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline)."

To functioning in society:
You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

To nonsensical:
"Find a way to respond to this without using the internet."

To economic sector sustainability:
"It is. Name a sector of the economy where someone can exist without using the internet in perpetuity."

To maintaining connectivity:
"You cannot make the argument that the average person can reasonably exist, pay bills, job search, maintain connectivity, etc WITHOUT access to the internet."

To individual company and country:
"Every sector USED to be able to work without electricity. Now it cannot. Are you seriously saying your company could go without internet for a whole day? You couldn't go without email for an hour.

Why are we even talking about this? It's reducto as absurdum.
If we lost internet, the country would grind to a halt."

---

Your posts are utterly unreadable.

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

One hundred and forty million poor and low-income people in America are a $400 emergency away from not being able to pay their bills next month. That's 43.5% of the population in the world's richest nation.

43.5% of the country is a $400 medical bill away from being in some sort of default.

This isn't theoretical.

After 10 years of growth, this is where we are. And y'all are saying that's fine?

---

As always with you, you poorly site your source and "cherry pick" data or quotes to make a point.

I assume that your numbers are based on articles related to a dated version of a Federal Reserve Report on the Economic Well-Being of US Households.

Per the latest report from May 2019.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf

"When asked about their finances, 75 percent of adults say they are either doing okay or living comfortably. This result in 2018 is similar to 2017 and is 12 percentage points higher than 2013. "

"Dealing with Unexpected Expenses

"While self-reported ability to handle unexpected expenses has improved substantially since the survey began in 2013, a sizeable share of adults nonetheless say that they would have some difficulty with a modest unexpected expense.

If faced with an unexpected expense of $400, 61 percent of adults say they would cover it with cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement a modest improvement from the prior year. Similar to the prior year, 27 percent would borrow or sell something to pay for the expense, and 12 percent would not be able to cover the expense at all. "

Also to note the statistics are based of a total of 11,440 completed responses.

Interesting that you don't consider it "theoretical" to apply a self-reported survey of 11,440+ to the entire US population to determine your estimate of the number of people in America that are close to default.

---

Lol, actually, it was a study from 2018. Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)

I think it's adorable that you think you know something about statistics. 11,000 responses is incredibly strong. Especially given the metrics and sampling data.

I get that you're just a dude who obviously doesn't work much in research (from your positions, that's clear) but this is solid data. Almost half the country couldn't handle a $400 expense without going into debt or defaulting. That's quite literally the point the OP was making. Some people are doing amazing in this economy.

Most of that benefit is going to a few.

---

I never professed to having any particular knowledge of statistics and find your deduction of my background interesting.

Because you omitted my point for context (as normal with you) my quote was" self-reported survey of 11,440+".

As I am limited in my knowledge are self reporting surveys incredibly stronger than exit polling data?

To illustrate your logic in this discussion.

"Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)."

"Most of that benefit is going to a few."

US Population x 3% = +9,600,000 situation has improved. (Compared to OP: The Real Economy isn't Booming)

---

A self-reported poll with that N is pretty great, from my understanding. You can have a non-self-reported poll of 1,000 and not be as accurate.

And it's weird that you missed the point. ALMOST HALF THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD A $400 UNEXPECTED EXPENSE. 9 million more can in the last two years of a supposedly booming economy and historically low unemployment.

But almost HALF still can't. That's insanely wild. Can you really say this is the best economy ever when, even after 10 years of growth, half of the country could be forced into some sort of ruin by an expected car repair?

---

These kinds of numbers are really annoying.
You can't afford a $400 bill, but you and your spouse each have a $700 iPhone??
I have been in those situations before, and it isn't as dire as you make it out to be. Most people (sadly) do not save anything. Instead, they go into debt to get a more expensive car, house, phone, clothes, vacation.... etc
The vast majority of working Americans have over $1,000 worth of items which they can sell for that unexpected $400 bill. What they are saying is that there current burn rate doesn't allow for an extra $400 of expenses. If you look into their actual spending vs. income... there is more than enough there, but it would require some hard choices. You would have us all believe that almost half of the country is working, and they don't eat out, don't buy expensive clothes, don't have smart phones, don't buy expensive cars, don't go on any vacations, don't go to movies, don't buy ear buds, don't own jewelry, don't own electronics, don't own much of anything.... and after ALL of that thrifty living... they still have no savings and cannot afford an unexpected $400 bill??? That's total BS. If that were true, then Amazon and Best Buy would be bankrupt from a lack of customers. FYI, Best Buy reported better than expected sales increases last year and the year before that. They also reported a better Q1 than the Q1 the year before. The overall revenue for Q1 was up, even though the international revenue was lower... the stronger domestic sales more than made up the difference.
So people are flocking to Best Buy to buy crap that they don't need... but they can't afford a $400 bill.
In reality, people are responding to a question, and realizing that they are spending everything they have, rather than saving for a rainy day.

---

Internet access is a requirement for life,

---

Ummmmmmmmm..........................................no, it is not.

---

Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline).

You serious?

---

It's a privilege and not a requirement. How the fulk do you think folks got jobs before the advent of the internet? I'd had 3 serious jobs (one with a major energy company) after BU graduation before I ever had a cell phone or internet.

---

You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

http://www.digitalresponsibility.org/digital-divide-the-technology-gap-between-rich-and-poor

https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/What-Low-Income-Students-Miss-When-Their-Only-Internet-Access-is-Through-Their-Phone.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0203/Why-many-low-income-families-have-Internet-access-but-remain-under-connected

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-16/internet-access-a-staple-of-american-life-yet-millions-remain-under-connected

---

Hahaha!!! I guess I just glummed along for the first 28 years of my life without internet and a cell phone. Shlt I'm surprised that ExxonMobil even hired me or made a few dollars less than 6 figures before that! Maybe you've never realized that companies actually had technical libraries, training documents, group networking, and real, experienced people passing knowledge down.

---

Cool. You think you could do that job without access to email or a phone, now?

Try selling your new "we don't need the internet" plan to your board. Sure it will go over JUST great.

---

You might be surprised to learn that my peers on the Exxon side did not have internet access whereas we had limited access at our heritage-Mobil site (mid 1990s). Which company bought Mobil?

We landed guys on the moon using slide rules and tech documents. The internet is not a requirement for daily living. I feel sorry that you've had no life untethered from cell phones and the internet.

---

Lol. That's your argument? People don't need antibiotics. Mankind existed before antibiotics, so medicine is just kind of a fad?

This is such a beautiful example of old conservative men groupthink... it's almost beautiful.

Take the "L" on this one and move on.

---

---

Find a way to respond to this without using the internet.

---

It's a tool only. It's not necessary for daily living.

---

It is. Name a sector of the economy where someone can exist without using the internet in perpetuity.

I come from a farm community. Even farmers rely on in depth and real-time satellite information and connectivity to get the best yield.

You cannot make the argument that the average person can reasonably exist, pay bills, job search, maintain connectivity, etc WITHOUT access to the internet.

You might as well argue that electricity isn't required.

Move on. You had a bad take. It's okay. I don't think you're dumb. Just stubborn.

---

Every. Single. Industrial. Sector. Did without the internet until the late 1990s. It's an efficiency tool not a requirement for daily living.

My ranching family does without the internet as well as many farmers I know because they know their fields, their crop, and how to run a plow. I paid bills by cash money hand-delivery or via a check and snail mail up until 2 years ago. My first job searches consisted of buying newspapers from Houston, San Antonio, Austin, etc. and looking in the classified section. I was plenty connected via a landline. Civilization did not begin in the late 1990s despite what you think.

---

You DO realize how technology works, right? It advances.

We've gone far afield from ten original premise. But that's fine. You're digging yourself a hole.

Every sector USED to be able to work without electricity. Now it cannot. Are you seriously saying your company could go without internet for a whole day? You couldn't go without email for an hour.

Why are we even talking about this? It's reducto as absurdum.

If we lost internet, the country would grind to a halt.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-fundamentals/201711/the-economy-is-too-dependent-the-internet%3Famp

---

Typical millennial. Proven wrong then petulantly argues. Adios mofo.

---

Lol. It's like you're allergic to being right.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

"Typical millennial. Proven wrong then petulantly argues. Adios mofo."


Fascinating really when you consider his original post.

BrooksBearLives said:

From original statement:

"Internet access is a requirement for life,"

To if wanting a job:
"Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline)."

To functioning in society:
You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

To nonsensical:
"Find a way to respond to this without using the internet."

To economic sector sustainability:
"It is. Name a sector of the economy where someone can exist without using the internet in perpetuity."

To maintaining connectivity:
"You cannot make the argument that the average person can reasonably exist, pay bills, job search, maintain connectivity, etc WITHOUT access to the internet."

To individual company and country:
"Every sector USED to be able to work without electricity. Now it cannot. Are you seriously saying your company could go without internet for a whole day? You couldn't go without email for an hour.

Why are we even talking about this? It's reducto as absurdum.
If we lost internet, the country would grind to a halt."

---

Your posts are utterly unreadable.

---

Really. How? When I attribute your postings I use " " and use bold to highlight text that I think is relevant. Is there a better way that you suggest that I make it more clear to all readers?

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

"Typical millennial. Proven wrong then petulantly argues. Adios mofo."


Fascinating really when you consider his original post.

BrooksBearLives said:

From original statement:

"Internet access is a requirement for life,"

To if wanting a job:
"Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline)."

To functioning in society:
You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

To nonsensical:
"Find a way to respond to this without using the internet."

To economic sector sustainability:
"It is. Name a sector of the economy where someone can exist without using the internet in perpetuity."

To maintaining connectivity:
"You cannot make the argument that the average person can reasonably exist, pay bills, job search, maintain connectivity, etc WITHOUT access to the internet."

To individual company and country:
"Every sector USED to be able to work without electricity. Now it cannot. Are you seriously saying your company could go without internet for a whole day? You couldn't go without email for an hour.

Why are we even talking about this? It's reducto as absurdum.
If we lost internet, the country would grind to a halt."

---

Your posts are utterly unreadable.

---

Really. How? When I attribute your postings I use " " and use bold to highlight text that I think is relevant. Is there a better way that you suggest that I make it more clear to all readers?

---

Respond in-text in bold? I read a LOT of textbooks and even more research studies. They're a whole different kind of weird. But I sincerely struggle to read your posts. And they're almost always worth wading through.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

One hundred and forty million poor and low-income people in America are a $400 emergency away from not being able to pay their bills next month. That's 43.5% of the population in the world's richest nation.

43.5% of the country is a $400 medical bill away from being in some sort of default.

This isn't theoretical.

After 10 years of growth, this is where we are. And y'all are saying that's fine?

---

As always with you, you poorly site your source and "cherry pick" data or quotes to make a point.

I assume that your numbers are based on articles related to a dated version of a Federal Reserve Report on the Economic Well-Being of US Households.

Per the latest report from May 2019.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf

"When asked about their finances, 75 percent of adults say they are either doing okay or living comfortably. This result in 2018 is similar to 2017 and is 12 percentage points higher than 2013. "

"Dealing with Unexpected Expenses

"While self-reported ability to handle unexpected expenses has improved substantially since the survey began in 2013, a sizeable share of adults nonetheless say that they would have some difficulty with a modest unexpected expense.

If faced with an unexpected expense of $400, 61 percent of adults say they would cover it with cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement a modest improvement from the prior year. Similar to the prior year, 27 percent would borrow or sell something to pay for the expense, and 12 percent would not be able to cover the expense at all. "

Also to note the statistics are based of a total of 11,440 completed responses.

Interesting that you don't consider it "theoretical" to apply a self-reported survey of 11,440+ to the entire US population to determine your estimate of the number of people in America that are close to default.

---

Lol, actually, it was a study from 2018. Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)

I think it's adorable that you think you know something about statistics. 11,000 responses is incredibly strong. Especially given the metrics and sampling data.

I get that you're just a dude who obviously doesn't work much in research (from your positions, that's clear) but this is solid data. Almost half the country couldn't handle a $400 expense without going into debt or defaulting. That's quite literally the point the OP was making. Some people are doing amazing in this economy.

Most of that benefit is going to a few.

---

I never professed to having any particular knowledge of statistics and find your deduction of my background interesting.

Because you omitted my point for context (as normal with you) my quote was" self-reported survey of 11,440+".

As I am limited in my knowledge are self reporting surveys incredibly stronger than exit polling data?

To illustrate your logic in this discussion.

"Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)."

"Most of that benefit is going to a few."

US Population x 3% = +9,600,000 situation has improved. (Compared to OP: The Real Economy isn't Booming)

---

A self-reported poll with that N is pretty great, from my understanding. You can have a non-self-reported poll of 1,000 and not be as accurate.

And it's weird that you missed the point. ALMOST HALF THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD A $400 UNEXPECTED EXPENSE. 9 million more can in the last two years of a supposedly booming economy and historically low unemployment.

But almost HALF still can't. That's insanely wild. Can you really say this is the best economy ever when, even after 10 years of growth, half of the country could be forced into some sort of ruin by an expected car repair?

---

These kinds of numbers are really annoying.
You can't afford a $400 bill, but you and your spouse each have a $700 iPhone??
I have been in those situations before, and it isn't as dire as you make it out to be. Most people (sadly) do not save anything. Instead, they go into debt to get a more expensive car, house, phone, clothes, vacation.... etc
The vast majority of working Americans have over $1,000 worth of items which they can sell for that unexpected $400 bill. What they are saying is that there current burn rate doesn't allow for an extra $400 of expenses. If you look into their actual spending vs. income... there is more than enough there, but it would require some hard choices. You would have us all believe that almost half of the country is working, and they don't eat out, don't buy expensive clothes, don't have smart phones, don't buy expensive cars, don't go on any vacations, don't go to movies, don't buy ear buds, don't own jewelry, don't own electronics, don't own much of anything.... and after ALL of that thrifty living... they still have no savings and cannot afford an unexpected $400 bill??? That's total BS. If that were true, then Amazon and Best Buy would be bankrupt from a lack of customers. FYI, Best Buy reported better than expected sales increases last year and the year before that. They also reported a better Q1 than the Q1 the year before. The overall revenue for Q1 was up, even though the international revenue was lower... the stronger domestic sales more than made up the difference.
So people are flocking to Best Buy to buy crap that they don't need... but they can't afford a $400 bill.
In reality, people are responding to a question, and realizing that they are spending everything they have, rather than saving for a rainy day.

---

Internet access is a requirement for life,

---

Ummmmmmmmm..........................................no, it is not.

---

Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline).

You serious?

---

It's a privilege and not a requirement. How the fulk do you think folks got jobs before the advent of the internet? I'd had 3 serious jobs (one with a major energy company) after BU graduation before I ever had a cell phone or internet.

---

You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

http://www.digitalresponsibility.org/digital-divide-the-technology-gap-between-rich-and-poor

https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/What-Low-Income-Students-Miss-When-Their-Only-Internet-Access-is-Through-Their-Phone.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0203/Why-many-low-income-families-have-Internet-access-but-remain-under-connected

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-16/internet-access-a-staple-of-american-life-yet-millions-remain-under-connected

---

I know people who reasonably function in society yet do not utilize personal Internet access. It is unreasonable to say he is completely nuts since these people do actually exist.

---

Any of these people working class?

---

Yes.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

"Typical millennial. Proven wrong then petulantly argues. Adios mofo."


Fascinating really when you consider his original post.

BrooksBearLives said:

From original statement:

"Internet access is a requirement for life,"

To if wanting a job:
"Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline)."

To functioning in society:
You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

To nonsensical:
"Find a way to respond to this without using the internet."

To economic sector sustainability:
"It is. Name a sector of the economy where someone can exist without using the internet in perpetuity."

To maintaining connectivity:
"You cannot make the argument that the average person can reasonably exist, pay bills, job search, maintain connectivity, etc WITHOUT access to the internet."

To individual company and country:
"Every sector USED to be able to work without electricity. Now it cannot. Are you seriously saying your company could go without internet for a whole day? You couldn't go without email for an hour.

Why are we even talking about this? It's reducto as absurdum.
If we lost internet, the country would grind to a halt."

---

Your posts are utterly unreadable.

---

Really. How? When I attribute your postings I use " " and use bold to highlight text that I think is relevant. Is there a better way that you suggest that I make it more clear to all readers?

---

Respond in-text in bold? I read a LOT of textbooks and even more research studies. They're a whole different kind of weird. But I sincerely struggle to read your posts. And they're almost always worth wading through.

---

Ok. I attempted follow a logical/linear progression of postings but to clarify:

An example I used earlier

The original premise you used was the 43 million employed people were considered poor. So I bolded it.

"About 12% of Americans (43 million) are considered poor, and yet they are employed."

The original article used nearly identical language of but failed to connect that 8.6 million meets the definition of "working poor" ie. The 43 million number is incorrect. So I bolded the language of the study so the reader could determine that result him/herself.

The latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that there are 8.6 million "working poor," defined by the government as people who live below the poverty line despite being employed at least 27 weeks a year.

In this current example I bolded areas where your position was refined.

From Point A: You went from a definitive statement of "requirement for life" (which you apparently deleted) which was in context of discussion against another posting questioning the validity of smartphones in relation to your posting of 43.5% of the us population not being able to afford a $400 unexpected expense.

to

Point B: Your response shifted from "requirement for life" to specifically ability to get a job. Which another poster said "internet" wasn't really needed" to get a job. (my paraphrasing).

to

Point C: You shifted position to not respond to "his internet is not needed to get a job response" but to functioning in society., etc and thus society and internet as a whole.

Etc.

What of the above makes them unreadable?

Bold text indicates where you changed your definitive statement or areas I want readers to read and try to think about what is written.

Do you have a issues of why I want the reader to determine their own opinion of your postings and how consistent they are or is it the lack of me definitively stating where I think you are incorrect in your opinions that makes them unreadable?

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up.

Dems clean it up?

Does this justify my calling Waco an idiot?

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

The weed seems to have limited quash's brain. Presidents do more than Executive Orders, although some of Trump's success comes from simply reversing Obama's EO's.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

The weed seems to have limited quash's brain. Presidents do more than Executive Orders, although some of Trump's success comes from simply reversing Obama's EO's.

---

If EO meant EO I would have said EO. So I left open a president's every act. Naturally you have no substantive reply, merely a pair of lies.

Sad!

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

The weed seems to have limited quash's brain. Presidents do more than Executive Orders, although some of Trump's success comes from simply reversing Obama's EO's.

---

If EO meant EO I would have said EO. So I left open a president's every act. Naturally you have no substantive reply, merely a pair of lies.

Sad!

---

You are so going to hate Trump's re-election, quash.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

The weed seems to have limited quash's brain. Presidents do more than Executive Orders, although some of Trump's success comes from simply reversing Obama's EO's.

---

If EO meant EO I would have said EO. So I left open a president's every act. Naturally you have no substantive reply, merely a pair of lies.

Sad!

---

You are so going to hate Trump's re-election, quash.

---

^^^ If the cheatin' Democrats don't succeed in stealing the election. Don't forget they will have had 4 years to work their vote fraud in the ones that were close for Shillary

Florda_mike said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

The weed seems to have limited quash's brain. Presidents do more than Executive Orders, although some of Trump's success comes from simply reversing Obama's EO's.

---

If EO meant EO I would have said EO. So I left open a president's every act. Naturally you have no substantive reply, merely a pair of lies.

Sad!

---

You are so going to hate Trump's re-election, quash.

---

^^^ If the cheatin' Democrats don't succeed in stealing the election. Don't forget they will have had 4 years to work their vote fraud in the ones that were close for Shillary

---

Yeah, about that Trump commission to look into those 3 million fraudulent votes...

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

The weed seems to have limited quash's brain. Presidents do more than Executive Orders, although some of Trump's success comes from simply reversing Obama's EO's.

---

If EO meant EO I would have said EO. So I left open a president's every act. Naturally you have no substantive reply, merely a pair of lies.

Sad!

---

You are so going to hate Trump's re-election, quash.

---

^^^ If the cheatin' Democrats don't succeed in stealing the election. Don't forget they will have had 4 years to work their vote fraud in the ones that were close for Shillary

---

Yeah, about that Trump commission to look into those 3 million fraudulent votes...

---

You know that's the truth too!

Didn't you say you rent and don't even own a home?

There's been proposals that those that don't own property nor pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote because you don't contribute, financially, to our great country. That would be a great start for Trump as then Republicans would rule forever and our country would be saved from bum Socialists like you

This country doesn't need the likes of you and those like you

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

One hundred and forty million poor and low-income people in America are a $400 emergency away from not being able to pay their bills next month. That's 43.5% of the population in the world's richest nation.

43.5% of the country is a $400 medical bill away from being in some sort of default.

This isn't theoretical.

After 10 years of growth, this is where we are. And y'all are saying that's fine?

---

As always with you, you poorly site your source and "cherry pick" data or quotes to make a point.

I assume that your numbers are based on articles related to a dated version of a Federal Reserve Report on the Economic Well-Being of US Households.

Per the latest report from May 2019.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201905.pdf

"When asked about their finances, 75 percent of adults say they are either doing okay or living comfortably. This result in 2018 is similar to 2017 and is 12 percentage points higher than 2013. "

"Dealing with Unexpected Expenses

"While self-reported ability to handle unexpected expenses has improved substantially since the survey began in 2013, a sizeable share of adults nonetheless say that they would have some difficulty with a modest unexpected expense.

If faced with an unexpected expense of $400, 61 percent of adults say they would cover it with cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement a modest improvement from the prior year. Similar to the prior year, 27 percent would borrow or sell something to pay for the expense, and 12 percent would not be able to cover the expense at all. "

Also to note the statistics are based of a total of 11,440 completed responses.

Interesting that you don't consider it "theoretical" to apply a self-reported survey of 11,440+ to the entire US population to determine your estimate of the number of people in America that are close to default.

---

Lol, actually, it was a study from 2018. Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)

I think it's adorable that you think you know something about statistics. 11,000 responses is incredibly strong. Especially given the metrics and sampling data.

I get that you're just a dude who obviously doesn't work much in research (from your positions, that's clear) but this is solid data. Almost half the country couldn't handle a $400 expense without going into debt or defaulting. That's quite literally the point the OP was making. Some people are doing amazing in this economy.

Most of that benefit is going to a few.

---

I never professed to having any particular knowledge of statistics and find your deduction of my background interesting.

Because you omitted my point for context (as normal with you) my quote was" self-reported survey of 11,440+".

As I am limited in my knowledge are self reporting surveys incredibly stronger than exit polling data?

To illustrate your logic in this discussion.

"Glad to see things have improved MARGINALLY (from 43% -40%)."

"Most of that benefit is going to a few."

US Population x 3% = +9,600,000 situation has improved. (Compared to OP: The Real Economy isn't Booming)

---

A self-reported poll with that N is pretty great, from my understanding. You can have a non-self-reported poll of 1,000 and not be as accurate.

And it's weird that you missed the point. ALMOST HALF THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD A $400 UNEXPECTED EXPENSE. 9 million more can in the last two years of a supposedly booming economy and historically low unemployment.

But almost HALF still can't. That's insanely wild. Can you really say this is the best economy ever when, even after 10 years of growth, half of the country could be forced into some sort of ruin by an expected car repair?

---

These kinds of numbers are really annoying.
You can't afford a $400 bill, but you and your spouse each have a $700 iPhone??
I have been in those situations before, and it isn't as dire as you make it out to be. Most people (sadly) do not save anything. Instead, they go into debt to get a more expensive car, house, phone, clothes, vacation.... etc
The vast majority of working Americans have over $1,000 worth of items which they can sell for that unexpected $400 bill. What they are saying is that there current burn rate doesn't allow for an extra $400 of expenses. If you look into their actual spending vs. income... there is more than enough there, but it would require some hard choices. You would have us all believe that almost half of the country is working, and they don't eat out, don't buy expensive clothes, don't have smart phones, don't buy expensive cars, don't go on any vacations, don't go to movies, don't buy ear buds, don't own jewelry, don't own electronics, don't own much of anything.... and after ALL of that thrifty living... they still have no savings and cannot afford an unexpected $400 bill??? That's total BS. If that were true, then Amazon and Best Buy would be bankrupt from a lack of customers. FYI, Best Buy reported better than expected sales increases last year and the year before that. They also reported a better Q1 than the Q1 the year before. The overall revenue for Q1 was up, even though the international revenue was lower... the stronger domestic sales more than made up the difference.
So people are flocking to Best Buy to buy crap that they don't need... but they can't afford a $400 bill.
In reality, people are responding to a question, and realizing that they are spending everything they have, rather than saving for a rainy day.

---

Internet access is a requirement for life,

---

Ummmmmmmmm..........................................no, it is not.

---

Um. Yes it is. Especially if you want a job. Having a cellphone is a requirement as well (or at the very least a landline).

You serious?

---

It's a privilege and not a requirement. How the fulk do you think folks got jobs before the advent of the internet? I'd had 3 serious jobs (one with a major energy company) after BU graduation before I ever had a cell phone or internet.

---

You are completely disconnected from reality if you think someone can reasonably function as a person without at least some form of reliable access to the internet. You are completely nuts.

http://www.digitalresponsibility.org/digital-divide-the-technology-gap-between-rich-and-poor

https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/What-Low-Income-Students-Miss-When-Their-Only-Internet-Access-is-Through-Their-Phone.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0203/Why-many-low-income-families-have-Internet-access-but-remain-under-connected

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-16/internet-access-a-staple-of-american-life-yet-millions-remain-under-connected

---

Hahaha!!! I guess I just glummed along for the first 28 years of my life without internet and a cell phone. Shlt I'm surprised that ExxonMobil even hired me or made a few dollars less than 6 figures before that! Maybe you've never realized that companies actually had technical libraries, training documents, group networking, and real, experienced people passing knowledge down.

---

Cool. You think you could do that job without access to email or a phone, now?

Try selling your new "we don't need the internet" plan to your board. Sure it will go over JUST great.

---

You might be surprised to learn that my peers on the Exxon side did not have internet access whereas we had limited access at our heritage-Mobil site (mid 1990s). Which company bought Mobil?

We landed guys on the moon using slide rules and tech documents. The internet is not a requirement for daily living. I feel sorry that you've had no life untethered from cell phones and the internet.

---

Lol. That's your argument? People don't need antibiotics. Mankind existed before antibiotics, so medicine is just kind of a fad?

This is such a beautiful example of old conservative men groupthink... it's almost beautiful.

Take the "L" on this one and move on.

---

---

Find a way to respond to this without using the internet.

---

It's a tool only. It's not necessary for daily living.

---

It is. Name a sector of the economy where someone can exist without using the internet in perpetuity.

I come from a farm community. Even farmers rely on in depth and real-time satellite information and connectivity to get the best yield.

You cannot make the argument that the average person can reasonably exist, pay bills, job search, maintain connectivity, etc WITHOUT access to the internet.

You might as well argue that electricity isn't required.

Move on. You had a bad take. It's okay. I don't think you're dumb. Just stubborn.

---

Every. Single. Industrial. Sector. Did without the internet until the late 1990s. It's an efficiency tool not a requirement for daily living.

My ranching family does without the internet as well as many farmers I know because they know their fields, their crop, and how to run a plow. I paid bills by cash money hand-delivery or via a check and snail mail up until 2 years ago. My first job searches consisted of buying newspapers from Houston, San Antonio, Austin, etc. and looking in the classified section. I was plenty connected via a landline. Civilization did not begin in the late 1990s despite what you think.

---

You DO realize how technology works, right? It advances.

---

That's how it works in a certain kind of economy where competition is encouraged. Not something to be taken for granted, BTW.

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

The weed seems to have limited quash's brain. Presidents do more than Executive Orders, although some of Trump's success comes from simply reversing Obama's EO's.

---

If EO meant EO I would have said EO. So I left open a president's every act. Naturally you have no substantive reply, merely a pair of lies.

Sad!

---

You are so going to hate Trump's re-election, quash.

---

^^^ If the cheatin' Democrats don't succeed in stealing the election. Don't forget they will have had 4 years to work their vote fraud in the ones that were close for Shillary

---

Yeah, about that Trump commission to look into those 3 million fraudulent votes...

---

Cool story, bro. Get back to me if/when the Democrats find a 2020 candidate who isn't some version of a Socialist.

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

The weed seems to have limited quash's brain. Presidents do more than Executive Orders, although some of Trump's success comes from simply reversing Obama's EO's.

---

If EO meant EO I would have said EO. So I left open a president's every act. Naturally you have no substantive reply, merely a pair of lies.

Sad!

---

You are so going to hate Trump's re-election, quash.

---

^^^ If the cheatin' Democrats don't succeed in stealing the election. Don't forget they will have had 4 years to work their vote fraud in the ones that were close for Shillary

---

Yeah, about that Trump commission to look into those 3 million fraudulent votes...

---

You know that's the truth too!

Didn't you say you rent and don't even own a home?

There's been proposals that those that don't own property nor pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote because you don't contribute, financially, to our great country. That would be a great start for Trump as then Republicans would rule forever and our country would be saved from bum Socialists like you

This country doesn't need the likes of you and those like you

---

Tap the brakes there Mikey.

That's a hard thing to do when ya have a bunch of scallywags trying to take our country down

Florda_mike said:

---

That's a hard thing to do when ya have a bunch of scallywags trying to take our country down

---

'Scallywags'?

Sounds more like Plankton planning a raid of the Krusty Krab!

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

Monetary policies (Fed)

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Cut taxes taxes and flood the market with easy credit. Anyone can do that. Bush did it, Teagan did it. Then it crashes. Dems clean it up. **

---

**Longs for the days of Carter with 21% interest rates and 15% inflation.

---

What executive acts lead to those numbers?

---

Monetary policies (Fed)

---

Exactly.