Without credit, how do you buy a roof to keep over your head?

You crash at a friend's house, or sub-let a room.

So how do you commute to and from work without a car?

You live near work and walk (or ride a bike).

Except that some percentage of that increased value is going to pay for the devices being installed, and their management.

That's not as big a cost as you think. You see, these kinds of car dealers that specialize in bad-credit buyers expect to repossess the cars eventually. They don't make their money from buying a car and selling it once at a higher price; they make their money from selling, repossessing, and re-selling the same car over and over again, while collecting usurious interest payments in the intervals between sale and repossession. All these devices do is make the cycle more efficient (and thus more profitable) by shortening the time between the first non-payment and the repossession.

It probably is an 8 year old car. The monthly payment is so high because A) the buyer paid a hugely inflated price, B) it's probably got an incredibly high interest rate, and C) it might even have leftover debt from the previous car (that probably also got repossessed*) rolled in.

Remember, places that prey^W specialize on bad-credit buyers are not really car dealers; they're loan sharks that incidentally let you borrow a car. Here's their business model:

1. "Sell" car to bad-credit buyer at an inflated price (because such buyers have no bargaining power), financed with a huge interest rate.
2. Collect mostly-interest payments (and remember, interest on a balance inflated thousands of dollars higher than what the car should have cost) for however long the buyer can scrounge up the money.
3. When the buyer defaults, repossess.
4. "Sell" the same car again to the next sucker, rinse, and repeat.

(* Is it possible to still owe money on a car after it's been repossessed? I don't know, but it's certainly possible to claim to a bad-credit car buyer that they do.)

So, blame your politicians and your corporations for this mess. The rest of us have been for decades now.

Haven't you been blaming your own politicians and your own politicians for going along with it? I'll assume you have.

Clearly, however, complaining to your own politicians and corporations hasn't done you any good. And now you know how the American public feels, since complaining to our politicians and corporations hasn't done us any good either!

That's a good idea. Another idea would be that the ACLU (or similar organization) could create a "whistleblower stipend fund" so that whistleblowers could be taken care of whether they could find a job or not.

Exactly! Why should I give up my nice house in Atlanta (not to mention my friends and family) for the "privilege" of living in some overpriced hovel in California? After adjusting for cost-of-living, I'm paid better than I would be at a comparable job there.

This whole globalization thing was [the American political and corporate elite's] idea, and has been championed as economic policy for a very long time now -- so that corporations can maximize profits.

I find it terribly amusing that suddenly [the American general public] are going "Yarg! But what about our jobs?".

Once you clarify what you're talking about, I don't see anything funny about it.

I would say the world is going more lefty, with governments consolidating their power bases and censoring/silencing criticism.

The world is going neither "right" nor "left", it's going more authoritarian on an orthogonal axis.

It's the left that wants to grow the size of government and have it spy on/manipulate as much of peoples' lives as it can. It does this under the guise of benevolence, of 'caring' about the plight of some group, real or imagined, varying by context. The right wants smaller government and more liberty for the individual.

No, the authoritarian left (e.g. US Democratic Party) wants to manipulate people through government. The authoritarian right (e.g. US Republican Party) wants to manipulate people through privatized industry. Neither is interested in leaving people alone.

There are those, on both the left and right, who actually do want smaller government and more liberty for the individual, but they are not in power in either major US political party.

If you are the sort who stalwartly votes party lines, I would strongly suggest you reevaluate your loyalties, democrat or republican. At this point, this is the only way to fight the orwellian lunatics in power now.

Indeed; the only hope is to vote independent, libertarian or green.

In fact the whole world is going more right wing, so we can only expect worse.

See, this is why the whole "right wing"/"left wing" rhetoric is a dangerous false dichotomy. Authoritarianism can come equally easily from either side of the aisle; when it comes from the so-called "right" we label it fascism or NAZI-ism; when it comes from the so-called "left" we name it "socialism" or "communism."

However, the "left" and "right" don't have to be authoritarian! Anti-authoritarians on the "right" are called "libertarians" and anti-authoritarians on the "left" are called "greens" or even "hippies."

TL;DR; if you've been duped into complaining about the "right wing" (or the "left wing," for that matter) when you're actually trying to complain about authoritarianism, you are part of the problem!

Not to mention, how would totalitarian Internet surveillance help that situation even slightly (let alone help so Goddamned incredibly well to even begin to come close to "justifying" the loss of liberty!)?

An organization *dedicated* to representing females [in the military] and lobbying for equal treatment of females in the military

FTFY. That organization clearly represents a subset of feminists, namely, those who chose serve in the military. I see no reason to believe that their view is representational of non-military feminists. In other words, I reject the notion that I committed the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and instead posit that you committed an assortment of inductive fallacies, such as fallacy of composition or cherry picking.

Besides, I already clarified that I'm trying to claim that most feminists don't argue for it.

"So how the hell did Apple release a phone with the camera sticking out the back?"

I'd like to ask the same thing to the folks who designed my Nexus 5.

Most feminists are not in the military; therefore, a group representing only people in the military cannot possibly represent most feminists. Moreover, of course people who volunteered to serve in the military would be willing to serve in the military!

To prove your case, you need to find some feminists saying something to the effect of "I don't want to be in the military (you can tell because I didn't volunteer), but I believe, in the name of equality, that I should be required to register for the draft anyway."

Not to mention there are purely biological and existential reasons for keeping women out of the line of fire: for reproduction, women are more crucial to the production of future generations of soldiers. One man can have 100 children by 100 women in 9 months. One woman can only have 1 child by 1 man in 9 months.

There are "purely biological and existential reasons" for a lot of things, but such arguments don't seem to count if they're contrary to the feminist agenda.

Right, but the problem is that most feminists -- other than the ones who want to join the military anyway -- appear to be okay with it. Otherwise, whenever they make a list of grievances, "women should be allowed to fight on the front lines" would appear as a line item right alongside "women should be required to register for the draft" (or alternatively, "men should not be required to register for the draft, since women are not" -- either way works). I assert that the latter item is very often omitted, and that said omission is due to (conscious or unconscious) hypocrisy.

Let's be honest: 4chan is where people go to rant because it's among the least-censored places on the 'net, after they've worn out their welcome at the more-censored ones. Anybody with a less-extremist argument to make would (almost tautologically) be able to find a more mainstream venue to make it in.