Because even if you have a decent-paying job, you can still make shit decisions and piss it all away very quickly. Look at the large percentage of NFL players who are bankrupt at the end of their careers as a simple illustration of this. This is also true with the vast majority of people who don't earn nearly that amount of money. LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS, whatever they may be.

It is unbelievable to me that this isn't somehow required, at the Federal level. WTF do we have a Department of Education for if stuff like this is missing?

The real people in power don't care about gay marriage, or illegals crossing the border, or abortion. Rather, they embrace those wedge issues as they keep the public distracted and divided so they may continue their evil deeds. But surveillance is a universal boot on the neck of the people, a control mechanism over all that will be nearly impossible to turn off once it's in place. And since 9/11, the people in the USA have been bending over, taking it, and asking for more.

The Washington Post is "suspicious" of a report slamming the Obama Administration's thuggish treatment of the press? Color me shocked. Let's see if the New York Times follows suit . . . after all, Holder went after one of their own.

Democrats don't like technological solutions

Sure about that?

Direct deposit is "a pain in the ass to set up" because of the required accountability and tax compliance. They need a paper trail if someone in the chain tries to pull a scam, up to and including the payroll processor. They also want it doc'd that you set your witholding via a W-4 in case there's ever a discrepancy. It should literally take less than five minutes (if that), even for a new employee -- my business does it a half-dozen times a year or so. It's a common sense regulation that protects the employees, the employer, and the payroll processor -- let's not dump it because a few lazy folks don't want to fill out a form and provide their SSN or look for their account and routing #s.

You are correct, but it only makes business sense if you can mitigate some of the inherent higher financial risk that comes with doing business with poor people. That's why it's a fee-based structure, and that's why the fees are so high -- they have to offset the statistically-higher percentage of poor people who (for whatever reason) don't / can't hold up their end of the bargain -- by trying to cash bad checks etc. Many people blame the banks for this simply because "the banks are evil," but in reality, that's why interest rates for people with low credit scores are so much higher than they are for people with good credit scores -- there's a direct correlation between credit score and lending risk. The less risky borrowers are more desirable potential customers, so the banks compete for them by offering them a lower rate.

I do agree that this country needs to have an conversation about the growing number of poor, but it must be an honest conversation -- one that acknowledges that sometimes the poor are exploited by lenders, and also one that acknowledges that it's risky to lend money to poor people, because they're less likely to be able to pay it back.

Real estate prices inflated by speculation in 2014? Where? Maybe in San Francisco, or Manhattan, or the ultra-wealthy DC suburbs, but not in too many other places. Most markets are still recovering from the implosion and are *barely* beginning to show signs of that recovery despite years of the lowest historical interest rates ever. Borrowing money to buy a house isn't free, but it's as close to it as it's ever been, especially if you have made good financial decisions. One of the reasons the Fed has kept rates so low is precisely that -- housing lobbyists were screaming that raising rates even a tiny bit would damage the recovery. Again, I'd rather get a reasonable mortgage rate on my house and a crappy return on a savings account than be shanked by the banks for many hundreds more / month in interest, for decades -- but I guess that only impacts, you know, people who buy houses and actually plan to be responsible and pay on them.

had good interest rates

This is because historic interest rates were insane at the time -- the highest they've ever been. When you bought a house, your mortgage rate was about the same as the one you have when you run a balance on a credit card today. Can you imagine buying a house with your credit card, and running that balance for decades? That's what it was like -- so be careful what you wish for when pining for the 80s, especially regarding interest rates.

What could possibly be any more evil than what this old bat has done, for decades now? Yet you still blindly pull the lever for her, knowing full well that she's a piece of shit hellbent on destroying the Constitution, just because she has a "D" next to her name. It's lazy, irrational, stupid, and pathetic. You -- and the other people like you on both sides -- *absolutely* are the problem.

She's a Senator . . . what does gerrymandering have to do with re-electing her? The plain fact is that the majority of California voters want her to continue on as their Senator -- otherwise they'd elect someone else and she'd be out of a job.

Ahhh, so you're willing to vote for evil just so "your team" wins. Except that you haven't figured out there's only one team -- Team Status Quo -- and you're not on it.

You're a coward, and absolutely deserve every nasty thing Feinstein inflicts on your state. You have no principles -- only a tribe. People like you are why this country is fucked.

You jest, but you're talking about a real thing called reinsurance.

He's paying per MB downloaded . . . it costs him money for them to download their patches using his bandwidth, even if nothing else is going on.