
40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense - uptown
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/emergency-expenses-household-finances/index.html
======
johnm1019
I think we as a nation should consider this an issue of national security.
This type of financial instability in such a large percentage of the
population could lead to making short-sighted or bad decisions in tough times,
increased violence, increased rates of incarceration (both of those increasing
the cost of government for all), among many other things. The reasons for it
are multi-faceted I'm sure. I hope voters and politicians recognize statistics
like this as an opportunity for reflection and change.

~~~
sjg007
We should but you know personal responsibility and all that jazz. The wealthy
only care when the pitchforks come out. The biggest achievement of the wealthy
has been to convince the middle class to eat itself.

~~~
ralusek
But personal responsibility is actually an important concept. It is completely
unacceptable to not have $400 on reserve for an emergency as a functioning
adult. That is a situation that can _only_ be achieved by poor decision making
and a lack of personal responsibility. Any strategy that is employed to remedy
this has to contend with the fact that the individuals who need to have this
situation remedied for themselves are the same ones who have gotten themselves
into this situation.

I will say this again. As a mobile adult, in the United States, to not have
$400 on reserve for an emergency is simply not possible with proper decision-
making. Individuals at that level of poverty have national and state level
food stamps, welfare, disability, affordable housing, rent control, minimum-
wage laws, child-support, often social security, medicare/medicaid. It's not
as though the country has a non-existent social safety net. You simply can't
propose that the solution can exist independently of the personal decisions
made by the individuals in this position.

~~~
headmelted
Spoken as someone well north of the poverty line.

The reason for _some_ people not having the money around is undoubtedly poor
decision making, but for a great many others they simply have no gainful
employment, no prospects of obtaining gainful employment and are often trapped
in debt spirals due to past financial desperation.

I'm real happy for you that you're so far removed from their situation that
none of this occured to you.

~~~
ralusek
Being trapped in a debt spiral due to past financial desperation is just a way
of iterating forward in the loop of bad decision making. What I am saying is
that to enter financial desperation in the United States is not actually
possible if you utilize the available social safety net and make proper
decisions.

~~~
cuckcuckspruce
Untrue. Get majorly sick or in a major accident and lose your insurance
because your job finds a reason to restructure your department. Trust me, you
will enter financial desperation very quickly while you wait for the social
safety net to catch up, and by that time you're thousands of dollars in debt,
likely already out of your house, and totally screwed.

~~~
kaybe
All of you couldn't do a better job to make me very very glad of the taxes and
other money I pay to the state and public health insurance here in Germany. As
long as we can protect this system this will never happen to me or my
neighbours.

------
projectileboy
Wealthy investors are happy to tell founders that a smaller percentage of a
bigger pie is a better deal, but then seem not so happy to make their
percentage smaller in order to increase the size of the pie for society at
large.

~~~
matte_black
Investors have to fight hard and endure a long time for every % of return.
Society on the other hand will never be satisfied with their piece, they will
always need more, and sooner not later.

~~~
jadedhacker
Society has to fight hard and endure a long time for every % of return.
Investors on the other hand will never be satisfied with their piece, they
will always need more, and sooner not later.

Or as Adam Smith put it: "All for ourselves and nothing for other people,
seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters
of mankind."

[https://www.quora.com/What-did-Adam-Smith-mean-when-he-
said-...](https://www.quora.com/What-did-Adam-Smith-mean-when-he-
said-%E2%80%9CAll-for-ourselves-and-nothing-for-other-people-seems-have-been-
the-vile-maxim-of-the-masters-of-mankind-%E2%80%9D)

------
StephenSmith
There's a lot of negativity in this thread and the title is very sensational.
The point that should be highlighted in the article - "The bright side? That's
an improvement from half of adults being unable to cover such an expense in
2013. The number has been ticking down each year since."

~~~
Meegul
I wonder if that's tracked to inflation. A $400 medical expense from 2013 is
likely closer to $500 today, which might account for the difference from 50%
to 40%.

~~~
twinkletwinkle
The BLS calculator
([https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm))
says $400 in 2013 is ~ $430 today. Seems unlikely to account for that much of
the change.

~~~
onecooldev24
Govt inflation numbers represent a portfolio consisting of all commodities in
equal quantity. But if you hold a portfolio of iPhones, Toyotas, and etc
(assuming they are non depreciating assets) that number would double very
easily.

~~~
aarongray
Government inflation numbers don't work like that at all. They are based on
the Consumer Price Index, which uses a market basket of consumer goods and
services.

[https://www.bls.gov/cpi/](https://www.bls.gov/cpi/)

~~~
onecooldev24
"Average price data for select utility, automotive fuel, and food items are
also available."

All of these are commodities. And every single product derived is based on
commodity. Most commodities can be traded on commodity markets.

~~~
aarongray
Yes, but all of them being commodities (what I said) is not the same as
inflation only being accurate when someone purchases every commodity available
in the marketplace (what you said).

~~~
onecooldev24
Thats exactly how asset managers construct a portfolio thats suppose to track
inflation.

~~~
aarongray
Inflation of a portfolio of iPhones is completely different than inflation
that an average American pays due to cost of living changes in the economy.
You're cherrypicking a hypothetical scenario that doesn't apply at all to the
example at hand, which is the average person's ability to pay for emergencies
that arise related to living expenses.

~~~
onecooldev24
All I am saying is that $400 in 2013 is not worth $430 today, Its wort a LOT
MORE! Stop arguing like a idiot.

------
maerF0x0
I had a coach that when I'd ask about how to get out of tricky situations he'd
often respond with something along the lines of "Bro, you f'd up a long time
ago"...

I don't think 40% is some magic number to begin hysteria. Neither is $400.
Selling something to cover your expenses might be a blessing in disguise if
the thing you sell is a liability in the first place (ex: a car you cant
really afford).

My observation of America is that for a whole lot of people we F'd up a long
time ago... These people need financial education, they need to be taught to
not buy things they dont need, they need to be taught delayed gratification
and to not be consumerists.

~~~
phil248
"They" need to be taught to demand a degree of rights, protections and
subsidies in line with the rights, protections and subsidies afforded the
already-wealthy.

~~~
maerF0x0
Sure, to exercise their rights as part of democracy.

~~~
AstralStorm
You cannot exercise this right when there are no viable choices that will do
so. Welcome to bipartisan politics with both sides not being socialist.

~~~
maerF0x0
Then you can exercise your right to add to the viability of another party,
create one etc.

------
prewett
Wow, everything in this thread is "those evil rich people, fleecing the poor."
Quite aside from the fact that the target audience of this site can expect to
make around 2X the median income of the US--meaning that _we_ are those evil
rich people--surely the problem isn't this one-sided.

The poverty rate in the US is about 13% [1]; we would expect those people to
not have any savings. That leaves about 33% unaccounted for. It looks like 42%
of workers in the US make less than $15/hr [2], which does fit the figure
fairly close. However, some of those are teenagers, so they don't count as
they aren't living on their own.

I'd like to see some analysis of spending. How many people don't have any
savings because they aren't spending wisely. This girl [3] discovered that she
could actually save for a deposit for a house in London, despite making under
£40k (about $53k). That's less than the median US income and presumably
doesn't go all that for in London. She was simply spending a lot of money on
food, drinks, and specialty coffee.

[1] [https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-
un...](https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-
states)

[2] [http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/who-makes-15-per-
hour/](http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/who-makes-15-per-hour/)

[3] [https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-
really...](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-
for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out)

~~~
zaksoup
I would push back on this bit about teenagers: > so they don't count as they
aren't living on their own.

I think it's a significant assumption to make that parents would be
able/willing to cover a random $400 expense. The study did not specify a
specific type of emergency expenditure, just that it was unexpected. I can
fully imagine a scenario where parents would cover hospital visits for a bad
case of the flu, but not cover an abortion, or repairs to a car from an
accident where the child was at fault.

The latter two examples still seem like fair 'unexpected expenses' for the
child dependent making < $15/hour

~~~
prewett
This is kind of tangential, but I find it a sad commentary on our society when
an abortion is considered a "fair unexpected expense" of a teenager. Abortion
is 100% avoidable [1]. And regardless of your view on women's rights, etc. the
fact is that a living human is killed in an abortion. "Don't have sex until
you are okay with the possibility of getting pregnant" apparently isn't very
popular, but the situation is entirely preventable. (I'm not trying to push an
agenda here, just reacting.)

[1] Unless rape is involved, but that isn't the normal case. (Abortions
because rape are 1%, according to
[http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.ht...](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html).
Disclaimer: I scanned the link for figures, I didn't try to figure out if it
is pro- or anti- abortion.)

~~~
zaksoup
You’re right, this is tangential, and frustratingly derailing from the point I
was making.

> the fact is that a living human is killed in an abortion.

This is absolutely the talking point of somebody pushing an agenda and
represnting it here as a simple “fact” is specious at best.

------
ugh123
Perhaps the bigger issue is: X% amount of Americans can't afford to lose work
for N days. Where X is likely very large and N is < a week.

------
gerdesj
"More concerning are the 25% of Americans with no retirement savings
whatsoever, according to the report."

Is that true? What happens when those 25% retire or can no longer work? Ahh:
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9902745/The-
best-pensions-in-the-world.html) \- not too bad - the US got a C, UK got a C+.

Now back to the headline: $400 in available readies? You do have to start
measuring somewhere when looking into poverty but it is harder than it seems
on the face of it. Many people will drain their balance regardless to zero or
below, (nearly) no matter how well off. I recall being a youngish lad with an
income of £30 per hour - let's realistically say ~£50,000 per annum (gross,
pre IR45). At that point in my life, I too would often qualify for "can't find
£350" right now. My real point is that you have to be really careful how you
measure this sort of thing, ie trying to quantify bits of people's lives with
simple pithy statements.

~~~
vkou
> What happens when those 25% retire or can no longer work?

They eat cat food on their meager social security payments.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I’m skeptical that this happens much. It reeks of urban legend.

Now, I’m sure _some_ seniors do this, but I suspect it’s due mental issues
rather than fiscal concerns. Is cat food even cheaper than really cheap canned
food?

~~~
dionidium
In my experience, nobody wants to hear this, but basic food is damn near free.
I get it, I get it -- it's just a silly thing Sean Hannity says. It also
happens to be true. Nobody has to eat cat food to save money. Have you priced
beans and rice lately? It barely costs _anything_.

~~~
ridgeguy
Beans and rice ≠ protein, and yes, carbs are giveaways. But that's not all
good.

Anecdote here, but I knew two competent, capable seniors (each on Social
Security) who in fact ate canned pet food because it was a source of meat that
they otherwise couldn't afford. I doubt I knew the only two people in America
who do that.

~~~
your-nanny
Beans have a ton of protein (@15g/cup) plus a lot of fiber.

------
integration
40% of America’s lowest-income families’ consumption goes to luxuries.

The bigger problem is American’s terrible spending habits not lack of real
income.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/A6F97A7E-5C30-11E7-A41A-5BB15E25ABAD)

~~~
qsymmachus
You make it sound like poorer Americans are blowing their paychecks on
designer handbags, but the article makes it clear that that's not what's
happening. "Luxury goods" as economists define them are not what you'd expect.
To quote the article:

 _> It’s worth noting that by the specialized nomenclature of the dismal
science, even eating at McDonald’s is a luxury — that is, we do it more as our
incomes rise — while smoking and lottery-ticket buying are categorized as
necessities._

~~~
gerdesj
_while smoking and lottery-ticket buying are categorized as necessities._

I gave up smoking a couple of months ago after 30 odd years - I now feel
rather stupid, given how clever I really am. I have never been a gambler but
the parallels are very clear to me and I have a couple of friends who are
gamblers and display the same stupidity. I keep my gob shut.

I do not agree with the definition of necessity implied above. Gambling and
drug taking (smoking int al) are not basic requirements for life. Eating is.
Eating at McDs is simply buying calories and possibly a few other basic life
sustaining requirements and consuming the same. McDs may not provide you with
all the nutritional requirements for a healthy life but you will get a lot of
calories in. Until embarrassingly recently, the sole stated purpose of eating
was calories. Brits are still not known as Limeys for nothing.

Fags and bandits can go and __* ////~~~~ bbbbzzzzt OFF!!!!

~~~
gerdesj
_sigh_ fags are cigarettes and bandits are coin operated gambling thingies.

------
kbrwn
No surprise that low income consumers choose to consume rather than save as
saving account with a low balance has no direct impact on generating
additional wealth.

------
sigstoat
[https://www.thestreet.com/story/14296470/1/americans-
spend-b...](https://www.thestreet.com/story/14296470/1/americans-spend-big-on-
lotto-tickets-and-here-they-spend-4-times-the-average.html)

so the average american doesn't have $400 saved up, _and_ spends $206 per year
on lotto tickets.

if we're in society collapsing danger, maybe we could look at the
organizations running the lottos?

~~~
dpark
The average American spends about twice that on just beer (not all alcohol)
every year. I share your concern for poor people dumping money into the
lottery, but that’s actually a pretty small vice.

~~~
sigstoat
easier to get rid of lotteries; no constitutional amendment required. some of
the beer spending also comes from people more able to tolerate the wasted
funds; those with the least are the most likely to play lotteries.

[https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/personal-f...](https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/personal-
finance/research-review-lotteries-demographics)

~~~
dpark
I’m not sure that’s true. The Supreme Court just struck down an anti-gambling
federal law.

[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-
co...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-court-sports-
betting-new-jersey.html)

It’s not clear at all that the federal government could ban the lottery
without a constitutional change.

~~~
gizmo686
Here is the opinion:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf)

The court found the law unconstitutional on procedural grounds. In particular,
the federal government did not ban gambling. It required states to ban
gambling. The court ruled that the federal government cannot force states to
pass laws.

~~~
dpark
Interesting. I wasn't aware that was the basis of the ruling.

I'm not entirely clear about the legal implications, though. It's unclear if
the majority would also overturn a direct ban, but obviously this case would
not form precedent.

------
cwperkins
Does anyone know of a datasource that analyzes this as the number of people
living paycheck to paycheck vs. spending habits?

------
makecheck
We can’t improve the money situation without improving the “free time”
situation too. For people with 2+ jobs and hours of commuting, when is there
time to do anything that would remotely fix their financial situation?
Exhaustion for starters. No time for more school or other improvements that
might net a better job. No time to even research where a better place to live
might be. Heck, even _voting_ for someone to help change your situation takes
a lot of time, if you want to figure out which candidate is truly in line with
what you want.

------
protomyth
People wonder why payday loan companies are becoming more popular. It might be
kicking the can down the road, but when $400 is a killer then people will kick
the can.

------
simonsarris
The question I'd love to know the answer to is: If we gave every American
$2000, what would the % be by the end of the summer?

------
skookumchuck
> Those who don't have the cash on hand say they'd have to cover it by
> borrowing or selling something.

Be careful about concluding that these people are poor. I'm not poor, and I
have no cash. Everything is invested. Piling up cash in a savings account just
means it'll get eaten away by inflation.

This is hardly uncommon. If you've got a house with a large payment, you
aren't poor, even though you may not have any cash. Your money is invested in
the house.

~~~
dionidium
A version of this comment appears every time this is discussed. This isn’t
what we’re talking about. These aren’t liquidity problems. People really just
don’t have the money.

~~~
skookumchuck
It's literally what the article is talking about. I included the quote. I
suggest they are misinterpreting their data, and are measuring the wrong
things.

It's like that daft statistic a few years back that 40% of corporations don't
pay any income tax. This raised all sorts of righteous hysteria. Never mind
that 40% of corporations lost money that year, and income taxes are not due
when you lose money.

~~~
dionidium
Maybe the best thing I can do here is concede that "can you find $400 for an
emergency" is an imprecise question that this article doesn't (and can't)
answer.

I think I know what it's saying (probably because I have a lot of experience
with the type of people I'm imagining) and you guys think you know it's saying
something else (because of your own experiences having money that's
inaccessible), but, ultimately, the question is too imprecise for either of
our claims.

So, yes, I _strongly_ suspect I'm right -- "selling something" is pretty
plainly not referring to financial instruments -- but it's true that it's more
intuition than fact.

------
joeblow9999
I do not believe this. Even when I was flat broke starving I could always
scrape up 400 somewhere and that was decades ago. Credit cards, friends and
family, pawn shops. There's a way. This is a VERY misleading headline.

~~~
enraged_camel
So basically, things were different for you decades ago, therefore the article
headline is misleading?

You may want to rethink that.

------
cryptoz
This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class
/ rich and wealth people and businesses could extract _more_ wealth out of the
middle and lower classes than they do now, if the lower classes were more
stable and secure.

In the US especially, but nearly everywhere, there are hoards of people trying
to lower or eliminate social services, basic science research, etc, with the
dog-whistle claim that those things are not necessary and should not be
provided by the state or using state funds. This line of thinking is extremely
common in conservative circles, where they claim that societal prosperity
would come from hurting the poor as much as possible in order to extract the
greatest amount of wealth from them.

But when you look at statistics like these, it is clear that there is no more
wealth to be extracted from the lower classes - they are all just merely
trying to survive. Provide UBI or something like it, along with all other
things necessary for a strong social net, _and watch the rich get even richer_
while the poor grow into a stronger middle class.

It is especially confusing that this outcome seems to be hated by the rich,
despite it certainly lifting their wealth. It makes me wonder if much of
conservative policy is just as much about hating the poor as it is helping the
rich - because conservative policies that hurt the poor are increasingly
obviously hurting the rich. I just don't understand why it isn't taken for
granted that we need a stable society to make more money over time. That seems
clear to me.

Many of those in poverty today are there because of the systematic oppression
of the poor across America for the last many hundreds of years. Blaming them
for it isn't going to help - they aren't even being provided basic education,
as that is also being cut in many places in the USA (so how do you expect them
to become financially aware, anyway, if they are not taught that growing up in
school? Parents raising children in poverty are in no place to teach their own
kids financial management skills).

To lift people out of poverty we must change our attitudes towards class and
capitalism and be more compassionate to create a more stable society.

~~~
cabaalis
I am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't
argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea
of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over
another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to
crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not
another.

~~~
MisterTea
> Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting
> government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not
> another.

Conservatives talk about poor people as if it's a permanent attribute that
can't be changed like "race". Poor is a tangible attribute. The programs which
you fear so much are there to help people change that attribute.

But I get the feeling that many of the so-called conservatives use poor as a
euphemism for undesirable people they don't want to see get ahead or mingle
with. Why else would you refuse a helping hand to someone in need?

~~~
gremlinsinc
What I find ironic (as an exmormon/ex-christian now semi-agnostic person -- I
still quasi believe there could be some sort of afterlife but the bible is
dead to me.) is that those on the 'christian right' are more prone to push out
the poor and neglect them those who are on the left more anxious to help and
alleviate their pain points. -- I've known humanists, secular buddhists,
atheists, and agnostics with bigger hearts and more care for the poor than the
majority of God-fearing people regardless of faith.

One reason I stopped believing is because of all the hypocrisy I'd hear. Go to
church on Sunday, leaders of the church officially deny supporting a political
agenda, then they go about instituting anti-gay propaganda and fighting
against legalizing marriage, or legalizing medical marijuana. Heck the LDS
church is trying to ban the ability to record someone (like a Bishop) without
them knowing, because they're afraid of the backlash they themselves might
have (and so far are having with recent events).

Yet, I still admire Jesus and what he taught... the sad thing is.. there's no
Jesus in most of America or they'd be fighting to cure the sick and the poor,
they'd want universal healthcare and guaranteed basic income. Even Jesus
forgave the Harlot and welcomed her at his table, so why not forgive the drug
addict and give them a home regardless?

I say make GBI require you spend it on rent/mortgage -- to receive it you
can't be homeless - you must have a physical address and only one check per
address + x amount per person living in house, --maybe 2k per house/apartment,
500 per adult/child extra living therein.

This even helps the economy as poor people are most likely to spend the money
locally instead of squirrel it away in a trust fund or investment.

If I had GBI, I'd quit my day job and finally launch a side-business or go
freelance full-time, but I work 60 hours a week on salary for 80k as a
developer because I have to pay the bills and my wife stays home with the
kids. I could really use that money personally to just float by when freelance
dries up, or my side project fails, and I start building the next one.

------
himom
UBI N O W.

------
georgrwasington
America is over. The class divide has surpassed any reasonable threshold and
in time it will only further crystalize. This country needs an Elon Musk to
replace every part of the government, which is itself a jobs program at this
point. We do not live in "America" anymore.

~~~
nathanaldensr
I was with you until your Musk comment. We don't need more centralization of
power; instead, we need _de_ centralization--more local sustainability in
place of the just-in-time global economy we live in now.

~~~
georgrwasington
My Musk comment was more about how much of NASA had turned into a jobs program
than anything.

Take a very simple example, the BMV. We've had good internet now for a couple
decades and you still can't do basic transactions without going to the BMV in
the middle of the day.

Almost all other government agencies have been entirely immune to
technological change as well. They are, jobs programs.

~~~
jvanderbot
Can you explain why you feel NASA is a jobs program? There's certainly a much
larger, constant-stream funding source going to national defense and national
sciences. NASA is being paid to continue our usually unprofitable interests in
space. Everything else falls under the non-compete restriction. Also, NASA
employs some highly employable folks who would make much more in private
industry.

~~~
georgrwasington
I'm actually not going to do this. If you want to have this conversation go
read up on it. Not trying to be rude but your question makes it sound like
you've never heard the idea before. Given that, I feel like you're not ready
to have this conversation. ...I'm trying not to sound rude but it isn't
working. I am not expressing malice towards you.

~~~
bcohen5055
Any links to good articles about this? I for one have not heard of this
before.

~~~
grgwsngton2
I just googled this [https://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/nasa-is-a-jobs-
program?u...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/nasa-is-a-jobs-
program?utm_term=.yuo66PDYXO#.sr3GGgkB60)

Again, I have to say I really hate how my previous comment sounded. There's
just a lot to this and I didn't want to try and defend the very idea while
arguing about government reform because it would have been an uphill battle.
Sorry for how rude that sounded.

The basic idea, though, is that NASA (while awesome) has been building a heavy
lift but also disposable and expensive new rocket. There are a lot of
traditional contractors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK) across the country
helping to build the rocket. This means jobs. So congress supports the
program, despite its cost, because it means jobs. This stifles innovation as
evidenced by what SpaceX has been able to do on a fraction of the budget. This
branches and goes deeper with organizations like the ULA which charges several
times that of SpaceX but has failed, completely, to innovate. Anyways by the
time NASA's new rocket will be ready SpaceX will be have been launching Falcon
Heavy for years and possibly even launching the BFR. This means SpaceX will
have more powerful, more reliable, reusable, cheaper rockets. All this time
NASA has been unable to innovate because ??? and now the entire SLS is nothing
more than a jobs program.

~~~
jvanderbot
The article is about congress using NASA to send money to their districts by
building out the lift program.

Thats Congress being dumb. NASA may have become a jobs program, but it isnt
supposed to be, and Musk is a response to that, in my mind.

"A surprise billion dollars may sound good. But while adding money to “Space
Operations,” the Appropriations Committee also cut $660 million from NASA’s
science, aeronautics, and space technology programs that build the telescopes,
observatories, planes, and landers that make the agency so beloved. In
justifying this decision, the committee wrote that the rocket “is the nation’s
launch vehicle that will enable humans to explore space beyond current
capabilities.”"

------
transfire
Well on our way to to he oft depicted dystopia of sci-fi movies.

I figured Trump would go down in history as a modern money baron president,
the likes of Coolidge, Harding and Hoover.

~~~
ng12
That number has decreased since the Obama administration.

------
RickJWagner
Yet 77% of Americans have a smartphone. (Not a cell phone. A more expensive
smartphone.)

This is a self-induced injury. Financial education should be mandatory, and
started in elementary school.

------
eanzenberg
I find this truly hard to believe. Half of the country is on the verge of
homelessness and poverty? Bullshit. Get out of your bubble and go see other
parts of the country. See the rampant consumerism and tell me this isn't fake
news.

~~~
darkstar999
> go see other parts of the country. See the rampant consumerism

How does that dispute the article at all?

~~~
eanzenberg
Then you should dutifully put the blame on the users, not the system.

