Internet-Deprived Kids Turning To 'McLibraries'

theodp writes "After the school computer lab and public library close for the night in many communities, the local McDonald's is often the only place to turn for students without internet access at home. 'Cheap smartphones and tablets have put Web-ready technology into more hands than ever,' reports the WSJ's Anton Troianovski. 'But the price of Internet connectivity hasn't come down nearly as quickly. And in many rural areas, high-speed Internet through traditional phone lines simply isn't available at any price. The result is a divide between families that have broadband constantly available on their home computers and phones, and those that have to plan their days around visits to free sources of Internet access.' The FCC says it can make broadband available to all Americans by spending $45 billion over 10 years, but until then the U.S. will have to rely on Mickey D's, Starbucks, and others to help address its digital divide. Time to update that iconic McDonald's sign?"

Comments

Title translation

[c0lo]

Deprivation of Internet - a common cause of picking bad eating habits at low ages for Homo sapiens.

Re:Title translation

[Runaway1956]

I run an open hotspot. Unfortunately - it sees no use. I guess it has something to do with the fact that my house is located 1/4 mile from a barren stretch of highway that runs between two little forgotten nowhere towns.

Oh well - you can't say I didn't TRY!

Re:Title translation

[Nocturnal Deviant]

That makes me wonder, would you be upset if someone actually was sitting out in their car using it?

Idk about you but I would be rather paranoid if someone was sitting in their car outside my house for a few hours at random hours of the night/day

Re:Title translation

[Runaway1956]

Depends on time of day, and how long they were there. To be of any use, they would have to drive down our road, at least as far as the abandoned house my mother in law lived in. I check on anyone parked there, to see that they aren't vandalizing the place. If said occupant of car told me, "Hey, I found a free wifi, so I'm just checking my mail!" I'd say "Cool" and go about my business.

On the other hand, seeing half a dozen cars parked there around the clock would probably motivate me to disable the WIFI.

Re:Title translation

[Runaway1956]

Also - it's only fair to point out, that my router goes THROUGH my Linux box before it goes to the modem. One of my net analyzers would quickly allow me to verify that the person(s) using my WIFI were doing legitimate things, like checking email, browsing legitimate sites, etc - or if they were using my connection to grab torrented movies, etc. I would quickly shut down a TOR tunnel, connections to porn sites, things like that.

Someone who reads this will scream about CENSORSHIP! Whoop-ti-do - censorship. I'm offering a free connection for anyone who might find the damned thing out here in the middle of nowhere. The least they can do is to respect my need to avoid attention from RIAA and their ilk, or attention from the government for activity on child porn sites.

Some schools of thought seem to make me "responsible" for anything going in or out of my internet connection.

Not to mention, if they are torrenting, in might impact on my wife's ability to play Pogo games, then all hell would break loose!

Re:Title translation

[plopez]

"abandoned house my mother in law lived in"
    Are you Norman's brother-in-law by any chance? Nice "wireless hotel". Drivers check in for the wifi, but they never check out...

Wow

[Jmc23]

I rtfa and am quite suprised by what passes for 'poor'. Seems more like people who don't know how to budget and set priorities. Judging by the amount of debt the US has, sounds like par for the course.

Re:Wow

[Jmc23]

Well, lot's of poor homeless people have no trouble collecting a dollar to buy a burger. This isn't the ritz you know.

Re:Wow

[Mitreya]

I rtfa and am quite suprised by what passes for 'poor'. Seems more like people who don't know how to budget and set priorities.

Believe me, you cannot solve a poverty-line salary by budgeting or "setting priorities". Most (granted, not all) of those people are poor because they do not make enough money. Inflation-adjusted wages have been stagnant for decades.

Also, states are promoting state lottery that has about 50% effective payoff (vs casinos at 98% or so). That's gotta stop too - it is not helping.

Re:Wow

[oakgrove]

states are promoting state lottery that has about 50% effective payoff

Lottery
Noun
A game where a whole bunch of dumb people make one dumb person look really smart.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen a fair bit of homeless people that have a decent($500 or less) laptop. Could they afford the $800 a month for an apartment no. I don't think you understand how becoming poor works.

Re:Wow

[sqrt(2)]

You might want to reassess your definition of poverty then. Cooking food yourself doesn't just involve purchasing ingredients. There is a substantial upfront cost of buying the equipment and infrastructure to turn ingredients into food. At the very least you'll need to heat water and have a surface that can be sterilized and used to cook on. You'll need utensils and pots/pans. The energy required will be either gas or electric which costs money. I suppose you could burn wood but that isn't free either and is illegal/impractical most places.

So that $1 burger costs quite a bit more to cook yourself. If you have no equipment and no access to infrastructure then it's actually cheaper to buy fast food. The "total cost of ownership" of the food you make yourself is deceptive because much of the cost isn't directly related to the superficially cheaper ingredients.

We haven't even touched on the subject of cheap food being almost universally less healthy--even if it provides enough caloric content. Then there are food deserts where healthy food isn't even an option.

And for the "web enabled device" disqualifying you as poor remark; things really have changed that much. It happened so quickly that the older generation who can remember a time before the internet, or before computers, or before cell phones, thinks that owning or accessing those devices is a marker for the middle class and up. It's not anymore. Even the poorest citizens routinely use cellphones. Moreover, they NEED access to those devices/services just to be productive and make any money at all. Access to the internet or at least POTS is so vital that our government (rightly so) has partnered with industry players to make sure free cell phones are available to those who need them.

If you don't have access to a phone, and now the internet, you are effectively barred from participating in the economy. We can't survive that. We can't function if those people are completely dependent on government services to survive. It actually works out better, is less costly, to give away cellphones and internet access so those people can provide for themselves at least more than they were before. The alternative to not providing those things is paying for someone's entire existence, or if you refuse that, paying to lock them up when they inevitably turn to crime just to remain alive.

Re:Wow

[Mitreya]

Priorities. Poor people are used to walking. Sometimes I would walk 14km just to go to the mall, sometimes 20-30km to get home from a party.

Some people have children to get back to. It is not just the matter of not willing to walk 10-20km, but the lack of spare time to do so. Same with owning a car -- needing to get back home and/or to the 2nd job quickly enough is a must for many people.

Car ownership is not really a luxury. I am quite happy to get along without a car nowdays, but I live in a major US city with decent public transport.

Re:Wow

[sqrt(2)]

You also have to pay for a place to store those things (flat, house, or something), and pay to have energy delivered to that dwelling to run those appliances. You'll also need transportation to and from a grocery store which could be substantially farther away than McDonald's. You're in grinding poverty, remember, so no car. It'll also take you much longer to shop that way, even before you get to start making food. Upfront costs instantly make the "cheaper" solution a non-starter for many people trapped in poverty.

I can leave you with the same idea expressed more colorfully by Terry Pratchett, from Men at Arms,

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness.

Re:Wow

[Baloo Uriza]

Thank you for explaining why McDonald's is not only popular, but thriving, in the American midwest. I was surprised to discover that, unless you live in a big city like McAlester, Claremore or Lawton, indoor plumbing is still a "maybe." Want basic landline phone service? That's a very real maybe. Want electricity? That's almost definitely a solar panels on your roof thing. Want indoor plumbing? Then you're stuck on a water cistern or a well, both of which depend on electricity. Whether you go well or cistern largely depends on whether or not fracking has destroyed the water table yet. And if you're on a cistern in rural Oklahoma two years into a drought, well, a shower is a five gallon bucket of water heated with a bucket heater, once a week, and you're happy to have the luxury of water to spare for bathing at all. (No, your coworkers and clients don't complain, they're in the same boat).

Re:Wow

[Runaway1956]

Errr - yes and no.

Having a web device doesn't take much. My son's favorite phone has cost him a grand total of eighteen bucks. Plus, a couple hours of working on it. Some silly little girl broke her phone, threw it in a corner, and my son asked her what the deal was. The "breakage" that she described was minor bullshit. My son picked the phone up, repaired it, put in a SIM card, ran cyanogen mods on it, and he has his "bestest phone evah!!"

In our throwaway society filled with spoiled children, you should never assume that a person with expensive tech toys actually had to pay for those toys.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

This is spot-on.

When I was 16, I ran away from home. Because the people I lived with were incompetent, abusive people. For a time I ended up in some youth homes for girls, but later on I was on my own.

Affording the infrastructure to cook food really is the hard part, when you don't start out with a stable living place, or with pots and pans someone gave you, or with a steady job that lets you pay for electricity or gas to cook the food with. The price of a 12 dollar pan can feed you three times or more, depending on what you buy and how much food you need to live. If you only need to eat once a day, that could be 3 or 4 days. The pan is just metal if you don't have money above what it takes to buy the pan, or a fire and food to cook with it. I would have been more likely to visit McDonalds and get something from the dollar menu than stare at an inedible pan. It wasn't until I was making much more money I could afford the luxury of investing in infrastructure that would pay off long-term.

In 2000, when I ran away from home, you could still find a lot of jobs in paper job fliers. The trouble back then was figuring out how to wait for a phone call when you didn't have a phone. I ended up in a lot of jobs where I could walk in and be hired on the spot (retail), because better jobs required a real phone to get them. I spent a LOT of time in libraries teaching myself about computers and the web, and because things like the job sites and free email and craigslist gave me a huge wealth of information and ways to communicate nothing else could give me. Having access to a computer at a library in my early 20s is THE sole reason I make 38k a year now, just hitting 30. And 38k a year is a lot, to me, even after paying Chicago area rents. (I know to many of you it isn't. I have a friend who I know makes 100k as a software tester, and I can't imagine what it is to live with that much money.) Making 38k, I'm actually getting fat because I can eat whatever I want, whenever I want. I can just buy food on the shelves without debating what is both the cheapest and what I have the capabilities of cooking. I can just buy random things at the grocery store without checking the price. I have random QUARTERS sitting around that I don't need to use for food. I am so incredibly lucky. Of course, the hard part now is learning how to save when nothing in my childhood or early adulthood nurtured such skills, and I thought I wouldn't see 30 ever.

Anyway, without libraries giving me free internet, and without prepaid phones coming so far down in price, I would be MUCH poorer than I am now. If you have the internet, and a phone, you can get a job, and everything from there is up. I've looked at the job listings I looked at when I was younger--there's pretty much nothing in them now, 13 years later. All jobs are found online. You HAVE to have a phone and some form of internet to get a decent job. It is NOT a luxury, it is NOT a sign that you are middle class. And you need a bit of money so you can print out your resume at the library or a office store. (Although, in the past, I have gone into interviews without having a copy of my own resume. Because I couldn't afford the paper or ink it would be printed on, as it usually wasn't free like the internet at the library was. I remember making up excuses to myself in case anyone asked me about it.)

Re:Wow

[damnbunni]

Uh, 10 Mbps IS high speed internet. I'd sing hosannas and turn cartwheels if I could get 10 megabit internet.

The best I can get here is 6 megabit, and that's for $2419.20 a month, for an Nx6 T1. That ain't happening.

If I lived on one of the cross-streets to either side, I could get cable, but they won't run a line up this street because every house has a DirecTV dish on it. So I get 1.1 megabit 3G for $70 a month. At least it's unlimited.

(And no, I'm not in the middle of nowhere. But DSL just isn't a thing in this neighborhood, and there's only one cable company. Wish I could afford to move!)

Re:Wow

[Solandri]

You might want to reassess your definition of poverty then. Cooking food yourself doesn't just involve purchasing ingredients. There is a substantial upfront cost of buying the equipment and infrastructure to turn ingredients into food. At the very least you'll need to heat water and have a surface that can be sterilized and used to cook on. You'll need utensils and pots/pans. The energy required will be either gas or electric which costs money. I suppose you could burn wood but that isn't free either and is illegal/impractical most places.

So that $1 burger costs quite a bit more to cook yourself. If you have no equipment and no access to infrastructure then it's actually cheaper to buy fast food. The "total cost of ownership" of the food you make yourself is deceptive because much of the cost isn't directly related to the superficially cheaper ingredients.

$500 stove with 10 year lifespan, assuming 2 meals cooked per day = 6.8 cents per meal.
$100 of pots and pans with a 20 year lifespan, assuming 2 meals cooked per day = 0.7 cents per meal.
$50 set of plates and utensils with a 20 year lifespan, assuming 3 meals eaten per day = 0.23 cents per meal.
Energy required to boil 1 liters of water from 20 C = 80*4.186 kJ + 2260 kJ = 2595 kJ (I'll assume this is close to cooking one burger)
Electricity required to do that at 50% transfer efficiency = 1.44 kWh.
Price at the U.S. average of $0.12/kWh = 17.3 cents.
Grand total cost per meal = 25.03 cents per meal.

This country badly needs to teach basic accounting and home economics (real economics, not just sewing and cooking) as mandatory courses in high school. So people don't believe silly arguments to justify eating fast food all the time. Most people don't realize how much money they're throwing away leasing cars, carrying a balance on their credit cards, paying a 1% higher interest rate on their car loan because they didn't budget to save up a bigger down payment, and eating fast food.

The best argument for fast food is that if you're single and living alone, it can be difficult to use up even a small amount of groceries before the meat and vegetables go bad. The portions you eat are so small that even a single head of lettuce might have to last more than a week. And most people hate eating the same thing over and over, so the ingredients you use for one meal might not be needed again for 2-3 more days. So you end up throwing a lot of groceries out vs. buying fast food which is made from fresh ingredients every day. You end up buying a lot of prepackaged and frozen dinner type groceries instead, which on a cost per meal basis is pretty much the same as fast food.

Re:Wow

[CAPSLOCK2000]

$500 stove with 10 year lifespan, assuming 2 meals cooked per day = 6.8 cents per meal.
$100 of pots and pans with a 20 year lifespan, assuming 2 meals cooked per day = 0.7 cents per meal.
$50 set of plates and utensils with a 20 year lifespan, assuming 3 meals eaten per day = 0.23 cents per meal.

You will have to spend $650 upfront before you can prepare your first meal. That's too much for those below the poverty line.
Sure, you will save money in the long run, but the start-up cost is prohibitive.

Re:Wow

[drinkypoo]

You're both working from poor assumptions.

I can find a stove for $100 pretty much any day of the week, and often can get them for free.

By going to yard sales and flea markets you can amass a complete kitchen for $100. Not only do I see loads of pots and pans for a buck or two, but I have tons of kitchen appliances that I have got this way for a song. My metal-geared krups stand mixer was $5. My vintage GE waffle iron with flip-over grids (makes pancakes, presses sandwiches, etc) was $5. Got a marble rolling pin and slab for $5. Etc. You should also not have to pay more than $10 for a full set of plates and cups. Glasses might cost you another couple bucks, people don't let them go as easily as plates most times for some reason. Silverware is practically free.

Re:Wow

[LMariachi]

It's not a culture clash per se, it's that most of the US has been designed around the assumption that you have a car (or horse.) In the wide-open spaces between coasts, it's not uncommon to live many miles from the nearest shopping center or "downtown" area, well outside of casual biking range even when it's not snowing or you're not old. Even many major cities have only rudimentary public transit. In some places this is intentional, to keep the poors away from "nice neighborhoods." (IIRC, both the George Washington Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge were originally intended to have rail decks, which were scuttled by the political influence of wealthy suburbanites. New York-New Jersey connections were later established due to sheer unavoidable necessity, but to this day taking public transportation to Marin county and points north remains only nominally feasible.) Streetcar systems in Los Angeles and elsewhere were killed by a consortium of automobile interests seeking to increase dependence on their products.

OP does overstate certain costs (twenty bucks will get you a hotplate, a pan, and a place setting at Goodwill or Salvation Army stores) but the gist is correct.

Re:Wow

[JackSpratts]

as a politician in a small northeastern city yours is i think the best reason for strongly supporting our public libraries in two critical areas; keeping the hours of operation as liberal as possible, especially during what may be generally difficult financial times, and keeping the facilities technologically up to date. your story is a reason to continue doing so, a primer on the results and, really, an inspiration.

- js.

Re:Wow

[dadelbunts]

Right. Because i bought an 80 dollar smartphone over a year ago, and a 400 dollar laptop also over a year ago, means i have money to currently pay for internet. Great logic on your part. I guess because i cannot currently afford internet i should throw away my smartphone and laptop because i dont need them anymore right? Sometimes shit happens and you fall on hard financial times. You should take your "book" to an editor, as it seems to be full of idiotic generalizations.

Re:Wow

[FoolishOwl]

Then you don't understand poverty.

Conservatives used to occasionally kick up a fuss about "unfunded mandates". Poor people have to deal with those all the time. One unfunded mandate is that Internet access is a practical requirement for participation in contemporary society. If you don't have Web access, you can't search for jobs or apply for them, or fill out legally mandatory paperwork, or do your homework.

As we all know, web-enabled devices are bargains, because they enable access to many different forms of communication and entertainment. I remember a furor erupting when a local newspaper, for an article about long-term unemployment showed a photo of a family in a one-room apartment. There was a table, with a smartphone on it. There were a few chairs, and some blankets and pillows on the floor, and no other furniture; no television, no other telephone, nothing. Yet people complained they couldn't really be poor, because they had a smartphone.

And yes, McDonalds is bad food, and overpriced. Try visiting a poor urban neighborhood sometime. It's a major problem that low-income neighborhoods frequently lack grocery stores, that the only food sources within a few miles are corner stores with overpriced convenience foods and fast food restaurants.

Re:Libraries

[ndogg]

Sorry, liberals don't like it when the churches do things like "donating free space" to help people. They throw hissy fits, and start screaming about a separation of church and state. Well at least they do in the US, never mind that in Canada that churches and synagogues have been doing this up here for the better part of a decade already and it's open to the public.

We only care when government money is used to maintain such services, or are the only places for those public services to be available.

How comfortable would you be if the only place in your town that had free internet was a mosque?

Actually pretty useful as a backup

[puregen1us]

Given that the McDs connections are pretty fast, and pretty reliable, it's actually handy to use as a backup.

Couple of years ago the connection at home was being flaky and finally gave out. Problem was, it was a major DR test day at work, and I needed to be online from home for 12 or so hours.

I just grabbed the laptop, blackberry, and powercord, and went 5 mins down the road to the 24hour McDs. Sat there for hours til my ass was numb, happily on my work BB using hands-free, and worked away for hours.

I wasn't disturbed, had unlimited food and drinks available. Really, not the worst place to work at all. I had more space there than I get at my desk job, and better food and drinks too. Work don't have iced tea on tap.

The McDs connection was enough to remote desktop into my XP desktop at work, without lag or dropping. I was impressed how stable it was. Most places can't handle basic browsing that well given the number of people sharing, but that was totally solid.

Re:Actually pretty useful as a backup

[gravis777]

I was thinking the same thing - although you don't even need to go inside. A couple of years ago, my internet connection at home went down, and there were no 24 hour places near me. I just went and parked in the McDonald's parking lot for a couple of hours, using their connection.

They are also handy at airports that still charge for WiFi (yeah, there are a few). Just go to the McDonald's in the terminal, and you can use their WiFi for free, instead of having to pay the $5 an hour to the airport. And at several airports, I find the MdDonald's WiFi to be faster and more reliable than the airport's.

Another nice thing is that I have NEVER had an issue with the WiFi at McDonald's, whereas the WiFi at places like Starbucks, Taco Cabana, Denny's and iHop is usually down, or there is something wrong with their router - you can see the SSID, but it refuses to give out ip addresses (I think that whoeve set them up probably set too high of a time-limit on leased IPs). Considering that McCafe has just as good (actually I think better) coffee than Starbucks at half the price, and many newer McDonald's actually have a business-class theme, it is a great place for mobile computing.

Re:Internet is need, not a want.

[Osgeld]

needs are things you have to have

food
water
clothing
shelter

you will survive without internet, man has done it for thousands of years, its not a need

Ob Ron Paul

[hessian]

See, the free market came through where government did not.

Re:We should do it

[1u3hr]

If McDonald's can do it for free, then by all means, spend the 45 billion and teach them a lesson!

The $45 billion is to supply broadband to every home. McDonald's isn't doing that. No one is, which is the issue. Leave it to the profit motive and you'll only have affordable broadband in middle class urban areas.

Re:We should do it

[sqrt(2)]

They're not doing it for free, they operate a very profitable business selling food-like substances to people who are poor either in money or time. They've found that offering "free" wifi generates more additional revenue than the cost of operating the wifi--which they were probably doing anyway so that the store could have an internet connection.

Re:Libraries

[Gordonjcp]

How comfortable would you be if the only place in your town that had free internet was a mosque?

More comfortable than if the only place with free internet was McDonalds. In the mosque there's be less proselytising and the food is better.

Re:Internet is need, not a want.

[zAPPzAPP]

No, you will not.
Not as an active part of society at least. As involuntarily and essential services like paying your taxes, registering business, all kinds of insurances move to online only, you just can not participate in the economy anymore without internet access.

Sure, go live in the forrests dependant on no one else. There you won't need internet. But these rights are not made for hermits, they are made for citizens.

Re:Those square things made out of papyrus

[Jmc23]

Yup definitely too much to ask when the homework assignments are posted or done online.

Oh wait, were you being sarcastic about something you made up in your head without RTFA?

Re:We didn't have any problems

[Jmc23]

I'll tell you what the problem is. That awesome education you acquired without the use of the internet wasn't sufficient enough to enable you to find the answer to your simple question either through logic or by RTFA!

Re:We should do it

[Baloo Uriza]

Which is why we shouldn't be championing lassez-faire capitalism as the end-all, be-all in American commerce.

Re:Libraries

[Runaway1956]

Wait - they have FOOD in mosques? Dang - why didn't anyone tell me? I'm checking Google Maps for the closest mosque with free wifi!

Re:Libraries

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a Mosque not far from me that does exactly that. Anyone is welcome to go in at any time, sit in this nice comfy lounge, which is always stocked with light snacks and juices. They don't try to push their religion on you, all they ask is that if they need some help with something while your there that you provide the help. Usually that help is small things like moving a few boxes around, holding a ladder while their hanging stuff, or helping sweep up the commons area. For the 4 month span I had to go up there for internet access, they never once asked me to help with their religious routines, only with general things, and not very often either.

Re:Libraries

[TheRaven64]

As an atheist with qualms about organised religion I do object to them taking over the role of the state

In the UK (where the original poster was from) it is quite common for Church halls to be used for secular purposes. They are effectively village halls (often the 'village' in question was subsumed by a town or city some centuries ago) that happen to be owned by the church. They are usually either free or very cheap to use and often the only large indoor space that is affordable for volunteer groups and community organisations. Although they tend to be owned by the church, using them doesn't usually come with any religious strings attached.

Re:Internet is need, not a want.

[TheRaven64]

you will survive without internet, man has done it for thousands of years, its not a need

The majority of people also survived without being able to read and write until a hundred or so years ago. Try doing that now...

Liberals and Libraries

[rocket rancher]

Sorry, liberals don't like it when the churches do things like "donating free space" to help people. They throw hissy fits, and start screaming about a separation of church and state. Well at least they do in the US, never mind that in Canada that churches and synagogues have been doing this up here for the better part of a decade already and it's open to the public.

We only care when government money is used to maintain such services, or are the only places for those public services to be available.

How comfortable would you be if the only place in your town that had free internet was a mosque?

Hmmm. Don't think you are a troll, so I'm going to toss you a peanut or two to munch on. Haven't you heard of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, created by Bush II more than a decade ago? True, Bush used it as a sly way to fund get-out-the-vote programs targeted at GOP constituencies and faced some serious blowback when his first director of the office, John Dilulio, resigned in protest over the political agenda that permeated an ostensibly apolitical office. The office was expanded and renamed the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships by that arch-liberal, Obama. The OFBNP has funneled billions of dollars of tax money into exactly the kind of social services that you are referring to, via competitive contracts awarded and monitored by a council of secular and religious leaders from around the country.

I don't think liberals care much at all about *who* is helping redistribute the nation's wealth, as long as it gets redistributed in a way that benefits all, and not just a few. It's a great idea, really, letting churches help. Conservatives who don't like to redistribute wealth in any direction but upwards would look pretty silly if they tried to block money doing God's work, wouldn't you agree?

Re:Libraries

[stenvar]

Sorry, liberals don't like it when the churches do things like "donating free space" to help people.

No, liberals don't like it when churches use government funding to pretend that they are "donating" something to help people. Neither do libertarians, or sensible conservatives. And a lot of "church help" boils down to just that: government funding funneled through religious organizations in order to promote their own agenda.

never mind that in Canada that churches and synagogues have been doing this up here for the better part of a decade already and it's open to the public

I know this may come as a shock to you, but the Canadian political system or society, is in fact, not everybody's idea of the ideal society.

Moron

[SmallFurryCreature]

So, you need 650 dollars up front in your simplistic example. Gas/electricity of course just arrives for free and has no upfront costs in your silly world of moronic idiots who don't know what they are talking about.

Being poor is about not HAVING any money to spend. A classic example is the washing machine. Going to a laundromat is far more expensive AND time consuming but until you can afford the upfront cost of a washing machine, you have little choice but to try to save up for one while spending the higher amount of laundromat. Say you got a budget of 10 dollars for laundry per week. The laundromat costs 9.50, using your own washing machine costs 500 up front and 5 dollars per wash.

The person who doesn't have 500 dollars, has to use the laundromat and can only save up 50 cents per week. To save up the 500 dollars needed to buy a washing machine, takes years.

That is assuming said person even lives somewhere where it is possible/allowed to run a washing machine. A moron like Solandri will no doubt suggest to not wash your clothes and save up for 50 weeks those 10 dollars and then buy a washing machine. No doubt as the spoiled little rich white kid he will just say to get your mom to do it. He did. But if you do not wash your clothes for a year, you will go through clothes a LOT faster and most likely loose whatever job you have.

It is well known that the richer you are, the cheaper you can life. Even Terry Pratchett wrote about it with Sam Vimes Boots theory of economic injustice. It goes something like this: If you can afford 100 dollars for a pair of boots, you will have a pair of boots that will keep your feet dry for your life and can pass on to your children. If you can only afford a 10 dollar pair, they will leak with in six months and begone in a year. So the poor man spends more on boots then the rich men but still has wet feet. And no, you can't go for 10 years without boots to save up for a good pair.

What morons like Solandri fail to understand is that being poor means you don't have money. You would think this is fairly easy to understand concept but people like Solandri are really dumb indeed, they think poor people just want to be poor and could just get the money somewhere by magic if only they tried.

You can see how stupid Solandri is by not including the fixed costs of utility services, they charge a flat fee on top of which you pay for actual usage. He is a classic spoiled little rich kid who moans about the poor but doesn't know the price of milk.

Re:Internet deprived?

[OldSport]

Because that would cost money, and getting people to add costs to a public school budget these days is nigh impossible.

This points out a big problem:

[MtViewGuy]

Much of the USA has trouble getting broadband because the population density of rural areas makes it too expensive do the "last mile" connection of broadband to the home. This isn't like South Korea or Japan, where the population density is high enough per square kilometer to justify the enormous expense of hardwired high-speed Internet connections to everyone.

I think if the IRS were to offer substantial corporate tax incentives to get the "last mile" connection--whether by DSL, cable or even long-range wireless not tied to cellphones like 802.16 WiMax--out to rural customers, they could solve the problem pretty quickly.

Re:Libraries

[Gordonjcp]

Depends where you are. A lot of them do a similar thing to the Sikh community do with gurdwara, where they will have their church service then all have something to eat while they discuss it. I could get to like a church where you spend most of the time eating veg curry and discussing the bits where the holy book is wrong ;-)

Re:Internet deprived?

[OldSport]

OK, so let's say it is "just a matter of keeping the schools open later". How much later? Is it going to be a computer lab, or some other part of the school? Who is going to stay and supervise the kids? How much extra is it going to cost to keep everything open and running? Are all the school hours going to be extended, or just a small number of the schools? How are the kids who stay later going to be transported (assuming they ride the bus or something like that)? What about kids who have extracurricular activities? And so on and so forth. The point being is that "just keeping the schools open later" is a lot more of a complicated process that you seem to think. You talk about arrogance, but I've done a lot of work in education – and a lot of work with the logistics thereof – and there's nothing more arrogant than someone making those kind of simplistic suggestions without the slightest consideration as to what is actually involved.

As for the rest of it, you and I seem to live in very different versions of the same country. Where I live, people live out in the countryside because property taxes in the more "urban" areas are cripplingly high, and town meetings/school board meetings tend to be monopolized by the same old yuppie morons who don't have the slightest clue about what it's like to be really, truly poor. But anyway.

Re:Libraries

[mcgrew]

I hate to tell you this, Mr. Conservative, but Jesus was a liberal. Taxes? "Render unto Ceasar..." You conservatives seem to hate the poor that Jesus said "Blessed are" of. Tax money for food stamps? Conservatives are against it. "They should get jobs" you say, Jesus said "look at the lilies of the field, they neither sew nor spin yet Solomon in all his glory was never so clothed." Conservatives love money, but the bible says the love of money is the root of all evil.

Jesus was a liberal, a radical, Caiphas was a staunch conservative. Why do you think he was crucified? Conservatives hated him.

Oh, and if you're a lawyer you don't want to know what Jesus said about you.

Re:Libraries

[mcgrew]

Bullshit, for the last two years my church has given two weeks' groceries to every family with a chile at Harvard Park Elementary over Christmas break, because it's the poorest neighborhood in town and school breakfast and lunch is all some of those kids get. No sermons involved, volunteers simply drop off the groceries.

I don't believe St John's breadline, run by the Catholics here, makes you say grace or anything. They're just feeding poor people. No sermon attached.