Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14746 Followers
Abdullah Baig
265 Followers
MediaSight
13123 Followers
Away for a while
3984 Followers
Sohaib Amir Malik
272 Followers
Peymanabkhezr
1023 Followers
Slum Dog Millionaire
4156 Followers
Gerakis100
2982 Followers
bdbrApr 10, 2011
It costs a lot of money to run for public office these days, and lawmakers have become reliant on (and embedded with) well-funded interests. This article drones on with history and rhetoric, but doesn't explain the depth at which Washington is currently tied into this system. It's particularly hard to remedy a problem when the people who make the remedy are part of the problem.
bossm4nApr 10, 2011
So much common sense in your comment. It's exactly what Ross Perot warned us about (Washington lobbyists) almost 20 years ago and still no one listens. Democrats try to pin this all on Republicans while they conveniently forget all of the corporate ties and contributions responsible for getting Obama elected. Not to mention the idol of the progressive left is one of the most successful and wealthiest hedge fund operators in the world, George Soros.
ddoornApr 11, 2011
Campaign money and the obscene lobbyists that go along with it are an abomination to the democratic process. All politicians should be granted an equal number of pre-determined minutes on the networks as a matter of public service. Politicians should just do their freaking job and let their record of performance be their campaign. Stay out of bed with corporate interests! What an embarrassment and a TRAGIC waste of resources that could be SO much better spent elsewhere during these budget-busting times!
anomaly100Apr 11, 2011
I agree with that. It would be great unfortunately pols and corporations are in bed together and don't plan getting out.
adambomb5060Apr 11, 2011
In addition, I'd suggest changing campaign financing rules so that each candidate is given a set amount based on donations to their party, all of which MUST be from an individual and NOT a corporation or NGO. Corporations may be considered people for a few obscure legal reasons, but campaign donations are taking it too far.
Bacillus_AnthraxApr 10, 2011
haha so true
crapolatimeApr 10, 2011
Poor republicans pushing for the Rich to make billions of more dollars in profit, while at the same time, wiping out Poor peoples life savings. Well if Poor people can save any money, while banks keep increasing 'service' fees.
Poor = $30,000 a year in income.
celarnorApr 10, 2011
Not that I disagree you, but I'd consider $30,000 a year _extremely_ well-off. In what world is 30k slumming it? Maybe if you live in like downtown Manhattan or something, but...
30,000*.75 (25% tax bracket), yields $22,500 after taxes. That's $1,875 a month or $625 a week(!!!!!!!!!!).
If I could make that much weekly, I'd only need to work 1.5 weeks out of the month to live comfortably.
celarnorApr 10, 2011
For reference, I can pull in around $115 a week if I'm lucky and my hours don't get cut. So, almost 6 times that looks pretty attractive to me.
novenatorApr 10, 2011Submitter
It's all relative for the most part. The official "poverty" level in the US is only somewhere around $11k/year gross, and I'm not sure how anyone can really survive on that unless they don't have a place to live, eat bread/rice/potatoes/ramen every meal, don't spend a penny on anything recreational, not having any health care, etc. I've done it in the past, but lived on the road and camped out (usually for free). I think if you want to live a middle-poor to upper-poor lifestyle, it probably takes ~$30k, and that's just renting.
celarnorApr 11, 2011
Is it 11k? I always thought "the" poverty line was at 18k. Not that it really matters, there's so many different versions of that line (DHS has its own for some reason, federal government has one, and states have one) its hard to keep track.
I just have a hard time believing anyone pulling >15k or so is having a difficult time unless they've made some bad decisions: started a family when they couldn't afford it, bought a house, unnecessarily new car from the past 5 model years, etc.
So I guess what I don't understand, is where does all the 'extra' typically go? Are there hidden expenses for people who make >10k? >20k? Does it get absorbed in lifestyle choices as the person moves upward in income, buying premium food, consumer goods and such?
A while ago, someone on digg posted that they made 100k per annum; I said I wouldn't know what to do with that much money. As someone who subsists on around 8k, I think around $30k would be the point at which I'd run out of stuff to spend it on and just start putting it all in the bank.
Maybe it just seems like a lot because I've never known anyone who makes that much, or been a part of that 'lavish' a group. The only way I can really fathom that much money is by looking at how much I owe in college loans. :P
Neither of my parents pull in more than 20k in Maine's public education sector, and they seem pretty comfortable. They both have their own cars, trailers and small plots of land. One of them can even spring for city water.
Lifestyle-wise, you just pretty much described my life, which is fairly normal for the dense and impoverished area where I live. After college loans, probably the worst decision of my life, approximately 60% of my monthly income goes to my landlord, around 20% of it goes to the farmer's market in combination with SNAP benefits. I don't buy much there, and only eat one meal a day in the evenings before work. Typically this consists of a sausage or burger patty cooked in peppers and onions and a baked potato maybe with butter depending on whether I could splurge for it that week or not.
Despite having recurring kidneystones and fibromyalgia, I don't bother with healthcare anymore since I can't afford all the co-pays, let alone the insurance itself. The rest goes to gas, and I even manage to put away $30 a month into my savings account.
anomaly100Apr 11, 2011
It all depends on your location too. I'm in NYC and my rent is mush more than $115 a week which hou stated you're making. You can't get an apt in NYC for anything close to that.
My grocery bill is higher than someone's not living in Manhattan. On the other hand, I can't think of one city where $115 could make ends meet, considering rent, groceries, electricity, clothes and health care needs. And that's just to name a few.
spatula7Apr 11, 2011
Yup, that about sums it up.
rentacoprantzApr 10, 2011
I´ve got the feeling they don´t have much time left, this time they´ve gone way above their heads!
cupofkonaApr 11, 2011
Psychopathic leeches...
agmlauncherApr 10, 2011
Kinda makes that whole 2nd amendment thing seem like an important aspect of the Constitution now doesn't it? No way else to reform this except by force.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Apr 10, 2011
I'd move first personally. It's not even worth the bother anymore.
bdbrApr 10, 2011
Good luck taking on the best-armed and best-trained military in the history of the world with your hunting rifle.