View Story | 411 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
but it isn't just you having this problem.
I make under the median salary but my wife makes a decent wage. We got a decent deal on a house recently with 20% down and a fixed rate on a mortgage payment that was about the same as the rent we had been paying previously.
Every week as soon as I get my paycheck I put aside money for bills plus a little extra to cover the higher bills during the winter months(heat is expensive here in the Northeast). We had been doing OK with a few hundred dollar cusion in the account. Then the weather got cold and heating bills started to come in. We got the latest monthly bill for about $400 and now our account has 37 cents and there are still a couple bills left to pay. This is to heat a 1300 sq foot house with new replacement windows at 65 degrees. Plus our property taxes just went up.
We aren't about to default or anything, but somehow I'm going to have to figure out how to squeeze some more bill money out of the hundred bucks or so a week I have to pay for everything else. I realize that we are probably better off than a lot of people still, but rather than making me feel good about my own situation, it makes me wonder why people who are barely scraping by are among the better off in this country.
Needless to say, Mrs. Cometman and I spend a lot more time at home these days.
Part of this is just the extra money it costs to own a home. That I expected. But a lot of it is due to the fact that everything costs more, gasoline, heating oil, groceries, you name it. And wages aren't keeping up with the rising costs of necessary goods and services.
But instead of helping people out, the insiders in DC just drop items for the consumer price index so things seem a lot rosier than they actually are.
We need someone to take on the corporate greed in DC that is rapidly destroying the middle class.
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - F. Zappa
by cometman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:09:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
same situation as you are. Without my husband's overtime (there is talk of cutting it back at his job), we could not pay some of our bills. And we are solidly middle class, according to the government's income numbers!!!
Our neighbors are in the same boat....to a person! The talk at the PTO meetings is of the cost of groceries, more than anything. EVERYONE is feeling the pinch there.
I would love to meet one person who thinks what is happening is good. Just one.
by PsychoSavannah on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:39:17 AM PDT
Writing and Poetry at My Left One.
by socialist butterfly on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:50:21 AM PDT
brags about making a company profitable by laying off the workers.
I meant one person who works for a living, has children in school, perhaps a modest investment portfolio....y'know a "regular" American.
by PsychoSavannah on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:59:25 AM PDT
My family has some people who are juggling between Romney or Guiliani, and these are people with $12/hr jobs who have no reason at all to vote repug.
I also have friends/acquaintances/co-workers who make more, have children & homes & 401ks, but not true wealth, and still think the repug is working in their interests.
I don't get it. I never do.
by socialist butterfly on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:18:15 AM PDT
I said that I can bring in X product (which is for a higher price point) if Democrats get into office.
"Which one?" she asked derisively.
"I don't care which one. Any of them will be better for working people than any of the Republicans," said I.
"But Democrats want us all to live in a socialized country," said she.
Me: "You don't mind socialized services like, oh, the military or the highways, do you?"
Her: "That's not socialism, that's American"
Me: "Well, I don't care what it's called. When Arthur Anderson laid off 50,000 Chicagoans with nice high paying jobs, it sure dragged down wages for the rest of us. And now, none of us are buying (high price-point item over there). Look. If you're selling to the top of the scale or the bottom of the scale, you're doing all right. If you're Tiffany or WalMart, you're making your rent just fine. But my nice little store that sells to the middle class needs the middle class to be there, to be robust, and to have disposable income. And Republicans don't like the middle class, let alone wanting it to be robust and having disposable income."
She tsk'd at me and let me know with a roll of her eyes that she thought I was stoopid and delooded.
Republicans. Feh.
The Republican Party: the party of greed, hate, anger, fear, waste, death and destruction!
by ultrageek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:33:55 AM PDT
All those aspirational folks who think they absolutely must have the same things that "really" rich people do suddenly didn't do so much shopping in high-end places like Tiffany's, Coach, and similar upscale retailers.
I never had that much, so I don't have that much to lose. Life is going to be very interesting to some of these people who have never had a day of want in their entire lives.
by Brooke In Seattle on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:07:11 AM PDT
no?
Bill had Bimbo eruptions ... Crazy John has Rambo eruptions
by kbman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:09:41 AM PDT
The military isn't socialized... it's American!
Heh.
I suppose Blackwell isn't socialized... but, that's an argument for someone better informed. :)
by ultrageek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM PDT
Commercial mercenaries. New Orleans is only the first place they will be deployed in the US.
"In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight
by bewert on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:50:48 PM PDT
Oh, so I guess that means that Western Europe went socialist after all. And THAT means that the Soviet Union actually did win the battle of ideas in the Cold War. And this, in turn, means that Reagan didn't win the Cold War as y'all like to claim. It also means he was chummy with leaders of socialist countries - like Maggie Thatcher.
(I know its a bs argument, but fight fire with fire.)
by kbman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:34:03 AM PDT
They think they've won the argument. Those Frenchies are the spawn of Satan, doncha know?
That's why I bring in The Military. They looooove the Military... especially if they don't know anyone serving... and, if the Military isn't socialist, both inside and out, I want to know what is. It's supported from each member of society -- serving and not -- according to his abilities; it lives and dies by the weakest link; a four star general with 35+ years of experience makes only 11x what a private who just got out of boot camp; food, clothing, housing and medical is provided equally, regardless of rank (yeah, I know, not really, but theoretically); and on and on and on.
Military = Socialist. Health Care = Capitalistic.
There's your winning argument.
by ultrageek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM PDT
Unfortunately, I don't want to be a private in boot camp america. Sure, the healthcare that's theoretically provided equally regardless of rank but not really sounds ok, but I don't want the federal government managing my weight for me or fining me $10,000 because I wanted to sell bananas by the pound instead of by the kilo.
Find me some happy middle where we can take care of those who need it most, without it becoming the socialist workers' paradise, and I'm sold.
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:58:49 AM PDT
We Democrats know that society helping the weakest and most needy among us isn't a bad thing. Many Republicans of my acquaintance equate that with helping Negroes have more children.
Once you bring in the military with its flags and its bands and dripping in medals and heroism and... patriotism... and you call that socialist, you hope that it breaks through their inherent, yet hidden, racist mindset just for a minute... and then, like water dripping on stone, you can wear away at their nasty Republicanism.
by ultrageek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:14:13 AM PDT
Beyond a skeleton force and a few people with fingers on the nuker triggers just in case some other nation were to get invasion-happy.
But that's probably not realistic.
I do worry, that your nice little republican-busting example of the military is actually, to an extent, indicative of what it would take to implement this "socialism".
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:20:24 AM PDT
What I think we should do is make sure that our military spending never exceeds the sum of the next three highest spenders combined. The billions of dollars it frees up should go to rebuilding our infrastructure, educating our people, fixing our healthcare system, and whatever else is needful.
Of course, that means that we don't go picking fights all over the world, and live humbly and at peace with our neighbors. And that, my friend, is anathema to my Republican friends who have the audacity to call themselves Christians.
by ultrageek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:30:43 AM PDT
I don't want to start a fight, but in case you are curious how I think, here it goes. You say this:
What I think we should do is make sure that our military spending never exceeds the sum of the next three highest spenders combined.
And ok, I'm not sure about that ratio (hell, maybe even a little less than that wouldn't be out of the question), but then:
The billions of dollars it frees up should go to rebuilding our infrastructure, educating our people, fixing our healthcare system, and whatever else is needful.
We have debt to pay down. You know what they say about people who just make the minimum payments on their credit cards each month? That's us, as a country.
And besides, I'm not real big on the education or healthcare thing. If we can still pay down the debt a bit after doing all this and still have money left over, let's do two things with it. One, we don't tax it away from the people whom it belonged to in the first place, but more importantly (and technically before that) we just help subsidize things for the people who need it.
If you fall below the poverty line (a real one, not the artificially low crap we have now), welfare is not out of the question for me. If structued in such a way that people aren't discouraged from trying to climb out of it, it could actually work. If a single mother finds part time work... don't take that amount out of how much assistance she was receiving, especially not immediately. If people really need help paying for healthcare, help them too.
Yuppies that bought too much house or that don't want to give up cable tv though, I just can't feel much sympathy for them.
And that, my friend, is anathema to my Republican friends who have the audacity to call themselves Christians.
Not a republican. Sort of libertarianish. Defintely not a christian.
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:34:54 PM PDT
apart, and a tremendous amount of poor people all thanks to Republican rule of America.
by jimreyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM PDT
Deserve alot of blame. And there's plenty of it to go around. But most of the democrats whose names I know, they're every bit as deserving. For that matter, their ideologies are completely out of whack. Helping poor people is cool, I have no problem with that. Healthcare? Something's definitely wrong there, too. But I just can't choke down the entire democrati... er, "progressive" philosophy.
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:33:28 PM PDT
We pay more if we smoke or if we are overweight.
by relentless on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:26:28 PM PDT
The diarist's story is the story of an increasing number of people in this country. They should have known that this is what a Bush vote in 2000 and 2004 was going to bring them. So many of us tried to tell them, but they willfully ignored us. They have brought their own pain upon themselves. If they didn't want this, they shouldn't have voted for the GOP. It is that simple.
"News is what someone, somewhere, doesn't want you to know. Everything else is just advertising."
by trueblue illinois on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:32:36 AM PDT
I can tell you I never voted for George W. Bush. I cried the night he was elected.
I knew this would happen to people like me.
I am being forced to pay for the sins of others, well in advance of their own bill coming due.
by xysea on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:42:03 AM PDT
Of course you didn't vote for Bush. You were smart enough to see the writing on the wall.
But you and the rest of us are being forced to pay for the willful ignorance of the people who voted for the GOP. They were warned this would happen, but they chose to ignore it. It was obvious Bush planned to gut the middle and working classes. Yet all those Bush voters voted against their own economic interest. Now they are suffering. But I have no pity for them. They brought this upon themselves. They should have known better than to stick their heads in the sand and assume that banning gay marriage was more important than making sure our country stayed on a sound financial footing.
All of us are suffering because the Bush voters chose to ignore evidence that was patently obvious to me, you and to everyone else on this site. They got the government they deserve. The rest of us now have to suffer.
(Sorry, I know I'm ranting. I'm just way pissed and bitter. Bitter toward the GOP, but also toward those who should have known better when they went into the voting booth in 2000 and 2004. Pissed that we all have to live with the consequences of their willful ignorance.)
by trueblue illinois on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:54:16 AM PDT
my original comment sounded like I was blaming you. Of course I am not. My heart breaks for you and for the rest of us who have to suffer the consequences of others' stupidity.
by trueblue illinois on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM PDT
by xysea on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:21:38 PM PDT
by jjellin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:57:17 PM PDT
When are people going to see that Edwards can do this because nobody owns him!
by bunny99 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:44:49 AM PDT
Citi Goldman Deutsche Bank
but so have all the other candidates(Link).
Fear and Loathing in America
by Guy Incognito on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:28:20 PM PDT
don't like so that it won't be as obvious who they give a lot more to.
by relentless on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:31:34 PM PDT
If I were her, I'd demand to be called Ms. Cometwoman . . . .
by Roadbed Guy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:08:09 AM PDT
by cometman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:14:56 AM PDT
literally . . .
'cuz, if so, I'm having the same problem - yesterday I lost the ability to give out recommendations (not for diaries, just for comments).
Is there a set number that eventually gets used up?
Guess that gives a whole new meaning to "keeping your powder dry" . . . . a skill that those who frequent a Democratic Party-leaning website really should have down cold (so yeah, guess I don't deserve any sympathy)
by Roadbed Guy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:45:33 AM PDT
My ability to rate comments has been taken away, thus my new sigline. Otherwise I would have just given you a rec.
It sounds like you are now in the same boat. Perhaps you troll rated someone or recced a comment that others had trollrated? A lot of people had their ratings abilities taken away for such foolishness. Looks like you have joined the club of those whose opinions are a great threat to the moderation of this website!!!
Of course, you could rack up over 100 troll ratings on one comment and still have your ratings ability intact, which just goes to show that this system is eminently fair...;)
But, since giving someone a rec consists only of putting a dot in a little box, I have found that what you see in my response to this comment works pretty well to get my point across, and gets me a little mojo besides allowing me to retain TU status.
by cometman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:58:25 AM PDT
by cometman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM PDT
Guess that's the (hidden) trap I fell into - so the idea is that as soon as somebody troll rates a comment, anyone who uprates it has their rating ability removed? That's rather bizarre.
In other words, the whole rating system is more or less a facade to start with (i.e., if you use it in meaningful way, it's taken away from you by those who are your intellectual superiors in that they just "know" what is acceptable or unacceptable for this site).
But here you are with TU status but without the ability to rate comments . . . . that is double secret bizarre. Or something like that.
by Roadbed Guy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:04:56 AM PDT
it's just a weird glitch. My ability to rate has disappeared lately for a just a few hours, or a few diaries.
by qwerty on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:19:56 AM PDT
of pro-Clinton, pro-Obama, or pro-Edwards forces and am now on the secret "no post" list (and a big bravo to the site administrators for learning from the TSA folk on how to do these things secretly, quietly, and without notification to the offending party . . . . for sure, despite the inconvenience, I for one feel much safer perusing this site now)
by Roadbed Guy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:07:22 AM PDT
Some people's ratings abilities were taken away due to the complaints of others to the admins.
Other people lost their ratings ability because they had all uprated the 'wrong' comments in campaign flame wars.
Or it could be a temporary glitch, which has happened before. But if it's a glitch, they usually get fixed pretty quickly.
But I think your second paragraph above sums up the situation pretty well.
It really isn't that big of a deal, and if you get a little creative you can take the lemons handed to you and make some lemonade, which will probably annoy those who had a problem with you in the first place. Another added bonus of losing rating ability!!
by cometman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:32:57 AM PDT
in number of recs for comments.
But, if you're how do I say...active in the candidate diaries, your ability to recommend may have been taken away by kos/admins.
See you at the debates, bitches. -- Paris Hilton
by donnamarie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:00:24 AM PDT
I am an Edwards Democrat.
by ThirstyGator on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:30:28 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 411 comments