I’m not really sure where you’re going with this.

The point of the article, it seems to me, is that he has consciously chosen a modest, communitarian life, even though he could certainly arrange for more lavish surroundings.

Is your argument that he’s paid too much? If so, what do you think is reasonable compensation for one of the most stressful jobs on earth?

My point is that we have a system of government that is for and by the rich, where billionaires tell the millionaires in government what they want, and then they get it. Your opinion does not matter to them [0].

Someone receiving a $206K/year pension, according to the 4% safe withdrawal method, is the equivalent of having $5.1M in a retirement account, except this is better, because it doesn’t run out. Most people won’t see that much money over their entire careers. This is not someone we should hold up and say “this person shunned riches,” because it’s not true.

[0]: https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congr...

Sure, he has access to money—-no argument there—-and his life will always be comfortable.

On the other hand, how can you say that he’s not shunning riches, or at least their trappings? They live in Plains, Georgia. Their big Sunday dinner is casserole and one Solo cup of “bargain Chardonnay” with the neighbors. They turned down living quarters in favor of a pull-out couch in their office. It’s not at all the stereotypical lifestyle of someone with millions in the bank. Hell, parts of it make my lifestyle (academic scientist) seem opulent—-we at least have IKEA wineglasses!

The article discusses his pension and, if you reread it, points out that he does not in fact get medical benefits from his tenure in government.

Yes, he gets medical benefits from Emory University. It’s irrelevant. Who cares where he gets them from? The point still stands that he has unimaginable riches compared to the vast majority of Americans.

Again, how much do you think he should he get? He also had power—-and responsibilities and stress—-that are unimaginable compare to the vast majority of Americans.

And for what it’s worth, the median household income is around $60k. Three times that doesn’t seem crazy high.

If you're not talking about the rewards from his government service, then it's hard to figure out what your point would be, because the vast majority of Americans do in fact have health coverage.

But what does that point have to do with this article, which details how differently Carter lives compared to other former presidents? I think it’s self-evident that Carter, being one of the fewer than 50 men in the history of the U.S. to be elected president, has an existence generally unimaginable the the vast majority of Americans.

That’s precisely what’s wrong. How can people who have “unimaginable existences” represent me?

I get that you have an axe to grind here, and are going to have at it with a will, but let's not be intentionally obtuse. The act of being the President itself is an existence most people can't really experience. It is inherent in the office. It would be absurd to suggest he immediately resign from the office of representing the people because he instantly is no longer one of the people. It's an inherent issue with representative democracy.

The article does not purport to represent you or the general readership of the Washington Post. It says right in the title that it is about former President Jimmy Carter, and presumably, people are interested in reading about other people's lives, even ones that are profoundly different from their own.

And what does that have to do with the article?

It’s merely the example in front of me right now. Donald Trump or any of the people listed here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_t...) would do just as well.

One thing is to receive a benefit given by your prior public roles (serving society).

Another thing is to actively pursue money at the expense of everything else.

Your comment looks rather short-sighted in this regard.

He lives in a house that is worth less than the armored SUV parked outside his house.

And drinks cheap alcohol/food, and not for a photo op.

What more do you want him to do?

Probably because it doesn't matter.

Sure, he may receive a handsome pension for his service as the highest official in the land along with other benefits but what's the alternative, having other world leaders bumping off our former presidents (looking at you Saddam) because they decided to enter public service and can't afford world-class protection for themselves/family?

I had the same reaction, though in comparison to other former presidents it could be considered accurate. I did find it interesting that he doesn't receive federal health benefits, having only 4 years of the required 5 years service. (He does receive them through Emory University.)

The premise of this article is that Carter is an “un-celebrity” who choose to avoid profiting from his presidential past, not that he’s living on the streets as a pauper.