PDA

View Full Version : Rush



edge
08-06-2003, 01:59 PM
I got sent this interesting email.

I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving the country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September
11. Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by
because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a
minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.

If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.
Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.

You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad.
Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing. Make sense?

However, our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month, and most are now equal
to being millionaires plus. They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system.
>>>>
If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harm's way receive a pension of $15,000 per month.

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.
>>>>
"When do we finally do something about this?" If this doesn't seem fair to you, it is time to forward this to as many people as you can.If your interested there is more . . . .
This must be a campaign issue in 2004. Keep it going.SOCIAL SECURITY: (This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.)
>>>>
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congressmen do not pay into Social Security. Many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. For all practical purpose! Their plan works like this:
>>>>
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their
wives may expect to draw $7,800,000 -- that's Seven Million, Eight Hundred Thousand), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
>>>>
This is calculated on an average life span for each Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. These little perks they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan.
>>>>
The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Fund--our tax dollars at work! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into -- every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!
>>>>
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. And that change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us and then watch how fast they would fix it.
>>>>
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve. WE, each one of us... can make a difference.

How many people can YOU send this to?


edge

Edaarin
08-06-2003, 04:00 PM
You know, my AP government teacher always said that Congress is underpaid for the amount of work they put in. I don't remember how much they make a year, but I think it's around 100k?

[Edited on 8-6-2003 by Edaarin]

Chyrain
08-06-2003, 04:30 PM
$155,000 since Jan 1st 2003.

Most folks in politics come from a really long legacy of money (hence the ability to get themselves elected in the first place) so I don't see why would should pay those folks more to anally rape us on policy on a daily basis.

not to mention they have the power to vote themselves raises. I wish I had the power to cast a vote to get a pay raise. AND they are public servants, not Kings. They are no more important to us than say...teachers or emergency workers.

[Edited on 8-6-2003 by Chyrain]

[Edited on 8-6-2003 by Chyrain]

Jack
08-06-2003, 04:37 PM
One thing that was left out of that is the Serviceman's Group Life Insurance. For 18 dollars a month, you get 200,000 dollars worth of term life insurance. Having this policy is almost mandatory in the military. So 99.9% of active duty men and women in the military have it, and if they are killed in action, the policy pays the family, or whomever the member has listed as benificiary.

The rest of what was said rings true.

imported_Kranar
08-06-2003, 04:38 PM
Both politicians and judges get a good salary as a deterent to bribery.

Artha
08-06-2003, 05:03 PM
Not really...the President only makes 180,000 a year. Of course, he doesn't have to pay mortgage, or buy food. It sounds like alot, but when you consider that some CEOs give themselves million dollar bonuses for answering the phone, it really isn't.

Skirmisher
08-06-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Artha
Not really...the President only makes 180,000 a year. Of course, he doesn't have to pay mortgage, or buy food. It sounds like alot, but when you consider that some CEOs give themselves million dollar bonuses for answering the phone, it really isn't.

Any president still breathing is virtually guaranteed a multi-million dollar income after their term is over. Speaking fees, the inevitible book deal, various board of directorships etc...

The real money is AFTER the presidency, not during.

Scott
08-06-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Artha
Not really...the President only makes 180,000 a year. Of course, he doesn't have to pay mortgage, or buy food. It sounds like alot, but when you consider that some CEOs give themselves million dollar bonuses for answering the phone, it really isn't.

The president makes 400k a year, they changed it last year I think, when it was 200k.......

Sweets
08-06-2003, 10:21 PM
A bit off beat here is also the amount of money celebrities make.

I can't see a Julia Roberts picture because of the GROSS amount of money she makes for one film.

Then you have the above said survivors of war victims. Emergency workers. Nurses. Teachers. Etc. I realize the celebrities get the big bucks for the huge amounts the box office makes, still.....

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Bestatte
08-06-2003, 10:31 PM
They get such big box office revenue because they're charging $8 a ticket and $10 for a cup of soda and a small popcorn per person.

They're charging that much because the stars are demanding high minimum income. They're demanding high minimum income because they've proven that people are willing to pay for it.

Kinda like GSIII items for sale on e-bay. No one has to buy any of that stuff. They have whatever value people are willing to pay. When people stop being willing to pay for the stuff, the prices will drop and the items will lose value.

Supply and demand - it's the basic premise of economics.

imported_Kranar
08-06-2003, 11:18 PM
<< They get such big box office revenue because they're charging $8 a ticket and $10 for a cup of soda and a small popcorn per person. >>

Which is kind of false. The money you pay for the soda and the popcorn goes to the theater, it does not go to the actors or to the studios or to anyone other than the theater itself.

90 percent of the money the theater makes from ticket sales goes straight to the studios for the first 2 weeks, then after that the theater gets a higher percentage of the ticket sales every following week.

The bottom line, however, is that the studios don't decide how much a ticket will cost, the theaters decide that. A theater could technically make their tickets free, or charge very little if they wanted to, but they know that if they do so they won't be making any money at all after 2 weeks.

You are right on your last point, on the issue of supply and demand. Only in a communist society do people get payed based on the type of work they do. In a capitalist society, people get payed based on how much others are willing to pay them.

Not that I know any one person's position on the issue, but what's absurd is when people argue that taxes should be lowered, that taxes are way too high, and then find it disgusting that an actor gets payed 1000 times more than a fireman.

I mean you can't just go off burning the extra money you recieve because a fireman isn't making as much as you do. You also can't decrease the price of tickets too much because a healthy economy requires that the supply equals the demand, and when you lower the price, you increase the demand. Often times the demand increases beyond the supply. When there's more demand then supply, you end up with less consumer confidence and that can lead to a recession.

[Edited on 8-7-2003 by Kranar]

Taernath
08-07-2003, 12:33 AM
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/military.htm

Interesting links the url above. No naked men mauled by bears this time, I promise.

[Edited on 8/7/03 by Taernath]

Edaarin
08-07-2003, 01:46 AM
I can't see a Julia Roberts film because I tend to vomit loudly in the middle of it.