really sad we've come to this....our military boys deserve the best.

  1. 0
    Subject: What's only right- By Rush Limbaugh
    >
    > I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the
    > September 11th 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 11th.
    >
    > 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 11th 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 that are getting an average of $1.185
    > million up to $4.7
    > million are complaining that it's not enough.
    >
    > 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 11th 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 fifty years of Entitlement politics
    > in this country .
    >
    > It's just really sad. Every time when 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.
    >
    > 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 be
    > 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
    > they may receive
    > a pension of $1,000 per month, while the politicians, the very people who
    > placed you in harms 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 ?"
    >
    What's only right-By Rush Limbaugh
  2. Get our hottest nursing topics delivered to your inbox.

  3. 1,575 Visits
    Find Similar Topics
  4. 10 Comments so far...

  5. 0
    Sad but true.
    Zoe
  6. 0
    Grrrrr
  7. 0
    Very sad commentary.

    renerian
  8. 0
    I have only one problem with your post. It is in the title. How about "our men and women in the military" in stead of "boys".
  9. 0
    OMG, how awful!!! I never realized this! Well, it just SUCKS!
  10. 0
    Tell me about it. I'm medically discharged and I get a whopping $310.00 a month (til I'm dead) for six years of faithful service. Still I wouldn't trade a day for serving my country. I would of done it for free. But still $310.00 a month?
  11. 0
    Oh my gosh Oramar, you're right!! I should have said "men & women". I was just angry and not thinking....thanks for pointing this out.
  12. 0
    its really sad that this is what the world comes to. My heart goes out to those who lost a loved one, and not be disrespectful ... but in any other country, they'd find this ridiculous! This is democracy for your, our politicians rob us blind, yet its the little people who make a difference in this world that live in poverty levels ... one can only hope that one day things will change.
  13. 0
    Actually...

    * Congress started paying into SS in 1983

    * Congressional pensions are dependent upon tenure in office. For lawmakers who were elected before 1984, the pension formula upon retirement is the average of the three highest years' salaries, multiplied by years of Congressional, federal, and active duty military service, multiplied by 2.5 percent

    * For lawmakers elected in 1984 and thereafter, the formula is generally the same as above, except that the accrual rate is 1.7 percent instead of 2.5 percent, and after the first 20 years of service, the rate falls to 1.0 percent.

    * In 1995, the Wall Street Journal asked private-sector pension consultants to compare the first year's pension benefit for a 60-year-old Member of Congress with 30 years of service to that of a similarly-salaried private-sector executive fitting the same profile. The Journal determined that the lawmaker's benefit would start at $99,175, versus just $56,220 for the executive.


    So, Rush is saying thed typical Congressperson who has served at least one term will draw $180,000 (12 x $15,000). When the WSJ says that a 30 yr Congressperson will draw $99,175.

    They do NOT automatically draw $15,000 a month, for serving just one term. Their pension is dependent upon length of service.

    Former presidents continue to draw their salaries and travel perks, as do some other high level government officials. The whole system stinks, frankly.


Top