Better than Welfare!

[gmattson]

Subject: Election issue

2004 Election Issue!!

This must be an issue in "2004". Please! Keep it going.

----------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY:

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes 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 $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk 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 Funds;

"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 of $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 (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

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 ... then sit back and 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.

How many people can YOU send this to?

[ljr]

Sensei
there are a couple of inaccuracies in that email, Congress has paid SS since 1984. you can check out: http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly68.htm

or
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/ ... nsions.htm

which states:

Congressional pensions are controversial and many believe they should be reformed, but this email has several inaccuracies. First, it is not true that members of congress don't pay into Social Security. It's been required of them since 1983, according to Andrew G. Biggs, Social Security Analyst for the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.. Additionally, Biggs says Congress does have its own retirement plan which does pay a generous pension to retired members of congress plus they are eligible for the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a 401k-type investment program available to all federal employees. Depending on a person's length of service, it is possible to retire with annual income that is equivalent to a Congressional salary, but no member of Congress automatically retires with his or her salary being paid as pension. TruthOrFiction.com was unable to find the source for the alleged Bill Bradley retirement calculations.

cheers,
ljr

[gmattson]

Thanks for the correct information.

[Panther]

It's true that Congress' retirement plan is great. As good or better than most private corporations offer. And it is true that they had to start paying into SS in the early 80s.

BUT, the original versions of this information was not about Congressional retirement benefits. Forget for a minute the fact that most of the rest of us still don't have the excellent retirement planning choices of our elected officials. (Why can't we contribute to the same retirement plans as Congress?) The original information being passed to and fro that was very close/similar to this piece was about Congressional (and government employee) health care benefits! That original version pointed out that they don't have to pay for it, they get it for life, so do their spouses and dependents (including elderly parents who are living with them), the coverage is complete (seen the AARP TV ads lately about getting prescription drug benefits? No such problem for government employees), and the coverage extends across the board to the best medical care in the world. Cost paid by the U.S. taxpayer. This info came out during Billary's meetings on "Health care reform". fercryinoutloud... we don't need Health care reform, we have the best health care in the world... we need Health Insurance reform! (as much as it goes against my general beliefs to even mention such a thing... ) The only way we should ever support a government health care plan is if we get the same exact coverage as the Congress. Since that will never happen, let them pay for their own just like I do.

now back to the right questions and government perks....

How often do you hear someone point out that when they moved from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, the Clinton's had never owned their own home and never paid a mortgage, but they were given $1M in a 100+% mortgage on their new home in NY. Huge mortgage payments and how were they going to get paid? Well... Federal Statute states that all former chief executives are provided with Secret Service protection, secretary, persoanl assistant, staff, for life! Hillary (naturally) refused to house those personell anywhere in her home, sooooooo at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer, additional buildings were built and furnished on the Clinton "estate" in NY. But wait! That's valuable "rental" property! Soooooo... The Clintons charge the government to rent that space! The rental fee? Exactly the same as the monthly mortgage payment!

No other chief executive (of any political party) has ever gotten such a sweet deal before the Clintons.

And whether it is in a couple of years or ~5 years, the plan is to have a Clinton in the Whitehouse again... Should we return them to give them a second chance at destroying the place when they move out? Will they move out a second time?

[Arnisador84]

"And whether it is in a couple of years or ~5 years, the plan is to have a Clinton in the Whitehouse again... Should we return them to give them a second chance at destroying the place when they move out? Will they move out a second time?" -Panther

You have a lot of good information in what you said Panther, but I don't see how that information fuels your conclusion. How does squeezing out an overgenerous deal for their house have anything to do with messing up the Whitehouse? As I recall, employment was up, the stock market was booming, social programs were funded, and education wasn't getting shafted. Also, questioning whether they'll move out a second time isn't an issue in the slightest.

_____________________
Andrew Heuett

[Panther]

There are plenty of reasons to argue against Hillary in the Whitehouse, but the one I was referring to was specifically to the tens of thousands of dollars they (and their staff) cost the U.S. taxpayers in damages to the actual residence. What does it have to do with their sweetheart deal? It is another example that shows that they are out for themselves and could care less about anyone they have to stomp on, ruin, destory, sellout, takeout, or screw over for their own personal gain. As far as leaving, well... we'll see.

I highly recommend the book, Dereliction of Duty, by Lt. Col. Patterson, USAF (ret.) It should be required reading for military personell...

[Gene DeMambro]

Sorry, Panther. The information regarding the Clinton's abodes is mostly incorrect. Check it out:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/landlord.htm

Gene

[Kevin Mackie]

Speaking of entitlements...why do you suppose that the biggest Democratic liberal in the country would oppose another massive transfer payment to the elderly???

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/ ... tail.html

Answer to follow.

Kevin

[Deep Sea]

Because they want to keep the elderly mad at them for the way they handle the Medicaid facade and prescription payments?

Angerobics perhaps could be good for road rage attitude adjustment. For example, a little tweak or two will do:

...tap into their creativity, their inner wisdom and their sense of humor to deal with anger and hopefully to help transform unhealthy [driving] patterns into [road rage-less] healthy ones," author Lisa Tener said.

This must be what causes road rage:

"They're angry with their spiritual faith and angry that there are people who are walking around them that are healthy and to have cancer can bring you a great deal of frustration," Dana Farber Cancer Institute spokeswoman Susan DeCristofaro said.

And another way to reduce or remove road rage, youp!

Trade places with the person who you are angry with and try to see it from their perspective.

I'm sure that'll take the edge off a road rage in progress.

I guess the world could be a better place if we all worked together at being goody-goody two-shoes.

BTW, how much tax money was spent to fund such a program?

[Kevin Mackie]

I guess the world could be a better place if we all worked together at being goody-goody two-shoes.

This wasn't really working together. It was a case of the republicans beating the democrats at their own game. The only reason for the opposition is that the dems didn't put up their even more generous package first. Score a big one for Bush.

BTW, how much tax money was spent to fund such a program?

Only $395 billion over 10 years.

From Kennedy:

Kennedy warned that the idea is the first step toward privatizing Medicare and taking away what has been a guaranteed benefit for all retirees, regardless of occupation or income.

Maybe this first step in privatization will cause addition steps into the realm of getting medical coverage out of the hands of the government?


kevin

[Gene DeMambro]

Something is definately rotten in Denmark when even staunch Republicans like Rep. Dan Burton oppose the bill as written.

The thing is a turkey - top to bottom.

Gene

[Panther]

Sorry, Panther. The information regarding the Clinton's abodes is mostly incorrect.

Fine. I violated the rules and I apologize. I didn't completely check that story out. However, I have checked out the damages done to the Whitehouse by the previous administration personell. Care to comment on that? And... Would you like to address the main point of the post, which was about Congressional Healthcare benefits?

There are way too many bills passed that are turkeys. Couldn't agree more...

[Gene DeMambro]

No, I don't care to comment about the alleged damage done tot he White House by Slick Willie and his boys, because I don't want to get into an argument about the Clinton legacy. He is what he is, and his Preeidency was what it was. But mostly it's because I don't care - not a single iota.

Congressional healthcare benefits? No, I really don't care to comment, expect to say that yes, we need health care finance reform and not health care reform. No easy answer, 'cause there are way to many interests out there that need to cooperate and/or compromise for that to happen. Quite sad, and maddening unfortunate.

Gene

[Panther]

Gene,

Good point. You're correct. The damage (to the Whitehouse) is done, repaired and time to move on. I will try to follow your (and others) examples and just drop it... You're also right that way too many special interests have their hands in the healthcare pie. We completely agree on that one.

Take care...

[Deep Sea]

Congressional healthcare benefits?

Well, what happened today?

As I recall, employment was up, the stock market was booming, social programs were funded, and education wasn't getting shafted.

The seeds were already set for employment. Good ole clit came at the right time to take advantage. Social progrrams? You mean special interest groups, right? Education? Every year the clits were in office I watched the public education system further decay.