About Benefits. . . ?
|March 18th, 2006||#1|
| || |
Benefits. . . ? info
By Rush Limbaugh:
I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our 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 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 voted themselves a raise. 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 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, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives 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?"
Sorry about the font and such. This was sent to me in an e-mail. Anyone care to make comments or observations?
Last edited by Marinerhodes; March 18th, 2006 at 15:57..
|March 18th, 2006||#2|
| || |
I hate the fat bastard but he is absolutely right.
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
|March 18th, 2006||#3|
| || |
Well I have a couple of opinions.
1. First of all many the families of the 9-11 attacks not only lost their loved ones but lost their principal wage earners. There are lots of families who were plunged into financial streights because of this. Its easy for Rush to criticize 'entitlement' after all as the paid top broadcaster in America, he being paid an estimated $30 Million a year to spew his oxicodine-fueled crap. Unfortunatly since Rush always came from money (his dad) he never knew what its like to be in deep financial trouble. I have no problem with the government spending a few bucks (4.87 Mil per family is peanuts) in trying to help others move on. The govornment was partly responsible for 9-11 after all.
2. Where Rush might have a better arguement is on compensation the soldiers KIA. In WWII the life insurence policy of a GI was $10,000 a fortune at the time. To my knowledge (someone can correct me here) it hasnt changed, except that a good funeral service alone can cost that. In addition the current rules only apply to KIA, so if your BlackHawk crashed into a mountain in the USA, your family gets zip.
I know there was a motion in congress to increase the life insurence to $100,000 and that the new rules would cover all those killed in the line of duty but I dont know what happened to it.
Again, my facts could be out of date or wrong on the bottom part so any service member feel free to correct me.
|March 19th, 2006||#4|
| || |
The same can be said of the men and women in the service, as well as the police officers and firefighters that lost their lives. Most of the families in the service have the service member as the principle income earner. Please try to find another comparison, as that one falls well short of the point you are trying to make. If you try to make a point to the effect of "they didn't expect it, or that wasn't their job" then I will point out that any number of them could have fallen over dead of a heart attack. Their families would be in the same situation. Not so many at one time to be sure, but the situation they would find themselves in would be the same.
Rush is not only criticizing the "entitlements" to the victims of 9/11 but also the sums of money that congressmen/women spend on themselves.
I think it is a load of hooey that these people get all this money. 4.8Mil per family is alot once you start looking at how many families were affected by this. Sure not all of them get the full amount but I would bet my next paychack that most get 2Mil+. Now you also have to look at the Oklahoma City bombing and what that particular group of people are going to try to do. Over 10 years ago, surely people have moved on by now woudln't you say? Saying the government was partly responsible, meh, I will concede the point there, it is possible. But saying these people are entitled to millions of dollars is ridiculous.
I would personally suggest something in the range of 4 years pay maximum per wage earner that died, payable to their family in installments similar to what they were used to getting IE wekly, monthly, bi-monthly etc, make it taxable as well, afterall they were paying taxes before. Then offer 4 years of education, paid by the government, to the institue of the family member's choice, and job placement to those family members that take advantage of this program, so that they can go about getting back on their feet. If the people decline the education and job placement then that is their choice, but no more than 4 years pay to be paid out. I feel that would be a much better way to spend the money.
Someone started a thread about the national deficit, I do not want to bring that discussion here but I want to use it to point out that this, and the statement below are some of many reasons why the national debt is so high.
Make the politicians earn 50k- 75k a year, pay taxes like everyone else and only get a pension after 20 years of service. But, only be able to draw it once they reach retirement age, and then only be able to draw 50% of what they earned annually. THEN see how many people actually want to be in politics. They are trying to pass a bill now that a service member can not serve 20 years and draw retirement right away. The service member will have to wait until they are retirement age (65+) to draw it. Most politicians are there for the prestige and money, not for any altruistic motive(s) and this pretty much proves it to me. Democrat or Republican, or any other persuasion you care to mention, they all stink in my opinion.
About the insurance, as I see it:
If a service member opts for it, the life insurance policy can be up to $400,000 USD. But the service member pays extra for that. Not to mention if he/she wants insurance on their spouse. That costs extra too. As far as I know, if you are killed in a war zone or peace zone you can draw the insurance. There are a few stipulations of course, you can not have violated any articles of the UCMJ, IE told you can not go somewhere and you go there and get killed etc. Killed in a traffic accident and it is ruled your fault due to negligence or whatever.
Hope that helps you some. Here is a copy/paste from my LES:
DENTAL INSURANCE 26.27 800 UCCI DENTAL <---Dental Insurance for my children because they live with my ex-wife. Plus out of pocket copays and such for medical that insurance won't cover because they can not go to a military base.
SGLI $400,000 26.00 <---Life Insurance for me
SPOUSE SGLI 6.00 <---Life Insurance for my wife
Again, this is above and beyond what service memebrs are 'entitled' to. We have to pay for it.
Last edited by Marinerhodes; March 19th, 2006 at 06:09..