Joined: 06 Aug 2003 Posts: 4651 Location: NE corner of the NEZ 6635 eGriz Bucks
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.(Actually, soldiers are put in harms way by politicians and commanding officers.)
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 US 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?" If this doesn't seem fair to you, it is time to forward this to as many people as you can.
=================
Vote THRID PARTY
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But of course, I repeat myself..."
-Samuel L. Clemens
If there was a third party candidate that was worth supporting, I would support them.
But it seems like voting for a third party for the sake of voting for a third party is almost as dumb as voting for Democrats or Republicans simply because they are Democrats or Republicans.
Joined: 06 Aug 2003 Posts: 4651 Location: NE corner of the NEZ 6635 eGriz Bucks
Bay Area Cat wrote:
If there was a third party candidate that was worth supporting, I would support them.
But it seems like voting for a third party for the sake of voting for a third party is almost as dumb as voting for Democrats or Republicans simply because they are Democrats or Republicans.
that's the point you dingleberry....make a statement, this country is in total chaos as it is...due to 100 years of voluntary tyrany.
anybody but the same old sorry gov-mint known as the current American political system controlled by the feddemorepubs
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But of course, I repeat myself..."
-Samuel L. Clemens
If there was a third party candidate that was worth supporting, I would support them.
But it seems like voting for a third party for the sake of voting for a third party is almost as dumb as voting for Democrats or Republicans simply because they are Democrats or Republicans.
that's the point you dingleberry....make a statement, this country is in total chaos as it is...due to 100 years of voluntary tyrany.
anybody but the same old sorry gov-mint known as the current American political system controlled by the feddemorepubs
I guess I'm just not one who's all that into protesting or symbolic actions. I'd rather use my vote to try to get the best person in office, as I see that as our best hope.
I'm not sure the people who voted for Nader in 2000 are really feeling all that fulfilled by their decisions ... nor are the Perot voters before that.
Joined: 06 Aug 2003 Posts: 4651 Location: NE corner of the NEZ 6635 eGriz Bucks
Bay Area Cat wrote:
Downwiththefoe wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
If there was a third party candidate that was worth supporting, I would support them.
But it seems like voting for a third party for the sake of voting for a third party is almost as dumb as voting for Democrats or Republicans simply because they are Democrats or Republicans.
that's the point you dingleberry....make a statement, this country is in total chaos as it is...due to 100 years of voluntary tyrany.
anybody but the same old sorry gov-mint known as the current American political system controlled by the feddemorepubs
I guess I'm just not one who's all that into protesting or symbolic actions. I'd rather use my vote to try to get the best person in office, as I see that as our best hope.
I'm not sure the people who voted for Nader in 2000 are really feeling all that fulfilled by their decisions ... nor are the Perot voters before that.
there is no best person when limited by the same old crap 2 parties
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But of course, I repeat myself..."
-Samuel L. Clemens
If there was a third party candidate that was worth supporting, I would support them.
But it seems like voting for a third party for the sake of voting for a third party is almost as dumb as voting for Democrats or Republicans simply because they are Democrats or Republicans.
that's the point you dingleberry....make a statement, this country is in total chaos as it is...due to 100 years of voluntary tyrany.
anybody but the same old sorry gov-mint known as the current American political system controlled by the feddemorepubs
Unfortuately the "statement" ends up being a joke. As most do, I will vote for the guy who is closest to my views that "HAS A CHANCE OF BEING ELECTED" Any other choice is akin to not voting.
Peeing in the wind is not too productive.
"It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?"
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 1448 Location: New York City 584 eGriz Bucks
Bay Area Cat wrote:
I guess I'm just not one who's all that into protesting or symbolic actions. I'd rather use my vote to try to get the best person in office, as I see that as our best hope.
I'm not sure the people who voted for Nader in 2000 are really feeling all that fulfilled by their decisions ... nor are the Perot voters before that.
I'm generally with you, but strangely, I did cast my vote for Nader in 2000 (even though Bush was the candidate that I actually supported at the time). Why? Well...
1. Although I do agree that our best hope always lies in getting the best person elected, I also think our political system would be much healthier if we had viable third (and fourth, and fifth) parties to choose from; and
2. I was living in Montana at the time, and I knew that Bush would win Montana handily no matter how I voted. Thus, I felt that a vote for Bush or Gore would be of no real consequence, but a vote for Nader would have the benefit of adding to his popular vote tally -- the theory being that a strong showing by any third party candidate (even one I don't like) may embolden others in future elections.
If enough people had thought like I did and he would have actually won the election, I'd be kicking myself...but that didn't happen, so I still feel ok about my vote.
Anyway -- just food for thought.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." --Voltaire
I guess I'm just not one who's all that into protesting or symbolic actions. I'd rather use my vote to try to get the best person in office, as I see that as our best hope.
I'm not sure the people who voted for Nader in 2000 are really feeling all that fulfilled by their decisions ... nor are the Perot voters before that.
I'm generally with you, but strangely, I did cast my vote for Nader in 2000 (even though Bush was the candidate that I actually supported at the time). Why? Well...
1. Although I do agree that our best hope always lies in getting the best person elected, I also think our political system would be much healthier if we had viable third (and fourth, and fifth) parties to choose from; and
2. I was living in Montana at the time, and I knew that Bush would win Montana handily no matter how I voted. Thus, I felt that a vote for Bush or Gore would be of no real consequence, but a vote for Nader would have the benefit of adding to his popular vote tally -- the theory being that a strong showing by any third party candidate (even one I don't like) may embolden others in future elections.
If enough people had thought like I did and he would have actually won the election, I'd be kicking myself...but that didn't happen, so I still feel ok about my vote.
Anyway -- just food for thought.
I voted for Nader too.
I didn't see much difference at that time between Gore and Bush. I remember Michael Moore's description of the difference between the R's and D's as being they'd both bend you over, but the dems would make you feel good while doing it. Plus, WA was solidly for Gore and my vote wouldn't make much difference anyway. I also didn't like the way the two parties froze Nader out of the debates. It seemed fairly un-democratic.
Flash forward, and the difference between Bush and Gore is obvious, and it could be argued that a Gore presidency would have gone much better for America than the Bush presidency has.
I'm being won over to the notion that Nader is somewhat of an egomaniac, although I still harbour feelings that he's right about our country becoming an oligarchy/plutocracy/economically fascist state.
But I don't think I have any real regrets for my vote. In fact, I kind of feel smarter for siding with the wise and highly reasonable grizlaw on that one.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". Orwell
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
