NationStates Jolt Archive

What's a Military Family Worth?
by Rush Limbaugh
March 11, 2002

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.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deathpay.asp

Rush Limbaugh may be a radical, but he often makes good points. Bluntly, but still sometimes fairly good points.

No he doesn't.

Rush limbaugh using faulty numbers? Never.

He only lists the completely required parts. I give 20 dollars out of my paycheck a month, and have a 250,000 dollar life insurance, if I die while on duty. I think vets and dead vet families dont get enough, but rush manages to fuck up one of the few decent arguments he has.

It is a shame. At the very least, burial costs should be more. Funerals are so expensive these days.

No he doesn't.
Great debate, there.

Limbaugh may be an arrogant, malicious drug-addicted asshole, but he does make good points once in a while. Why do you think he has so many liberal listeners?

Antre_Travarious']Great debate, there.

Limbaugh may be an arrogant, malicious drug-addicted asshole, but he does make good points once in a while. Why do you think he has so many liberal listeners?

Because we like laughing at him

Because we like laughing at him
*lol*

that, or 'know thine enemy', whatever fits...

*chuckles*

No. The day I admit that Rushie is right on anything except a political spectrum, is the day I give up on life.

And I refuse to give up. Rush Limbaugh could tell us 1 + 1 = 2 and I'd go find a supercomputer, a lab and a research team and begin disproving it.

Antre_Travarious']Great debate, there.

Limbaugh may be an arrogant, malicious drug-addicted asshole, but he does make good points once in a while. Why do you think he has so many liberal listeners?

Sean Hannity and Michael Savage, then Rush Limbaugh, Mark Davis.....

All pundits suck. I can't bear to watch/listen to Limbaugh or Franken...

I...agree...with Rush...

*shudders*

... Rush Limbaugh? RIGHT?!

IT'S THE APOCOLYPSE!!!!!! *Kills self*

Seriously. It's unbelievable to me that Rush Limbaugh is actually right...

Well, he's missing the point. The reason that the 9/11 victims get all that money is that it comes with an agreement not to sue the airlines, who would not be able to handle the lawsuits, and more importantly, the federal government, who would really rather not answer a ton of questions about their failures in preventing the attacks. Think of it as an advance lawsuit settlement.

... Rush Limbaugh? RIGHT?!

IT'S THE APOCOLYPSE!!!!!! *Kills self*

Seriously. It's unbelievable to me that Rush Limbaugh is actually right...
Maybe it is what caused the hurricanes to hit Florida repeatedly and this one to hit Louisiana.

No. The day I admit that Rushie is right on anything except a political spectrum, is the day I give up on life.

And I refuse to give up. Rush Limbaugh could tell us 1 + 1 = 2 and I'd go find a supercomputer, a lab and a research team and begin disproving it.

and you are the EXACT person american needs less of. American needs people more concerned with what is the right thing to do reguardless of right or left..

People like you make it impossible for that to happen.

No. The day I admit that Rushie is right on anything except a political spectrum, is the day I give up on life.

And I refuse to give up. Rush Limbaugh could tell us 1 + 1 = 2 and I'd go find a supercomputer, a lab and a research team and begin disproving it.

So, what does this show? It's really sad, what polarization has done to this country, that people feel it is so necessary to think "the enemy" wrong so as to resort to complete idiocy.

I have to give Rush Limbaugh Credit here.

As a son of a military officer, I have to say that I was highly offended by the entitlements given to those that died in the 9/11 attacks.

Surviving members of those lost in the military get nothing in compared to that. If anything, we should be getting more money for everything because those that put the uniform on due far more than those that sit up in an office and do nothing.

I have to give Rush Limbaugh Credit here.

As a son of a military officer, I have to say that I was highly offended by the entitlements given to those that died in the 9/11 attacks.

Surviving members of those lost in the military get nothing in compared to that. If anything, we should be getting more money for everything because those that put the uniform on due far more than those that sit up in an office and do nothing.
Agreed, but how much more do they do than the average working grunt?

The people sitting in imported leather chairs in big offices making the big bucks obviously deserve less than the military, but saying it is because they do less than the grunts in the military doesn't make sense. What about the average working grunt that does far more work than the CEO but gets paid pennies to the dollar what the CEOs make.

And as the son of an officer (assumngi you mean literally), I would suggest you feel worse for the families of enlisted men who are not pulling down commissioned salaries.

Rush limbaugh using faulty numbers? Never.

He only lists the completely required parts. I give 20 dollars out of my paycheck a month, and have a 250,000 dollar life insurance, if I die while on duty. I think vets and dead vet families dont get enough, but rush manages to fuck up one of the few decent arguments he has.

You are paying for that insurance and it isn't mandantory. The other people Rush was talking about got their private insurance money, if they had it, plus the other money.

Because we like laughing at him

No! Because they are afraid he is right.

Rush Limbaugh could tell us 1 + 1 = 2 and I'd go find a supercomputer, a lab and a research team and begin disproving it.

Which proves that Liberals can not stand the truth. :D

Which proves that Liberals can not stand the truth. :D
It could prove that Rush Limbaugh said we should execute drug addicts, then got addicted to Oxycontin.

[QUOTE=Teh_pantless_hero]

The people sitting in imported leather chairs in big offices making the big bucks obviously deserve less than the military, but saying it is because they do less than the grunts in the military doesn't make sense. What about the average working grunt that does far more work than the CEO but gets paid pennies to the dollar what the CEOs make.

QUOTE]


Nice ASSumption there..you do understand not every CEO is a greedy bastard...and you obviously have no understanding of what it is like pressure wise to be a CEO...

Maybe ill put this in military terms for your tiny brain...CEOs are like Generals, Generals obviously get paid more then Grunts, but they arnt getting dirty in the field, most of the time they are out there in command bunkers with maps and logistical stuff....same with CEOs except in capitalist mode. BOTH rely on the other to exist, you cant have grunts with no generals and you cant have workers without CEOs.

typical american anti capitalist programing kicked in well for you didnt it?

Nice ASSumption there..you do understand not every CEO is a greedy bastard...and you obviously have no understanding of what it is like pressure wise to be a CEO...

Maybe ill put this in military terms for your tiny brain...CEOs are like Generals, Generals obviously get paid more then Grunts, but they arnt getting dirty in the field, most of the time they are out there in command bunkers with maps and logistical stuff....same with CEOs except in capitalist mode. BOTH rely on the other to exist, you cant have grunts with no generals and you cant have workers without CEOs.

typical american anti capitalist programing kicked in well for you didnt it?
Not that I want to get into a real debate but I will sum it up.

The military hierarchy is just that: a hierarchy. It is required that higher people tell lower people what to do. Realistically, normal working grunts can go out and do any other service without the aid or planning of a CEO and get paid for it. Any random worker can make their own business, as opposed to the military where any random grunt can't be a general or even an officer.

I could give you the e-mail addresses of a dozen self-started businesses and you can write to them and tell them how they can't work without CEOs.

I have to give Rush Limbaugh Credit here.

As a son of a military officer, I have to say that I was highly offended by the entitlements given to those that died in the 9/11 attacks.

Surviving members of those lost in the military get nothing in compared to that. If anything, we should be getting more money for everything because those that put the uniform on due far more than those that sit up in an office and do nothing.
I agree. I also believe that the key to meeting the recruitment quotas, and exceeding them, is to supplement the GI Bill with further compensations. While people who serve in the US military ultimately receive some good benefits, it is neither enough to compensate for those in combat who leave their family behind, or the increasingly high cost of living.

Agreed, but how much more do they do than the average working grunt?

Apparenlty you don't know how hard it is to fight in a war. My father has been through many conflicts and I see how draining it is on him.

The people sitting in imported leather chairs in big offices making the big bucks obviously deserve less than the military, but saying it is because they do less than the grunts in the military doesn't make sense. What about the average working grunt that does far more work than the CEO but gets paid pennies to the dollar what the CEOs make.

Depends on the type of work your talking about. You really cannot compare jobs. Each job is different!

And as the son of an officer (assumngi you mean literally), I would suggest you feel worse for the families of enlisted men who are not pulling down commissioned salaries.

Dude, my mother was enlisted. They get paid jack compared to officers but the general rule is, officers are at the mercy of the enlisted personel. Don't piss an enlisted person off because the consequences aren't pretty. I've heard horror stories of lost personel files and lost orders.

I agree. I also believe that the key to meeting the recruitment quotas, and exceeding them, is to supplement the GI Bill with further compensations. While people who serve in the US military ultimately receive some good benefits, it is neither enough to compensate for those in combat who leave their family behind, or the increasingly high cost of living.

YOu are absolutely correct here. Hense the military pay raise under the Bush Administration.

However, it really isn't enough for the high cost of living and more needs to be done for our men in uniform.

Yeah, we do need a millitary pay raise.

Especially for those who commit to the Millitary in a Long-Term commitment.

Rush Limbaugh may be a radical, but he often makes good points. Bluntly, but still sometimes fairly good points.

Limbaugh getting a point right is like buckshot pellets hitting a bullseye dead center. Both may get the desired results once in a while but neither can be convicted of pinpoint accuracy at a distance.

You are absolutely correct here. Hence the military pay raise under the Bush Administration.

However, it really isn't enough for the high cost of living and more needs to be done for our men in uniform.
I agree with you... unfortunately, the pay raise was only after immense public pressure decrying the low pay scales. In 2003, Bush tried to cut military pay, in the form of reducing benefits given to soldiers in imminent danger. That turned into a political sh*tfest, and so he backpeddaled and now keeps advocating pay raises to try to get people to forget what he tried to do.

*Ahem*

I believe something is being overlooked here.
Those in the military signed up for a job they knew could very well get them killed. Those who died on 9/11 were office staff. Their employer never mentioned that they would be killed by an airplane or on the job at all.

I agree with you... unfortunately, the pay raise was only after immense public pressure decrying the low pay scales. In 2003, Bush tried to cut military pay, in the form of reducing benefits given to soldiers in imminent danger. That turned into a political sh*tfest, and so he backpeddaled and now keeps advocating pay raises to try to get people to forget what he tried to do.

I remember that all to well. Luckily, it didn't succeed otherwise, we would've gotten less pay for when my dad did finally got shipped over there.

*Ahem*

I believe something is being overlooked here.
Those in the military signed up for a job they knew could very well get them killed. Those who died on 9/11 were office staff. Their employer never mentioned that they would be killed by an airplane or on the job at all.

Ever tried to live off military pay? There was a time there that my family was literally living paycheck to paycheck. Heck, when the government shut down, we had dimes to our name. It isn't pretty.

Ever tried to live off military pay? There was a time there that my family was literally living paycheck to paycheck. Heck, when the government shut down, we had dimes to our name. It isn't pretty.
The military should be about sacrifice. Only those who are truly willing to serve their country should be in the armed services during peace time. I don’t want a bunch of people only out for money sucking on the government teat.

The military should be about sacrifice. Only those who are truly willing to serve their country should be in the armed services during peace time. I don’t want a bunch of people only out for money sucking on the government teat.

Dude, we still need money to live on. It may be a career but we still need money to live. Military pay sucks. Its as simple as that. We need more money to keep up with cost of living and that aint happening. I'm tired of my family living paycheck to paycheck because of how bad the pay is.

Dude, we still need money to live on. It may be a career but we still need money to live. Military pay sucks. Its as simple as that. We need more money to keep up with cost of living and that aint happening. I'm tired of my family living paycheck to paycheck because of how bad the pay is.
Your dad knew it would be like that when he joined the military.

Your dad knew it would be like that when he joined the military.

Back in 1973 when he graduated from the USAFA, the buck went further than it does today. Don't tell me what I know and don't know about military life. I know the military gets paid crap. I know that our pay is at the tender mercy of Congress. I know that my family lived paycheck to paycheck for months.

Are you trying to tell me that we shouldn't be allowed to live comfortably but continue to live paycheck to paycheck?

Back in 1973 when he graduated from the USAFA, the buck went further than it does today. Don't tell me what I know and don't know about military life. I know the military gets paid crap. I know that our pay is at the tender mercy of Congress. I know that my family lived paycheck to paycheck for months.

Are you trying to tell me that we shouldn't be allowed to live comfortably but continue to live paycheck to paycheck?
I don’t want the military composed of a bunch of guns-for-hire. It should be about sacrifice and legitimate love for country, as long as we are at peace and not in need of a large fighting force. (Don’t feed me any of the war on terror bull.)

I don’t want the military composed of a bunch of guns-for-hire. It should be about sacrifice and legitimate love for country, as long as we are at peace and not in need of a large fighting force. (Don’t feed me any of the war on terror bull.)

I'm not feeding you anything. Answer my question. Should my family be able to live comforably or from paycheck to paycheck.

I'm not feeding you anything. Answer my question. Should my family be able to live comforably or from paycheck to paycheck.
I hardly think the military should be about “living comfortably.” As I said, it should be about sacrifice, and should not be a desirable career choice. If paycheck-to-paycheck is what that takes, so be it.

I don’t want the military composed of a bunch of guns-for-hire.

Exactly!

And doctors too! Why should they get paid so much huh? Let's just train 'em for free and give them like 25k a year. Hell, they are doing it for the love of saving people right?

And lawyers should work for cheap because they like the law, and engineers for cheap because they like tech and design, and...

You know, you can't feed a family with patriotism right?

I'm not feeding you anything. Answer my question. Should my family be able to live comforably or from paycheck to paycheck.
Do you live on a base?

Not everyone "lives comfortably."

I hardly think the military should be about “living comfortably.” As I said, it should be about sacrifice, and should not be a desirable career choice. If paycheck-to-paycheck is what that takes, so be it.

You better not be saying that we should be living paycheck to paycheck! I'm sorry but I would rather have my family live comfortably, even if it is a military income, than go through the horrors of living paycheck to paycheck.

You sir, need to live life on a military paycheck to see what it is really like.

Do you live on a base?

Not everyone "lives comfortably."

My father is in the USAFR so no, we live off base. There is no on base housing at the base that we were tranfered too.

Exactly!

And doctors too! Why should they get paid so much huh? Let's just train 'em for free and give them like 25k a year. Hell, they are doing it for the love of saving people right?

And lawyers should work for cheap because they like the law, and engineers for cheap because they like tech and design, and...
Doctors, lawyers and engineers expect to make a lot of money. The vast majority are in it because of the money involved. I don’t want the military to be like that. It should be something one truly wants to do, despite the hardships involved.
You know, you can't feed a family with patriotism right?
No one forces them to have a family.

Exactly!

And doctors too! Why should they get paid so much huh? Let's just train 'em for free and give them like 25k a year. Hell, they are doing it for the love of saving people right?

And lawyers should work for cheap because they like the law, and engineers for cheap because they like tech and design, and...

You know, you can't feed a family with patriotism right?

Well stated.

Thanks to our military pay increase, we are living slightly better than we were during the clinton years. However, we still need to live well enough in order to make a living and to keep our heads above water. We're barely doing that now.

People say we need to look out for our military and they are right. And it starts with pay.

People say we need to look out for our military and they are right. And it starts with pay.
It starts with not sending them oversees to get killed in an unmerited war.

It starts with not sending them oversees to get killed in an unmerited war.

Actually, it was a merited war but then we will get off track in this thread.

Actually, it was a merited war but then we will get off track in this thread.

You seem to be good at making it seem like there are only two sides to things(should we live comfortably, or check to check), so let me ask you: Should Iraqi's get your money, or should you? Because that 200b could have partially been going to pay you.

Doctors, lawyers and engineers expect to make a lot of money. The vast majority are in it because of the money involved.

Yes and soldiers expect to be deployed into dangerous situations. High-risk jobs tend to pay more.

I don’t want the military to be like that.

You don't want the military to be like what? A well paying profession?

That's totally arbitrary. Chances are if a soldier's pay was determined by the free-market his/her pay would be higher anyway meaning that we may not be valuing the soldiers' work as much as we should be.

It should be something one truly wants to do, despite the hardships involved.

Higher pay and high ideals are not mutually exclusive. I don't care how much money you will throw at me, I will not go fish for King Crabs in Alaska.

Higher pay for the troops merely respects their commitment.

No one forces them to have a family.

Yes but paying low wages prevents them from having a family.

I don't think it's unreasonable that some of the bravest citizens in our nation be compensated so that they can live a small part of the mythical American Dream.

It starts with not sending them oversees to get killed in an unmerited war.

Although I am also against the method by which the war in Iraq was commenced, simply not going to war wouldn't have made them better off.

War or not the soldiers' would still be stuck with bad wages, and if not for the war there may not have been a controversy over their wages.

No. The day I admit that Rushie is right on anything except a political spectrum, is the day I give up on life.

And I refuse to give up. Rush Limbaugh could tell us 1 + 1 = 2 and I'd go find a supercomputer, a lab and a research team and begin disproving it.


The sound of fascism, my friends.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. stop being a bitch and accept it.

Yes and soldiers expect to be deployed into dangerous situations. High-risk jobs tend to pay more.



You don't want the military to be like what? A well paying profession?

That's totally arbitrary. Chances are if a soldier's pay was determined by the free-market his/her pay would be higher anyway meaning that we may not be valuing the soldiers' work as much as we should be.



Higher pay and high ideals are not mutually exclusive. I don't care how much money you will throw at me, I will not go fish for King Crabs in Alaska.

Higher pay for the troops merely respects their commitment.



Yes but paying low wages prevents them from having a family.

I don't think it's unreasonable that some of the bravest citizens in our nation be compensated so that they can live a small part of the mythical American Dream.



Although I am also against the method by which the war in Iraq was commenced, simply not going to war wouldn't have made them better off.

War or not the soldiers' would still be stuck with bad wages, and if not for the war there may not have been a controversy over their wages.

This was well said. Thank you Nikitas! It was well stated and accurate. Please keep up the good work :)

We have to look out for those who defend their lives. They are Americans people. Americans with big responsibilities and they are not getting paid enough. Write your Congressmen so that our military will have what we need to live comfortably and not paycheck to paycheck.

Not that I want to get into a real debate but I will sum it up.

The military hierarchy is just that: a hierarchy. It is required that higher people tell lower people what to do. Realistically, normal working grunts can go out and do any other service without the aid or planning of a CEO and get paid for it. Any random worker can make their own business, as opposed to the military where any random grunt can't be a general or even an officer.

I could give you the e-mail addresses of a dozen self-started businesses and you can write to them and tell them how they can't work without CEOs.
The guy who owns the business is his own CEO dumbass.

I'm sick of the talk about CEO's, like the position is part of some conspiracy to keep you poor. A bunch of hardnosed business people do not offer some guy several millions of dollars a year unless they have a good idea that he can do some stuff other people can't. It's a practical position, not a moral one, and people don't get paid for the amount of manual labor they do, but based on how in demand their particular skills are. If you don't like it, maybe you should shoot yourself because that's the way it works in every society on Earth, even the communist ones.

Regardless of whether this info is correct, he does have a point, however entering the military does have a certain risk of death. There is a difference between civilian and military death. There always has and there always is.

Rush limbaugh using faulty numbers? Never.

He only lists the completely required parts. I give 20 dollars out of my paycheck a month, and have a 250,000 dollar life insurance, if I die while on duty. I think vets and dead vet families dont get enough, but rush manages to fuck up one of the few decent arguments he has.

That's the point though, those people in 9/11 didn't give $20 a month for this life insurance. Since it was an emotional situation, the rules of logic were thrown out and they get anywhere from a MINIMUM of $250k upwards of $1million dollars.

They very well may have had their additional life insurance as well - if they were responsible and able to afford it.

These were people who went to work in an office building, many of whom were already well-compensated anyway and should have been able to arrange for their affairs properly. Meanwhile we send the Military into extremely dangerous combat zones, often without the proper tools to do the job, and into situations that the politicians have already mismanaged so badly and made more difficult to survive than it would have been in the first place, and we give their families a pittance if they are killed while serving their country.

It is something that we should change.

Now personally, I hate when people arrogantly suggest change without offering a solution. So let me offer a solution, as a taxpayer.

I'd prefer that $20 a month of my taxes be taken from WELFARE and paid into a Military troops life insurance fund. Guaranteeing that his/her family will be better taken care of is that soldier dies while serving our country. In fact, as far as I am concerned, let's step it up and take $50 a month from my taxes that are currently going to WELFARE and put it towards a soldier's life insurance, so they can get ~$1,000,000.00 if they die serving our country.

:cool:

-Tom Steele

Undelia- there's a difference between having a low salary and being downright poor.
The guy who owns the business is his own CEO dumbass.

I'm sick of the talk about CEO's, like the position is part of some conspiracy to keep you poor. A bunch of hardnosed business people do not offer some guy several millions of dollars a year unless they have a good idea that he can do some stuff other people can't. It's a practical position, not a moral one, and people don't get paid for the amount of manual labor they do, but based on how in demand their particular skills are. If you don't like it, maybe you should shoot yourself because that's the way it works in every society on Earth, even the communist ones.
No, it's not. Most businesses don't have a CEO, for the most part only businesses which are owned by stockholders have CEOs and even then not always. My dad worked for Philip Morris for 10 years as a writer, they didn't have a CEO, just a board of directors and a bunch of upper management.

Do you have any idea how the corporate world works? It's full of scheming assholes who want nothing more than to get a promotion. The CEO does nothing. He presides over meetings and collects a multi-million dollar salary (for the record there are only something like 450 CEOs in America, and there are well more than 450 businesses). He doesn't actually make decisions about the direction of the company, the board does.

THe management make decisions, and the men on the ground (who make chicken feed in comparison) carry them out. That seems like a good system, except for the fact that nobody is held accountable for what they do. If a project fails, nobody gets fired. If an officer in the army continually makes bad decisions, he will no longer be given decisions to make. If someone in middle management (the most useless of all positions, they just relay messages down from upper management) screws up, they get a raise.

And you obviously have no idea what a CEO is if you think every company has one, so don't try to lecture about it and call other people "dumbasses" when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hawkintom']That's the point though, those people in 9/11 didn't give $20 a month for this life insurance. Since it was an emotional situation, the rules of logic were thrown out and they get anywhere from a MINIMUM of $250k upwards of $1million dollars.

They very well may have had their additional life insurance as well - if they were responsible and able to afford it.

These were people who went to work in an office building, many of whom were already well-compensated anyway and should have been able to arrange for their affairs properly. Meanwhile we send the Military into extremely dangerous combat zones, often without the proper tools to do the job, and into situations that the politicians have already mismanaged so badly and made more difficult to survive than it would have been in the first place, and we give their families a pittance if they are killed while serving their country.

It is something that we should change.

Now personally, I hate when people arrogantly suggest change without offering a solution. So let me offer a solution, as a taxpayer.

I'd prefer that $20 a month of my taxes be taken from WELFARE and paid into a Military troops life insurance fund. Guaranteeing that his/her family will be better taken care of is that soldier dies while serving our country. In fact, as far as I am concerned, let's step it up and take $50 a month from my taxes that are currently going to WELFARE and put it towards a soldier's life insurance, so they can get ~$1,000,000.00 if they die serving our country.

:cool:

-Tom Steele


Welfare makes up about 1% of our budget, so unless you are paying 50,000 a month in taxes you don't have 50 bucks a month to take out. How about this, instead of letting a bunch of children starve, why don't you offer to pay MORE in taxes every month so these soldiers widows can get a huge windfall that will certainly make them feel a lot better about their husbands dying.

Undelia- there's a difference between having a low salary and being downright poor.

No, it's not. Most businesses don't have a CEO, for the most part only businesses which are owned by stockholders have CEOs and even then not always. My dad worked for Philip Morris for 10 years as a writer, they didn't have a CEO, just a board of directors and a bunch of upper management.

Do you have any idea how the corporate world works? It's full of scheming assholes who want nothing more than to get a promotion. The CEO does nothing. He presides over meetings and collects a multi-million dollar salary (for the record there are only something like 450 CEOs in America, and there are well more than 450 businesses). He doesn't actually make decisions about the direction of the company, the board does.

THe management make decisions, and the men on the ground (who make chicken feed in comparison) carry them out. That seems like a good system, except for the fact that nobody is held accountable for what they do. If a project fails, nobody gets fired. If an officer in the army continually makes bad decisions, he will no longer be given decisions to make. If someone in middle management (the most useless of all positions, they just relay messages down from upper management) screws up, they get a raise.

And you obviously have no idea what a CEO is if you think every company has one, so don't try to lecture about it and call other people "dumbasses" when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Phillip Morris has no CEO? this guy (http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/qofm/0204/camilleri.html) is probably a little surprised about that.

I didn't say every company has a CEO, dumbass. I said that if a company wants one, they get one. And they don't pay him millions and millions of dollars because he is a charity case for them.

The CEO makes all kinds of decisions. The board typically has to vote on them but that doesn't mean they aren't his decisions. My question is, why do these companies, which are presumably out to make money and keep it, pay millions to a guy to preside over meetings? Don't challenge my knowledge of the corprorate world, because I know more about it than you will ever know.

The guy who owns the business is his own CEO dumbass.

I'm sick of the talk about CEO's, like the position is part of some conspiracy to keep you poor. A bunch of hardnosed business people do not offer some guy several millions of dollars a year unless they have a good idea that he can do some stuff other people can't. It's a practical position, not a moral one, and people don't get paid for the amount of manual labor they do, but based on how in demand their particular skills are. If you don't like it, maybe you should shoot yourself because that's the way it works in every society on Earth, even the communist ones.

Motion seconded and carried!

Phillip Morris has no CEO? this guy (http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/qofm/0204/camilleri.html) is probably a little surprised about that.

I didn't say every company has a CEO, dumbass. I said that if a company wants one, they get one. And they don't pay him millions and millions of dollars because he is a charity case for them.

The CEO makes all kinds of decisions. The board typically has to vote on them but that doesn't mean they aren't his decisions. My question is, why do these companies, which are presumably out to make money and keep it, pay millions to a guy to preside over meetings? Don't challenge my knowledge of the corprorate world, because I know more about it than you will ever know.
That's Altria, they are technically independant companies with no ties to one another (to prevent Altria from being sued, it has cut off all tobacco connections). The company that makes the cigarettes runs without a CEO.

You saidThe guy who owns the business is his own CEO dumbass.
And now you say I didn't say every company has a CEO, dumbass. I said that if a company wants one, they get one.
So make up your mind. Despite back peddling and trying to cover your ass, you are actually wrong both times. The guy that owns the company would be either the stockholders (if it's a corporation) or if it's a small business, the owner. Only companies with stockholders have CEOs, and therefore the CEO can never be the owner.

If a small business decides it wants a CEO, it can't have one. In order to have a CEO it needs a board of stockholders, and no small business can make this transition, only a large business can. The owner and the CEO are very different things. The owner actually makes decisions about the company and has to handle the assets. The owner of a small business works very hard.

That's Altria, they are technically independant companies with no ties to one another (to prevent Altria from being sued, it has cut off all tobacco connections). The company that makes the cigarettes runs without a CEO.

You said
And now you say
So make up your mind. Despite back peddling and trying to cover your ass, you are actually wrong both times. The guy that owns the company would be either the stockholders (if it's a corporation) or if it's a small business, the owner. Only companies with stockholders have CEOs, and therefore the CEO can never be the owner.

If a small business decides it wants a CEO, it can't have one. In order to have a CEO it needs a board of stockholders, and no small business can make this transition, only a large business can. The owner and the CEO are very different things. The owner actually makes decisions about the company and has to handle the assets. The owner of a small business works very hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria "Altria Group, Inc. NYSE: MO (previously named Philip Morris Companies Inc.) is one of the world's largest food, beverage, and tobacco corporations and a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Altria's tobacco subsidiary Philip Morris is the world's largest commercial tobacco company by sales (the China National Tobacco Co. and Japan Tobacco sell larger volumes). "


I wasn't trying to be literal about the small business owner being a CEO. The point was, he does what a CEO would do in a large corporation. Once you get to a corporation with 100s of stockholders, a CEO becomes necessary to make big decisions. And if it is such an easy job, why can't you get a good CEO for 40 grand a year?

Welfare makes up about 1% of our budget, so unless you are paying 50,000 a month in taxes you don't have 50 bucks a month to take out. How about this, instead of letting a bunch of children starve, why don't you offer to pay MORE in taxes every month so these soldiers widows can get a huge windfall that will certainly make them feel a lot better about their husbands dying.

Your math is bad - off by a factor of 10 I believe.

I paid pretty close to $3,000 a month in taxes last year. So I can go $30 a month.

How about I DON'T offer to pay more in taxes. I don't offer to pay what I pay, but you'd come take it from me by force if I didn't, so lacking the resources to defend myself from the do-gooders that would take my money from me and give it to someone who didn't work, I'm stuck.

I just do what I can, vote Libertarian when I can, Republican when I can't and try to keep the Democrats out of office when possible.

*takes cyanide* the horsemen ride, it's the rapture hide, fight for freedo.....
*dies*

Hawkintom']Your math is bad - off by a factor of 10 I believe.

I paid pretty close to $3,000 a month in taxes last year. So I can go $30 a month.

How about I DON'T offer to pay more in taxes. I don't offer to pay what I pay, but you'd come take it from me by force if I didn't, so lacking the resources to defend myself from the do-gooders that would take my money from me and give it to someone who didn't work, I'm stuck.

I just do what I can, vote Libertarian when I can, Republican when I can't and try to keep the Democrats out of office when possible.
I wouldn't come take your money, man. Who do you think I am?

I imagine that the families of victims of 9/11 were paid more because
a) there are less of them than war survivors
b) soldiers go into the army expecting the possibility of death. office jobs normally have no such occupational hazard.

Which proves that Liberals can not stand the truth. :D
I thought you only had liberals in the USA. The party of Liberals live in Canada.

I imagine that the families of victims of 9/11 were paid more because
a) there are less of them than war survivors
b) soldiers go into the army expecting the possibility of death. office jobs normally have no such occupational hazard.

Don't even start this shit with me Swimmingpool. They may have signed up expecting the possibility of death but we deserve money to live comfortably unless you believe the way that someone else on here does and that we should just live paycheck to paycheck.

Regardless of whether this info is correct, he does have a point, however entering the military does have a certain risk of death. There is a difference between civilian and military death. There always has and there always is.

Bullshit.