NationStates Jolt Archive

I really dislike Rusch Limbaugh. I think he's a nutbag who makes up stuff half the time to suit his agenda. But...somehow...I just can't disagree with what he says here. It makes sense. Allow me to quote:


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 politic s 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 Soc ial 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.

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Should I shoot myself for agreeing with him regardless of his point, etc?

Should I shoot myself for agreeing with him regardless of his point, etc?

No. Being adamantly absolute in any point of view is a sign of stupidity and ignorance. So its good that you can admit you agree with him on something even though you don't like the majority of his opinions.

Oh, and tl;dr.

Rusch ... lol.

Edit: It's no wonder Americans dislike welfare.

Wow, I finnd myself agreeing too. Well he has to be right once in a while.

Just in case anyone is interested, a $15,000 dollar a month pension is about the same as having $3,400,000 invested in U.S. treasury bills. So they are given about 3.4 million dollars for a single term in congress if the figures given are correct. Not bad. Sort of a good argument for linking politicians saleries and pensions to the income of the median worker, don't you think?

Edit: It's no wonder Americans dislike welfare.

Yep, it's not right to give taxpayer's money to poor people. It should stay in Congress.

Is this actually a surprise to anyone? Many soldiers come from poor backgrounds, the military may be the best thing they can get to help their family. Also not surprising is victims families from past tragic events hoping to cash in. They see the September 11th families getting wealthy, why wouldn't they see dollar signs and hope for an opportunity to get some as well?

I would love to see politicians have to live for three months living like a lower income American (or respective country here), have to work forty hours a week at minimum wage or slightly above just to survive, and having no health care, or daycare, just to run for office.

Bloody hell, that's an impressive pension that members of Congress get.

For once I can't believe Limbaugh actually said something that wasn't some annoying right-wing rant. I pretty much agree with him on this.

was anyone else hoping for a thread about rush actually hitting a nail on the head, perhaps while putting up a shelf?

"for once, this radio personality's thumbs are safe"

was anyone else hoping for a thread about rush actually hitting a nail on the head, perhaps while putting up a shelf?

"for once, this radio personality's thumbs are safe"
That'd be funny, but no.

That'd be funny, but no.
I had a passing notion that what'd be really funny'd be for Rush Limbaugh to open his mouth with no words spilling out.

Yep, it's not right to give taxpayer's money to poor people. It should stay in Congress.

The only problem is, there aren't as many "poor" Americans as everyone makes it out to be. There are some, yes, but most of them are that four-letter word I so detest, yet is prevelant. You ready? I'm gonna' scream it! It's called LAZY! I have grown up pretty much poor, my dad barely making enough to get by with 7 kids. I work hard for my money, just trying to pay bills, get through college, and start my own family; you know, the American dream? It's hard for me to get any help because I'm that 20 year-old white male that must be rich because I'm from the South, where we are all rich aristocrats and racist...right? Yet, I look around and all these hobos and jiggers are sitting back raking in the dough; money from MY paycheck. It seems like you get automatic welfare if you are black. Must be nice. It's not even the fact that I want welfare, because I would have to be literally starving before I applied for it, but I don't like seeing my hard-earned money thrown to some lazy dog who won't get of his butt and quit making kids long enough to get a job.

Sorry for all that, but I had to vent. Hope it didn't get too far off-topic.

The guy is a drug addict and a fraudster first, everything else second. :)

Regarding this argument, I disagree with him. The military accepts the risk of deliberately-inflicted death, and an increased risk of accidental death resulting from its operations. Office workers do not. That's why civilian victims of violence tend to get more cash compensation - they never signed up for those additional risks.

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Should I shoot myself for agreeing with him regardless of his point, etc?
You're right to agree with him. For once he sounds like he is complaining about politics being insufficiently left-wing.

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 Soc ial 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.
Next he's going to start quoting Howard Zinn in a diatribe about how working-class blood is spilled while the government and business elites reap profits.

what is his point?

that we dont pay our military personelle enough? i think it must be OK since we have no problem filling the postitions.

what does the pay of congressmen or the money given to the families of those who died on 9/11 have to do with military pay? couldnt we just have easily brought up that $250 million dollar bridge to nowhere in alaska? the government spends money on some things they shouldnt.

where is the linkage between one-time payments to terrorism victims (which are arguably inappropriate) and the ongoing benefits to military personelle and their families? what is the comparison to the pensions of a few congressmen--no more tham 535 at any one time--and the millions of military personelle that are enlisted at any one time?

to continue the rant

NO he did not hit the nail on the head. he spewed out the same kind of stupid illogical crap that he says every day. it made NO sense, linked things that should not be linked, used the most extreme examples possible, appealed to your emotions, and never even TRIED to make the case as to how the miltary is underpaid and how the hell we would ever pay for a significant increase in their benefits. if that was even his point, it was such a mess that i am still unsure whether he was complaining about 9/11 victims getting undeserved money, congress getting undeserved pensions or military people being neglected.

I believe, Ashmoria, that he was pointing out the discrepancy between what we say we value and what we show we value. We say we value the service of our young men and women in the Army, but pay them a pittance. We say we loathe our politicians, then set them on the gravy train for life.

Rush is a stopped clock: Right twice a day. For once, this time period coincided with his show.

To the original post: Where's he getting these numbers from?

Limbaugh didn't write all of that (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deathpay.asp). The following section was appended:
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 you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and 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.

As to the rest of it, I think we ought to pay soldiers more, and we ought to send them into harm's way less, but if Limbaugh is going to get all twisted about the way they're ebing treated, he ought to get serious about it and bitch out the leaders of his party, since they hold complete control over that sort of spending. It's more than a little hypocritical for him to bitch about it when he's Mr. All-Tax-Cuts-All-the-Time. Fuck him.

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Should I shoot myself for agreeing with him regardless of his point, etc?

AMEN brother Rush.

Just in case anyone is interested, a $15,000 dollar a month pension is about the same as having $3,400,000 invested in U.S. treasury bills. So they are given about 3.4 million dollars for a single term in congress if the figures given are correct. Not bad. Sort of a good argument for linking politicians saleries and pensions to the income of the median worker, don't you think?

You also forget all the vacation days, holidays, sick days, and other perks that Cpngress gets. :mad:

You also forget all the vacation days, holidays, sick days, and other perks that Cpngress gets. :mad:
You might want to read the Snopes article above--and click on the link at the bottom of the page concerning the bit you quoted. Congresspeople have it good, no question, and perhaps better than they ought, but that part of the quoted article (which Limbaugh didn't write) is quite inaccurate (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp).
Origins: This piece has been circulating on the Internet since April 2000. So much of it is outdated, inaccurate, or misleading, it's difficult to know where to begin.

* It is not true that Congressmen do not pay into the Social Security fund. Since 1984 they have paid into the fund just as most everyone else does. (A few odd exceptions to the Social Security program still exist, both inside and outside of government, but not for members of Congress.)

* It was true prior to 1984 that Congressmen did not pay into the Social Security fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), but that program was closed to government employees hired after 1983:
In 1983, Public Law 98-21 required Social Security coverage for federal civilian employees first hired after 1983 and closed the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to new federal employees and Members of Congress. All incumbent Members of Congress were required to be covered by Social Security, regardless of when they entered Congress. Members who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security.

* It is not true that Congressmen "continue to draw their same pay, until they die." The size of their pensions is determined by a number of factors (primarily length of service, but also factors such as when they joined Congress, their age at retirement, their salary, and the pension options they chose when they enrolled in the retirement system) and by law cannot exceed 80% of their salary at the time of their retirement.

* It is not true that Congressmen "paid nothing in on any kind of retirement," and that their pension money "comes right out of the General Fund." Whether members of Congress participate in the older Civil Service Retirement System or the newer Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), their pensions are funded through a combination of general tax provisions and contributions from the participants. Right now, members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.

It is true that, if current pension levels and cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) for Congress members continue to apply in the future, some former members of Congress could conceivably collect millions of dollars in annuities over the course of their lifetimes. However, the huge dollar amounts bandied about in e-mails like the ones quoted above are based upon extreme cases: those of politicians who entered Congress at a relatively early age, served for several decades, and retired while still young enough to potentially live for another several decades. These cases are the rare exceptions, based upon the hypothetical assumption that a few long-serving members of Congress who retired while in their mid-50s will live well past the age of 80. (Even the person who collects a modest salary/pension of $40,000 per year stands to take in a million dollars over the course of 25 years.)

As of 1998, the average annuity for retired members of Congress was $50,616 for those who retired under CSRS and $46,908 for those who retired under FERS. Those figures are quite good (about 2-3 times better than the pension collected by the average worker), but not quite the highway robbery these e-mails make them out to be.

what is his point?

that we dont pay our military personelle enough? i think it must be OK since we have no problem filling the postitions.

Yes, the fact that we don't pay our militar well is one of his points. Oh, and yes the military does have a problem filling the positions. Some branches of the military have been consistantly not meeting their recruiting quotas for quite some time now.

what does the pay of congressmen or the money given to the families of those who died on 9/11 have to do with military pay?

He is pointing out the disparity of the compensation paid to the military as what is paid to Congressmen and the victims of 9/11.

what is the comparison to the pensions of a few congressmen--no more tham 535 at any one time--and the millions of military personelle that are enlisted at any one time?

It is not just the 535 that are serving in Congress. All who serve, even one two year term will receive the $15,000 pension. Also, most people who serve in the armed forces do not remain in for the minimum of 20 years to retire, and there are not "millions" of us military retirees.

The guy is a drug addict and a fraudster first, everything else second. :)

Regarding this argument, I disagree with him. The military accepts the risk of deliberately-inflicted death, and an increased risk of accidental death resulting from its operations. Office workers do not. That's why civilian victims of violence tend to get more cash compensation - they never signed up for those additional risks.
Reasonable as always, Tac.

The guy is a drug addict and a fraudster first, everything else second. :)

Regarding this argument, I disagree with him. The military accepts the risk of deliberately-inflicted death, and an increased risk of accidental death resulting from its operations. Office workers do not. That's why civilian victims of violence tend to get more cash compensation - they never signed up for those additional risks.

Hey.. hey.. hey... a substantial number of posters on NationStates are users of drugs - and thereby are in your book "drug addicts". Not to mention that the majority of people on NationStates are quite vague and often misleading about their identities and occupations - and thereby are in your book "fraudsters".

So, I ask you. How is the opinion of Rush Limbaugh any less credible than the opinions of posters on NationStates?

Mmm?

...and there are not "millions" of us military retirees.

They probably either get shot or they retire before those twenty years are up, realizing how pointless the whole deal is.

So, I ask you. How is the opinion of Rush Limbaugh any less credible than the opinions of posters on NationStates?

How seriously do you take the opinions of NationStates posters?

You might want to read the Snopes article above--and click on the link at the bottom of the page concerning the bit you quoted. Congresspeople have it good, no question, and perhaps better than they ought, but that part of the quoted article (which Limbaugh didn't write) is quite inaccurate (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp).

Thank you for that link. Still an average pension of 46-50k a year is pretty good.
Most military pensions are not that good. I retired in 1988 as an E-8 with over 26 years service. Even with all the cost of living increases over the last 18 years, my pension is only about 30k. Not bad, but a far distance from the average Congressional retirement.

How seriously do you take the opinions of NationStates posters?
Most of us take them seriously enough to try and argue with them, lol.

They probably either get shot or they retire before those twenty years are up, realizing how pointless the whole deal is.

You can not retire from the military with less than 20 years service. If you leave before then you get no benefits at all from the military. There is one exception and that is medical retirement, which is very rare.

Thank you for that link. Still an average pension of 46-50k a year is pretty good.
Most military pensions are not that good. I retired in 1988 as an E-8 with over 26 years service. Even with all the cost of living increases over the last 18 years, my pension is only about 30k. Not bad, but a far distance from the average Congressional retirement.
Like I said, they have it better than most, and probably better than they deserve. My f-i-l will retire in a couple of years from 35 years as a letter carrier, and I don't believe his pension will be quite that high, although it'll be generous--he got in at the right time. Postal workers these days don't have it so good. And military pensions ought to be better than they currenty are, no question.

They probably either get shot or they retire before those twenty years are up, realizing how pointless the whole deal is.

Yes, we all know how much more important it is to work at McDonald's, Home Depot, or WalMart for twenty years.

Um, when I was in there was an automatic life insurance policy (you had to do paperwork to not have it) that cost GI's 16 bucks a month and rewarded $200,000 to a surviving relative. Not to mention that the $30,000 in MGI college money can be passed to a dependent, or that there are all kinds of benefits for the children of killed veterens. Oh, and the military will bury troops for free at Arlen. I think death rewards for GI's familys are exactly right, I wouldn't change them.

As for what the 9-11 people are receiving...... thats rediculous. Almost everyone has had someone near to them who had an untimely death. The government is paying those amounts? Is it as damages for having screwed up in some way?

The guy is a drug addict and a fraudster first, everything else second. :)

Regarding this argument, I disagree with him. The military accepts the risk of deliberately-inflicted death, and an increased risk of accidental death resulting from its operations. Office workers do not. That's why civilian victims of violence tend to get more cash compensation - they never signed up for those additional risks.
Agreed ...
If you dont like the contract you are signing for and want more money ... dont sign the contract. Simple as that

Yes, the fact that we don't pay our militar well is one of his points. Oh, and yes the military does have a problem filling the positions. Some branches of the military have been consistantly not meeting their recruiting quotas for quite some time now.



He is pointing out the disparity of the compensation paid to the military as what is paid to Congressmen and the victims of 9/11.



It is not just the 535 that are serving in Congress. All who serve, even one two year term will receive the $15,000 pension. Also, most people who serve in the armed forces do not remain in for the minimum of 20 years to retire, and there are not "millions" of us military retirees.
apples and oranges

the 3 things, compensation for the victims of 9/11, congressional retirement and military pay are completely independant of each other.

no i dont think we should pay soldiers like we pay congress men. no i dont think we should pay the families of soldiers the same as we paid the families of the victims of 9/11 (i dont think we should have paid the families of the victims of 9/11 anything but thats a different debate and quite past its time)

the military is behind on recruitment because no one wants to go to god forsaken iraq, not because they arent paid enough to go.

rush hit his thumb instead of the nail. his rant was stupid. and very typical of his day to day logical approach to any topic.

Hey.. hey.. hey... a substantial number of posters on NationStates are users of drugs - and thereby are in your book "drug addicts". Not to mention that the majority of people on NationStates are quite vague and often misleading about their identities and occupations - and thereby are in your book "fraudsters".

So, I ask you. How is the opinion of Rush Limbaugh any less credible than the opinions of posters on NationStates?

Mmm?
Recreational drug users are criminals by default. This particular individual was shown to have obtained multiple prescriptions for painkillers under false pretences. Luckily for him, he has more expensive lawyers than the average American who ends up in that position. Especially considering his socially conservative stance on such things, even as he was destroying his health with the stuff, I find that hypocrasy abhorrent.

apples and oranges

the 3 things, compensation for the victims of 9/11, congressional retirement and military pay are completely independant of each other.

no i dont think we should pay soldiers like we pay congress men. no i dont think we should pay the families of soldiers the same as we paid the families of the victims of 9/11 (i dont think we should have paid the families of the victims of 9/11 anything but thats a different debate and quite past its time)

the military is behind on recruitment because no one wants to go to god forsaken iraq, not because they arent paid enough to go.

rush hit his thumb instead of the nail. his rant was stupid. and very typical of his day to day logical approach to any topic.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7291/931/a