# Thoughts



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Just wondered what everyone thought about the article below............

" 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 hits18, 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."


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> And who are the young men we are asking to go into action against such odds? You've met them. You know. They are the best we have. But they are not McNamara's sons or Bundy's. I doubt they are yours. And they know they are at the end of the pipeline. That no one cares. They know.


 -an anonymous general to correspondent Aurthur Hadley

True in 1968, true today.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I was a vitial member of the US Air Force for 24 years (retired last fall) and I knew when I firsted enlisted that I wasn't in this to get rich.
That being said, we do expect certain things that we were promised: If we are killed or become POW's that our families are taken care of, not become millionares just make sure they get fairly treated considering what scumbags get from the government that haven't even lifted a finger to as much as help a member of their own community in need.
We would like *Quality* medical care for us and our family members without paying huge premiums. Liberals go after Walmart saying that they need to pay all these benifits to their employee's cause they have the money, but don't take care of their own military :eyeroll:, (lead by example and others will follow) I could go on and on about this :soapbox: but I wont.
Your right 911 had scammer's comming out of the woodwork trying to hit the big one, Why are we paying all these people anyway? :bs:


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

:withstupid:

I don't understand it either. I thought that is why we take out life insurance policies, to take care of loved one's and our funeral cost after we die. Why is this our governments and our problem, yes it was a horrible ordeal, but it is just BS.

I wish our Veterans and Fallen Heros families would be taken care of so nicely. :******:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Yea,
I think I'm going to stop paying out all this Insurance money, and go register as a Democrat, so if anything happens to me or my house I'll get paid by the FED GOV for being a Dumbass!

Just kidding, I could never be a democrat, I have too much pride and independence. :beer:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Ah well, might as well correct the article. As a vet, I agree we are treated poorly and it appears that neither Rep or Dem will do anything about it in the future, but here are the FACTS, as opposed to the spin in the article. The article was one of the usual failures of today's right wing and left wing media to report the facts and just meant to stir up their respective listeners rather than promote discussion.

1) Military has received a pay raise every year since the mid 1990's but is still no way near what they are worth. 
2) Why is it that the people that send us to war don't have any kids to send?
3) the amounts paid to the 9/11 victims were arranged by, who else, lawyers, in return for not suing the owners of the WTC, the airlines, or anyone else. Much more complicated than the simple article. 
4) From the federal website, the following:

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

• As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

Data compiled in 2003 showed 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. The average age of those retiring under CSRS was 75.5 and had at least 20 years of federal service. Those who retired under FERS had an average age of 68.3 years and 21.6 years of federal service. Their average retirement payment was $3,909 a month


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Any time you use a average you must be careful because there are several on the high end and many more on the low end, and it covers the full range of past and present resulting in a lower figure. For example the Speaker of the house receives a annual salary today of $212,200. If he is a long term member with many years service he could easily draw the 80% top end which is $14,133 a month. The Majority Leader and Minority Leader of each houses all make $183,500 which could be as much as $12,233 a month in retirement. Even the rank and file congressperson starts out today at $165,200 today and 20 years from now, even if they never move off that pay scale it is worth $6,883 a month to him. The average amount of $3,909 is correct but keep in mind that is for the members already drawing retirement and based on pay scales many years back for a lot of the members which were much lower at the time of retirement. Members like Robert Byrd are certainly in the 80% zone and with today's base pay of $165,200 he is looking at least towards $11,013 a month. If every single member in congress over the age of 62 were to retire today that average would sky rocket at least three fold The author of the article wasn't off by much and his point is well taken.


----------

