Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

This is what's wrong with the U.S.A

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by clearconscience, Apr 18, 2009.

  1. clearconscience

    clearconscience Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    7,072
    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 e 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 lo w-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.
     
  2. Kennedy

    Kennedy Beaverton Member

    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah there is definitely a flaw there.
     
  3. JumpWing

    JumpWing NK WA Member

    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    25
    There are a few tangled issues here:

    Soldiers don't become soldiers for the financial reward--at least none that I ever ran into--but they do receive a considerable degree of compensation in the form of guaranteed health care (for the entire family) and other benefits. There are many enlisted who must supplement their income with welfare or other assistance, but joining the military is (and must continue to be) a voluntary act. Would a pay raise be justified? Certainly. But you can never pay the full value of putting one's life on the line.

    No elected representative should be getting the kind of money they get; they have even MORE benefits and privileges at taxpayer expense. And a $15k/mo pension for a single term of service is the kind of outrageous policy that can only come into existence if the people who will receive it are the only ones who can vote on it. The fierce competition for office has never been motivated by patriotism or a sense of civic duty, but this kind of situation is really nothing more than embezzlement.

    Victims of disasters can, and do, get help but the help they get should be just that, not an entitlement. It shouldn't be an attempt at compensation for loss unless you're sending the bill directly to those responsible. Life is harsh and unfair, and any misery you might be going through does not entitle anyone to stick their hand in my pocket.

    On a final note, taxing the meager death benefit received by a fallen soldier's family is quite possibly the most disgusting concept ever to be put into practice.
     
  4. clearconscience

    clearconscience Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    7,072
    I do like jumpwing's opinion and agree. I think Obama needs to look into ridiculous spending and waste of our govt before he looks at the banks, corps, etc. The govt is the biggest corp and has free reign. I would like to know when the last time our govt worked in OUR best interests.
    I agree there shouldn't be huge sums of money going to families hurt by natural disasters, or terrorists acts.
    And I think the govt needs to do a better job taking care of the soldiers that come home from war.
     
  5. markw76

    markw76 Portland/Moscow on the Willamette Member

    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    6
    The pay of the permanent, full-time, professional military cadre should be commensurate with their level of expertise. The longer you are in, and the goal should be a sufficient body of trained, experienced people to go to war now, not in a year after enough cannon fodder can be trained to fill in from the bottom, the higher the compensation should be. And that should not mean enough for a single person. That should be enough for a family of four, at least after a period of time that would be acceptable as the foundation for a career. I don't think anyone in the military should be taking on dependents as an E-2 who hasn't even re-enlisted yet. As a civilian I waited until I'd attained top pay in-grade and had 6 years in the job to start a family. I figured it'd be unlikely I'd get laid off or terminated by that time, and I had the benefits to support a family. Love can't always keep bellies filled or bills paid.

    I'd also like to see an end to pay being tied to rank so rigidly. A Chief who's been in 18 years and has to pull a butterbar's butt out of the fire periodically should probably be allowed to make more than him.
     
  6. JumpWing

    JumpWing NK WA Member

    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    25
    Agreed. I saw a lot of 18 yr old husbands/fathers who joined the military after the wedding, often because employment prospects in the civilian world weren't very good. I suspect (but have no evidence to back it up) that these are the soldiers who comprise the bulk of the "welfare troops" being discussed.

    A private's pay is not scaled for supporting a family.
     
  7. Buddhalux

    Buddhalux Hillsboro, Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    100
    Long time ago when I was in there was a 20/20 special iirc about soldiers with famileis on welfare. The budget line then was E-4 and below qualified for wellfare/food stamps. The military can't afford to pay what security companies are willing to pay. If Blackwater had been publically know then I probably would of went to them as soon as I got out considering that I have some highly sought after skills. Our government is built around checks and balances, why doesn't congressional pay raises fall into that mold? I'd love to be able to vote my own pay raises!