Can't believe Rush actually wrote this. If so this is probably the first and last time i will agree with him. Subject: Fwd: Rush Limbaugh By Rush Limbaugh: I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 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 11. 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 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 eath 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 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 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 being 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 harm's 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. "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.If your interested there is more....................... This must be a campaign issue in 2004. Keep it going. SOCIAL SECURITY: (This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.) Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congressmen do not pay into Social Security. Many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000 - that's Seven Million, Eight Hundred Thousand), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each. Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. These little perks they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Fund--our tax dollars at work! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into -- every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits! Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. And that change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us and then watch how fast they would fix it. If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve. WE, each one of us... can make a difference.. How many people can YOU send this to?
Uhh, no the part about congress and social security is complete BS. By "complete BS" I mean, utter and total bullsh-t that is totally untrue That story is a well debunked urban legend, check it out: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/pensions.htm It was part of an oft-repeated, all crap republican chain e-mail, , debunked here: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64279 that's enough of that.
... but the fact remains that they can participate in a private pension plan which allows them to earn as much as 80% of their salary at retirement in retirement, right? Compare that to your deal! Why the disparity?
Considering that congress just voted on the pay raise this past week and Limbaugh is in rehab, I doubt he wrote the article. In addition, regardless of what you think about him and his politics, he is a fairly sharp guy so I doubt he'd make the Social Security mistake.
I dont know anything about the Congress stuff, but I agree that the payouts to 911 families is a bad idea. The 911 victims were at the wrong place at the wrong time, and whoever came up with the idea to pay them off is a freaking idiot. I have been (quietly) complaining about this for over a year. Its difficult, one of my friends lost his brother in law in the WTC (Cantor Fitz employee). I asked him about it and he said "yeah, well, my sis doesnt really deserve the money, but its nice to get and eases the pain a little." I had no reply to that. It was only a matter of time before the OK City people wanted their cash too. Entitlement politics is a nightmare. You come into the world with no guarantees. Deal with it.
Here's the whole truth about this e-mail from thesnopes.com http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/military.htm
"Deal with it"? Easy to say that when you don't have to. But anyway, you're missing a critical piece of the equation. The compensation is not just a "jackpot" compensation fund for people who had bad luck to get big handouts. It was created in order to prevent a torrent of litigation that would have clogged up the courts, bankrupted several airlines and insurance carriers, and just been a big huge mess for years and years and years. This is a cheaper alternative than having everybody fight it out in the courts.
Mr. Fisher, it is not easy to say that. Losing a loved one in any tragedy is a painful experience for anyone. You have no idea what my family has had to "deal with". Nor do I wish to share it with you. Just because someone is posting something on a website doesnt mean he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, or hasn't suffered great tragedy. There are things equally as terrible as having a relative die in a terrorist attack. The world can be a horrific place. And yes, I deal with it. All I am saying is that when you wake up in the morning, you are not guaranteed a perfect day. Or a perfect life. No one is entitled. You get dealt a hand, and you play it.
True but that still illustrates the basic assertion... and even worse, some of our institutions are caved into the demand for largesse.
The basic assertion being what: sucks to be you? It's not about institutions caving in or greedy entitlements or whatever crap rush or whoever else is spewing; Having a working torts system is essential for any free market system as it is necessary to protect private property. If anything, right wingers like Rush should be happy that a no-fault scheme is being applied in the mass tort context; it has the potential to be far cheaper and more efficient. But then its not surprising that some people will ignore the substance in order to denounce.
Giddyup, Relax, I didn't mean "sucks to be you" in reference to you specifically. I meant it as a general philosophy of unconcern. "Life is unfair, deal with it, sucks to be you" The "you" was not you, it was what was being said to the familes of the victims. And to think, you accused me of being oversensitive!!! As for your substantive point, It would be nice if soldiers could sue their commanding officers for getting them shot, but that's just not going to work. They assume the risk when they sign up. Anyway, I suggest you read an elementary torts casebook if you want to understand the concepts behind the tort system.
I think the biggest issue in most litigation is BLAME In the case of 9/11 Who was to blame? and If someone is to blame [ie someone was responsible] should they not pay? I mean honestly. Would this have been better if the families sued the Airport/Airlines these planes come from for negligence? My biggest question to those who hate the SLIMY LAWYERS is this? should one have to pay for their mistakes? If you spill hot coffee on a customer giving her 3rd degree burns should you pay? If you mistakenly leave a scalpel in a patient and they die Should you Pay? If you have lacksadaisical [sp?] security at your airport and terrorist take a plane and kill thousands . .. . should you pay? I think that was one of my issues with Prop 12 it lowered the punishment for crucial mistakes. [even while the same folx scream about personal responsibility] Do i think our government should be paying honestly .. .. .I'm not sure .. . their realm of responsibility is security within the borders and they made mistake/oversite/or just missed it When the government makes a mistake. . . should we simply say . .. . tough .. . . Rocket River
SamFisher: My bad; I thought "you" meant "you." I'm not interested in soldiers being able to sue their commanding officers. I heard (and I don't know if it is true-- someone will) that the family of a soldier who loses his life in conflict is awarded $8,000. I'm the first to admit that they signed up for whatever they got themselves into, but $8,000 is a paltry sum compared to these settlements. RocketRiver: FIrst off, I want to make it clear that I don't think all lawyers are slimy-- just a bunch of them are-- especially these big money litigators. Secondly, there are certainly are cases of abject negligence (leaving a scalpel in someone!) but I have trouble with holding the government culpable for allowing the unimaginable to transpire.
I agree, the problem is where does it end? Did the victims of the first World Trade Center bombing get compensated? Did the victims of the African embassy bombings get compensated? Including the Africans working in those embassies (actually i believe some were compensated but a ridiculously paltry sum compared to the 911 victims). Who decides how much?
There's also a 250 k insurance policy that they get also, according to one fo the links that I posted above.
