OT Rush Limbaugh's first sensible words?
 

This was sent to me today. I've got no verification of it's accuracy.
Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head.............

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 harm's 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 o f 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 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 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.

Dixon wrote:

This was sent to me today. I've got no verification of it's accuracy.
Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head.............

One big difference. No one signed up voluntarily for the 9/11 attack.

Those who sign up for military duty should be aware of what they are doing.

Sorry, but the reality is that the risk of getting killed is the reality
of military force.

Dixon wrote:

This was sent to me today. I've got no verification of it's accuracy.
Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head.............

Conservatives don't want to pay taxes, but have no problem with spending
my tax money.

Big difference here is that no one, on our side, signed up voluntarily
to fight any wars in the World Trade Center.

If anyone signs up VOLUNTARILY to serve in the military, they should be
aware that one of the possible consequences of pointing guns at people
is to get killed.

Sorry, but the realities of what we are doing is being ignored.

Conservatives don't want to pay taxes, but have no problem with
spending
my tax money.



Well, I consider myself a Conservative, and I don't like to pay taxes,
and I really don't like spending anybodys tax money.

Tim wrote:

Conservatives don't want to pay taxes, but have no problem with

spending

my tax money.




Well, I consider myself a Conservative, and I don't like to pay taxes,
and I really don't like spending anybodys tax money.


I consider myself a conservative, but there is not much that I agree
with the Republican Party.

I don't think they are conservative, in any aspect.

To me, the Republican Party is homophobic, free spenders, who want to
force their religious values on everyone. Then there's their attitude
on fighting wars, based on false reasons.

These are not conservative values.

Rush Limbaugh has his head up his ass when he says:

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.

A single congressional term is two years.
It takes five years to vest in the Congressional pension fund, so a congressman
would need to be reelected twice to even receive a dime of pension income.

A Senator elected to a six year term would be eligible toward the end of a
single term, true.

These figures are now a few years old, but not long ago the average pension for
members of the US Congress was between $45-50,000 per year, (about $4k a month,
not $15k) and included in that average are congressmen who served for 20 or 30
years as well as those who served only a single term.

As always, Rush doesn't let the truth get in the way of a sensational lie
disguised as a statistic.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly68.htm

So you listen to Rush Chuck?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Rush Limbaugh has his head up his ass when he says:

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.

A single congressional term is two years.
It takes five years to vest in the Congressional pension fund, so a
congressman
would need to be reelected twice to even receive a dime of pension income.

A Senator elected to a six year term would be eligible toward the end of a
single term, true.

These figures are now a few years old, but not long ago the average
pension for
members of the US Congress was between $45-50,000 per year, (about $4k a
month,
not $15k) and included in that average are congressmen who served for 20
or 30
years as well as those who served only a single term.

As always, Rush doesn't let the truth get in the way of a sensational lie
disguised as a statistic.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly68.htm

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



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.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity is
more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0500, Dixon wrote:



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.

Don't expect any improvement from this administration. Party unity is
more important to them than veterans.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....9805517220.xml


Wow, the *reporter* interjects a biased opinion in the very first sentence
of the story. I thought reporters were to report stories, not editorialize,
but what would one expect from a liberal newspaper?

Do you have more credible links on this Thunder?