Sept. 11 Compensation vs. Military Death Benefits, by Rush Limbaugh

This was forwarded to me today. Food for thought. (And if anyone wonders, I mostly agree with him on this one.)


"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 cant 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 Septmember 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 $4.2 million. If you are a surviving member of an American soldier killed in acttion, 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.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Olklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addtion 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 politcs 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. However, our own 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 don'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.
Have a wonderful day."

--Rush Limbaugh

[jsmith]

no better way to kick off a friday than a rush limbaugh thread. i'm going back into my cave...

[leathermang]

OK, then try comparing just the firemen and police compensation to the military .....

[jsmith]

my problem with limbaugh is disinformation. i am sure that he has enough brains to make a few points - but they are usually made with a lot of inaccurate if not false information.

information as collected by snopes

in this case - yes, there is a disparity, but it is not as bad as this article makes it appear to be...

[leathermang]

JSmith, What are the true figures ?

[jsmith]

snopes.com is pretty good with their research. while the premise behind the article is true, it is embellished and there is missing information such as the benefit from the serviceman's group life insurance policy (unless coverage was declined). the amount quoted is $250k which still is a far cry from the sept. 11 victim's compensation but certainly less bleak than what the article alleges. the last part is also inaccurate about the congressman's pensions - their average annuity is said to be more in the $48k range.

the link i provided (click on "information as collected by snopes") has all the data with supporting links to pertinent government pages etc.

Originally posted by TXBill
One thing to keep in mind though is the people that signed up to serve our country know the risks, and the pay and benefits. The people that went to work at the World Trade Center that Tuesday morning didn't sign up for what happened to them.

Basically the part where I differ from Rush.

There's really no way to look at it without it stinking, though.

[mikemover]

Originally posted by jsmith
my problem with limbaugh is disinformation. i am sure that he has enough brains to make a few points - but they are usually made with a lot of inaccurate if not false information.

information as collected by snopes

in this case - yes, there is a disparity, but it is not as bad as this article makes it appear to be...

One can always manipulate numbers and statistics to reinforce one's own viewpoint. I often read Rush's stories, and often I agree with him, sometimes I don't, and I usually do a little research to verify his facts and figures and sources...and I've yet to catch him in an actual intentional case of false facts or figures. He is known to use drama and shock tactics to make his point, but he is often very painfully, undeniably, absolutely CORRECT!--as he is in this case.

Whether you agree with him or not, like him or not, you have to admit he does his homework.

Mike

[jsmith]

Originally posted by mikemover
Whether you agree with him or not, like him or not, you have to admit he does his homework.

millions of followers/believers can attest to that...

[DieselHead]

Well, I think that civil servants in general aren't paid enough, especially in contrast with what a lot of financial executives make. I'm including municipal workers, people who work in transportation infrastructure, and teachers, along with service men and fire fighters/policeman.

Alex

EDIT: add to my list military veterans and senior citizens. This is a terrible country to be a senior citizen in.

Originally posted by DieselHead
Well, I think that civil servants in general aren't paid enough, especially in contrast with what a lot of financial executives make. I'm including municipal workers, people who work in transportation infrastructure, and teachers, along with service men and fire fighters/policeman.

Alex

EDIT: add to my list military veterans and senior citizens. This is a terrible country to be a senior citizen in.

Not to go off in a tangent but, then, it is my thread. Regarding being a senior citizen, two things:

1. Social security is bogus. Just wait 'till the Baby Boomers reach that age and see what happens!

2. We live in a society that shuns saving money. Get out of that mentality and social security will be a moot point when you reach the age of retirement.

[mikemover]

Originally posted by sflori
Not to go off in a tangent but, then, it is my thread. Regarding being a senior citizen, two things:

1. Social security is bogus. Just wait 'till the Baby Boomers reach that age and see what happens!

2. We live in a society that shuns saving money. Get out of that mentality and social security will be a moot point when you reach the age of retirement.

I'm not a religious person, but...."AMEN, BROTHER!"


Mike

[jeffwolinski]

This again goes back to the ideals of self-sufficiency versus socialism. The vast majority of Americans have the means with which to secure a comfortable retirement, unfortunately too many choose to spend recklessly and fail to plan ahead.

In regard to the "poor" in this country, I wish I could find the actual study (maybe someone has it), but most of the poor in this country live in a suitable house or apartment, own one or more cars, own several TVs, and are generally well-fed, if not obese!

Any society has its haves and have-nots, even the supposedly socialist or communist ones. The difference here is that it is much easier to make it from one group to the next. I personally, and most conservatives, have no problem with helping those that truly cannot help themselves, or helping those that have fallen on hard times through a rough period. However, eventually nearly everyone needs to sink or swim on their own efforts.

[mikemover]

Originally posted by jeffwolinski
This again goes back to the ideals of self-sufficiency versus socialism. The vast majority of Americans have the means with which to secure a comfortable retirement, unfortunately too many choose to spend recklessly and fail to plan ahead.

In regard to the "poor" in this country, I wish I could find the actual study (maybe someone has it), but most of the poor in this country live in a suitable house or apartment, own one or more cars, own several TVs, and are generally well-fed, if not obese!

Any society has its haves and have-nots, even the supposedly socialist or communist ones. The difference here is that it is much easier to make it from one group to the next. I personally, and most conservatives, have no problem with helping those that truly cannot help themselves, or helping those that have fallen on hard times through a rough period. However, eventually nearly everyone needs to sink or swim on their own efforts.

Exactly. If a person has no severe mental or physical handicap that prevents them from pulling thier own wieght financially/socially, then there is NO excuse. NONE. I have no ear for any "poor me" stories. Not in this country, where opportunity is everywhere you look.

Mike

We live in a society that shuns saving money.

Big time!!

My company had to return part of my 401K contribution from last year, Why?? Well it seems that when you make over a particular income your contribution of your own money is "tested" by a Government formula and compared to what other people at other income levels contribute to their 401Ks. If it is found to be of a greater percentage (or ?) you are then "discriminating" against these other people. The excess is returned back to you, along with a 1099. You are only allowed to contibute the 10 - 12% of your income if everyone else does.

It is not only that society shuns it, the Government forbids it!