Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.  
User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9129 times:

Digging around a bit today, I ran across the following information. What is it they say about the rich get richer, while the poor just keep getting poorer ?


Retirement pay for:

Salary of retired US Presidents .............$450,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate members ..........$174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House .............$223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders .....$193,400 FOR LIFE

Average salary of a soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN - $38,000
Average income for seniors on SOCIAL SECURITY - $12,000

Bear in mind, the government is on a big "cost cutting" kick, so the U.S.A.F. has just announced they will be no longer be supporting single ship demos at air shows of the F-15, F-16, A-10 Warthog, (and two more types that I forget)...........apparently the F-22A Raptor demos will continue.

As bad as these figures are though, it's just the tip of the proverbial ice berg.

I was just wondering if there is anyone else on A.net who thinks the numbers for the top 4 categories are a little excessive ?

Something else I should point out, re; pension benefits; when most people retire from jobs in the so-called "private sector", your pension benefits are generally based on whatever they happen to be at the time you retire, and after you retire, all subsequent increases in benefits paid to people who retire after you do, are also based on the then retirement rate. Once you have retired, your benefits remain the same from now on out.

I'm not absolutely sure of this right now, ( but I'm still looking ), I don't think this is the case for the top 4 categories. In other words, what ever the latest retirees get, everyone back the line gets the same. If I find out for sure this is the case, I'll probably be kicking myself for never having "run" for the House Of Representatives ! ( My Teamster's pension is still figured at 1997 rates ! ) ( Shoulda been a politician I guess )

Charley


Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9115 times:

What is your source? A quick google search shows several places say the Presidential retirement is $197,000 per year.

The salary of the sitting President is $400,000 per year, with a $50,000 expense allowance.


The retirement pay of former Presidents has been discussed quite extensively on these forums in the past.

Though some folks feel the amount is disproportionate - almost everyone understand that a former president never really retires and he still actively represents this nation many times each year.

Congressmen and Senators receive retirement pay based on their years of service.

In 2007 it was $60,972 for Congressmen if they had served 20 years in Congress, though years of federal employee service before being elected to Congress could count as years of service.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf

You might want to check this - http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5398 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9103 times:

Quoting geezer (Thread starter):

Bear in mind, the government is on a big "cost cutting" kick, so the U.S.A.F. has just announced they will be no longer be supporting single ship demos at air shows of the F-15, F-16, A-10 Warthog, (and two more types that I forget)...........apparently the F-22A Raptor demos will continue.



When it's for the safety and satisfaction for us the populace it's way over budget but welcome to Cronyism/Government 101. It must be nice to be on the gravy train as we the people derail. or flame-out.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9102 times:

Quoting geezer (Thread starter):
Once you have retired, your benefits remain the same from now on out.

My father retired from International Paper in 1987 - and his check this month (Jan 2012) is exactly the same amount as his first retirement check.

I retired as a Senior Chief from the US Navy in 1992, and I receive a Cost of Living adjustment some years. Because I'm under age 65, my COLA on the years we get it is 1% less than the full amount. My retirement check has gone up a pretty fair amount since that time.

It does not come close to a third of the $62,658 per year that my first wifes newer husband will receive when he retires as an E-9 with 34+ years of service in May 2012.


User currently offlineracko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9059 times:

It is generally a good idea to pay public servants well, as it prevents corruption.

User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8982 times:

Quoting racko (Reply 4):
It is generally a good idea to pay public servants well, as it prevents corruption.

LOL, yeah that's the theory. But I have yet to see any evidence that it works.

You prevent corruption by denying politicians the power to giving away party favors, by limiting the power of government overall, and by ensuring that government officials are not shielded from laws that apply to the rest of us (just recently in the US we found out that members of Congress and the Executive branch are exempt from insider trading laws, for example).



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8952 times:

Quoting geezer (Thread starter):
Average salary of a soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN - $38,000

This seems VERY low. My friend got I don't know, around $60K when he deployed, and he was only an E-4.

Quoting geezer (Thread starter):
Bear in mind, the government is on a big "cost cutting" kick, so the U.S.A.F. has just announced they will be no longer be supporting single ship demos at air shows of the F-15, F-16, A-10 Warthog, (and two more types that I forget)...........apparently the F-22A Raptor demos will continue.

As cool as these demos are, I think they should be cut ALONG with a multitude of other things while our budget is out of control. And I love the military, aviation, and military aviation  
Quoting racko (Reply 4):
It is generally a good idea to pay public servants well, as it prevents corruption.

LOL



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8951 times:

The numbers in the original post are a joke - and completely false. They list the current salary with expense allowances - for those positions.

The retirement pay is nothing close to those amounts.

The average military pay is relatively low - but one thing not mentioned is that US military personel in Iraq and Afghanistan receive their salary - and it is not taxable income for US federal income taxes.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18676 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8943 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 5):
LOL, yeah that's the theory. But I have yet to see any evidence that it works.

It does work. It works very well in Singapore.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 5):
You prevent corruption by denying politicians the power to giving away party favors, by limiting the power of government overall, and by ensuring that government officials are not shielded from laws that apply to the rest of us (just recently in the US we found out that members of Congress and the Executive branch are exempt from insider trading laws, for example).

You cannot possibly make enough rules to stop corruption. You CANNOT. You will sooner boil water by staring at it.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8938 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
It does work. It works very well in Singapore.

It's only part of the Singapore solution. Their program is based on:

- replacing seconded police officers with permanent civilian investigators
- removing opportunity for corruption
- streamlining administrative procedures
- slashing down red tape
- reviewing public officers' salaries to ensure that they are paid adequately
- reminding government contractors at the time of signing that bribing public officers administering the contract can lead to termination of contract.

http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=165

Slashing regulations and red tape remove the opportunity for a crooked official to hold things up or redirect things with/without the "proper incentive". We should be worried that conducting business in the US now is an incredible maze of local, state and federal laws and red tape.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21084 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8940 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
It does work. It works very well in Singapore.

I'd argue that's the product of a different society.

That said, if members of Congress were to face caning for corruption, I suspect you'd see somewhat less of it. But I'm not convinced that the Singapore system of justice is constitutionally compatible.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18676 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8872 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 9):
- replacing seconded police officers with permanent civilian investigators
- removing opportunity for corruption
- streamlining administrative procedures
- slashing down red tape
- reviewing public officers' salaries to ensure that they are paid adequately
- reminding government contractors at the time of signing that bribing public officers administering the contract can lead to termination of contract.

It's also a product of a rather draconian system that actually used selective breeding (using financial incentives to encourage college-educated people to have more children while discouraging lower classes from reproducing... policies that would never fly in our country). There were a lot of other things that Singapore did to turn from a sleepy fishing town into a world economic hub.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 9):

Slashing regulations and red tape remove the opportunity for a crooked official to hold things up or redirect things with/without the "proper incentive". We should be worried that conducting business in the US now is an incredible maze of local, state and federal laws and red tape.

I'm very surprised to hear you, of all people, say that. You are the world's biggest champion of states' rights and you basically want the federal government to have virtually no say on internal affairs. To me, that would indicate that you would actually want an array of different local regulations and laws. You even defended states' rights on civil rights issues.

The solution to the maze of regulations that we have is to federalize them, with a minimum of local and state level involvement. I don't see how there would be any other way to make the regulations more uniform and "streamline" them. So imagine my shock to hear you, of all people, espousing the view that there is too much local and state law.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12878 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8848 times:

I have no problem with substantial but reasonable compentation for 'retirement' or for the President/VP post-office from the government. The President also gets Secret Service for up to about 10 years, with I suspect limited coverage after that time. I Believe he gets 100% health care coverage from the government for life as well. For other officials, it needs to be cut back so can't get the monies until age 65 (or whatever age they could collect full base Social Security) have to be on Medicare as all other Americans, as well as more like 90% of Americans will get in their SS checks and Medicare benefits. Those benefits should be 'means tested' so if make well over a certain income, it gets cut. Whey should some multi-millionaire get a pension?

Where my problem is the money made by ex-Federal elected officials after they leave office. For Presidents and other top officials, that can mean getting very rich with speaking engagements, books, being on corporate boards, getting media jobs as well as raising funds for their 'libraries'/museums to themselves (mainly as to Presidents), private practice of law as well as working for lobbying groups (after a few years out of office). I see such income as an after-office delayed bribe and is unacceptable. President Ford and most presidents since him have made a fortune in their post-political life.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8845 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):
Where my problem is the money made by ex-Federal elected officials after they leave office. For Presidents and other top officials, that can mean getting very rich with speaking engagements, books, being on corporate boards, getting media jobs as well as raising funds for their 'libraries'/museums to themselves (mainly as to Presidents), private practice of law as well as working for lobbying groups (after a few years out of office). I see such income as an after-office delayed bribe and is unacceptable. President Ford and most presidents since him have made a fortune in their post-political life.

I disagree actually. Once they are out of office, they are out and done, normal citizens again. If they want to write books, let them, same right as you or me. Plus, look at all the good people like Bill Clinton are able to do with the money he raises (he gives a lot of his money to charity that he made off stuff like books)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8709 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8812 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
I'm very surprised to hear you, of all people, say that. You are the world's biggest champion of states' rights and you basically want the federal government to have virtually no say on internal affairs. To me, that would indicate that you would actually want an array of different local regulations and laws. You even defended states' rights on civil rights issues.

Why should it surprise you? The problem is out-of-control bureaucracy and laws. I see no reason why a state should need more than a few dozen pages of regulations at most to oversee a business - if that. And unless your product or service crosses state lines, why should the federal government be involved at all? I work in telecom, and you should see the volumes of state an federal regulations we have to deal with.

In fact I'll tell you something absolutely true. We, our company, do not know whether or not we are in violation of one or many state regulations. I would say we certainly are. Every once and a while someone in our company or one of our outside lawyers or regulatory consultants will find something, say "hey guys, look at this", and our response is "oh crap we didn't know", and we launch a project to get us in compliance. We have people in our company with 30 years of telecom experience and they get such surprises all the time. We have dozens of people involved in the legal an regulatory side, either full-time or part-time, and there is still so fu&%ing many laws and regulations it is quite literally impossible for us to keep track.

So we make a best effort at following the rules, and if the FCC or other agency decides to do an audit on us, that's the only defense we have - that we tried. That is not the way our businesses should be run. And we are a fairly large company with 9 digits of revenue and a bunch of people. Imagine how impossible it is for a small 3-man shop with a fraction of our resources.

Our state and federal governments should be putting out regulations and laws required to keep our business safe, clean and ensure fair business and hiring practices. That's about it. Surely we can do it without a mountain of bureaucratic BS.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6995 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8803 times:

Quoting geezer (Thread starter):
Digging around a bit today, I ran across the following information. What is it they say about the rich get richer, while the poor just keep getting poorer ?


Retirement pay for:

Salary of retired US Presidents .............$450,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate members ..........$174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House .............$223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders .....$193,400 FOR LIFE


Your numbers are COMPLETELY WRONG.      
These are the yearly salaries for these positions, these are NOT what they get for life. This is what they get WHILE they are a member of congress, president etc..

I do think they do not work enough for the money they get paid but I also think you need to pay members of congress and judges good salaries in the six figures with good benefits. This is true especially for judges. Why?

Because you want successful bright people running the country or on the bench. Many of the members of congress could make much much more than 174k a year. As for judges, there is a major problem around the country, judges do not get paid enough, successful law students and lawyers will rather go to private firms these days make 500k a year to over a million dollars instead of wanting to serve the country, state etc..

However, the way congress goes about with their job, their pay should be slashed a bit.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 7):
The numbers in the original post are a joke - and completely false. They list the current salary with expense allowances - for those positions.


Exactly.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):
I have no problem with substantial but reasonable compentation for 'retirement' or for the President/VP post-office from the government.


Those are the last people that need any money. The amount of money former presidents and VPs make on book tours, speaking tours etc.. is a lot. More than I ever thought someone could get paid to speak.

I worked in an office of a former well known governour. This governour makes a lot more money now in the private sector being a consultant or getting paid 50k to make a speech somewhere for 1 hours and flown back on a private jet. Nothing wrong with this at all, I would do the same exact thing. Just a point that the better known and more famous the person, it should be a better reason on why not to spend money on them unless it is security stuff like USSS protection for former presidents.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8738 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8776 times:

How little does America pay its soldiers deployed overseas? US$ 38 K? That's all? IIRC German soöldiers get, on top of their normal wages, € 90,00 per day allowance, tax free. That alone is US$ 42K

Presidents and high ranking, elected politicias, should be able to support themselves. Clinton is a good example, he does not need the pension.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 8769 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
How little does America pay its soldiers deployed overseas? US$ 38 K? That's all? IIRC German soöldiers get, on top of their normal wages, € 90,00 per day allowance, tax free. That alone is US$ 42K

I don't think this number is made up... it may be base pay or something. But the military gets a lot of stuff thrown its way when you're deployed... plus no tax. Like I said, my friend, an E-4, made about $50-60k over there for a year, and I highly doubt that E-3 or lower is the AVERAGE pay. Maybe base pay, but again, the military makes a whole lot more. BAH, BAS, family separation pay, hazard duty pay, no taxes, etc



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 8768 times:

Whew ! Where to start ?

[quote=rfields5421,reply=1

What is your source? A quick google search shows several places say the Presidential retirement is $197,000 per year.

My source, Chief, is apparently a guy who had his numbers mixed up ! Your next sentence kinda points that out........
$400K + 50K "expense allowance"; the problem is though, you missed my whole point; looking at your next sentence leads me to think that $450,000 per yr is what the present occupant of the Oval Office is costing the taxpayers of this country; I'd like to point a few things out........I don't have any exact figures, but consider this;

Mrs. "POTUS" big trip to Spain......couple of aircraft, bunch of fancy hotels, plus she drug along about 4 dozen of her "hangers-on"; the "POTUS" $50K annual "expense account" wouldn't cover the "tips" involved !

That's just one trip..........out of DOZENS.

The salary of the sitting President is $400,000 per year, with a $50,000 expense allowance.

Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't know it was that much ! ( Kinda why I started the thread )

Here's something else you may have missed; this will take a little more explaining, but here goes;

Starting with President Eisenhower, all First Ladies have had a PAID personal "assistant"; Mrs. Eisenhower's assistant was paid right out of Ike's pocket ! No govt bucks what-so-ever; Ike paid her out of pocket;

From Ike on down to Bill Clinton, all the First Ladies "personal assistants" were paid with Gov't ( read: taxpayer's ) bucks

When Bill Clinton got in, Hillary couldn't "make do" with one "PA", she had to have 3 ( as in THREE ) again, all paid by....you and me ! But by Washington standards, that's still a "drop in the bucket"

When "W" got in, Laura Bush only needed 1 PA. ( Thanks for saving us some $$$ Mrs. Bush )

Now......our present POTUS ( who you say is "only" costing us $450 K per yr..........his "first lady" has to have............
( you probably won't believe this, but I'm sure it's a matter of public record, so should be no trouble to verify )
would you believe Michelle has to have...........22 "personal assistants"............I happen to have a detailed breakdown of the whole list, top to bottom, with the names, titles, etc, plus salaries, if anyone is interested. ( I'm currently trying to verify all the numbers )

BTW.......what do you suppose the combined salaries of all these people adds up to ? Think the $50K "expense account" would cover it ? Not quite; as a matter of fact......not even close; According to the figures shown on this list, the combined salaries of these people all add up to about $ 1.4 M ( as in "million" ) ( I wonder how many of them have "expense accounts" ? )

So my whole point in posting the original thread, was to point out that..........the people who are running our government are rapidly breaking our backs, money wise. There are all kinds of ways to find out how true things are; It's my guess that 90% of the members on A.net are much better at "googeling" and "snopesing" things than I am; I lack the time, ability, and inclination to find things out. But I have sent some emails to a few people who are interested in some "real change", and who have a hell of a lot more time, inclination, and $$$ than I have, and who I'm pretty sure would like to get all this on TV, the media, where ever.



[quote=ltbewr,reply=12
Where my problem is the money made by ex-Federal elected officials after they leave office. For Presidents and other top officials, that can mean getting very rich with speaking engagements, books, being on corporate boards, getting media jobs as well as raising funds for their 'libraries'/museums to themselves (mainly as to Presidents), private [/quote]


Let me ask you something, ltbewr; Why does it bother you if someone who has a "big name", or a lot of "connections" gets rich ? I LOVE it when other people get rich ! The more money they have, the more money they spend, the more money they "invest", ( which is usually where 80% of jobs come from ), and hopefully, the more taxes they will have to pay ! ( All of which is good for poor people like me ) It's only when they make me "POORER" while they're trying to get rich that I complain about.

Forgive me, but you sound like you are jealous ? Everyone knows I'm no huge fan of Bill Clinton; Old Bill rakes in BAGS of bucks, just making speeches ! You think I care ? Hell no I don't care.............because it's not ME that's paying for all those silly speeches ! ( And I'm hoping that even Bill Clinton has to pay a few bucks to the IRS ! )
All of which is what I never have been able to understand about the liberal mind-set; you hate it when someone makes money from having a "big name" after being in government, yet you just seem to LOVE all the morons in the movie and entertainment industry, who all get rich, but they all do it while making poor people get poorer ! I hope you can explain that to me.

Someone mentioned Singapore; I have never been to Singapore, don't know too much about Singapore, but I did have the opportunity about a year ago to hear a young lady from Singapore; Her name is Mae Phang; ( as in "pong")
Miss Phang is a Professor of Music at a College near where I live in Indiana; she was doing a recital at the Cultural Center in Chicago. We just happened to be there at the time. Miss Phang only weighs about 90 lbs. but she plays the Steinway like Artur Rubinstein ! So they really teach their young people well in Singapore, I'm thinking.
I also hear they "cane" people who do bad stuff; one wonders how that might work in Washington, D.C. ?

I'm out of space, and you're out of patience ! Thanks to everyone for your input.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8689 times:

I'd say a major if not fatal flaw of US politics is not what the politicians get from the state, but what they get from the private sector....


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8650 times:

[quote=Aesma,reply=19]I'd say a major if not fatal flaw of US politics is not what the politicians get from the state, but what they get from the private sector....


Aesma;

Obviously, to argue that politicians never take money from "non-public" sources would be a fool's errand; however, it is hardly limited to the U.S. ! I think if you look around, you'll notice quite a lot of it occurring in France also.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1534 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 8609 times:

Quoting geezer (Thread starter):
Average salary of a soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN - $38,000
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
How little does America pay its soldiers deployed overseas? US$ 38 K? That's all? IIRC German soöldiers get, on top of their normal wages, € 90,00 per day allowance, tax free. That alone is US$ 42K

That's because Geezer either made up the number of the source he got it from made up the number.

If one looks at base pay and housing allowances, it'll come out to around 35K, but including hardship pay and a couple other allowances, that nearly doubles. Military servicemembers are paid quite well, particularly at junior enlisted ranks, where they are far better off in terms of pay and benefits than their counterparts in the civilian world with equivalent education/experience make.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 8577 times:

Quoting geezer (Reply 18):
When Bill Clinton got in, Hillary couldn't "make do" with one "PA", she had to have 3 ( as in THREE ) again, all paid by....you and me ! But by Washington standards, that's still a "drop in the bucket"

When "W" got in, Laura Bush only needed 1 PA. ( Thanks for saving us some $$$ Mrs. Bush )

Your numbers are quite a bit off. First is that Obama actually has/possibly had 24 on staff for the First Lady. Second, they are not PA's. Third, Clinton's had at most 18. Fourth, Bush had at most 19.

Are those reasonable numbers? I have no idea. I don't know what they do. I don't even know if all 24 are full time positions. It could be that the 24 actually represents less paid hours per week than the 18 for Clinton.

Here is something I do know. The persons who started that silly chain mail with stupid false information should be banned from voting and using a computer.


User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1534 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 11 hours ago) and read 8563 times:

Quoting geezer (Reply 18):
Whew ! Where to start ?

I'd start with a day away from the interwebs.

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
Your numbers are quite a bit off. First is that Obama actually has/possibly had 24 on staff for the First Lady. Second, they are not PA's. Third, Clinton's had at most 18. Fourth, Bush had at most 19.

His numbers are utter garbage. He is refering to what is the Office of the First Lady of the United States. It's not a band of personal assistant. Office of the FLOTUS is a cheap yet quite effective little office, and we've been lucky to have First Ladies that have used the opportunity to raise awareness of dozens of issues that their husbands did not address.

Of course, to anyone of the opposite party, the First Lady might as well be Marie Antoinette.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 8542 times:

Quoting geezer (Reply 20):
Obviously, to argue that politicians never take money from "non-public" sources would be a fool's errand; however, it is hardly limited to the U.S. ! I think if you look around, you'll notice quite a lot of it occurring in France also.

Sure. In fact, our soon to be ex president Nicolas Sarkozy has probably pocketed a few illegal checks from a billionaire, Mme Bettencourt, owner of L'Oréal. At least, if proven, we can be pretty sure he'll see a court, just like his predecessor Chirac did (he got 2 years jail, suspended).

But more than that, money from companies and lobbyists is not a necessity, for three reasons : political TV ads are very regulated, on public channels, and everyone gets the same air time, for free. Parties/candidates get access to TV channels (public and private) according to their score in previous elections. Thirdly and more importantly, parties/candidates get public money to campaign.

So, there are crooks, but you don't need to be one (or give power to lobbies) to win.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
25 geezer : Well, after several hours of digging ( thank you Snopes ! ), I have just found that................the numbers and names are all correct; but they don
26 cmf : I am not able to do job evaluations based on title and salary. More importantly I have no idea what they are tasked to do. Still have no idea if the
27 geezer : cmf...... Thank you cmf.......I think that's a reasonable opinion, and I actually agree with you, I have already known that I need to do better resea
28 Post contains images cmf : Since I do not know what we get for that money I don't think I can have an opinion if it well spent or not. As you say it adds up. That said I have n
29 dreadnought : If the benefit is not readily identifiable, then by default the money should be considered poorly spent.
30 cmf : Readily identifiable = poorly spent sounds like a soundbite that can get you on any news station. How do you readily identify the benefit of spending
31 dreadnought : All those things have an easily identifiable benefit. A VP fulfills a role as per the Constitution. NSA keeps an eye and ear on our enemies. An embas
32 cmf : So there are no benefits from social and ceremonial events at the White House...
33 dreadnought : I did not say that. I was simply pointing out that if you can't identify a benefit, then you shouldn't spend money on it. Sure, events at the White H
34 rfields5421 : Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush all strongly disagree with you. Their view is the Office of the First Lady is a vital part of the governmen
35 dreadnought : Source? Regardless, the government is there to provided required services, much like your electric utility company. Would you not be upset if the wif
36 Pellegrine : I think people are TOTALLY bent out of shape over an issue such as this because they make it PERSONAL. "You're making more money than I wahhh wahh" So
37 cmf : But there has always been identifiable benefits of the office so what is that part of your argument about? That I state I do not have the knowledge t
38 Post contains links dreadnought : Ummm, hello! http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Maybe we could afford to spend when our debt level was half or less what it is now. Maybe in your household,
39 cmf : Seen a company stage events even while making losses? You can't save yourself out of problems. You need to spend wisely.
40 dreadnought : $XXX,XXX on multiple Air Force jets to send the First Lady and her friends on a shopping trip to Spain is wisely spent? I'm not saying that she shoul
41 cmf : According to Secret Service it was. B.t.w. I thought it was vacation.... What separate travel are you talking about? All official travel should be pa
42 geezer : Do you honestly believe that ? If the congress were to ever demand that Obama bring in receipts, real PROOF that anything he's done he paid for it "o
43 cmf : That they are paying for their private travel. Absolutely. Just as they are paying their groceries too. It is established policy over many administra
44 geezer : My position on exactly what ? My position on "solar power" is this; yes, it works; the problem being, many people have been trying to create "cost af
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Orly Taitz Ordered To Pay For Frivolous Lawsuits posted Mon Aug 16 2010 14:05:16 by UAL747
Do The Crime, Pay For The Time ($90 A Day) posted Thu Aug 6 2009 06:57:35 by FuturePilot16
Sue Them, Jail Them, Make Them Pay For Meltdown posted Fri Sep 19 2008 07:43:10 by Revelation
How Much Do You Have To Pay For Licence Plates? posted Tue May 1 2007 22:17:42 by Airfoilsguy
How Much Did You Pay For Gas Today? posted Fri Apr 13 2007 04:01:04 by WestJetYQQ
Pay For Your Pizza In Pesos! posted Tue Jan 9 2007 07:19:33 by FlyingTexan
Terror 'target' Countries Should Pay For Security posted Sat Aug 26 2006 01:17:37 by Derico
Should Israel Pay For Reconstruction Of Lebanon? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 12:35:24 by Tu204
Panel Wants NC To Pay For Race Riot In 1898 posted Thu Jun 1 2006 18:58:54 by Nkops
Another - How Much Do You Pay For Gas - Thread posted Thu Oct 6 2005 05:55:59 by Searpqx
Pay For Your Pizza In Pesos! posted Tue Jan 9 2007 07:19:33 by FlyingTexan
Terror 'target' Countries Should Pay For Security posted Sat Aug 26 2006 01:17:37 by Derico
Should Israel Pay For Reconstruction Of Lebanon? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 12:35:24 by Tu204