Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:40 am

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 again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:34 am

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
 
zippyjet
Posts: 5077
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:47 am

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!
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:48 am

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.
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:15 am

It is generally a good idea to pay public servants well, as it prevents corruption.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:11 pm

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).
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:16 pm

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 :)
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:23 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:48 pm

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:04 pm

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:05 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:56 pm

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:06 am

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:12 am

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:26 am

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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
flymia
Posts: 6806
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:44 am

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)
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8530
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:24 am

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.
powered by Eierlikör
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:44 am

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 :)
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:13 am

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 again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7485
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:24 pm

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
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:44 am

[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 again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
elmothehobo
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:10 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:18 pm

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:24 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
elmothehobo
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:10 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:03 pm

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 avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7485
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:50 pm

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
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 am

Well, after several hours of digging ( thank you Snopes ! ), I have just found that................the numbers and names are all correct; but they don't set a "world record"; various other first ladies have had similar numbers of staff, but they weren't taking home near as much taxpayer's $$$$. ( Also, there has never been a first lady that took as many lavish trips, and spent so much doing it, although Hillary tried pretty hard. )

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
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.

You say you don't know if these are "reasonable" numbers? Don't know what all these people do ?
I will attempt to show you what they do, or at least what their fancy titles are, and that may possibly give you some hint at what they do. ( and I do hope you read faster than I type )


One..      $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
Two..      $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and       Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
Three..    $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
Four..      $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special  Assistant to the President
                           And Director of Communications for the First Lady)
Five..      $100,000 - Winter, Melissa (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Six..        $90,000  Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Seven..      $84,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
Eight..      $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
Nine..      $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Project for the First Lady)
Ten..        $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Eleven..    $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B.(Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Twelve..    $62,000 - Goodman,  Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
Thirteen..  $60,000  Fitz, Alan O.(Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director
                          For the First Lady)
Fourteen..  $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
Fifteen...    $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
Sixteen..    $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
Seventeen..  $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
Eighteen..  $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
Nineteen..  $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Twenty..    $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
Twenty-One... $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
Twenty-Two.. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of  Correspondence for the First Lady)

You will notice that Nos 2,3,4, and 5 are also listed as "special assistants to the "potus" as well as to Mrs. "potus";
I'm sure that will be helpful if anyone is ever obliged to explain all of this insane spending of taxpayers money to any kind of congressional committee.

BTW......almost lost my main point; these 22 individuals combined salaries are costing the taxpayers $ 1,591,200

That's my POINT ! I wouldn't be so surprised by all of this if it were in some African dictators so-called "government";
but this isn't Africa........this is the U.S.A. we're talking about here. ( Where I have to pay taxes )

And another thing cmf...............

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
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.

It seems that when some people see numbers, comments, news, or anything else that doesn't jive with their way of thinking, have adopted the tactic of saying " oh, that's just an email, or even worse, a "chain" email, and in this case, a "silly chain email"........which of course is an "assumption"...........an assumption which in this case happens to be false;
even if it were correct, I'm not aware of any law that states that information received by email is automatically false, unlawful, or in any way "suspect".

The names, numbers, and data in this list were mailed to me by a friend of mine in Canada, where all of this was in the media. And I didn't steal it, I paraphrased it. As for not allowing me to vote or to use a computer, if you will remember, a few of Obama,s "followers" have already tried that, and his A.G. was even O.K. with it, ( but it still didn't work )

While I'm trying to make the simple point that I happen to feel that that many people in our government are extremely wasteful of the taxpayer's money, you're attempting to confuse the issue, and even accuse me of posting something you think is wrong, as if it were unlawful to post numbers obtained from an email, as if all information transmitted by email is automatically false. I'm not an attorney, but I doubt that would fly very far in a court.

BTW, I have some more great news, but I'll save it for another discussion.

Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:36 am

Quoting geezer (Reply 25):
You say you don't know if these are "reasonable" numbers? Don't know what all these people do ?
I will attempt to show you what they do, or at least what their fancy titles are, and that may possibly give you some hint at what they do. ( and I do hope you read faster than I type )

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 number of people and the salaries they receive are reasonable or not.

Quoting geezer (Reply 25):
It seems that when some people see numbers, comments, news, or anything else that doesn't jive with their way of thinking, have adopted the tactic of saying " oh, that's just an email, or even worse, a "chain" email, and in this case, a "silly chain email"........which of course is an "assumption"...........an assumption which in this case happens to be false;
even if it were correct, I'm not aware of any law that states that information received by email is automatically false, unlawful, or in any way "suspect".

Not an assumption. There is a chain mail going around stating pretty much what you said. Claims all are personal assistants, that Bush had just one and Clinton had several. Making the claim is wasteful but not as bad as the over the top Obama.

It sets a very specific tone in it's accusation and when someone does that they better have the essential facts straight. My objection is because the essential facts are completely misleading and thus it is not a fair complaint but rather Obama-bashing.

Quoting geezer (Reply 25):
The names, numbers, and data in this list were mailed to me by a friend of mine in Canada, where all of this was in the media. And I didn't steal it, I paraphrased it. As for not allowing me to vote or to use a computer, if you will remember, a few of Obama,s "followers" have already tried that, and his A.G. was even O.K. with it, ( but it still didn't work )

I said the person starting that email should have those rights removed. And based on the obvious intent of such an email and the lack of factual support I still think so.

Reading your post I am not under the impression you wrote that email. My impression is you got caught in the current it created. You did state you had not verified it. So reading what you have posted in this thread I think you need to do better research. But at least you bring it up in a place where it is appropriate and most importantly, where things are expected to be questioned. Not like that chain mail that is stating "facts" to create a sentiment the reader should just accept.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:11 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
I said the person starting that email should have those rights removed. And based on the obvious intent of such an email and the lack of factual support I still think so.

Reading your post I am not under the impression you wrote that email. My impression is you got caught in the current it created. You did state you had not verified it. So reading what you have posted in this thread I think you need to do better research. But at least you bring it up in a place where it is appropriate and most importantly, where things are expected to be questioned. Not like that chain mail that is stating "facts" to create a sentiment the reader should just accept.

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 research; the truth of the matter is, I'm not that good with search engines. Had it not been for my dear fiance', Miss A, I wouldn't have found out what I did ! ( It seems the devil is in the "key words"; took her 4 or 5 tries )

Here's what I'm really attempting to find out; according to "Snopes", all of these name, titles, and salaries have already been made known to the Congress. Looking at all of these ridiculous titles, and given the state of our economy, with thousands of people losing their homes every day, I'm of the opinion that the taxpayers of this country can ill-afford ANY president's wife adding a million and a half dollars to the government's already unsustainable spending spree.

I don't know how old you are, so I don't know if you remember the late Everett Dirksen, who was a U.S. Senator from Illinois; he once made a famous statement to a reporter, possibly tongue-in-cheek, that went........"sure we spend a lot ! a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about "REAL MONEY" !

I might add, that was back when a million dollars was regarded about like a billion dollars is today. It was rather amusing at the time, and people chuckled about it for years afterward; but the nation's economy was in much better shape "back then". Which is exactly why I am so disgusted with people who seem to "poo poo" frivolous spending by anyone, as just being "not that much". It's all money people, and it all adds up; right now, it has added up to over 14 TRILLION dollars. And regardless of who you vote for, that monstrous debt is killing you every day it's there.
That isn't an opinion, that's a fact.

Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:37 pm

Quoting geezer (Reply 27):
Thank you cmf

  

Quoting geezer (Reply 27):
I'm of the opinion that the taxpayers of this country can ill-afford ANY president's wife adding a million and a half dollars to the government's already unsustainable spending spree.

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.

Quoting geezer (Reply 27):
Which is exactly why I am so disgusted with people who seem to "poo poo" frivolous spending by anyone, as just being "not that much". It's all money people, and it all adds up; right now, it has added up to over 14 TRILLION dollars. And regardless of who you vote for, that monstrous debt is killing you every day it's there.

As you say it adds up. That said I have never seen a company that cold become viable by cutting costs. Every company we have gone in to had to spend money to become viable again. The key thing is to spend it on things that generate the effects you need. And that means cutting costs you do not need, or don't need that much, or can be delayed, to make money available for what you need now. I don't even have a problem with borrowing money to pay for those important costs.

People often say government is very different from companies but as I see it the only difference is in how success is measured. For companies it is profit. For governments it is living conditions. The methods needed to bring those goals are extremely similar.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:59 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 28):

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.

If the benefit is not readily identifiable, then by default the money should be considered poorly spent.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:12 pm

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 29):
If the benefit is not readily identifiable, then by default the money should be considered poorly spent.

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 your time on that? Yet it happens every day, frequently by C level people.

Plenty of extremely important things being done every day that isn't readily identifiable. What is the value of having the Vice Presidents office? What is the value of running NSA? What is the value of having an embassy in Malawi? What is the value of the X48 project?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:42 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 30):
Plenty of extremely important things being done every day that isn't readily identifiable. What is the value of having the Vice Presidents office? What is the value of running NSA? What is the value of having an embassy in Malawi? What is the value of the X48 project?

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 embassy is a diplomatic requirement for relations with any country. X-48 provides technological advances that will eventually be useful.

Now you can argue whether an expense outweighs a benefit. Do we need an embassy in Malawi with 5,000 people in it? Should the NSA cost a trillion dollars per year? That's another argument.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:42 pm

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 31):
All those things have an easily identifiable benefit.

So there are no benefits from social and ceremonial events at the White House...
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:35 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
So there are no benefits from social and ceremonial events at the White House...

I did not say that.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 29):
Quoting cmf (Reply 28):

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.

If the benefit is not readily identifiable, then by default the money should be considered poorly spent.

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 House provide some benefit, especially for visiting foreign dignitaries. But the first lady has no real use apart from some PR. I'd say any spending of more than $100-200K per year on her is over-extravagant.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:08 pm

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 33):
But the first lady has no real use apart from some PR. I'd say any spending of more than $100-200K per year on her is over-extravagant.

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 government.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:22 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 34):
Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush all strongly disagree with you.

Source?

Regardless, the government is there to provided required services, much like your electric utility company. Would you not be upset if the wife of the CEO of your electric company were to receive a fat expense account paid by your utility bills for her to run off to Spain or NYC with her friends? I know I would be. If the CEO wants to pay for that out of his own pocket, that's fine.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
Pellegrine
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:03 pm

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"

Quoting geezer (Reply 25):
BTW......almost lost my main point; these 22 individuals combined salaries are costing the taxpayers $ 1,591,200

So what? Half of those people make less than $60k. You think that is a lot of money? In a city like DC??? If/when you have kids to raise?

I can't really even read this thread.

Stop chasing the PENNYS and skipping over the DOLLARS.

LOOK at how much money the US Federal Government wastes on government contracts with private companies in all sectors. That is where the real waste is. People getting bent out of shape over a few million dollars amuse me. Context. Look at the US economy in all its breadth and the US tax base. $100 million on the Executive Branch is nothing to get bent out of shape about. Let's look at the billions wasted by various departments and agencies.
oh boy!!!
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:29 pm

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 33):
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 House provide some benefit, especially for visiting foreign dignitaries. But the first lady has no real use apart from some PR. I'd say any spending of more than $100-200K per year on her is over-extravagant.

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 to identify if the benefits provided by the office as total or individual position are in proportion to their costs does not mean they are not justifiable. I do not have that level of information for NSA or any of the other examples I gave either. To me it means I am not qualified to have an opinion on it. Based on your statements it should mean close all of them.

Can share how you identified 100-200k USD as the cost justifiable for the benefit provided. (FYI. Upper case K is temperature in Kelvin. Lower case k is kilo)

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 35):
the government is there to provided required services, much like your electric utility company. Would you not be upset if the wife of the CEO of your electric company were to receive a fat expense account paid by your utility bills for her to run off to Spain or NYC with her friends? I know I would be. If the CEO wants to pay for that out of his own pocket, that's fine.

Suggest you read up on who paid what on that trip to Spain. Then compare the policies with those of many publicly traded companies.

The underlying suggestion that government employees and their families should suspend their lives seems to be opposite our society goals.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:43 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):

But there has always been identifiable benefits of the office so what is that part of your argument about?

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, after you've maxed out your credit cards you continue to spend. But we have to stop it.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:10 pm

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 38):
Ummm, hello!

Seen a company stage events even while making losses? You can't save yourself out of problems. You need to spend wisely.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9816
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:42 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 39):
Seen a company stage events even while making losses? You can't save yourself out of problems. You need to spend wisely.

$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 should be stuck in a closet, but the only time she should be traveling on the taxpayers' dime is she is hitching a ride with her husband, the POTUS. This recent trend of them traveling separately is BS. If she wants to travel separately, she can fly Delta.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:14 am

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 40):

$XXX,XXX on multiple Air Force jets to send the First Lady and her friends on a shopping trip to Spain is wisely spent?

According to Secret Service it was. B.t.w. I thought it was vacation....

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 40):
I'm not saying that she should be stuck in a closet, but the only time she should be traveling on the taxpayers' dime is she is hitching a ride with her husband, the POTUS. This recent trend of them traveling separately is BS. If she wants to travel separately, she can fly Delta.

What separate travel are you talking about?

All official travel should be paid by the Executive Office. If the President is there or not does not matter.

As to private travel they do pay for it. How it actually takes place is out of their hands.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:06 am

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 40):
I'm not saying that she should be stuck in a closet, but the only time she should be traveling on the taxpayers' dime is she is hitching a ride with her husband, the POTUS. This recent trend of them traveling separately is BS. If she wants to travel separately, she can fly Delta.


Dreadnought.........you just gave me a GREAT idea; let's lock her up in a closet for the next 11 months, and our problems are over ! Here's another great idea......Instead of Delta.....ever hear of "Broomstick Airlines"?

[quote=cmf,reply=41]
All official travel should be paid by the Executive Office. If the President is there or not does not matter.

Here's the problem with that idea; who gets to decide which "travel" is "official" and which is "un-official" ? I can guarantee you, everything Michelle decides to do will be "official" !

As to private travel they do pay for it. How it actually takes place is out of their hands.

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 "out of pocket", he'd have a harder time coming up with receipts than he has coming up with a legitimate BIRTH CERTIFICATE ! ( I would be willing to bet that he doesn't even buy his own golf balls ! )

But let's quit quibbling over "nickels and dimes"...........let's talk "real money"........like maybe $ 500,000,000 U.S. taxpayer bucks ! Out the window, down the drain ! On a cockymaime "green" company, run by a bunch of clowns / idiots, trying to make "something" out of "nothing", (which here-to-fore no one else has ever yet been able to do), but good old Barry can just "wish" impossible things to happen, and they're just supposed to happen ! Or hadn't you heard about Solyndra yet ?

Let me point something else out..........

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):
The underlying suggestion that government employees and their families should suspend their lives seems to be opposite our society goals

No one has mentioned anything about anyone "suspending" their lives; Let me ask you something........why is it when someone suggests ANYTHING that will benefit our military, our present "potus" always thinks it's "too expensive"; yet he is just hunky-dory with Michelle blowing a million point 3 on a bunch of "Deputy Executive Assistant Chief Assistant Vice Wanna-Be to the Chief Assistant to the Chief of .........the laundry ! (or something like that) Yet, when poor George Bush took Laura back to Crawford for 2 weeks, stayed in his OWN house, paid his OWN light bill, and his OWN water bill.......he's practically un-American ! And I would love to have you explain why any taxpayer being upset over all the countless MILLIONS Michelle has cost us in 3 short years, has anything to do with being "opposite to our society's goals" I think I'm part of "society", and my "goal" is to get RID of that EIGHT TRILLION dollars of red ink this guy has created in 3 short years. ( I had no idea I was gonna tell anyone what my "goals" are ! )

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 36):
Stop chasing the PENNYS and skipping over the DOLLARS.

Pennies huh ? Maybe you should come back in about 3 or 4 years and explain to all the senior citizens why their Medeicare insurance has gone from 90 bucks a month to over 225 !

Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:53 pm

Quoting geezer (Reply 42):
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 "out of pocket", he'd have a harder time coming up with receipts than he has coming up with a legitimate BIRTH CERTIFICATE ! ( I would be willing to bet that he doesn't even buy his own golf balls ! )

That they are paying for their private travel. Absolutely. Just as they are paying their groceries too. It is established policy over many administrations. As for most things, it takes a bit of knowledge to have an informed opinion.

Quoting geezer (Reply 42):
Or hadn't you heard about Solyndra yet ?

Sure I know about it. Support the basic idea and think it went wrong from there. What is your position on the basic idea?

Quoting geezer (Reply 42):
No one has mentioned anything about anyone "suspending" their lives

Sure they have. All the suggestions they should not do this or that because they are paid from tax dollars while finding it absolutely fine that people employed in private industry do it.

Quoting geezer (Reply 42):
why is it when someone suggests ANYTHING that will benefit our military, our present "potus" always thinks it's "too expensive"; yet he is just hunky-dory with Michelle blowing a million point 3 on a bunch of "Deputy Executive Assistant Chief Assistant Vice Wanna-Be to the Chief Assistant to the Chief of .........the laundry

Since you have established a position on it why don't you tell us. From what I know your statement about "ANYTHING" is false.

Quoting geezer (Reply 42):
he's practically un-American

Is he? Who said that?

Quoting geezer (Reply 42):
And I would love to have you explain why any taxpayer being upset over all the countless MILLIONS Michelle has cost us in 3 short years, has anything to do with being "opposite to our society's goals"

No-one should have an opinion on the money spent until they understand how and why it was spent. So far I have seen a lot of uneducated and blatantly incorrect claims. If you don't know then get educated before making claims. That is why I have stated I have no opinion on if it is well spent money instead of claiming it is a waste of millions. No opinion does not mean I think it is well spent money. Seems that needs to be clarified.

As to the society goals. The double standards as to how civil servants should live because they are paid from tax money compared to people paid from private industry is just that, double standards. If it is OK for a company to pay for the CEO's and relatives security then why isn't it OK for the government to do it? Doesn't mean I support how everything is done. Does mean I apply same rules.

Quoting geezer (Reply 42):
I think I'm part of "society", and my "goal" is to get RID of that EIGHT TRILLION dollars of red ink this guy has created in 3 short years. ( I had no idea I was gonna tell anyone what my "goals" are ! )

I think that is a great goal. Fully support it. Have complained about dept for as long as I can remember. Not just for the dept added during Obama's administration but for all dept added before too. Suggestion for interesting data. Look up when dept has historically been created and when budgets have been balanced. It is not what most people think.

I was against invading Iraq. That alone would saved us how many hundred times the cost of the First Lady's Office? But that is history. Sadly we are paying interest on that dept that is several times the the First Lady's Office.

You mentioned the military. Why does US need to spend 43% of the worlds total military spend? There is a lot of money to save.

Closer to the cost of the First Lady;s office. Why are we looking at buying 3 planes to replace the two 747s currently assigned to Presidential transport? Why do we need 800 people for the Marine One fleet?

I am not saying those should be chopped. I am saying those are better places to start looking for savings.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: Retirement Pay For Presidents, Congress, Etc.

Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:28 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
Sure I know about it. Support the basic idea and think it went wrong from there. What is your position on the basic idea?

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 affective" solar power for a very long time now, and it is still no where near to becoming cost affective; in other words, it costs far too much to create, to have any chance of becoming competitive with other types of energy.........which is precisely why Solyndra is a half-billion dollar "boondoggle" of the taxpayer's money. You mentioned something about "I should become educated before I make opinions" ( or something along those lines ) I would suggest that my "perceived lack of education" ( your perception ) cost the taxpayers nothing; while the total lack of common sense (on the part of Obama, ( who I doubt you ever question ), just cost all of us 500 million dollars. ( As in one half billion, FYI )

You can make all of the snide remarks you want to about people abbreviating "thousands" with an upper case K, thereby saving a few key strokes, but I would note.........( "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks" )
I would point out, your grammar, and your overall typing does not reflect as being from some one who excelled in English class. ( I wouldn't have pointed that out had you not complained about the "Ks" )

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
Sure they have. All the suggestions they should not do this or that because they are paid from tax dollars while finding it absolutely fine that people employed in private industry do it.

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by all of that......I take it that you feel taxpayers have no "right" to question what "government" does with their tax dollars ? Be cause, "private industry" does this, that, or "something" ?

First, YOU need to grasp the big difference between the two; I learned somewhere about 7th grade, that "tax dollars" come from "tax payers", who are........everyone! ( except for crooks and so-on, who don't pay any taxes )
I also learned, that "private industry" is exactly what the name implies....."private" ! Kinda like you neighbor has a swimming pool, you don't like swimming pools, your neighbor tells you.......so don't build one; meanwhile.....don't tell me what I can do in MY yard ! Something like that. It almost seems that you are "questioning the education" of the wrong person.

So......the answer to your question is........public expenditures of funds are just that.....Public.....paid for by "the people"
If General Motors wants to waste buku $$$$ on some silly "plug-in" car, that's THEIR business; (and their share holders, of which I'm not one ) but the minute they start "feeding at the PUBLIC trough, ( like they did recently ), then they are spending my "dimes", and I have a say in it. That's not so hard to understand now is it ?

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
Since you have established a position on it why don't you tell us. From what I know your statement about "ANYTHING" is false.

In this context, "ANYTHING" could refer to "any one" of the hundreds, even thousands of programs having to do with the defense of this country, the United States of America. Which are really too numerous to mention. which one would you like to discuss ? ( Obama seems to be against all of them )

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
Is he? Who said that?

I think you are referring to George W. Bush here; as from "who said that"..........this post is too long already......if I answered that question accurately, it would be several thousand pages longer ! Let's just say, "the radical left", hundreds of times each day, every day, all day, ( and they haven't stopped yet ! )

In summary.............you seem to "have no opinions", citing lack of knowledge in every case; yet you disagree with everything I say, ( and am willing to explain ), as well as many others on this forum that are mostly far better educated than I am. At the same time, you attempt to call others "un-educated"; being uneducated is a temporary condition.....it CAN be corrected; all it takes is some study; ( If you'd like, I'll recommend a few things to study. )

Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WarRI1 and 9 guests