Social Security Politicians

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:16 am

WHY WAIT UNTIL 2008? THERE IS AN ELECTION IN 2006. I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2006.

LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER" AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!

KEEP IT GOING!!!!

2008 Election Issue!!

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.

This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.

----------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY:

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their ownbenefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all! , it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of li living adjustments..

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA..! ZILCH...

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK "!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer). we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our ave! rage of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equa l Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to:

Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us

then sit back.....

and see how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people CANyou send this to?

Better yet.....

JayDee · Post by **JayDee** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:29 am

Well, that's a good plan they voted for themselves. I thought the pension plan the UK Members of Parliament voted for themselves was obscene enough, but they are truly amateurs compared to your esteemed lot!

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:19 am

Nomad, you get my full support. In fact I've been supporting you since I came of voting age. I only just found out.

Alas, not enough people care about politics to actually do anything about it other than talk (if they can even run to that).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 13, 2006 1:59 pm

I'd rather do away with social security altogether, but this is a pretty good alternative.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat May 13, 2006 2:15 pm

Accountable wrote: I'd rather do away with social security altogether, but this is a pretty good alternative.

Having a safety net is a good idea as we can all fall off the rung sometimes. Though I would arrange it so it wasn't so easy for people to milk it.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat May 13, 2006 4:57 pm

These guys we keep voting in are reprehensible. Sharks really. Fool me twice fool you once fool them too. :wah: The pres said it better.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:00 pm

OpenMind wrote: Having a safety net is a good idea as we can all fall off the rung sometimes. Though I would arrange it so it wasn't so easy for people to milk it.We have several safety nets. The biggest is spelled w-e-l-f-a-r-e and catches everybody. Social Security is unecessary.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:04 pm

Nomad wrote: These guys we keep voting in are reprehensible. Sharks really. Fool me twice fool you once fool them too. :wah: The pres said it better.Yup. I don't get why people like Kennedy, Byrd, and Frist keep getting voted in over and over again. I say a good rule of thumb is 2 terms max. After 2 terms, the politicians forget that they're supposed to represent the people - if they ever thought that, that is. :-5

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 14, 2006 3:31 am

Diuretic wrote: What's the difference between social security and welfare?When people hit hard times they can register for welfare. I'm not certain of all the red tape, but the result is coupons we call food stamps they can use in the supermarket like cash. There are other benefits, but I'm not expert in the area.

Social Security was set up at the end of the Great Depression to help pay for the elderly's retirement. A separate tax is taken from our income, theoretically to pay directly to old people. We pay for our old; our kids pay for us is the way it's supposed to go. Unfortunately SS took in more money than it paid out, which of course prompted politicians to find other ways to spend it. Politicians are sworn enemies of money, and try to get rid of as much of it as possible.

People now think SS is some kind of retirement plan. It was never meant to be so, only a supplement. Panic is setting in because the baby boomers are getting to retirement age and there won't be enough money to go round.

I'm certain the better-read of the Garden will patch any inaccuracies.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun May 14, 2006 6:12 am

Accountable wrote: Yup. I don't get why people like Kennedy, Byrd, and Frist keep getting voted in over and over again. I say a good rule of thumb is 2 terms max. After 2 terms, the politicians forget that they're supposed to represent the people - if they ever thought that, that is. :-5

I suppose the young ones go in full of fight and resolve and intentions to do well and make a difference. Ultimately I think what happens is the system bucks them. Theyre introduced to lobbyists and taken to nice lunches with peers. They learn about Ill give you this if you give me that. Eventualy it gets muddled and grey and we lose again. Egos personified.