people are pissed off

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,854
660
113
50
TX
The tyrant Obama is finally seeing his Communist agenda blow up right in his face. We are pissed off and we are not going to take it any more. Glad to see democracy in action, hopefully the Chicago thugs see that its not going to work nationwide. :00hour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

President Obama supporters and protestors gather outside the Phoenix Convention AP ? President Obama supporters and protestors gather outside the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Monday, ?

* President Barack Obama Slideshow:president Barack Obama
* Gun carrying protester: 'exercising my rights' Play Video Video:Gun carrying protester: 'exercising my rights' AP
* Obama concession on public option draws critics Play Video Video:Obama concession on public option draws critics AP

By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG, Associated Press Writers Amanda Lee Myers And Terry Tang, Associated Press Writers ? Mon Aug 17, 6:22 pm ET

PHOENIX ? About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday ? the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.

Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.

"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."

Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.

"It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."

Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested.

Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.

"When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication."

He said he's never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. "The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation," he said.

Phoenix was Obama's last stop on a four-day tour of western states, including Montana and Colorado.

Authorities in Montana said they received no reports of anyone carrying firearms during Obama's health care town hall near Bozeman on Friday. About 1,000 people both for and against Obama converged at a protest area near the Gallatin Field Airport hangar where the event took place. One person accused of disorderly conduct was detained and released, according to the Gallatin Airport Authority.

Heather Benjamin of Denver's Mesa County sheriff's department, the lead agency during Obama's visit there, said no one was arrested.

Arizona is an "open-carry" state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it's visible. Only someone carrying a concealed weapon is required to have a permit.

Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.:shrug: why not he is the one who needs to get the message we are not screwing around

"To me, this is craziness," he said. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone."

He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he said.

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.

"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
Attorney: FBI trained NJ blogger to incite others

Aug 18 03:51 PM US/Eastern
By KATIE NELSON

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A New Jersey blogger facing charges in two states for allegedly making threats against lawmakers and judges was trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative, his attorney said Tuesday.
Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an "agent provocateur" and was taught by the agency "what he could say that wouldn't be crossing the line," defense attorney Michael Orozco said.


"His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest," Orozco said.

Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.

"But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever," Orozco said.

Special Agent Ross Rice, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he would not comment on or even confirm Turner's relationship with the FBI.

Orozco spoke to reporters after a court hearing in Hartford on Tuesday. Turner, 47, of North Bergen, N.J., did not appear, because he is in federal custody in Illinois. His arraignment on the Connecticut charges was rescheduled to Oct. 19.

In June, Turner urged his readers to "take up arms" against Connecticut lawmakers and suggested government officials should "obey the Constitution or die," because he was angry over legislation?later withdrawn?that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches more control over their parish's finances. :scared

He wrote in Internet postings the same month that the Illinois federal appeals judges "deserve to be killed" because they issued a ruling that upheld ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park banning handguns. He included their photos and the room numbers of their chambers at the courthouse. :scared

Orozco officially joined Turner's defense team in the Connecticut case on Tuesday, with approval from Superior Court Judge David Gold. Orozco said his Newark, N.J.-based firm has been representing Turner for the past five years, including during his FBI informant years.

Turner's Connecticut attorney, Matthew R. Potter, said it's too early to tell which trial will move forward first. Orozco said he plans First Amendment defenses in both cases.

Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, said the office would not comment on Orozco's statements.

.............................................................


He sounds alot like you hedge

yikers :scared
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
The plan realisticlly had no chance from the start.
(I was against it).Really is not big news Hedge,unless your a over the top liberal.

Does not mean that some form of countrywide healthplan is not planned,approved,which both sides like.

I can see the liberals now :scared
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
If you think that you can stop 14,000 a day from losing insurance coverage or stop 60% of bankruptcies from medical debt or stop 100 million dollar CEO golden parachutes. Insurance companies make a profit by not giving you what you paid for.

How can you have health care reform when the cows are in favor of the slaughterhouse?
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
The tyrant Obama is finally seeing his Communist agenda blow up right in his face. We are pissed off and we are not going to take it any more. Glad to see democracy in action, hopefully the Chicago thugs see that its not going to work nationwide. :00hour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

President Obama supporters and protestors gather outside the Phoenix Convention AP ? President Obama supporters and protestors gather outside the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Monday, ?

* President Barack Obama Slideshow:president Barack Obama
* Gun carrying protester: 'exercising my rights' Play Video Video:Gun carrying protester: 'exercising my rights' AP
* Obama concession on public option draws critics Play Video Video:Obama concession on public option draws critics AP

By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG, Associated Press Writers Amanda Lee Myers And Terry Tang, Associated Press Writers ? Mon Aug 17, 6:22 pm ET

PHOENIX ? About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday ? the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.

Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.

"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."

Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.

"It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."

Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested.

Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.

"When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication."

He said he's never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. "The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation," he said.

Phoenix was Obama's last stop on a four-day tour of western states, including Montana and Colorado.

Authorities in Montana said they received no reports of anyone carrying firearms during Obama's health care town hall near Bozeman on Friday. About 1,000 people both for and against Obama converged at a protest area near the Gallatin Field Airport hangar where the event took place. One person accused of disorderly conduct was detained and released, according to the Gallatin Airport Authority.

Heather Benjamin of Denver's Mesa County sheriff's department, the lead agency during Obama's visit there, said no one was arrested.

Arizona is an "open-carry" state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it's visible. Only someone carrying a concealed weapon is required to have a permit.

Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.:shrug: why not he is the one who needs to get the message we are not screwing around

"To me, this is craziness," he said. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone."

He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he said.

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.

"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."

I really missed this place the last few days.
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,854
660
113
50
TX
Attorney: FBI trained NJ blogger to incite others

Aug 18 03:51 PM US/Eastern
By KATIE NELSON

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A New Jersey blogger facing charges in two states for allegedly making threats against lawmakers and judges was trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative, his attorney said Tuesday.
Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an "agent provocateur" and was taught by the agency "what he could say that wouldn't be crossing the line," defense attorney Michael Orozco said.


"His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest," Orozco said.

Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.

"But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever," Orozco said.

Special Agent Ross Rice, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he would not comment on or even confirm Turner's relationship with the FBI.

Orozco spoke to reporters after a court hearing in Hartford on Tuesday. Turner, 47, of North Bergen, N.J., did not appear, because he is in federal custody in Illinois. His arraignment on the Connecticut charges was rescheduled to Oct. 19.

In June, Turner urged his readers to "take up arms" against Connecticut lawmakers and suggested government officials should "obey the Constitution or die," because he was angry over legislation?later withdrawn?that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches more control over their parish's finances. :scared

He wrote in Internet postings the same month that the Illinois federal appeals judges "deserve to be killed" because they issued a ruling that upheld ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park banning handguns. He included their photos and the room numbers of their chambers at the courthouse. :scared

Orozco officially joined Turner's defense team in the Connecticut case on Tuesday, with approval from Superior Court Judge David Gold. Orozco said his Newark, N.J.-based firm has been representing Turner for the past five years, including during his FBI informant years.

Turner's Connecticut attorney, Matthew R. Potter, said it's too early to tell which trial will move forward first. Orozco said he plans First Amendment defenses in both cases.

Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, said the office would not comment on Orozco's statements.

.............................................................


He sounds alot like you hedge

yikers :scared

I have never threatened anyone, ever. you are wrong about me. I just like the fact people are pissed off and using their Constitutional rights before Obama takes them away from us. Do I advocate senseless killings because I don't agree with them, HELL NO.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
August 19, 2009
Prof: Health care ?rationing? not as scary as it sounds
Posted: 10:29 AM ET
John Roberts - Anchor, CNN's American Morning
Filed under: Commentary ? Health ? Politics
In the debate over health care reform, we keep hearing the word ?rationing.? For Republicans, it?s been one of the top talking points. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) said, ??rationing is underlying all of this. ?If you don?t get health care when you need it, you know, ultimately it?s going to affect your life.?

Prof. Peter Singer says rationing is already happening in private health insurance companies.
Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University, says rationing isn?t as scary as it sounds. He joined John Roberts on CNN?s ?American Morning? Wednesday.

John Roberts: When you talk about rationing health care, what specifically is it that you mean?

Peter Singer: Firstly, it?s the public part of health care that I?m talking about. I?m not talking about stopping people paying for whatever they can afford to pay for or paying for whatever extra insurance they can pay for. But if you have public funds going for something, you want and the taxpayer wants to get good value for that public funds.

So that means you?re going to have to say, look, at the margins, if there?s a very expensive new treatment or new drug that perhaps doesn?t do any good anyway ? perhaps there?s no good scientific studies that show it?s going to help you significantly ? we?re not going to provide that. We?re going to say, we want to get a certain standard of value for money, just like you would if you?re shopping at the supermarket. That?s rationing.


Roberts: Rationing goes on all the time, in the corporate world, it goes on in our personal lives. It?s sort of a cost-benefit analysis ? is it worth spending the money on this? Why is rationing such a dirty word when it comes to health care? Is it because people want this care and they can?t get access to it?

Singer: I suppose people are reasonably worried about the idea that their doctor may say to them, ?This is something that?s good, but you can?t get it. You can?t afford it.? But, of course, we have a health care system where there?s 45 million uninsured Americans who can?t get it. There?s also people on Medicare and Medicaid who know they can?t get everything because they have quite high co-pays they can?t afford. So we?re already rationing health care and in a way that I think is not the best way because it means there are really effective treatments that could make a big difference to people and they can?t afford it. And we should change that.

Roberts: Kathleen Sebelius, the current HHS secretary, before she was the governor of Kansas was the state insurance commissioner. Talking about rationing, she says she ??saw [rationing] on a regular basis by private insurers, who often made decisions overruling suggestions that doctors would make for their patients.? We talk about rationing potentially in the framework of a public option when it comes to health insurance, but is it not true that rationing is already taking place?

Singer: Oh definitely it is. After I wrote the New York Times article, I had a letter from someone who had multiple sclerosis. And he was both a British citizen, but living in America. And he was saying there were treatments like physical therapy that he was denied by his private insurance company, which were very effective and helpful, that he could get for free on the British National Health Service.

Roberts: Talk about this idea of best practices, which President Obama has brought up several times in town hall meetings. It begs the question ? what is the price for a life? What price do we put on life? A Washington Times op-ed said, ?Rationing takes place when people want more health care than is available and thus cannot get the care they need.? Is it the care they need, Peter, or is it the care they want?

Singer: This is the problem that if you have a system where if somebody says ?Oh, I?ve heard of some treatment? or a doctor even says ?Maybe this could help you,? perhaps to give the patient some hope, but it?s an expensive treatment and there?s no really good evidence it?s going to do them any significant good, then there is a question as to whether we should be providing that treatment. It?s not the best use of our funds. That?s always the question. How do we most effectively use the money we have and the resources we have to improve people?s health?

Roberts: Again, back to this idea of it being in a public plan where there?s rationing. Is it not true there?s rationing in private health care plans right now? How many people have had arguments with a bureaucrat and a health care provider at a health insurance company who have said no, we?re not going to pay for that treatment?

Singer: Yes, absolutely. And that is rationing. In a way, the private insurance companies have to do that to keep their premiums down. If they don?t do that ? I mean their premiums are already rising ? but they?ll rise even faster than ever. And we?ll end up with bankrupt plans.

Roberts: The president keeps telling us that cost containment is one of the big must-haves when it comes to health care reform. The only way to get the deficits down, the overall debt down, is to reform health care. Where is the cost savings in rationing? Particularly if, and it?s not the case all the time, but we hear some of these horror stories about people who were denied care at the outset only to get it later but in that time the disease progressed to the point where it becomes so much more expensive to treat them.

Singer: Right. So there is a saving in providing the basic treatment for everyone. And then they?re not going to get to a situation where they don?t go see a doctor and things get worse. But another area of saving is in the costs of pharmaceuticals. We can see the same drug that we?re buying in the United States is on sale for much less money in Britain because the British National Health Service says we will not provide that at that price. So the drug manufacturer brings down the price for Britain but doesn?t bring it down for the United States. Because we still don?t have that kind of scheme of saying, sorry, that?s too expensive.

Roberts: The same thing just north of the border in Canada, which is why so many people go across the border. But we hear that the reason why the drug is so much more expensive in the United States is because the research money is needed to develop drugs like that.

Singer: Well, the drugs are being developed for everyone: Canadians, Britains, and Americans. If the drug companies can sell them for less money across the border, they can sell them for less money here.

......................................................
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
I have never threatened anyone, ever. you are wrong about me. I just like the fact people are pissed off and using their Constitutional rights before Obama takes them away from us. Do I advocate senseless killings because I don't agree with them, HELL NO.
............................................................

nice save hedgy

OUTSIDE NOW !
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
Democratic investigators target health insurers
Tags:Health Care,

House Democrats are probing the nation?s largest insurance companies for lavish spending, demanding reams of compensation data and schedules of retreats and conferences. :scared

Letters sent to 52 insurance companies by Democratic leaders demand extensive documents for an examination of ?extensive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry.? The letters set a deadline of Sept. 14 for the documents.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, signed the three-page letter dated Monday.

An industry source replied when asked for comment: ?This is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded fishing expedition designed to silence health plans."

By Sept. 4, the firms are supposed to supply detailed compensation data for board members and top executives, as well as a ?table listing all conferences, retreats, or other events held outside company facilities from January 1, 2007, to the present that were paid for, reimbursed, or subsidized in whole or in part by your company.?

For employees or officers making $500,000 or more, the committee wants information on salary, bonus, options and pension.

And by Sept. 14, the firms are supposed to provide copies of reports from compensation consultants, plus board drafts of compensation plans and information about market share
...................................................................

Why go back 2 years .

Why not go back 20 years.

The figures that these companies have given to their friends will be astounding.

why has this gone on so long

the neocons are silent dark and deep

Republicans squirm in their seats.

They know these people

They have been to the resorts

They have recieved free gifts at every turn

:scared :scared :sadwave:
 
Last edited:

Wilson

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,426
10
0
1813 Virginia St
Attorney: FBI trained NJ blogger to incite others

Aug 18 03:51 PM US/Eastern
By KATIE NELSON

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A New Jersey blogger facing charges in two states for allegedly making threats against lawmakers and judges was trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative, his attorney said Tuesday.
Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an "agent provocateur" and was taught by the agency "what he could say that wouldn't be crossing the line," defense attorney Michael Orozco said.


"His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest," Orozco said.

Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.

"But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever," Orozco said.

Special Agent Ross Rice, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he would not comment on or even confirm Turner's relationship with the FBI.

Orozco spoke to reporters after a court hearing in Hartford on Tuesday. Turner, 47, of North Bergen, N.J., did not appear, because he is in federal custody in Illinois. His arraignment on the Connecticut charges was rescheduled to Oct. 19.

In June, Turner urged his readers to "take up arms" against Connecticut lawmakers and suggested government officials should "obey the Constitution or die," because he was angry over legislation?later withdrawn?that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches more control over their parish's finances. :scared

He wrote in Internet postings the same month that the Illinois federal appeals judges "deserve to be killed" because they issued a ruling that upheld ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park banning handguns. He included their photos and the room numbers of their chambers at the courthouse. :scared

Orozco officially joined Turner's defense team in the Connecticut case on Tuesday, with approval from Superior Court Judge David Gold. Orozco said his Newark, N.J.-based firm has been representing Turner for the past five years, including during his FBI informant years.

Turner's Connecticut attorney, Matthew R. Potter, said it's too early to tell which trial will move forward first. Orozco said he plans First Amendment defenses in both cases.

Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, said the office would not comment on Orozco's statements.

.............................................................


He sounds alot like you hedge

yikers :scared


:scared
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
Scott article.... "House Democrats are probing the nation?s largest insurance companies for lavish spending, demanding reams of compensation data and schedules of retreats and conferences. "

How'd that work with their Wall Street cronies?
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
Subject: Social Security 2009

2010 is an election year for 1/3 of the senate and 1/2 of the house of representatives. It would be nice if congress got the message; the voting taxpayers are in charge now.

Social Security 2009

Propose this in 2009:

START A BILL TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SOCIAL SECURITY:

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 own benefit plan. :SIB

In more recent years, no congress person 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 living adjustments. ..... :shrug:

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.
:scared
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 average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal 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!

.................................................................

Good idea
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Not sure why anyone is pissed. There just was election and so many voted for change. Where were all these folks that day. To busy.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top