Obama and Democrats, take note !!

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
R

Richard L

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
8,432
Reaction score
11
Location
Waco, TX
The Dutch King has announced the end of the Nietherland's Welfare State, and ushers in the new "Participation State"



http://www.mail.com/business/finance/2338388-dutch-king-goodbye-to-welfare.html#.23140-stage-hero1-2



Like Margaret Thatcher once said..."Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money".



...Rich
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I applaud getting rid of the Welfare State but I also see the irony in a king telling people to quit mooching.



"There are 2 kinds of people that I can't stand: people who are intolerant of other peoples' culture...and the Dutch!" <-Nigel Powers (Austin Powers: Goldmember).
 
You can't suck at the teat of government. The government produces no milk. So if we're using that analogy, whose teat is sucked?



I just got a whopping bonus check. I was allowed to keep $370 of the $610 (that's 40% taxed). I work retail (read, not rich) and my nipples are sore! At least I can consider myself in the upper half of Americans lucky enough to be so wealthy as to pay taxes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm rich and gotta pay my fair share.



150 federal, 40 state, 50 FICA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, even the King took a pay cut...only about 3%, but it's a start?



I may sound extreme that the royal perks cost the Dutch taxpayers about $40 Million a year. But if you look at the cost of the perks and security for the US President and family, I don't think there is that much difference?



I don't think the United States will ever eliminate the Welfare State, but I am sure that more cuts in welfare will come in time....as soon as Obama and the Democrats are out of office.



...Rich
 
Romney and Obama both spent over $1 Billion (with a B) each on the last election. If you include all the losers in the non-incumbent's party each election, with some years having primaries for both parties; then look at gubernatorial, congressional, all they way down to your local sheriff and coroner - a democracy costs a lot more than a lot of other governments just to choose who's in charge.



I know that's not technically "tax-payer" money directly, but we do pay for the actual election, collection and counting, etc.



I don't think our founding fathers envisioned the cost of government. We need reforms on elections, taxes, the judicial system, all walks of government. It's a hefty price tag to pay; especially when you rarely get what you paid for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Dutch king only costs the Dutch people 40 million/year?! It would take him 2 & 1/2 years to spend what obama spent on his recent African Safari. Compared to our king the Dutch one is downright thrifty.



 
KL,

Yep! and the Dutch King even took a pay cut....Not much of a pay cut, but nevertheless, it was a pay cut



Now if we can get Obama, Congress and the Senate to take a pay cut, we might be moving in the right direction:grin:



...Rich
 
Interesting side note: I checked and found that US Senators and Congressmen are paid a salary of about $174K per year.....AND THEY GET THAT'S FOR LIFE????



Let's put term limits on Senators and Congressmen to no more than 2 terms and eliminate retirement pay and perks...or at least reduce it down a more realistic level that they would get if they worked for a civilian company for the same amount of years. If they worded for a civilian company, half of them would probably never be fully vested in the retirement plan.



Some Congressmen and Senators complain that they must maintain two homes, one in Washington and one in their home districts. So, let them pay out of their own pockets for an apartment or house in Washington...You know they are using that as a huge tax write off anyway.



There was even some complaints that Congressmen where not renting any housing while in Washington, and actually just sleeping in their offices. Some had installed hid-a-bed sofas and even refrigerators, microwaves, and hot-plates for cooking? They should not be allowed to use their government offices as a residence.



I don't object to the salary they get, but the pensions and perks the Senators and Congressmen are getting is way too much and it's all at the tax payer's expense! Who gets a 100% salary for life after only serving for 4 years??



...Rich



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting side note: I checked and found that US Senators and Congressmen are paid a salary of about $174K per year.....AND THEY GET THAT'S FOR LIFE????
Click to expand...



No, they don't get their full salary for life. The rules governing the retirement benefits of the Vice President, Cabinet members, members of Congress and other federal officials are different than those that apply to the President, with benefits laid-out in the rules of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Thus, their retirement benefits (including pensions) will vary from individual to individual, depending on factors such as years of service.



The following paragraph excerpted from the Congressional Research Service PDF document called Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress by Patrick J. Purcell [CRS Report RL30631] provides some idea of how much the pensions are for former Vice Presidents, Cabinet members, members of Congress and other federal officials. It provides averages for annual pensions given to retired members of Congress.



<a href="http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf

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

</a>



"As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
traintrac,

I guess it depends upon which website you go to for the information. The first link you quoted does not exist?? I get error 404?



The second link appears to be valid but does not give the complete facts.



The first website I went to (don't recall which site) but they claimed they get their salary for life? I had my doubts about that part myself.



The second site I have listed below says that pensions vary by the number of years of service and their highest salary. They can collect starting at age 62 and based on years of service and cost of living increases, their pensions can easily reach or exceed their original salary.



In addition to their salary, they are also given allowances for office furniture and supplies, as well as up to $168K for salaries for their staff members...many of whom are unpaid Pages.



...Rich



 
...somehow I have the feeling that the Founders intended public service to not be a paying career by itself as when these people don't have to work other jobs they don't know what the "real world" is like and cannot represent it. I don't think that they should get paid at all. It's not a job (and why do we have so many politicians today who have never had real jobs?).



Of course, if they didn't get paid then I bet we'd see them abuse their power further to amass wealth, like H. Clinton or Harry Reid did (*do*). Then again, getting paid isn't stopping that abuse so...



"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" <- Harry S. Truman (the poorest US president)
 
KL,

I agree with you 100%....although I do not object to Politicians getting paid. I don't think that how much one gets paid has any bearing on the larceny in their heart. Wealthy people steal too, but their justifications may be different. Some politicians run for office for the Power-Trip and not the money.



I think that there should be term limits and that if you were an elected official, you may not run for reelection to any political position for at least 2 years, or perhaps longer? Also, politicians should be barred for campaigning for any office while they are still in an elected position. ie: "Governors, Senators, or Congressmen running for President, etc". This would be a bigger deterrent for those politicians who are seeking a Power rush.



To reduce the crooks in office, we need to have a very strict code of conduct for elected officials which requires them to not engage in any conduct that may be considered a breach of public trust. That means that Politicians should not position themselves where anyone might question their intent. ie: "No gifts or perks from outside interest groups. No hidden bank accounts. No private meetings or under the table negotiations, and NO Lies...ever!"



US Military Justice has a few "Catch-all" laws that do not apply to the rest of the American Public. They are: "Actions, unbecoming an Officer/NCO, or Soldier". This law is often invoked in conjunction with some other violation of the UCMJ but is a catch-all when they can't find any other military law that applies. Why can't we have a law that applies to all elected or appointed government officials like "Actions unbecoming a Government official", or "Breach of Public Trust"? And if convicted, Jail time and hefty fines are mandatory and you cannot be pardoned by any other elected official, including the President.



In the case of Richard Nixon, he resigned from office to avoid Impeachment, but he still should have been put on trial for participating and protecting a conspiracy, as well as breach of public trust.



...Rich



 
Sometimes I wonder if, had he lived long enough, Nixon would have wondered why he resigned when subsequent presidents have done far, far worse and have stayed in office. Nixon was reasonably contrite concerning his scandal while #42 & #44 gloat and taunt us with their scandals.

Never vote for an Incumbent or Democrat.....Clean House.....
Click to expand...

Oh no, we can't do that, Senator McCain said that if we do that then the Senate will forget what it was doing, and so we need low turnover to maintain a "corporate memory" or whatever (sarcasm). :banghead:
 
I used to like McCain as a moderate Republican, now I am not so sure. Some of his recent statements lately make me wonder if his next run for the Senate or President will be as Democrat??



...Rich
 

Latest posts

Top