Is this for real?? i just received this email from a friend who never sends junk emails - are the statements she is stating fact??? Please send this on to as many people in the USA as you can. You've got to read this all the way through to the bottom. 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 2008. LET US SHOW OUR L EADERS 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 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 pay day 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 bac k.... 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..... How many people WILL YOU????
Other that the first couple sentences, I didn't read your posting - too long, and too hard on my eyes. But my personal policy is, whenever I receive an email that says forward this to other people, I immediately delete it - no matter who sent it to me.
A friend of mine works for the SS department in Wilmington and I sent this to him last year and he told me that it wasn't true.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/retirement_for_members.shtml Is it true that . . . Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security and when they retire they receive a pension equal to their congressional salary for the rest of their life? The answer is no. All members of Congress pay Social Security taxes in the same amounts as they would if they were employed in the private sector at the same salary level. The amount of a congressional pension varies and depends on years of service, age at the time of retirement, and salary. The facts: The confusion about Social Security probably results from the fact that before 1984, Senators and Representatives did not participate in the Social Security program. Like all federal government employees at that time, members of Congress were covered by a pension plan, called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), that did not require payment of Social Security taxes and did not provide Social Security benefits. In 1983, Congress passed a law (P.L. 98-21) that required all federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. The law also required all members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal employees, called the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), which does coordinate a federal pension with Social Security. Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. They are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary. As of October 1, 2000, the average annual pension for members of Congress who have retired under CSRS is $52,464, and $46,932 for retirees under FERS-only or both FERS/CSRS. Read a report that provides more detail on retirement benefits for members of Congress. http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf
While the email may not be true Congress does have a very nice pension plan. CNN covered this during the talk on reform. One nice thing to notice is that they state the plan is better than the corporate executive plan. What about the common man? There is one that I know of that does nor participate in the lucrative pension plan. Hopefully he still is not in the same seat in 2009. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
I look forward to the day when there can be a discussion on or about politics where Ron Paul is not mentioned.
And replaced by someone who declares that the income tax is unconstitutional, even though it's right in the Constitution? Don't get me wrong, although I declare myself a conservative, I do lean far toward libertarian, and well believe in the libertarian philosophy. Be that as it may, though, I don't want a whacko in office, no matter what party they claim to be.
On first glance, it really does. I wonder how much the Congressmen have to pay into the system to collect. State employees have to "contribute" 6% of every paycheck into the Retirement system. Wonder if Congressmen percentages are higher or lower?
Dr. Ron Paul has a solid record and I would encourage you to find something from him that says the income tax is unconstitutional. here is a recent quote from him in 2006 Everything I have seen from him is that we can do without the income tax, which we can, but the main emphasis is the reduction in federal spending. No matter who is president it will be near impossible to get anything done as Congress is best at doing nothing. One thing I feel certain about with Ron Paul as president is the use of the veto to ensure liberties are not trampled while trying to get real reform done.
From his own words: Looking at some of his other quotes, he seems to use the word "unconstitutional" an awful lot. Personally I prefer a consuption (sales) tax, rather than an income tax. An income tax penalizes those who work hard and make good in the country. It also penalizes savings and investment. It'll never happen, but I do like the idea. As for Ron Paul, I still say he's a whacko. He looks at things in black and white. There is no grey area. If it's a tax, he'll vote against it, no matter what the purpose or need is. It's the same thing with all other policy. We don't need someone with that hard of a head, we already have one and he's not working out so well either.
Can not not compare him to the current president or the last one. Neither one had to use many vetoes, whiuch means that Congress is sending him his legislation. Pretty certain that with Dr. Paul as POTUS the veto usage would resume a closer to ideal level.
Better than the last two presidents making the legislation. I would rather have the legislation from 535 people than 1
