so, where do you start? with commentators opinions, ?

whose VIEWS, whose FACTS are valid enough?

in political threads, people post alot of opinions and inferences, I was going to a source which actually had the NUMBERS, and starting with an evaluation of people who actually went to school and make a living with such NUMBERS,,,(as opposed to news commentators and authors who have sometimes not been educated past high school)

I agree that the budget is a combined effort, but I prefer to educate myself at the source instead of taking joe schmoes word for everything,,,,

Gov. numbers can't be trusted.
They have been known to FUDGE the numbers in their favor.

yeah well if the person who is the SOURCE of the numbers cant be trusted,, who can?

As Will Rogers said during the Great Depression; if a bunch of idiots got us into this mess, why can't a bunch of idiots get us out of it.

All I can say is that it's time for a third party. Vote against any and every incumbent and it's time for TERM LIMITS on Congress. Oh yeah, if Obamacare is so good, then why aren't our representatives in Congress going on to it? Talk about duping already stupid voters!

If you don't think we have nothing but "career politicians", then tell me why they get retirement benefits when they leave Congress?

Not to worry though, we'll have the same issues and the same problems (certainly even worse) this time next year. Tired of all the problems? Quit voting for the "idiots"!

RE congress participation in reform:

To check Coburn's claim, we turned to page 158 of the health care bill Obama just signed -- the Senate version of the bill -- and here's what it says:

"The only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)."

The provision goes on: "The term 'Member of Congress' means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate... The term 'congressional staff' means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC."

The history of this provision deserves some attention. In the summer of 2009, when the lawmakers were in a heated debate over whether the health care bill should create the public option, a government-run health care plan, Coburn and his Republican colleague Charles Grassley argued that if Democrats were so keen on creating new health care programs, the president, administration officials, members of Congress and their staff should also be required to participate. Up until this point, members of Congress and their staff have been enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, which offers employees a stipend to cover the cost of their health insurance. Now, staff will use that subsidy to buy a plan through the exchange.

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee adopted a Coburn amendment that would have required lawmakers and their staff to enroll in the public option, while the Finance Committee incorporated a proposal by Grassley that would have required lawmakers and their staff to participate in the health insurance exchange.

Over the next couple of months, Senate leadership merged the two bills. The legislation that ended up on the floor included the above language.

RE: congressional pensions

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

Big problem.
MSM only sells losers.

I looked past the losers they advertised and wrote in Ron Paul.

I love how people "interpret" whatever they want from what is written.

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

Per the Congressional Research Service, the definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” — meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.

Everyone who saw this and understood what the "definitions" are, saw Obamacare was not to be intended for members of Congress. Senator Grassley saw the hole in the bill for Congressional members and tried to fix it to no avail. Anyone paying attention and actually saw through what the idiots did knows Congress is exempt from the bill.

It's the double-talk from the Democrats and the Republicans that makes for good argument and banter. Wise up to the disinformation!

Oh yeah, you think what I say is wrong? Do a check in 2016 and tell me how many members of Congress are on Obamacare. Gotta love Republicrats! Gotta love the people who blindly follow their song and dance routines even more!

the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–




congressional staff might not mean congressmen, but MEMBERS OF CONGRESS certainly would,,,,,,,

Just curious msharmony, where do you copy your "facts" from on Congressional heathcare and pensions? I am. I'm curious to know which Replublicrats actually write this stuff!

Oh yeah, you want to know what pensions ex Congress members get? Let's see their income tax returns. Yeah, like that's not some pipe dream!

oh, sorry about that
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm



when that happens, I usually copy the first sentence or two and do an advanced search on google for that text,, it pops right up,,,(thats how I found it again for my answer..lol)

I also found this

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.

at http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/retirement_for_members.shtml

Nice.



Well, then you'll LOVE their new campaign rally song! Well it's really just the same old song for the GOP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0

Where exactly do you get your numbers from then?

Fair and balanced, huh?

This is obviously a slam at the Obama 'Administration', and, as such, is SO out of line - why, they're doing a ... a ... < choke > < gag > ... a 'fine' ... I can't continue ... gotta throw up now ...

Weird, I can only find RW sites talking about this...seems that it'd be news by now....POX? Anyone? LOL.

THIS STORY IS A FAKE STORY....don't anybody buy into this crap...lol.

Say Anything!

WOW, I guess the As and Bs I got in American History were all a waste of my collegiate efforts!

A president may propose a budget but in reality congress sets their spending, not the president. If he did he could order and end to the Pork Barrel. Also the annual pension figures you got were WRONG! On top of the numbers being very lite Add in their health care, the additional benefits they receive under their special welfare system, as well as other things like a special ta exempt status for having "served" in our government. $52K a year??? Add another $50+K to the number and then add even more on top of that and you got the REAL picture. Hell, the president pensions out at close to $250K a year AND they get Secret Service protection too! Some of these retired congressmen also receive special "protections" too.

AndyBeGood wrote


"During the 1930s the Democratic President at the time began to raise taxes like crazy and likewise tried to throw money at the problem. He also tried Social Programs like the CCC which was a tremendous waste of money and regarded as a failure by historians and economists.,"


Forgive me for asking, but how could such a highly regarded history buff such as yourself fail to mention the right to work program which kept so many Americans from starving to death?

Actually you could view any of the Presidential candidates tax return. It's public information.

I typed the figures of the tax increase into my search engine and the first thing to come up was ," Republican Family Values,"
They don't sound at all biased do they?
This topic has become a forum of disinformation. I haven't seen a link from a major news orginization to support any of these claims such as Liberals to be hit with tax hikes, or that it's really banks that control the Securities Exchange Commission. I'm just glad I'm smart enough to realize when I'm listening to a load of crap. I'll be back to see if you negative Nancy's can provide a viable link to any of your proposterous accusations and verdicts, and if you can I'll weigh it against the wealth of information provided by respectable journalist. As of yet, however, nobody has fulfilled the burden of proof required to change my mind.
Bye suckas.