I guess that could go for the Presidential candidates as well...do you really want to get my attention? I want to know why no one is talking about lowering the salaries for members of Congress?
I looked up some statistics. According to Ask.com:
______________________
•From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.
The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400
A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.
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.
(FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security, and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Two of the three parts of FERS (Social Security and the TSP) can go with you to your next job if you leave the Federal Government before retirement. The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions. Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life.
The TSP part of FERS is an account that your agency automatically sets up for you. Each pay period your agency deposits into your account amount equal to 1% of the basic pay you earn for the pay period. You can also make your own contributions to your TSP account and your agency will also make a matching contribution. These contributions are tax-deferred. The Thrift Savings Plan is administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.)
(The Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) is a defined benefit, contributory retirement system. Employees share in the expense of the annuities to which they become entitled. CSRS covered employees contribute 7, 7 1/2 or 8 percent of pay to CSRS and, while they generally pay no Social Security retirement, survivor and disability (OASDI) tax, they must pay the Medicare tax (currently 1.45 percent of pay). The employing agency matches the employee's CSRS contributions.
CSRS employees may increase their earned annuity by contributing up to 10 percent of the basic pay for their creditable service to a voluntary contribution account. Employees may also contribute a portion of pay to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). There is no Government contribution, but the employee contributions are tax-deferred. For more information about TSP, see the TSP website.)
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 congressman'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.
According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. 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.
______________________
I have to admit some of that surprised me, but it's still more than the average (I thought it was more retirement.)
In a nut shell, of those Congressmen already retired, the average retirement is $48,462.
It also says that they're not supposed to get more than 80% of their highest pay. Let's take the current crop of Congressmen. They START at $174,000 right now. Just 80% of that is $139,200 for retirement.
My husband is retired Navy, getting a pension of about $1380 a month (I'm not real sure because we have a life insurance policy taken out before we see it.) So let's look up what our Current service members are getting:
I'm not sure how to do tables yet (into a blog), but I'll give it my best shot:
E-1 <2 yrs experience ($17,611)
E-2 <2 yrs experience through 6 yrs experience ($19,739)
E-3 <2 yrs experience ($20,758) 4 through 6 years experience ($23,400)
E-4 <2 yrs experience ($22,993) 4 yrs experience ($26,770) 6 yrs experience ($27,911)
E-5 <2yrs experience ($25,081) 4 yrs experience ($29,380) 6 yrs experience ($31,442)
E-6 <2 yrs experience ($27,374) 4 yrs experience ($32,742) 6 yrs experience ($34,088)
O-1 <2 yrs experience ($33,408) 4 through 6 yrs yrs experience ($42,030)
O-2 <2 yrs experience ($38,488) 4 yrs experience ($52,189) 6 yrs experience ($53,262)
O-3 <2 yrs experience ($44,543) 4 yrs experience ($59,422) 6 yrs experience ($62,266)
As far as other compensations:
FOOD ALLOWANCE
The Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) is used to pay for food for Enlisted Soldiers and Officers authorized to eat off base. Most Soldiers who qualify for BAS receive more than $200 per month.
HOUSING ALLOWANCE
The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) offsets the cost of housing when Soldiers live off base. BAH rates are based on location, rank and family status. BAH is the second-largest piece of compensation for most Soldiers.
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
Enlisted Soldiers receive an annual allowance to replace uniforms and uniform decorations. For jobs that require civilian clothes, the military provides a civilian clothing allowance.
COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE
Soldiers assigned to high-cost locations in the continental U.S. and overseas are paid a Cost of Living Allowance. This allowance offsets the higher costs of food, transportation, clothing and other non-housing items. Higher costs of housing are covered separately by the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).
MOVING & RELOCATION ALLOWANCE
The military pays for the transportation of household goods during a permanent change-of-station move. In addition, a Temporary Lodging Allowance covers the cost of temporary housing at the beginning and end of a move. To further offset moving costs, a Dislocation Allowance is also granted for permanent change-of-station moves.
FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE
Soldiers assigned or deployed to locations where the military will not move families receive a Family Separation Allowance of $250 per month to cover expenses incurred during a Soldier's separation from their family. Soldiers are also entitled to the allowance if their families are unable to accompany them overseas due to medical reasons.
___________________
The military also gets 30 days a year of paid vacation, which rolls over a little. I think you can keep 60 days on the books, 120 if you're deployed.
As far as retirement for military, I found this:
Open to those who entered service on or after Sept. 8, 1980 but before Aug. 1, 1986. The retired pay rate is determined by the average pay rate during the three years when an individual’s pay was highest during his or her military career. That average is multiplied by 2.5 percent for each year in uniform to determine retirement pay. Thus, for 20 years of service, the High-3 formula offers retirement pay equal to 50 percent of average basic pay over the member’s three highest earning years in uniform; 75 percent of average basic pay over the three highest earning years for 30 years of service, and 100 percent of average basic pay over the three highest earning years for 40 years of service.
Those who entered military service after Aug. 1, 1986, can choose to receive retirement pay under the High-3 system or can choose the CSB/Redux option... For example, a service member under Redux with 20 years of service would multiply 20 by 2.5, then subtract ten (ten years short of 30 years of service), which yields 40. Thus, retired pay for a Redux member with 20 years of service would be 40 percent of average basic pay over their three highest earning years in uniform. Similarly, Redux members with 25 years of service would multiply 25 by 2.5, then subtract five (five years short of 30 years of service); their retired pay would be 57.5 percent of their average basic pay over their three highest earning years. Redux members with 30 years of service would simply multiply 30 by 2.5, which yields 75 percent of average basic pay over the three highest earning years in uniform. After 30 years of service, however, the formula for Redux members changes — they get a straight 2.5 percentage points for each year of service beyond 30. As such, retired pay for Redux members with 40 years of service would be 100 percent of their average basic pay over their three highest earning years in uniform.
My husband was in from 1981-2001. He gets about $16,680 a year from his retirement, which means he has to have another job, it's not really retirement. We live on it.
So, to sum it up: After 6 years, Congress supposedly only gets 80% of their highest salary. Let's assume it never goes higher than now, that's $139,200. An O-3 with 40 years in would get $62,266.
So if we lowered the pay of Congressmen by 10%, it would lower it to $156,600, which would mean a retirement the same as it is now, because they go by the highest. I'm suggesting they use the last 3 years in office....which would mean $125,280. that would still be double what the O-3 got. So they should continue to lower it until they match.
If we add in the average reimbursements, you can add about $14,000 to the base pay, so we'll call it $58,543 for an O-3 just starting. I think House members should have time in rank requirements, just like our military, and start out with the salary of an E-6 ($41,374) and let it go up every time they get re-elected. I'll give Senators a starting salary of O-1 ($47,408).
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Occupy Wall Street Supporters
I've seen a lot of support for Wall Street coming from celebrities. I have to wonder, why? I thought Wall Street protesters were protesting the rich? Why would celebrities support someone who is calling for THEM to pay more taxes? If they want to send more than the government taxes them, they are free to send in more money.
I got a list from Celebrity Net Worth that lists the top 10 richest celebrities that are supporting OWS. (Emphasis added by blogger.)
#1 Yoko Ono Net Worth - $500 million.
Ono stated “I love ‘Occupy Wall Street’! John is sending his smile to ‘Occupy Wall Street’. I am sending my love to ‘Occupy Wall Street’. We are all working together. ”
#2 Russell Simmons Net Worth - $325 million
Keep in mind that on top of being a hip-hop mogul Simmons is the founder of a high fee credit card company called UniRush Financial Services.
#3 Roseanne Barr Net Worth - $80 million
Roseanne thinks anyone with over $100 million should be beheaded. Interesting that her net worth is $80 million. I guess she doesn't make “the cut”.
#4 Deepak Chopra Net Worth - $80 million
Chopra said #OWS is turning anger into awareness. The fortune he has made off his fluff filled books has just turned me to anger.
#5 Kanye West Net Worth - $70 million
#6 Alec Baldwin Net Worth - $65 million
#7 Susan Sarandon Net Worth - $50 million
#8 Michael Moore Net Worth - $50 million
#9 Tim Robbins Net Worth - $50 million
#10 Nancy Pelosi Net Worth - $35.5 million
These are the people that will be taxed more, do they realize that? These are the people being protested. From this same site, are the profiles of these celebrities:
Yoko Ono: Yoko Ono was born in Tokyo, Japan and has an estimated net worth of $500 million dollars. Yoko Ono, a performance artist and activist, is most widely known as the widow of John Lennon. She is also an accomplished musician and filmmaker and many credit her with bringing New Wave music to the forefront.
Russell Simmons: Russell Wendell Simmons was born on October 10, 1957 and is a very successful American entrepreneur, the co-founder (with Rick Rubin) of the pioneering hip-hop record label, Def Jam. His personal net worth is reputed to be $500 million. Simmons is one of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in the world of hip-hop and is a man with varied interests. In addition to his music empire, Russell Simmons also is owner and operator of three clothing lines that he founded. They are Phat Farm …Argyleculture … and American Classics. Simmons is also well-known for his strict adherence to a vegan lifestyle. As a strict and orthodox vegetarian, he will not eat meat and is opposed to the slaughter of animals for food. In the last couple of years, Russell Simmons has shifted his focus from records to political commentary and other literary pursuits.. He is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post and is also editor-in-chief of GlobalGrind.com, a website that reviews the world of hip-hop.
Roseanne Barr: Roseanne Barr was born in Utah and has an estimated net worth of $80 million dollars. A stand-up comedian, actress, writer, producer, and director, Roseanne Barr began her career in stand-up comedy, and became a household name in the late 80’s when she began appearing on her own show called, “Roseanne”. After “Roseanne’s” nine seasons, she hosted her own talk show, did voice-over work, wrote several books, and is currently preparing a reality series about her life.
Deepak Chopra: Deepak Chopra was born in India and has an estimated net worth of $80 million dollars. A former endocrinologist who shifted his focus to alternative medicine, Deepak Chopra is widely recognized for his lectures and books about Ayurveda and the mind-body connection. He has written 57 books and serves on multiple alternative medicine panels and boards around the world.
Kanye West: With an estimated worth of $70 million dollars, Kanye West is a notable produce, rapper and actor. West was born in Atlanta but raised by his mother first in Chicago and then Oak Lawn Illinois. He dropped out of college to pursue his career in the music industry, starting out initially as a producer for Roc-A-Fella records, but finally persuaded label head Jay-Z to sign him on as a rapper.
Where does Kanye West live?
West spent four years honing and perfecting what would become his debut album, The College Dropout, which came in at number two on the Billboard 200 and is still Kanye West’s best-selling album in the U.S.A. to date. Subsequent albums, Late Registration, Graduation and 808s & Heartbreak were also chart-toppers that received critical as well as commercial success. His production credits include an impressive role call of talent including: Jay-Z, Beyoncé, John Legend, Alicia Keys and Janet Jackson. West is also a seasoned businessman with a chain of Fatburger restaurants designated for the Chicago area, Air Yeezy, a line of athletic shoes for Nike, and another shoe line with Louis Vuitton. His philanthropy ventures include his own Kayne West Foundation, which benefits education for African American and Latino children, in addition to contributing time, talent and money to Hurricane Katrina relief, World Water Day, and Live Earth, among other organizations. To date, Kanye West has won forty-six awards, among them fourteen Grammys, seven BET awards, and two American Music Awards.
Alec Baldwin: Actor Alec Baldwin, oldest of the Baldwin brothers, has a net worth of $65 million. Born and raised in New York, Baldwin studied acting at the Less Strasberg Theater Institute. His stage credits include Loot, Serious Money, Macbeth, Twentieth Century, Entertaining Mr. Sloane, South Pacific, and A Streetcar named Desire, which garnered Baldwin a Tony Award nomination. Baldwin made his television debut on The Doctors, followed by a lead role on the primetime drama Knots Landing. Baldwin has appeared on many television shows, including guest spots on Will & Grace, Friends, Las Vegas, Nip/Tuck and voice work for Clerks, The Simpsons and Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. Baldwin has hosted Saturday Night Live fourteen times and currently stars on the NBC sitcom 30 Rock, for which Baldwin has earned ten awards for, among them two Emmy Awards and two Golden Globe Awards. Baldwin made his film debut in 1987 with Forever, Lulu followed by She’s Having a Baby, Beetlejuice, Working Girl and Married to the Mob.
Alec Baldwin Salary
What is Alec Baldwin’s salary on 30 Rock? $300,000 per episode
Baldwin broke into dramatic leading man status with his role in The Hunt for Red October, which grossed over $200 million worldwide. Baldwin received critical acclaim, accolades and award nominations, including a nod from the Academy Awards, for his performance in The Cooler. Other noteworthy film credits include The Departed, which grossed $289.8 million worldwide, Academy Award winning film The Aviator and the 2009 romantic comedy It’s Complicated, which grossed over $200 million worldwide.
Susan Sarandon: Susan Abigail Tomalin AKA Susan Sarandon is an American actress; she has a net worth of $50 million. Susan Sarandon has built her net worth from films and television since 1969, She has appeared in hits like Dead Man Walking, Thelma & Louise, and Stepmom. She was born in New York City, New York; she retained Sarandon as her stage name, after her divorce.
Michael Moore: Michael Moore is a controversial documentary filmmaker with a net worth of $50 million. Moore’s biggest three movies; Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 911 and Capitalism A Love Story have earned over $300 million at the box office.
Fahrenheit 911 raked in $230 million in theaters and another $3 million in DVD sales. After the theaters take their traditional 50% cut, that leaves roughly $130 million. Take away marketing, production and distribution expenses and Moore is conservatively left with $80 million. Moore was able to secure a deal from Miramax which guaranteed him 27% of his film’s net revenues, or roughly $21.6 million. Michael also was entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which are estimated to be $17 million.
Moore is the author of several best selling books and received a $1 million advance for “Dude Where’s My Country” plus a generous percentage of the book sales.
Moore financed his first documentary Roger and Me by holding neighborhood bingo nights around his hometown of Flint Michigan. He eventually sold the documentary to Warner Brothers for $3 million.
Tim Robbins: Tim Robbins was born in California and has an estimated net worth of $45 million dollars. An actor, director, writer, and musician, Tim Robbins is also known for his work as an activist. He is most widely recognized for his roles in such films as “Bull Durham”, “The Shawshank Redemption”, “The Player”, and “Mystic River”, for which he won an Oscar.
Nancy Pelosi: Nancy Pelosi is an American politician, with the net worth of $35.5 million. Nancy Pelosi earned her net worth as a U.S. Representative from California’s 8th District and the current House Minority Leader. She was elected to the position of Speaker of the House in 2007, a post she held until 2011. This position made her the highest-ranking female politician in US history. Pelosi was born in Baltimore, Maryland on March 6th, 1940. From 2002 to 2003, she served as the House Minority Whip, and was House Minority Leader from 2003 to 2007. Pelosi is a member of the Democratic Party. She was elected as the Democratic Leader, by House Democrats, on November 17, 2010, making her the Minority Leader in the Republican-controlled House for the 112th Congress.
How much does a Senator make?>
Pelosi is of Italian-American descent. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., was a Democratic U.S. Congressman from Maryland, and a Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi’s brother, Thomas D’Alesandro III., also a Democrat, was mayor of Baltimore from 1967 to 1971. He declined to run for a second term. She graduated from Trinity College in Washington DC, with a B.A. in political science. She married American businessman Paul Pelosi, who was the owner of the Sacramento Mountain Lions of the United Football League, in 1963. They have five children and eight grandchildren. The Pelosi’s currently reside in the Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. Nancy is very active in the Italian-American community, serving as a board member of the National Organization of Italian American Woman, as well as, serving for 13 years as a board member of the National Italian American Foundation (NIAF). The NIAF gave her a Special Achievement Award for Public Advocacy in 2007 and she continues to be involved in the foundation today. In addition to her political interests, Nancy and her husband also owned a large portfolio of San Francisco Bay Area real estate, as well as, a vineyard in St. Helena, California, which is valued between $5 million and $25 million.
So, what are the commonalities of these celebrities? They all used the capitalist system to get to where they are. Except Nancy Pelosi, who got her money by being in government. That should not be possible, to be elected to office and become a multi-millionare. Back when this country was founded, they only got a pittance in pay, because they weren't there very long, just long enough to legislate and then they went back to their jobs.
So, like I've always said, there is a difference between liberal and conservative successful people. Conservatives climb that ladder of success, and turn around and give a hand to those below them so they can climb up, too. Liberals on the other hand, climb the ladder of success, then kick the ladder down so no one else can climb up and threaten their success.
I got a list from Celebrity Net Worth that lists the top 10 richest celebrities that are supporting OWS. (Emphasis added by blogger.)
#1 Yoko Ono Net Worth - $500 million.
Ono stated “I love ‘Occupy Wall Street’! John is sending his smile to ‘Occupy Wall Street’. I am sending my love to ‘Occupy Wall Street’. We are all working together. ”
#2 Russell Simmons Net Worth - $325 million
Keep in mind that on top of being a hip-hop mogul Simmons is the founder of a high fee credit card company called UniRush Financial Services.
#3 Roseanne Barr Net Worth - $80 million
Roseanne thinks anyone with over $100 million should be beheaded. Interesting that her net worth is $80 million. I guess she doesn't make “the cut”.
#4 Deepak Chopra Net Worth - $80 million
Chopra said #OWS is turning anger into awareness. The fortune he has made off his fluff filled books has just turned me to anger.
#5 Kanye West Net Worth - $70 million
#6 Alec Baldwin Net Worth - $65 million
#7 Susan Sarandon Net Worth - $50 million
#8 Michael Moore Net Worth - $50 million
#9 Tim Robbins Net Worth - $50 million
#10 Nancy Pelosi Net Worth - $35.5 million
These are the people that will be taxed more, do they realize that? These are the people being protested. From this same site, are the profiles of these celebrities:
Yoko Ono: Yoko Ono was born in Tokyo, Japan and has an estimated net worth of $500 million dollars. Yoko Ono, a performance artist and activist, is most widely known as the widow of John Lennon. She is also an accomplished musician and filmmaker and many credit her with bringing New Wave music to the forefront.
Russell Simmons: Russell Wendell Simmons was born on October 10, 1957 and is a very successful American entrepreneur, the co-founder (with Rick Rubin) of the pioneering hip-hop record label, Def Jam. His personal net worth is reputed to be $500 million. Simmons is one of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in the world of hip-hop and is a man with varied interests. In addition to his music empire, Russell Simmons also is owner and operator of three clothing lines that he founded. They are Phat Farm …Argyleculture … and American Classics. Simmons is also well-known for his strict adherence to a vegan lifestyle. As a strict and orthodox vegetarian, he will not eat meat and is opposed to the slaughter of animals for food. In the last couple of years, Russell Simmons has shifted his focus from records to political commentary and other literary pursuits.. He is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post and is also editor-in-chief of GlobalGrind.com, a website that reviews the world of hip-hop.
Roseanne Barr: Roseanne Barr was born in Utah and has an estimated net worth of $80 million dollars. A stand-up comedian, actress, writer, producer, and director, Roseanne Barr began her career in stand-up comedy, and became a household name in the late 80’s when she began appearing on her own show called, “Roseanne”. After “Roseanne’s” nine seasons, she hosted her own talk show, did voice-over work, wrote several books, and is currently preparing a reality series about her life.
Deepak Chopra: Deepak Chopra was born in India and has an estimated net worth of $80 million dollars. A former endocrinologist who shifted his focus to alternative medicine, Deepak Chopra is widely recognized for his lectures and books about Ayurveda and the mind-body connection. He has written 57 books and serves on multiple alternative medicine panels and boards around the world.
Kanye West: With an estimated worth of $70 million dollars, Kanye West is a notable produce, rapper and actor. West was born in Atlanta but raised by his mother first in Chicago and then Oak Lawn Illinois. He dropped out of college to pursue his career in the music industry, starting out initially as a producer for Roc-A-Fella records, but finally persuaded label head Jay-Z to sign him on as a rapper.
Where does Kanye West live?
West spent four years honing and perfecting what would become his debut album, The College Dropout, which came in at number two on the Billboard 200 and is still Kanye West’s best-selling album in the U.S.A. to date. Subsequent albums, Late Registration, Graduation and 808s & Heartbreak were also chart-toppers that received critical as well as commercial success. His production credits include an impressive role call of talent including: Jay-Z, Beyoncé, John Legend, Alicia Keys and Janet Jackson. West is also a seasoned businessman with a chain of Fatburger restaurants designated for the Chicago area, Air Yeezy, a line of athletic shoes for Nike, and another shoe line with Louis Vuitton. His philanthropy ventures include his own Kayne West Foundation, which benefits education for African American and Latino children, in addition to contributing time, talent and money to Hurricane Katrina relief, World Water Day, and Live Earth, among other organizations. To date, Kanye West has won forty-six awards, among them fourteen Grammys, seven BET awards, and two American Music Awards.
Alec Baldwin: Actor Alec Baldwin, oldest of the Baldwin brothers, has a net worth of $65 million. Born and raised in New York, Baldwin studied acting at the Less Strasberg Theater Institute. His stage credits include Loot, Serious Money, Macbeth, Twentieth Century, Entertaining Mr. Sloane, South Pacific, and A Streetcar named Desire, which garnered Baldwin a Tony Award nomination. Baldwin made his television debut on The Doctors, followed by a lead role on the primetime drama Knots Landing. Baldwin has appeared on many television shows, including guest spots on Will & Grace, Friends, Las Vegas, Nip/Tuck and voice work for Clerks, The Simpsons and Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. Baldwin has hosted Saturday Night Live fourteen times and currently stars on the NBC sitcom 30 Rock, for which Baldwin has earned ten awards for, among them two Emmy Awards and two Golden Globe Awards. Baldwin made his film debut in 1987 with Forever, Lulu followed by She’s Having a Baby, Beetlejuice, Working Girl and Married to the Mob.
Alec Baldwin Salary
What is Alec Baldwin’s salary on 30 Rock? $300,000 per episode
Baldwin broke into dramatic leading man status with his role in The Hunt for Red October, which grossed over $200 million worldwide. Baldwin received critical acclaim, accolades and award nominations, including a nod from the Academy Awards, for his performance in The Cooler. Other noteworthy film credits include The Departed, which grossed $289.8 million worldwide, Academy Award winning film The Aviator and the 2009 romantic comedy It’s Complicated, which grossed over $200 million worldwide.
Susan Sarandon: Susan Abigail Tomalin AKA Susan Sarandon is an American actress; she has a net worth of $50 million. Susan Sarandon has built her net worth from films and television since 1969, She has appeared in hits like Dead Man Walking, Thelma & Louise, and Stepmom. She was born in New York City, New York; she retained Sarandon as her stage name, after her divorce.
Michael Moore: Michael Moore is a controversial documentary filmmaker with a net worth of $50 million. Moore’s biggest three movies; Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 911 and Capitalism A Love Story have earned over $300 million at the box office.
Fahrenheit 911 raked in $230 million in theaters and another $3 million in DVD sales. After the theaters take their traditional 50% cut, that leaves roughly $130 million. Take away marketing, production and distribution expenses and Moore is conservatively left with $80 million. Moore was able to secure a deal from Miramax which guaranteed him 27% of his film’s net revenues, or roughly $21.6 million. Michael also was entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which are estimated to be $17 million.
Moore is the author of several best selling books and received a $1 million advance for “Dude Where’s My Country” plus a generous percentage of the book sales.
Moore financed his first documentary Roger and Me by holding neighborhood bingo nights around his hometown of Flint Michigan. He eventually sold the documentary to Warner Brothers for $3 million.
Tim Robbins: Tim Robbins was born in California and has an estimated net worth of $45 million dollars. An actor, director, writer, and musician, Tim Robbins is also known for his work as an activist. He is most widely recognized for his roles in such films as “Bull Durham”, “The Shawshank Redemption”, “The Player”, and “Mystic River”, for which he won an Oscar.
Nancy Pelosi: Nancy Pelosi is an American politician, with the net worth of $35.5 million. Nancy Pelosi earned her net worth as a U.S. Representative from California’s 8th District and the current House Minority Leader. She was elected to the position of Speaker of the House in 2007, a post she held until 2011. This position made her the highest-ranking female politician in US history. Pelosi was born in Baltimore, Maryland on March 6th, 1940. From 2002 to 2003, she served as the House Minority Whip, and was House Minority Leader from 2003 to 2007. Pelosi is a member of the Democratic Party. She was elected as the Democratic Leader, by House Democrats, on November 17, 2010, making her the Minority Leader in the Republican-controlled House for the 112th Congress.
How much does a Senator make?>
Pelosi is of Italian-American descent. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., was a Democratic U.S. Congressman from Maryland, and a Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi’s brother, Thomas D’Alesandro III., also a Democrat, was mayor of Baltimore from 1967 to 1971. He declined to run for a second term. She graduated from Trinity College in Washington DC, with a B.A. in political science. She married American businessman Paul Pelosi, who was the owner of the Sacramento Mountain Lions of the United Football League, in 1963. They have five children and eight grandchildren. The Pelosi’s currently reside in the Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. Nancy is very active in the Italian-American community, serving as a board member of the National Organization of Italian American Woman, as well as, serving for 13 years as a board member of the National Italian American Foundation (NIAF). The NIAF gave her a Special Achievement Award for Public Advocacy in 2007 and she continues to be involved in the foundation today. In addition to her political interests, Nancy and her husband also owned a large portfolio of San Francisco Bay Area real estate, as well as, a vineyard in St. Helena, California, which is valued between $5 million and $25 million.
So, what are the commonalities of these celebrities? They all used the capitalist system to get to where they are. Except Nancy Pelosi, who got her money by being in government. That should not be possible, to be elected to office and become a multi-millionare. Back when this country was founded, they only got a pittance in pay, because they weren't there very long, just long enough to legislate and then they went back to their jobs.
So, like I've always said, there is a difference between liberal and conservative successful people. Conservatives climb that ladder of success, and turn around and give a hand to those below them so they can climb up, too. Liberals on the other hand, climb the ladder of success, then kick the ladder down so no one else can climb up and threaten their success.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Don't Speak for me, 99%-ers.
Don't speak for me, those of you who call yourselves the 99%. I'm not rich, so I'm not the top 1%. I don't agree with any statement I've seen come out of the 99% movement. I wish I was rich, or at least better off, but I'm not advocating taking from those who earned it so I can have more.
I've been watching the Occupy Wall street thing. I see a bunch of rich trust fund babies who are having their parents put them through college. They don't want to actually work, they want everything handed to them on a silver platter, all the while talking about social justice. I also see a bunch of old hippies/has beens. They are just reliving their youth and the Viet Nam era protests. They don't want to say anything bad about Obama, but he's the one not withdrawing us from this war. Code Pink showed up as did (I assume) PAID Union thugs. I want to stand on top of a platform and inform the useful idiots that SOMEONE is paying some of you to be here. What about those not getting paid? Are you going to revolt either 1) against the hypocrites who are taking money to protest money or 2) against those who are paying some of you and not all of you?
I heard Francis Fox Piven state that this country has been subjected to propaganda techniques for 30-40 years. That's the first truth I've heard out of her mouth since I learned who she was. The only problem? She blamed it on Fox News, and calling the main stream media names. Let's see, did the white house boycott main stream media? Did they declare war on all media, or just FoxNews? She said that it made the people (paraphrasing) easily susceptible to the lies.
One thing I've learned from the left? If they accuse someone of something, it's usually something they themselves are doing. I don't know if it's projecting (putting their reactions and reasoning onto someone else) or just deflecting so no one sees what they're doing. The Democratic Party is historically more racist than the Republican party. Did you know that not a single Democrat voted to give Blacks the right to vote? And when it passed anyway, Democrats declared the primaries as private parties and wouldn't allow blacks to vote in them. They wanted to make sure that the candidate was already picked. And they didn't just lynch blacks, they lynched Republicans. Bet you didn't know that most blacks voted Republican for a long time. But, just like Pavlov's dogs, you can train people to respond the way you want. Intimidate them at the polls, burn crosses, hang people and they'll vote the way you want. You don't think the Black Panthers knew that when they stood outside voting booths carrying billy clubs? Intimidation is their modus operendi, their standard operating procedure.
So, now we start seeing all the anti-semitism in pictures coming from Occupy Wall Street. We see the anarchists coming out of the woodwork. I wish we could send them on a vacation to a country with no laws. Iran comes to mind. Let them see what humans do with no laws. They have visions of this utopia where no one tells them what to do (feeling animosity towards their parents, maybe?), where everything is free, and you don't even have to work for it (strange, but if no one is working, how do you get it?)
So stop calling yourself the 99%. You don't speak for me. You're more like the 47%, as in the ones who pay no taxes. I'd bet there are some who would love to get off welfare if they could, so I'd put it at more like the 33%.
It's just like the American Revolution. One third wanted to side with the British, one third just wanted to be left alone, and for life to go on as it always did, and one third fought for America's freedom. They are not the one third fighting for freedom. They are fighting for slavery, and the sad thing? They don't even know it.
I've been watching the Occupy Wall street thing. I see a bunch of rich trust fund babies who are having their parents put them through college. They don't want to actually work, they want everything handed to them on a silver platter, all the while talking about social justice. I also see a bunch of old hippies/has beens. They are just reliving their youth and the Viet Nam era protests. They don't want to say anything bad about Obama, but he's the one not withdrawing us from this war. Code Pink showed up as did (I assume) PAID Union thugs. I want to stand on top of a platform and inform the useful idiots that SOMEONE is paying some of you to be here. What about those not getting paid? Are you going to revolt either 1) against the hypocrites who are taking money to protest money or 2) against those who are paying some of you and not all of you?
I heard Francis Fox Piven state that this country has been subjected to propaganda techniques for 30-40 years. That's the first truth I've heard out of her mouth since I learned who she was. The only problem? She blamed it on Fox News, and calling the main stream media names. Let's see, did the white house boycott main stream media? Did they declare war on all media, or just FoxNews? She said that it made the people (paraphrasing) easily susceptible to the lies.
One thing I've learned from the left? If they accuse someone of something, it's usually something they themselves are doing. I don't know if it's projecting (putting their reactions and reasoning onto someone else) or just deflecting so no one sees what they're doing. The Democratic Party is historically more racist than the Republican party. Did you know that not a single Democrat voted to give Blacks the right to vote? And when it passed anyway, Democrats declared the primaries as private parties and wouldn't allow blacks to vote in them. They wanted to make sure that the candidate was already picked. And they didn't just lynch blacks, they lynched Republicans. Bet you didn't know that most blacks voted Republican for a long time. But, just like Pavlov's dogs, you can train people to respond the way you want. Intimidate them at the polls, burn crosses, hang people and they'll vote the way you want. You don't think the Black Panthers knew that when they stood outside voting booths carrying billy clubs? Intimidation is their modus operendi, their standard operating procedure.
So, now we start seeing all the anti-semitism in pictures coming from Occupy Wall Street. We see the anarchists coming out of the woodwork. I wish we could send them on a vacation to a country with no laws. Iran comes to mind. Let them see what humans do with no laws. They have visions of this utopia where no one tells them what to do (feeling animosity towards their parents, maybe?), where everything is free, and you don't even have to work for it (strange, but if no one is working, how do you get it?)
So stop calling yourself the 99%. You don't speak for me. You're more like the 47%, as in the ones who pay no taxes. I'd bet there are some who would love to get off welfare if they could, so I'd put it at more like the 33%.
It's just like the American Revolution. One third wanted to side with the British, one third just wanted to be left alone, and for life to go on as it always did, and one third fought for America's freedom. They are not the one third fighting for freedom. They are fighting for slavery, and the sad thing? They don't even know it.
Friday, October 14, 2011
I'm so Sick of Hearing about so Many People In Poverty
I decided to check it out for myself. First, I didn't use Google to look up these stats. I found a new browser that says they don't track you. I also get different results when I use them versus Google or Yahoo. It's called IXQuick Web.
So, here's what I found out. Mind you, this is from Wikipedia, a very left leaning source:
"Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.[1] According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993."
Let's think about that one for a minute. It's at the highest level since 1993. Do any of you out there know who was President in 1993? Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
It goes on:
"The government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four."
OK, so for a family of four, you have to have at least one wage earner who makes more than $11.64 an hour. With no government benefits. This is, after all, the total income a person makes.
According to EHow:
"Income guidelines from the federal regulations are complex, but compare gross income to 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines and net income at 100 percent. There is a 20 percent deduction for earned income and another $142 deduction for households with one to three members. Income guidelines for Texas require a net income of $22,050 or 100 percent of federal poverty guidelines or less for a family of four, according to "The Dallas Morning News" in a 2009 report. Unearned income counts, including worker's compensation and other social programs."
So, that was for Texas food stamps. They list the minimum income as $22,050, so 130% of poverty is $50,715. That's $24.38 an hour and you qualify for food stamps. I don't exactly call that hurting. So, your net income has to be 100% of poverty ($22,050) - or less for a family of 4? Gross income can be 130%? I'd say it's confusing.
Also according to EHow:
"All states have a work requirement you must meet to keep your TANF benefits once your receive them. TANF recipients must engage in a certain number of work hours or work activities or risk their benefits being reduced or terminated. Each state must help TANF users develop a self-sufficiency plan, which takes into account skills, work history and education. As of 2011, single parents generally must work or participate in work activities for at least 20 hours per week, although single parents with children under the age of 6 cannot be penalized if they can't work because they cannot find adequate child care. Two-parent families must work for a combined total of 35 hours, which goes up to 55 hours if the parents get child-care assistance. Teen parents must attend school or job training activities."
Did you catch the part about if you have children under the age of 6 you can't be penalized if you can't find work because you can't find child care? So, just make sure you keep at least one child under the age of 6 and you don't have to work... that means when the child turns 7, you better have an infant in the house. No wonder grandparents are raising their teenagers illegitimate children as their own.
And 2 parent families have to work more hours? That only encourages single parent families.
So, I decided to find out what the minimum wage is, and once again I used Texas because that's where I live. The minimum wage in Texas is $7.25. So, if you work 20 hours you have a yearly income of $7540. (That's $7.25 an hour for 20 hours a week, 52 weeks in a year.) That qualifies you for welfare and food stamps. I also looked that up, and according to Answers.com:
"Allowance benefits vary in what is paid out to individuals or families for any of the welfare programs. As each state regulates their own SRS programs, payment allowances will vary from state to state based on geography, cost of living and employment/educational opportunities within that state.
However, a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.
Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.
These allowance benefits would be separate from any additional welfare benefits received such as child care, medical or utility assistance."
So, an average person, working 20 hours a week (80 hours a month, not taking into consideration every 3rd month you get 5 pay days), makes about $580 a month. Add with that the $200 in food stamps and the highest amount of welfare ($300 for single), that makes a monthly income of $1080. That's $12,960. If they worked the whole 40 hours a week, it would mean $10.37 an hour ($13.50 an hour for a 20 hour week). How is that poverty? And this number doesn't reflect Medicaid, help with child care (as in being able to deduct it off your taxes?) and assistance with utilities because "you're poor." If you have 2 people working, you need a total of 35 hours, so at minimum wage (once again only counting 4 weeks in a month, 12 months) and only adding the $500 food stamps and $900 welfare, your yearly income would be $28,980 before medicaid and other bennies.
Let's figure this on minimum wage and a 40 hour week: A minimum wage job in Texas would be $7.25 an hour, for a week, it would be $290, and a year it would be $13,920.
So you'd still qualify for benefits, add $500 for food stamps and $900 for welfare: now you make $30,720. In order to get that wage and be off government benefits, you would have to make $16 an hour ($17.25 if you only want to work the 35 hours). That's over double the minimum wage. In order to make that, you would have to have some education. So, I guess the proponents of redistribution of wealth would put the living wage at $16 an hour - for flipping burgers. Can you imagine what a whopper would cost? And if you think forcing places like fast food joints to pay their help $16 an hour would mean you can still feed a family of 4 for under $30, you're smoking something and I want some. It would turn into something closer to $60 for a family of 4 because they would still need to keep the lights on.
How is this encouraging people to get off Welfare? You have to make $16 an hour for a family of 4 to get off government benefits to make the same amount you can make working 40 hours and getting government benefits. And if you get off the government feed trough, you have to pay for your own medical, child care and utilities.
They should cut welfare and food stamps by 10% every year until it's not advantageous to get it. You should be making the poverty line WITH the benefits. That would encourage people to 1.) get a job and 2) be married with children instead of pushing out babies in order to get more money from the government. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out. It was for women who had a husband leave them and were forced to get a minimum wage job when they already had kids and had been out of the work force for a while. It was to help them until they could get a job that paid well enough to survive.
So, here's what I found out. Mind you, this is from Wikipedia, a very left leaning source:
"Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.[1] According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993."
Let's think about that one for a minute. It's at the highest level since 1993. Do any of you out there know who was President in 1993? Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
It goes on:
"The government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four."
OK, so for a family of four, you have to have at least one wage earner who makes more than $11.64 an hour. With no government benefits. This is, after all, the total income a person makes.
According to EHow:
"Income guidelines from the federal regulations are complex, but compare gross income to 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines and net income at 100 percent. There is a 20 percent deduction for earned income and another $142 deduction for households with one to three members. Income guidelines for Texas require a net income of $22,050 or 100 percent of federal poverty guidelines or less for a family of four, according to "The Dallas Morning News" in a 2009 report. Unearned income counts, including worker's compensation and other social programs."
So, that was for Texas food stamps. They list the minimum income as $22,050, so 130% of poverty is $50,715. That's $24.38 an hour and you qualify for food stamps. I don't exactly call that hurting. So, your net income has to be 100% of poverty ($22,050) - or less for a family of 4? Gross income can be 130%? I'd say it's confusing.
Also according to EHow:
"All states have a work requirement you must meet to keep your TANF benefits once your receive them. TANF recipients must engage in a certain number of work hours or work activities or risk their benefits being reduced or terminated. Each state must help TANF users develop a self-sufficiency plan, which takes into account skills, work history and education. As of 2011, single parents generally must work or participate in work activities for at least 20 hours per week, although single parents with children under the age of 6 cannot be penalized if they can't work because they cannot find adequate child care. Two-parent families must work for a combined total of 35 hours, which goes up to 55 hours if the parents get child-care assistance. Teen parents must attend school or job training activities."
Did you catch the part about if you have children under the age of 6 you can't be penalized if you can't find work because you can't find child care? So, just make sure you keep at least one child under the age of 6 and you don't have to work... that means when the child turns 7, you better have an infant in the house. No wonder grandparents are raising their teenagers illegitimate children as their own.
And 2 parent families have to work more hours? That only encourages single parent families.
So, I decided to find out what the minimum wage is, and once again I used Texas because that's where I live. The minimum wage in Texas is $7.25. So, if you work 20 hours you have a yearly income of $7540. (That's $7.25 an hour for 20 hours a week, 52 weeks in a year.) That qualifies you for welfare and food stamps. I also looked that up, and according to Answers.com:
"Allowance benefits vary in what is paid out to individuals or families for any of the welfare programs. As each state regulates their own SRS programs, payment allowances will vary from state to state based on geography, cost of living and employment/educational opportunities within that state.
However, a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.
Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.
These allowance benefits would be separate from any additional welfare benefits received such as child care, medical or utility assistance."
So, an average person, working 20 hours a week (80 hours a month, not taking into consideration every 3rd month you get 5 pay days), makes about $580 a month. Add with that the $200 in food stamps and the highest amount of welfare ($300 for single), that makes a monthly income of $1080. That's $12,960. If they worked the whole 40 hours a week, it would mean $10.37 an hour ($13.50 an hour for a 20 hour week). How is that poverty? And this number doesn't reflect Medicaid, help with child care (as in being able to deduct it off your taxes?) and assistance with utilities because "you're poor." If you have 2 people working, you need a total of 35 hours, so at minimum wage (once again only counting 4 weeks in a month, 12 months) and only adding the $500 food stamps and $900 welfare, your yearly income would be $28,980 before medicaid and other bennies.
Let's figure this on minimum wage and a 40 hour week: A minimum wage job in Texas would be $7.25 an hour, for a week, it would be $290, and a year it would be $13,920.
So you'd still qualify for benefits, add $500 for food stamps and $900 for welfare: now you make $30,720. In order to get that wage and be off government benefits, you would have to make $16 an hour ($17.25 if you only want to work the 35 hours). That's over double the minimum wage. In order to make that, you would have to have some education. So, I guess the proponents of redistribution of wealth would put the living wage at $16 an hour - for flipping burgers. Can you imagine what a whopper would cost? And if you think forcing places like fast food joints to pay their help $16 an hour would mean you can still feed a family of 4 for under $30, you're smoking something and I want some. It would turn into something closer to $60 for a family of 4 because they would still need to keep the lights on.
How is this encouraging people to get off Welfare? You have to make $16 an hour for a family of 4 to get off government benefits to make the same amount you can make working 40 hours and getting government benefits. And if you get off the government feed trough, you have to pay for your own medical, child care and utilities.
They should cut welfare and food stamps by 10% every year until it's not advantageous to get it. You should be making the poverty line WITH the benefits. That would encourage people to 1.) get a job and 2) be married with children instead of pushing out babies in order to get more money from the government. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out. It was for women who had a husband leave them and were forced to get a minimum wage job when they already had kids and had been out of the work force for a while. It was to help them until they could get a job that paid well enough to survive.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Why Do We Have to Settle?
Why is the question constantly being asked, "Would you vote for (fill in the blank) over Obama?" Come on, get real. I'd vote for my dog over Obama, but why should I have to settle for a RINO when I want a conservative? Why would I want to get to the same place, only slower, when I can turn this country back on the right course, which at this point would be a 180 degree turn? Why is the media deciding who I vote for?
Why is the debate over, is Romney's religion a cult, when they should be talking about his policies as a governor? Such as, he stated he would be pro-abortion (I refuse to call it pro-choice - if it's pro-life, it should be pro-death), he has stated that he's for gun control (which is anti-2nd amendment, he is (whether he admits it or not) pro-Obamacare due to the Romney care he keeps supporting. Why is it that people talk about Perry's choices as governor and not the fact that he's a Methodist? The double standard is striking, even when it comes from the establishment Republicans.
Even Bill Bennett on his radio program asked the question, "Would you vote for Romney over Obama?" Actually, he even asked "Would you vote for Bill Clinton over Obama?" It's a ridiculous question. WE WANT A CONSERVATIVE. Even Mike Gallagher is calling Romney a conservative. HE ISN'T A CONSERVATIVE if he's pro-abortion, anti-2nd amendment and for government run health care. He's just the most conservative out of Massachusetts.
I've even heard it debated that Herman Cain doesn't have any political experience. Guess what? George Washington didn't have any political experience either. I don't want the kind of politician we have now. I want a patriot. No experience in government at this point might be a good thing.
I think the press wants Romney because they know he's Obama light. I don't want Obama light. I think the establishment Republicans don't want to give up their gravy train either. Establishment Republicans are just as much of socialists as the Democrats. There is no difference. That's why Obama got elected, because no one wanted Obama light, with McCain, so they stayed home.
The press is focusing on "anyone is better than Obama, right?" NO, that's not right. I can't believe that the politicians didn't get that with the last election cycle. WE WANT CONSERVATIVE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE. I think the press is setting us up so we accept defeat and just vote for who they want us to.
I don't know what we all should do. I know I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination, but it won't change our government if we get Romney or Huntsman. I'm not sure about Ron Paul. I don't mind him, but I hate the Ron Paul zombies that will only support him. Are they going to stay home if he doesn't get the nomination? I guess we just all need to focus the debates on policies and not be distracted by the stuff that the press wants us to focus on. We need to weed through the propaganda on both sides. If someone is only slamming one or more candidate, and not presenting the good AND the bad, it's probably propaganda. There are good and bad with all the candidates. But I have to wonder when the "good" they come up with Romney is that he "looks presidential."
Why is the debate over, is Romney's religion a cult, when they should be talking about his policies as a governor? Such as, he stated he would be pro-abortion (I refuse to call it pro-choice - if it's pro-life, it should be pro-death), he has stated that he's for gun control (which is anti-2nd amendment, he is (whether he admits it or not) pro-Obamacare due to the Romney care he keeps supporting. Why is it that people talk about Perry's choices as governor and not the fact that he's a Methodist? The double standard is striking, even when it comes from the establishment Republicans.
Even Bill Bennett on his radio program asked the question, "Would you vote for Romney over Obama?" Actually, he even asked "Would you vote for Bill Clinton over Obama?" It's a ridiculous question. WE WANT A CONSERVATIVE. Even Mike Gallagher is calling Romney a conservative. HE ISN'T A CONSERVATIVE if he's pro-abortion, anti-2nd amendment and for government run health care. He's just the most conservative out of Massachusetts.
I've even heard it debated that Herman Cain doesn't have any political experience. Guess what? George Washington didn't have any political experience either. I don't want the kind of politician we have now. I want a patriot. No experience in government at this point might be a good thing.
I think the press wants Romney because they know he's Obama light. I don't want Obama light. I think the establishment Republicans don't want to give up their gravy train either. Establishment Republicans are just as much of socialists as the Democrats. There is no difference. That's why Obama got elected, because no one wanted Obama light, with McCain, so they stayed home.
The press is focusing on "anyone is better than Obama, right?" NO, that's not right. I can't believe that the politicians didn't get that with the last election cycle. WE WANT CONSERVATIVE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE. I think the press is setting us up so we accept defeat and just vote for who they want us to.
I don't know what we all should do. I know I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination, but it won't change our government if we get Romney or Huntsman. I'm not sure about Ron Paul. I don't mind him, but I hate the Ron Paul zombies that will only support him. Are they going to stay home if he doesn't get the nomination? I guess we just all need to focus the debates on policies and not be distracted by the stuff that the press wants us to focus on. We need to weed through the propaganda on both sides. If someone is only slamming one or more candidate, and not presenting the good AND the bad, it's probably propaganda. There are good and bad with all the candidates. But I have to wonder when the "good" they come up with Romney is that he "looks presidential."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
You can keep your Doctor and prices won't go up
Isn't that what President Obama promised when they passed Obamacare in the middle of the night? I wondered why they had to bribe the people of each state with bennies in order to justify their representatives voting for it. You can keep your doctors and prices won't go up.
Well, I have to dispute that. I have government health care. I have Tricare Prime, which is for military people. We opted for Prime 10 years ago when my husband got out of the Navy (after 20 years in) because it was better for us. The difference between Prime and Standard, is with Prime, you pay a set amount each year, and then only pay a co-pay for each doctor visit, no matter whether it's your primary or a specialist. With Standard, the government pays 80% of WHAT THEY ALLOW and you pay the rest. No yearly fee. We have a special needs son who would possibly need a heart valve replaced (thank God, he hasn't yet).
We learned a couple months ago that Walgreen's would be not carrying our prescription insurance (Express Scripts) any longer. We would have to switch over to a different pharmacy. We've been going to Walgreen's for the 6 years we've been in Texas. So, we switched to CVS. The store is nicer, I'm out faster, so I was pleased. They also have different lanes (inside and out) for drop off and pick up, as well as inside they have a consultation line. At the same time that we switched, our co-pay went up. I thought at first, it was just CVS charging more because they accept our insurance. I've run into that before.
As an explanation, I got an eye exam ($65) and they wouldn't reimburse me. They said I didn't go to a provider that accepted my insurance. So I called one of the ones that take Tricare Prime (which didn't exist 3 years ago, the last time I got glasses) and they charge $160 for the same eye exam. I can't say as I blame them. When Obamacare got passed, I checked out the reimbursement rate. They were reimbursing MRI's at 19%. I just recently rechecked it and it's fallen to about 12%. How do they exist? What will they do if the government goes to a single payer option? As in they force other insurance companies to close down and all you have is government insurance.
So, at first I wasn't that upset over the increase. I mean, it's still really low. We used to pay $3 for generic, $9 for non-generic and $22 of ones they don't approve. I am now paying $5 for generic and $12 for non-generic. That's still low, but I did the math. The generic went up 60% and the non-generic went up 75%. Would you like a 60% increase on your co-pays? The cost of living only went up, what, 5%? And we had NO warning that this was going to happen, just that we had to change pharmacies. I have one son on 3 meds, another son on 3 meds (2 are non-generic), I'm on 4 meds (one of which is non-generic) and my husband is on about 5. That's about $31 a month. It adds up. Right now my husband is not getting a paycheck because he broke his leg.
We must repeal Obamacare before it drags this country down to the bottom. I guess the government wants everyone on Medicaid.
Well, I have to dispute that. I have government health care. I have Tricare Prime, which is for military people. We opted for Prime 10 years ago when my husband got out of the Navy (after 20 years in) because it was better for us. The difference between Prime and Standard, is with Prime, you pay a set amount each year, and then only pay a co-pay for each doctor visit, no matter whether it's your primary or a specialist. With Standard, the government pays 80% of WHAT THEY ALLOW and you pay the rest. No yearly fee. We have a special needs son who would possibly need a heart valve replaced (thank God, he hasn't yet).
We learned a couple months ago that Walgreen's would be not carrying our prescription insurance (Express Scripts) any longer. We would have to switch over to a different pharmacy. We've been going to Walgreen's for the 6 years we've been in Texas. So, we switched to CVS. The store is nicer, I'm out faster, so I was pleased. They also have different lanes (inside and out) for drop off and pick up, as well as inside they have a consultation line. At the same time that we switched, our co-pay went up. I thought at first, it was just CVS charging more because they accept our insurance. I've run into that before.
As an explanation, I got an eye exam ($65) and they wouldn't reimburse me. They said I didn't go to a provider that accepted my insurance. So I called one of the ones that take Tricare Prime (which didn't exist 3 years ago, the last time I got glasses) and they charge $160 for the same eye exam. I can't say as I blame them. When Obamacare got passed, I checked out the reimbursement rate. They were reimbursing MRI's at 19%. I just recently rechecked it and it's fallen to about 12%. How do they exist? What will they do if the government goes to a single payer option? As in they force other insurance companies to close down and all you have is government insurance.
So, at first I wasn't that upset over the increase. I mean, it's still really low. We used to pay $3 for generic, $9 for non-generic and $22 of ones they don't approve. I am now paying $5 for generic and $12 for non-generic. That's still low, but I did the math. The generic went up 60% and the non-generic went up 75%. Would you like a 60% increase on your co-pays? The cost of living only went up, what, 5%? And we had NO warning that this was going to happen, just that we had to change pharmacies. I have one son on 3 meds, another son on 3 meds (2 are non-generic), I'm on 4 meds (one of which is non-generic) and my husband is on about 5. That's about $31 a month. It adds up. Right now my husband is not getting a paycheck because he broke his leg.
We must repeal Obamacare before it drags this country down to the bottom. I guess the government wants everyone on Medicaid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)