Interesting email from my fundie friend

[proud2BlibKansan]

WHY WAIT UNTIL 2008?  THERE IS AN ELECTION IN 2006.  I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE/SHE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2006.

LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS 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!!!!
2006 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:


Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

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 payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!




Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change! would be to:


Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us


then sit back.....


and see how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.





 

[Kerrytravelers]

1. Is this even true?

When emails are written with a ton of caps, exclimation points and incorrect grammar, I'm not too confidant in it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I don't know

I won't sign the petition until I am sure it is true.

[Arkana]

2. That is definitely something to think about.

It would certainly give even the most rabid gung-ho "let's privatize!" whack jobs pause.

[0rganism]

3. urban legend, debunked

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

The giveaway: any e-mail with the phrase "If enough people receive this" or "forward this to everyone you know" is probably (~90%) grade-AA e-bullshit.

Of course, your reply could also include a discussion of bushco's looting of the treasury on behalf of his rich corporate buddies.

[ovidsen]

4. I like it!

It'll never happen.;(

[jedr]

5. This has been around for a long time;

Used to get it regularly form fundies until I blocked them during the election ( couldn't take it anymore)...It is however , a point on which we can agree...It seems a lot of strange bedfellows are coming about.

[evilqueen]

6. I'm not going to get hung up on individual issues like SS.

My litmus test for how I next vote will be based on one simple concept:

Will this candidate represent the interests of working people or will he/she represent the interests of corporations?

That's it, plain and simple.

[yurbud]

8. Dick Durbin asks a court appointee something like this...

Have you ever sided with average citizens against a corporation, if so when and explain your reasoning.

[yurbud]

9. What sacrifices would you REQUIRE of corporate America

to be better citizens and make this a better country for the rest of us not ask them to do voluntarily? (the last part is a favorite GOP out).

That would be a

[evilqueen]

10. I won't negotiate with corporate America.

I'm not going to play that game. They've had decades to be better corporate citizens and to ensure that workers are earning a living wage. They've failed. They insist on paying their executives huge multi-million dollar bonuses while outsourcing jobs and destroying unions. They haven't acted in the interests of Patriotism and they haven't been very pro-American either. They think nothing of accepting corporate welfare while forcing their workers to live at below federal poverty guidelines wages without adequate and affordable health care coverage. Example : WalMart, the largest bricks and mortar retailer in the world.

I'm not negotiating anymore. They either shit or get off the pot.

[yurbud]

15. that's great, but I don't know what the last sentence means

don't people shit voluntarily?

Seriously though, I'd cry if I heard a presidential candidate say that, and I'd cry again when his plane crashed.

[evilqueen]

16. Good thing I'm not a candidate then, isn't it?

If my profanity will make you cry, how profane is sending soldiers off to an unnecessary war with equipment that isn't keeping them alive? (re: body armor and humvees)

Who built that stuff? Why do cops have better armor than soldiers? Hmmm... gee, someone might just be doing some war profiteering, ya think?

Here's my version of corporate negotiation : If the U.S. has troops in combat zones anywhere in the world, then as long as they're there, your profits will be restricted to 1% over cost. The excess is going into a fund for the soldiers and their families. (War's over? Great!)

[yurbud]

17. Now I was unclear--tears of joy for honesty

I disagree with your 1% over cost--make it JUST cost, and no dividends, exec bonuses, or raises for those with salaries over $100K.

And one member of their board of directors has to carry the flag into battle.

[evilqueen]

18. Ahhhh... I misunderstood you

I got the impression you thought I was being too harsh on the corporatists.

All is cleared up now!

:D

[yurbud]

21. that would be like being too harsh on Ted Bundy

[MsTryska]

11. send your friend back a message to get them further inflamed explaining

that there are congressman and senators that are eligible for and do receive social security. it depends on what they did in their previous life and if they made enough money in their lifetime to collect.



tell your friend that they happily accept this money alongside their government pensions, lobbyist money, real-estate investments and stock dividends.


if we want to save Social Security - how about denying eligiblity for benefits to any rich bastard who has more than enough to live on for 2 lifetimes?

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Done

I replied to all with the Snopes link.

[hyphenate]

14. In general, I agree with you

except on this: "if we want to save Social Security - how about denying eligiblity for benefits to any rich bastard who has more than enough to live on for 2 lifetimes?"

Truth be told, if this rich person has paid into the system over his lifetime, I don't rightly think he should be denied it, regardless of how much money he has. I would, however, put a cap on how much he would receive in relation to his current assets.

[MsTryska]

19. You make a good point.....

if they paid in and they don't get any back i suppose it does become a true re-distribution of wealth.


it would be cool to have an opt-out option for whne you turn 65 - you can say either yes - i'd like to receive SSI or no - I am comfortable without it - but that's leaving things in the hands of people's highest nature.


which might not be a bad thing.

[tibbiit]

13. The fact that they pay nothing into SS is a myth

They do pay SS same as the rest of us. They have a side investment like an ira/401k that they can pay a certasin percentage extra. I heard this on Ed Schultz, I think Senator Durbin. So your friend is FOS.
tib

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Repeal the tax cuts for the top 1%=MILLIONAIRES and SS will be "fixed"

They're just trying to ENRON-IZE Social Security and we're not gonna let them do it. They want to get rid of SS because the BFEE HATE Roosevelt, his Social Security Act and his New Deal. It's as simple as that. They seek to UNDO everything he did for this country.