I'm not a Rush fan, but this makes sense. After serving in the military and being severely injured, I can totally relate to this -- Ciara

Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head..........

By Rush Limbaugh:
I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.


If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.

Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harm’s way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.

You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part a and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. However, our own U.S. Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.

Hugs,
Ciara


-- Modified on 9/6/2006 11:00:26 AM

Ciara, I certainly can see how unfair these differences are for distinguished folks such as yourself who serve or who have served. It really seems so disproportionately wrong.

However, and please know I am not being deliberately insensitive, one of the reasons behind such inequity can be found in each subject's advocates.  The 9/11 settlements for the most part are the results of a group of  lawyers representing the interests of their clients (and of course by extension, themselves).  The military, as Rush indicates, have their fate resting in the hands of Congress.  I'm not going to defend or knock lawyers as professionals but when it comes to being advocates for their clients they do a better job than Congress does for their constituents.  Sad but true....

Although the following is far different in terms of life and death, and I'm not comparing the two except for compensation gaps, one could examine pro athletes and teachers.  Agents represent pros and they help to fuel the ever increasing salaries of such pros.  School boards, city politcos and local tax payers drive teacher pay.  Who has the better advocates behind them?                          



-- Modified on 9/6/2006 2:36:57 PM

but I kind of do on this one issue.  

Our men and women in uniform really have been getting a raw deal.  They need more benefits of every kind: health care, transportation home, education, compensation, assistance getting jobs, psychological treatment, etc.  Of course their families need assistance.  Many of them leave behind young mothers with young kids who are already kind of lower income to begin with.  

our congressmen deserve a severe pay cut and maybe even some term limits.  This country is not at war.  Only our soldiers are.

He is not saying that soldiers should get more benefits. He is saying that these other people should get less.

The focus of the rant is that you bleeding heart types pour out excess on those you "feel" for... But offer NOTHING to the soldiers who give their lives because you don't agree with the war!
 He never suggested that the soldiers were getting ENOUGH death benefits! Only how STUPID and self-serving people that think with their emotions!
 You really should LISTEN to the show if you're going to comment on it! Voice infliction is a very important part of discernment! Especially when the media is RADIO!

Hr leaves out that most military members have SGLI (Servicemans Group Life Insurence) it pays $250,000 and cost them just pennys compaired to what a civilian would have to pay for similar coverage.
Rush never tells the full story.  He is a propaganda tool of the Republican party.

You don't think any of the people who died in 9/11 worked for companies who paid for their life insurance policies?  That's pretty standard in any company's benefit plan.  But it still doesn't justify the huge discrepancy in compensation.  And some of those people who got millions still didn't think it was enough!  How greedy can you get?

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 5:57:16 PM

Bush and the Republican Congress bleeding heart liberals? That is who approved the 9/11 settlements.

the equivalent of military pay for what he does, right?

Our military men & women and their families are all aware that when they made the commitment (as I did back in the ... well nevermind that) that they could very well be in harms way.  Plus, as was mentioned earlier, one can purchase additional hazard/life insurance relatively cheaply.  The people who perished on 9/11 and especially their surviving loved ones didn't have a clue.  That doesn't make their lives more worthy but it sure made it easier for the rest of us to open our hearts & pocketbooks to the survivors.  Much of the money raised for and given to 9/11 loved ones came from donations.  Those who are complaining about not getting enough should be ashamed of themselves.
As usual, Rush, lacking a heart & compassion, missed on this.

i have always thought that Rush had a bad acid trip and that was why he was such a rabid conservative who screamed that druggys should rot in jail but when it  came to his turn we should be compassionate. why  hasn't he gone to Iraq to visit the troops and do a "ride along", how about that COWARD Hannity why doesn't he report from the front line embedded with the troops?  we have plenty of women reporters they both should put up or shut up. conservatives are cowards when it comes to living up to what they expect from others. what Bushy saved Rsh's ass he should be jailed for obstructing justice

let me put my 2cents in… Some of these guys are returning to Iraq for the FOURTH time and yes they did volunteer and most (not all) believe in what they are doing. I know it’s very hard on the person and also for the family during any deployment, especially to a dangerous place like Iraq. I don’t begrudge the families of 9/11, but I do think we can help the families of those that gave their lives.  Congress on the other hand can go f@@k themselves.
I don’t think Rush is lacking compassion in this issue (I still think he’s a big fat windbag) I’m sure he knows that some of lower ranking members in the military make very little money and may not be able to afford additional life insurance.

Lush Limpwad points out the 9/11 survivors got all this money. And he whines that it comes froma sense of entitlement. He is 180 degrees wrong.

If YOU and ME and all the other taxpayers hadn't paid this money, the airlines and other large corps who FAILED to proved the security to prevent the attack would have been sued. And rightly so.

Thus Bush and his corpoarate cronies set up this bail out so the corps would NOT to pay.

It was corporate welfare plain and simple.

Lush Limpwad is always FIRST to Blame Americans when it's the corporations who are to blame. When corps stop getting a free ride, things will be much better for ALL Americans.

The money paid out of the fund was to prevent the survivors from suing the US corps who helped cause the damages (deaths) by not providing security that would have prevented the attacks.

The payout was BY you, a taxpayer. It is corporate welfare, plain and simple.

at how many of my friends in the military have commented on this topic. We're not saying these people in 9/11 shouldn't be compensated but this whole "suing" issue is getting way out of hand in the U.S., especially with other people who are doing dangerous jobs, too, and don't get compensated for it.  

Hugs,
Ciara

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 10:18:48 PM

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 10:21:03 PM

because they found out they could. Urgh!

Hugs,
Ciara

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 10:00:07 PM

Unfortunately, that is not a lot for your wife/husband and kids to live on being single, and it's not a full $250,000. A few of my friends' spouses did not get the full amount and it was even taxed afterward (of course). Plus, you have all kinds of taxes and funeral costs (which the military does not pay for).

And, to top that off, if you're a soldier living on base, guess what? Your spouse has to move quickly. And if he/she was getting COLA for housing off base, that also stops.

And, as far as extra life insurance -- Boy, do you have that wrong. No one below officer level (especially if you have a family) can afford extra life insurance on the salaries they get in the military. Have you ever served?


Hugs,
ciara

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 10:06:15 PM

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 10:21:50 PM

I know exactly what you're talking about and agree with you. I was just commenting on how the U.S. works with civilians versus people risking their lives every day. I know they had to fork over the bucks. However, now more people are jumping on the bandwagon. That's a fact.

Hugs,
Ciara

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 10:09:57 PM

I'm just posting a message that I found interesting and would be thought-provoking. I never said these people shouldn't get any money, and I do feel extreme compassion for them. Who in their right minds wouldn't? And yes, when we joined the military we knew what could be in store for us, but that doesn't excuse those who are complaining about not getting enough money. That's shameful when people are dieing all the time in Iraq and even in our own country from starvation. Where are the bleeding hearts for them?

Hugs,
Ciara

I'm F'ing tired of all these lawsuit-happy people who are always looking to point a finger at anyone who has a huge checkbook.  These people were TERRORISTS!!!  Why are you putting the blame on airlines and corporations?  Next, why don't we sue home builders for failing to design homes that provide security to prevent burglaries?  Let's sue automobile manufacturers for failing to provide security to prevent carjackings.  And when all these lawsuits get awarded, do you think the corporations care?  No!  They'll just pass the cost down to you by raising prices!  And if you're so opposed to the evil corporations, why don't you stop supporting them by using their products?  Start by not using your computer.

First, I agree with you and commend you and most of the military for their sense of duty.  They do go into this knowing the risks.  I disagree that this should exempt them from proper compensation.  Were the survivors of police, firefighters and first responders who died on 9/11 exempted from the settlements because they knew they could be in harm's way by doing their jobs?

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 11:17:39 PM

A lot depends on how it was debated in Congress and what the "intent" of the Congress really was.  If anything, I know Congress didn't cut 9/11 compensation checks out of pure sympathy for the victims.  It simply didn' want air lines driven out of business, and didn't like the prospects of about 30,000 lawsuits hitting the courts.  It would have had to create more courts just for 9/11.  

I can't fault families faced with loss for trying;  access to the courts is a constitutional right.  It's up to judges to set precedence for what's an acceptable suit.  

-- Modified on 9/7/2006 7:45:16 AM

Wow.  There's a lot to comment on in this thread.

I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan but he is right to comment on - to criticize - the inequity of these compensations.  The US is a sue-happy country; it's what keeps it going, keeps us entertained on TV, and keeps the prices of everything going up.  In some instances though, suing can be a good thing, whether it's assigning a monetary amount to justice or calling a corporation to the carpet for obviously faulty designs or what-have-you.

But for the people of 9/11 to sue again, to seek out even more compensation - no.  They've been helped.  They're continuing to be helped.  To demand even more is either greed on their part or that of their lawyers.  It needs to stop.  We need to rebuild.

The enlisted of our military live on or near poverty-level wages.  I'm ex-military; I do know this.  It's not uncommon for base housing to be substandard (at least for the enlisted).  Families with spouses overseas often need to supplement what little money they have with food stamps and other forms of assistance.  And the compensation they receive for disability and death may have been adequate back in the 1950s but today?  Far from.  It's much the same as social security; when we retire and (attempt) to collect, we'll see - what? - $255 / month.  A family may have been able to live on that in the '50s but not today.

As Limbaugh says though, people in Congress don't have to worry about such things though.  Their retirement packages, even after just a single term, can keep them comfortable for the rest of their lives.  And because this isn't a problem for them, they aren't in any rush to fix a system that will inevitably collapse before many of us reach retirement age.  I've written to my congress-shmucks about this but they seemed pretty well oblivious to it or any solutions.  Heaven help us if Bush gets his way and the Social Security system becomes privatized.  If the stock market goes south, where will all of our social security benefits go?

Again, this system was ideal for the 1950s.  If I remember right, it's 7.65% of the first $95,000 each person makes.  People who make less than that see a sizeable chunk of their income taken away.  People like Ted Turner, who claims to make over $5 million each day - it doesn't even register on their radar.  Just off the top of my head, if we get rid of the $95,000 threshold and tax *everyone*, say, 4% of *all* of their income, well, to me anyway, it sounds like a way to keep the system going for all budgets, for all years.  (And if we were somehow able to force Congress to give up their luxury retirement packages and survive on Social Security after they retired, we'd probably see some changes real fast.)

Was this corporate welfare?  Yes, it was a bail-out for the corporations.  Personally, I don't have a problem with short-term, emergency bail-outs like this.  Whether it's an individual or a corporation, sometimes there will be that emergency situation no one can really plan for, that situation where the government will need to help out.

I don't see the security as a failure of the airlines though; I see it as failure - or neglect - of the Bush administration.  This administration took power in 2001 with the plan to invade Iraq.  VP-*ELECT* Cheney specifically requested security reports on Iraq in December 2000.  Bush couldn't be reached *during* the 9/11 attacks and it wasn't until 15 minutes after the fourth plane went down that he authorized use of deadly force on airliners still in the sky.  And then, instead of sending Marines and Rangers in, Bush essentially hired local warlords to look for Bin Laden, giving him a three-month headstart.  Three months our "commander-in-chief" gave to the most wanted criminal in our country and on our planet.  Meantime, Bush demanded that the CIA prove that Iraq was involved in 9/11.  That couldn't happen, so he misquoted the inspector reports on Iraq's WMDs.  And when that wasn't a sell, he moved that we had to depose Hussein and save the Iraqi citizens.  

No, IMO, Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were going to happen and he let them.  They were his Pearl Harbor into the Middle East.  He, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the ones responsible for the security failings then and the deaths of tens of thousands of people from that day to now.  They're the ones who should pay.

-- Modified on 9/7/2006 2:31:44 AM

to him "turn your computer off NOW, unplug and contact Ebay to dispose of said offensive product"

LMAO

And then to end it with "No, IMO, Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were going to happen and he let them."

This is a classic of ranting gone amok. It is also why these kinds of discussion along with religion belong on the polotics board.

I'm not a Bush fan, but please, the President of the United States knew we were gong to be attacked and did nothing?

Our concept of what we pay and who we pay it to, is all out of whack....

I do feel sorry for 911 victims... but I feel more sorry for the poor GI who risks life and limb, but then is victim of PC when he actually shoots a terrorist in Iraq.

More to the point, illegal aliens, break our law simply by crossing the border, and not only is our good "PRES" gonna give em Social Security payments, but he is also gonna let them use our schools, and insist that they be taught in Spanish... instead of being assimilated into the country... and we pay for this.... Garbage...  We really do not think about where the money goes (or where it comes from)....

Ciara, I'm with you... (at least on the military pay issue).

they're another evil corporation.

Your comment "lawyers....do a better job than Congress does for their constituents."  How sad, but how true.  We should have our brightest and best in Congress.  Instead we tend to have those who I would not entrust to give my kids a car ride to school, even if it were a block away.  Few in Congress have my admiration or support, mostly they are "wanna bes" or in some instances sad reflections of the wasted dreams and hopes of prior generations.  

As I so oftne say, the ladies on this board for the most part, reflect truth and honesty in a refreshing manner.  In the instances where a lady has asked me to grace her with my presence off the clock, it has been an honest connection.  in the instances where I have had private communications with the ladies of this board, they have been honest, helpful and sweet.  

but advocates in congress?  would you believe them as much as you would a well reviewed provider?  lol!  


Thanks for a GREAT post.

silly payouts to the FAMILIES of the victims of 9-11.   Notice the victims get little of the settlement.  Rush is highly supportive of our military.... and does in fact support more pay... Does Ted Kennedy?  for that matter does Ted Kennedy wish more cops on patrol.... looking for drunk drivers?  huh?  lol!  Gimme a break.

is to place limits on what incurs liability.  A doc, in the least risk prone practice pays about their personal income in liability insurance per annum.  result - increased health care costs....

sue?! sure why not... even though I missused a product in a manner for which it was never intended - I will sue... and guess what boys and girls.... rather than go to court.... most corps will settle... easier and cost effective....  

In this instance, it would be great if there was a causative relationship established.... the terrorists who crashed the planes are guilty... BUT they were acting at the command of one Osam BL.... attach his funds and the monetary funds of his family... but there I go again.... that would create other difficulties... like our great relations with Saudi Arabia.... yea, with friends like that....

need to cut down on coffee! lol

Seriously, when OUR media gets the reporting of facts correct, then folks will realize hey, the guilty party, is not united airlines, is not the TSA but rather, the individuals who crashed the planes... THEY DID IT. what is sooooo difficult to understand about that!????  

Sue them.

Few on this board have an appreciation of difficult financial circumstances.  Ciara, even though I was an officer... I lived on base, was going to grad school at the same time... and had a stipend at school... but even with all that, I could barely afford food!  

cost of a funeral?  just paid for one... it was five figures....  legal fees?  four figures....  and other costs.... associate with everything.

When a military dude or dudette dies, the effect on their loved ones is dramatic.... (I know, civies too, but in civie world the base is a lot higher.)

So you're even!

Can't a person with liberal or conservative views make a point without using derogatory names? Lots of us moderates get sick of all the childish name calling that you two groups advocate. Make your point in an intelligent fashion and drop the name calling. All your name calling does is spotlight your own deficiencies and character flaws, and those that agree with you. Politics is such a seedy business, on both sides of the fence. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Because my service time was in the days of the Viet Nam incident (war?  was that really a war?).  I saw decent men (and women) come back to the US after doing their required duty (draft, selective service, member?) and be spit upon, just for going as was required of them.  Get paid enough for that?  don't think so.

Even today, our MEDIA is so quick to say that EVERYTHING that our military does is 1) stupid, 2) mean, 3) harmful to all and 4) evil.  When they are only carrying out the directives of our civilian "leadership"!  I mean honestly, guys with a c or D average from one of our elite "Best" schools!  gimme a break.

Really want to know who I think is an overpaid - very privaledged class?  University profs, staff and admin.  they live in an unreal world... and should the radical Muslim followers have their way, the MEDIA  (As we know it) will be the first to go, and the academicians ?  they will be #2.... and as for #3?  that will be hollyweird.... providers?  guess what gents... based on those in the Muslim world that I know?  they will keep the providers.... it is the rest of the hobbiests.... they will go also....  

So....pay the military more?  sure - why not.  after all without them... the MEDIA would have little to complain about.

Politicians are overpaid, too.  If they were paid like politicians were back in the 18th Century (volunteers with *maybe* a modest stipend), we'd probably see a lot fewer people running for office.

My self-editing skills tend to sleep at the wee hours, when I should be as well.

But, we're not talking about the President of the United States here - we're talking about George Bush.  He lives by three words and three words only - "Stay the course."

When he was governor of Texas, he refused a stay of execution on a Mexican immigrant, even though there was evidence en route that would have proven the man's innocence.  When Katrina was bearing down on Louisiana and Mississippi and the people and the states turned to him, he essentially told them, "Don't bother me.  I'm on vacation."

Bush is an impotent leader when it comes to a crisis.  He has no problems *creating* one but he cannot resolve one.  And he has absolutely no empathy for the common person; as long as he and his corporate buddies get their way, that's all that matters to him.

Bush claims to have read some sixty books this year.  This tells me that this particular president has way too much free time on his hands.

And Al's radio show... no need of sominex.

but Rush gets no points because (a) he's only saying this to further denigrate those surviving families from 9/11 who dared to challenge the current administration on their failure to own up to their pre-9/11 neglect, (b)it was due in large part to gasbags such as him that American boys and girls got sent to be blown up in a war that we had no business starting, and (c) it's his beloved God's Own Party that has failed to keep faith with American service personnel by underfunding the VA, cutting benefits for soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines and generally failing to demand that the Administration treat service persons with more respect than using them for props in yet another canned "The Terrorists Are Coming" speech.

voice inflection and that Radio is a medium.  And pray tell how you connect soldiers giving their lives because we don't agree with the war.  I don't recall sending these young men and women off to die.

I want my 50 acres and a mule..lol My ancestors is still pissed about that mule. I think they wanted a horse..