Not good for Romney

blackredyellow

usamamasan1 wrote:

Barack Hussein Obama's plan has been is dismal failure up to year four. After that, he will have to finally get a job in the private sector.

WOOT

Nope, because he will get his pension for the rest of his life!

WOOT

Once again, thanks for bringing absolutely nothing to the discussion.

DriftingByTheStorm

blackredyellow wrote:

Nope, because he will get his pension for the rest of his life!

WOOT

Wow. I just wiki'd this.
Presidents get a lifetime pension of (currently) $191,000.
That's absurd!
4 years of work, and you get 200k\yr for life?

Pffft.

usamamasan1

That's too bad

DriftingByTheStorm

oh AND on TOP of that $200k\YR for life
they get ANOTHER $100K\YR for life for "staff and office"?

Become president for 4 years,
earn a half mil. for life for jack shit.
:>?
L-A-M-E

err.
i'm sorry.
should have said,
be hand picked by your elitist backers to be king-made as "president" for a term,
and get a half mil for life.

usamamasan1

He's going to try and buy the election again with his entitlement philosophy.

Jason P

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Nope, because he will get his pension for the rest of his life!

WOOT

Wow. I just wiki'd this.
Presidents get a lifetime pension of (currently) $191,000.
That's absurd!
4 years of work, and you get 200k\yr for life?

Pffft.

That's a drop in the bucket when you think of all the secondary costs such as secret service staff, private transportation, etc behind the scenes.

That said .... considering being president is a 24/7 job that is under intense scrutiny and diplomatic scenarios that are ever-evolving ... taxpayers are getting off cheap for $200K.

Especially when you put it into perspective that Matt Flynn is being paid $26M the next three years by the Seattle Seahawks to hold a clipboard on the sidelines.

peacefrompaul

usamamasan1 wrote:

He's going to try and buy the election again with his entitlement philosophy.

Agreed

gimmesometruth27

norm wrote:

year 8

+1

Jason P

usamamasan1 wrote:

He's going to try and buy the election again with his entitlement philosophy.

Andy Reid's 2-minute clock management is better then Romney's campaign strategy in crunch time.

polaris_x

usamamasan1 wrote:

He's going to try and buy the election again with his entitlement philosophy.

that's kinda funny ... the documentary i saw the other night (queen of versailles) is about david siegel and his wife ... he started westgate resorts (timeshare) ... anyways ... the guy says he was responsible for bush winning florida in 2000 and says he had a few regrets about it (iraq war) but then he's asked how bush got elected in 2004 and he basically says ... he can't talk about it cuz some of it wasn't totally legal ...

DriftingByTheStorm

Jason P wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Nope, because he will get his pension for the rest of his life!

WOOT

Wow. I just wiki'd this.
Presidents get a lifetime pension of (currently) $191,000.
That's absurd!
4 years of work, and you get 200k\yr for life?

Pffft.

That's a drop in the bucket when you think of all the secondary costs such as secret service staff, private transportation, etc behind the scenes.

That said .... considering being president is a 24/7 job that is under intense scrutiny and diplomatic scenarios that are ever-evolving ... taxpayers are getting off cheap for $200K.

Especially when you put it into perspective that Matt Flynn is being paid $26M the next three years by the Seattle Seahawks to hold a clipboard on the sidelines.

See. I disagree.
The President is the chief PUBLIC SERVANT of the country.
It is an HONOR to be the President.
I don't think that means that you should be ENTITLED to some absurd reward for what was already a reward in and of itself.

IMHO, this type of financial kick back to ex-presidents is anathema to what the position of President is supposed to be about in the first place. It goes against the "disinterestedness" of which our first President (old G-Dub) was so concerned. And, to me, if flies in the face of every day people. People here rail against CEO's and their absurd pensions, but when the President gets one, oh, "he earned it" and "it's a hard job" and "it's 24\7". I'm sorry. I don't buy it. I've seen the golf courses they play on. I've seen Camp David. I've seen plenty of times where the president didnt address some international concern until the next day. "24\7" is kind've a horseshit line. But whatever.

Sorry to thread hijack. I just don't see how we got from President SERVING the country, to the country serving ex-presidents in perpetuity (for a job they may not even have done "right").
:?

hedonist

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The President is the chief PUBLIC SERVANT of the country.
It is an HONOR to be the President.
I don't think that means that you should be ENTITLED to some absurd reward for what was already a reward in and of itself.

whygohome

Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be President.
Let's be realistic, please.

If you disagree, then go be President.

DriftingByTheStorm

whygohome wrote:

Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be President.
Let's be realistic, please.

If you disagree, then go be President.

I don't disagree.
But this logic is getting kind of absurd.
I mean, we are defending someone's pension because the job is really hard?
This line
you don't have "a clue of what it is like to be President"
Really? This is the defense?
These people weren't DRAFTED in to the fucking presidency.
They goddamn signed up for the job.
Hell, I'll go one further, they fucking CAMPAIGNED for it. They sucked corporate dick here, and bum-thumbed private ass there, and brown nosed the public here, and bullshitted the people there ... they lied, they misrepresented, they did everything it could possibly take, including talking shit about others, and firing off cheap shots, and endorsed shitty ads left right and up and down to get there. Then, by and large, they turned their back on all the promises they made to the people, and continued to coroporate cock gobble and lobbyist bum-thumb. Jeez. boo hoo.

Here. See how well THIS sits with you:
Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.
Let's be realistic, please.
If you disagree, then go be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.


???
How is that any less laughable? and how, in gods name, does it defend the pension itself?

blackredyellow

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Jason P wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Wow. I just wiki'd this.
Presidents get a lifetime pension of (currently) $191,000.
That's absurd!
4 years of work, and you get 200k\yr for life?

Pffft.

That's a drop in the bucket when you think of all the secondary costs such as secret service staff, private transportation, etc behind the scenes.

That said .... considering being president is a 24/7 job that is under intense scrutiny and diplomatic scenarios that are ever-evolving ... taxpayers are getting off cheap for $200K.

Especially when you put it into perspective that Matt Flynn is being paid $26M the next three years by the Seattle Seahawks to hold a clipboard on the sidelines.

See. I disagree.
The President is the chief PUBLIC SERVANT of the country.
It is an HONOR to be the President.
I don't think that means that you should be ENTITLED to some absurd reward for what was already a reward in and of itself.

IMHO, this type of financial kick back to ex-presidents is anathema to what the position of President is supposed to be about in the first place. It goes against the "disinterestedness" of which our first President (old G-Dub) was so concerned. And, to me, if flies in the face of every day people. People here rail against CEO's and their absurd pensions, but when the President gets one, oh, "he earned it" and "it's a hard job" and "it's 24\7". I'm sorry. I don't buy it. I've seen the golf courses they play on. I've seen Camp David. I've seen plenty of times where the president didnt address some international concern until the next day. "24\7" is kind've a horseshit line. But whatever.
:?

I look at it the other way... I think the pension (and related entitlements) actually protect the office of the President. It keeps former presidents out of the private sector.

Whatever your view of any former president it is, anything he says has geopolitical repercussions. Keeping them on the sidelines on major issues, is a good thing I think.

whygohome

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be President.
Let's be realistic, please.

If you disagree, then go be President.

I don't disagree.
But this logic is getting kind of absurd.
I mean, we are defending someone's pension because the job is really hard?
This line
you don't have "a clue of what it is like to be President"
Really? This is the defense?
These people weren't DRAFTED in to the fucking presidency.
They goddamn signed up for the job.
Hell, I'll go one further, they fucking CAMPAIGNED for it. They sucked corporate dick here, and bum-thumbed private ass there, and brown nosed the public here, and bullshitted the people there ... they lied, they misrepresented, they did everything it could possibly take, including talking shit about others, and firing off cheap shots, and endorsed shitty ads left right and up and down to get there. Then, by and large, they turned their back on all the promises they made to the people, and continued to coroporate cock gobble and lobbyist bum-thumb. Jeez. boo hoo.

Here. See how well THIS sits with you:
Yes, the pensions are something that warrants a discussion; but, I don't think for one second, for one millisecond, that anyone on this board has a clue of what it is like to be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.
Let's be realistic, please.
If you disagree, then go be THE CEO OF A LARGE COMPANY.


???
How is that any less laughable? and how, in gods name, does it defend the pension itself?

As my post clearly states, I am not defending the pensions. I am simply commenting on the idea that being President is not a difficult job. It is a 24/7 job.

People do not have a clue what it is like to be President. That is quite simple and quite accurate.
You are distorting the meaning of my words/post to and going off on tangents.

PJ_Soul

Politicians need to be paid well. Pay and pention is incentive for them just like anyone else (along with power for their huge egos). Pay for such roles have to be competitive with what qualified candidates could make in the private sector (which is generally a LOT), or else the government would be filled wi5h even bigger idiots than we already have, who are even more driven by power alone, which would be even scarier and as hard as that is to imagine. Anyone who thinks it might encourage the truly righteous to politics, those who care only for the public good, are feeling themselves, because those people generally are not cut out to wade around in the shit and don't desire that kind of power in the first place. So not only does that explain good monetary incentive, but also why we're all fucked.

EdsonNascimento

blackredyellow wrote:

You have some factual errors there...

Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.

And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?

And technically, Romney is a lawyer.

Spot on regarding the deficit. That was a HUGE problem. But, at least folks were working (until the last year or so). Now we have a BIGGER deficit and folks not working. I'm not trumpeting Bush's feats either, so good that you called me on that. But, the point was - Obama made it worse.

And we should eliminate the death tax. How stupid is that concept? You die, and the State takes money from your heirs? Wasn't that money already taxed?

I was talking about individual taxes. I don't recall him saying we should lower taxes another 20%. If I missed that, I'm sorry. But, I think you are talking about the CURRENT tax rates. Which Obama is planning on raising and Romney is planning on MAINTAINING.

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

You have some factual errors there...

Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.

And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?

And technically, Romney is a lawyer.

Spot on regarding the deficit. That was a HUGE problem. But, at least folks were working (until the last year or so). Now we have a BIGGER deficit and folks not working. I'm not trumpeting Bush's feats either, so good that you called me on that. But, the point was - Obama made it worse.

And we should eliminate the death tax. How stupid is that concept? You die, and the State takes money from your heirs? Wasn't that money already taxed?

I was talking about individual taxes. I don't recall him saying we should lower taxes another 20%. If I missed that, I'm sorry. But, I think you are talking about the CURRENT tax rates. Which Obama is planning on raising and Romney is planning on MAINTAINING.

Obama made it worse?
But the banks and Wall St. had nothing to do with it? They are saints.
Republican obstructionism?
This is not a defense of Obama, but can we look at the whole picture here?

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

You have some factual errors there...

Romney is campaigning on cutting taxes. He's proposing for a 20% reduction in tax rates across the board. Plus, cutting the corporate tax rate 25% and eliminating the death tax.

And no matter what version of revisionist history that you are reading, Bush's policies didn't work "fine" in the first 7 years. The deficit blew up each year, spending was through the roof and we get into a mess in Iraq. Does that sound "fine" to you?

And technically, Romney is a lawyer.

Spot on regarding the deficit. That was a HUGE problem. But, at least folks were working (until the last year or so). Now we have a BIGGER deficit and folks not working. I'm not trumpeting Bush's feats either, so good that you called me on that. But, the point was - Obama made it worse.

And we should eliminate the death tax. How stupid is that concept? You die, and the State takes money from your heirs? Wasn't that money already taxed?

I was talking about individual taxes. I don't recall him saying we should lower taxes another 20%. If I missed that, I'm sorry. But, I think you are talking about the CURRENT tax rates. Which Obama is planning on raising and Romney is planning on MAINTAINING.

Obama made it worse?
But the banks and Wall St. had nothing to do with it? They are saints.
Republican obstructionism?
This is not a defense of Obama, but can we look at the whole picture here?

The Republican obstuctionism - Have you stopped for a second and thought maybe THEY are correct? Isn't it possible Obama is wrong and our checks and balances are saving us from a worse fate?

Nobody is innocent in this. But, a good leader finds a way to get the job done. He is a poor leader. By insisting his way or no way, he is ultimately responsible for the results. He should try being a leader at some point and not a glorified 5 year old brat.