Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1

    Is this true?!? The children of Congressmen don't have to pay student loans back?

    I read something today that would irritate the f-ck out of me if true. If true, our representatives make me even more sick than they already do.

    "Children of a congress member do not have to pay back their college student loans. How nice!
    Monday on Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it.
    Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

    This is an idea that we should address.

    For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

    Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."
    "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face" - Mike Tyson -

  2. #2
    That's correct, spouse and kids. They took away my wife's TA (I'm USAR) and give it to them. The last part isn't fact but it happen at the same time so that's what I think.

  3. #3
    al24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Under the mast.
    Member #
    688
    Images
    24
    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Gags View Post

    For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term...."
    WIKI:

    Pension amount

    The pension amount is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000. For example, a member of Congress who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year.[3]

  5. #5
    al24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Under the mast.
    Member #
    688
    Images
    24
    As for the rest..... http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/


    Pete, don't turn into one of the mindless zombies here posting crap they never bother to research.

  6. #6
    Okay, do we have a serious problem with "good" information versus "bad?"

  7. #7
    We have a problem with virally spreading false rumors to stir the pot, and people being so outraged by something that they continue to propagate without research. Not to bash on you, since you at least asked instead of just getting irate and throwing a tantrum.

    Staffers - not congress members - can have some student loan repayment while they are on the job, up to a set amount. The military also has a similar program where you can work off your student loans en lieu of Montgomery GI Bill.
    [I]"I'm not just sure Butters, I'm HIV Positive"[/I]
    Eric Cartman
    [I]"I have a chief of staff and a personal assistant, and everyone needs that."[/I]
    Michelle Obama

  8. #8
    We shouldn't be outraged over rumors when there are facts that work just fine.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/cong...cal-cliff-bill

    We tax the rich to help the deficit, and in the same bill, we give tax breaks to Warren Buffett, Hollywood, NASCAR, and Goldman Sachs and BofA?

  9. #9
    J Kimmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Lakewood, CO
    Member #
    22
    Images
    4
    that's really odd, I thought Warren wanted higher taxes for the rich?


    Quote Originally Posted by redcj7 View Post
    We shouldn't be outraged over rumors when there are facts that work just fine.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/cong...cal-cliff-bill

    We tax the rich to help the deficit, and in the same bill, we give tax breaks to Warren Buffett, Hollywood, NASCAR, and Goldman Sachs and BofA?
    The Car Guy

  10. #10
    is awesome! 1BGDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    In your thoughts....
    Member #
    650
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by J Kimmel View Post
    that's really odd, I thought Warren wanted higher taxes for the rich?
    redcj7 is being a tad disingenuous with his statement... it benefits more than just Buffet FYI, but his company does benefit and in turn his share holders, nice to be a share holder .

    Section 306: Provides tax credits to corporations that own and operate railroads, like Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. Buffett owns so many railroads, he and his fund had to sell 9.6 million shares of Union Pacific railroad and 1.9 million shares of Norfolk Southern railroad, in order to purchase Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad without being an illegal monopoly. Cost - $165 - $331 million.
    I don't even own a Jeep, oh wait I do and it is sick!
    http://www.factcheck.org/


  11. #11
    noahfecks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Grand Junction
    Member #
    13651
    It's ok, Buffet doesn't pay the taxes he already owes, why would he care if his taxes went up?
    F-Toy #F002- BFGoodrich Tires, Yukon Gear/Randys Ring & Pinon

    "pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others"

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by 1BGDOG View Post
    redcj7 is being a tad disingenuous with his statement... it benefits more than just Buffet FYI, but his company does benefit and in turn his share holders, nice to be a share holder .

    Section 306: Provides tax credits to corporations that own and operate railroads, like Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. Buffett owns so many railroads, he and his fund had to sell 9.6 million shares of Union Pacific railroad and 1.9 million shares of Norfolk Southern railroad, in order to purchase Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad without being an illegal monopoly. Cost - $165 - $331 million.
    Disingenuous? Not hardly. With the number of shares Buffett owns, the tax breaks Berkshire Hathway received will increase his share value and will far outweigh the 5% difference he will pay in capital gain and dividend tax personally. End result, his fortune will be even bigger after the fiscal cliff bill. I've said before, and I'll say it again, Warren Buffett is the worse kind of hypocrite.

    Interesting comment on Obama's stand on these particular tax breaks for businesses:




    McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart, said the White House insisted that it would a "deal breaker" if the entire package of tax credits was not in the bill. Stewart also said the White House initially wanted to make all of the tax breaks permanent, rather than extend them only through the end of this year.

    "The White House ... can't deny that the only reason the (business tax breaks were) included in the final agreement is because the president insisted" they be in there, Stewart said.

    White House spokesman Jay Carney on Monday said that Obama supported the overall package of tax breaks for businesses. He emphasized that the president favored the wind energy credit and tax benefits for research and development to encourage "job-creating research investments."


    Sounds to me like he took care of some of his biggest supporters at the cost of the working person, but what else is new.

  13. #13
    is awesome! 1BGDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    In your thoughts....
    Member #
    650
    Images
    10
    I said tad, looks like the R's made out as well, but I don't see your anger towards them. Many of the tax breaks benefit businesses, now I guess that is a bad thing now?

    PS looking more into this, this tax credit is for maintenance of rail road tracks....horrible I tell you!

    http://www.railresource.com/content/?p=2874

    Those 550 small businesses sure appreciate this.

    Quote Originally Posted by redcj7 View Post
    Disingenuous? Not hardly. With the number of shares Buffett owns, the tax breaks Berkshire Hathway received will increase his share value and will far outweigh the 5% difference he will pay in capital gain and dividend tax personally. End result, his fortune will be even bigger after the fiscal cliff bill. I've said before, and I'll say it again, Warren Buffett is the worse kind of hypocrite.

    Interesting comment on Obama's stand on these particular tax breaks for businesses:




    McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart, said the White House insisted that it would a "deal breaker" if the entire package of tax credits was not in the bill. Stewart also said the White House initially wanted to make all of the tax breaks permanent, rather than extend them only through the end of this year.

    "The White House ... can't deny that the only reason the (business tax breaks were) included in the final agreement is because the president insisted" they be in there, Stewart said.

    White House spokesman Jay Carney on Monday said that Obama supported the overall package of tax breaks for businesses. He emphasized that the president favored the wind energy credit and tax benefits for research and development to encourage "job-creating research investments."


    Sounds to me like he took care of some of his biggest supporters at the cost of the working person, but what else is new.
    Last edited by 1BGDOG; January 8th, 2013 at 10:44 PM.

  14. #14
    I guess those 550 small railroads got lucky just like Buffett did.

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...liff-bill.html

    You have to really love Buffet's comment in 2010 on how they didn't need government help on their infrastruture.

    Spin it anyway you want, we both know it was Obama's way of taking care of some of his biggest supporters. I just think it ironic that it was done in a bill that was to raise taxes on the wealthy to help the deficit.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by CYAN5DE View Post
    We have a problem with virally spreading false rumors to stir the pot, and people being so outraged by something that they continue to propagate without research. Not to bash on you, since you at least asked instead of just getting irate and throwing a tantrum.

    Staffers - not congress members - can have some student loan repayment while they are on the job, up to a set amount. The military also has a similar program where you can work off your student loans en lieu of Montgomery GI Bill.
    There are think tanks and people paid to spread these viral rumors. I also think there is a problem with those who promote bad information. A dude on FB is one thing, major news networks doing it is another, IMO.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Gags View Post
    A dude on FB is one thing, major news networks doing it is another, IMO.
    Dude, it's Faux, what do you expect? You should add something when referencing them. I'll help...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gags View Post
    A dude on FB is one thing, major "news" networks doing it is another, IMO.
    "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" Isaac Asimov

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Waifer2112 View Post
    Dude, it's Faux, what do you expect? You should add something when referencing them. I'll help...
    I guess I get irritated because the only power the general public has is their vote (for the most part). If all the information you're getting is tainted then how do you make good decisions? For example, if people knew what was "really" happening, we wouldn't have supported any of our recent wars. Our people reacted to what they were hearing and what we were hearing were lies. After that, the politicians let us fight each other on bullsh!t and ideology while they do WTF they want.

  18. #18
    Its on the Internet so it must be true, the Internet says so!
    Scott R.

    '86 Wagoneer 360 with TBI - WT conversion
    SOA/SF - HP D44/D60 8-lug - 35x12.5x16 BFG Mud-Terrains

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Gags View Post
    I guess I get irritated because the only power the general public has is their vote (for the most part). If all the information you're getting is tainted then how do you make good decisions? For example, if people knew what was "really" happening, we wouldn't have supported any of our recent wars. Our people reacted to what they were hearing and what we were hearing were lies. After that, the politicians let us fight each other on bullsh!t and ideology while they do WTF they want.
    I hear ya man. But nowadays much of the media is in it purely for the profit, not for reporting the actual news. I've looked around the internet to see how various news programs get rated for accuracy, and the PBS Newshour consistently gets good ratings. They offer POV's from both sides (actually letting both sides talk, not just put them out there to point at and say "See, we present both sides too!", and then either berate them or don't let them talk), don't report on things that aren't facts yet (see: "Headlines...You might die tonight if you don't watch our "news" program!!!!!!!!"), and often delve much deeper on the topic then CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and most other entertainment shows ('cause that's what they really are).

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Waifer2112 View Post
    I hear ya man. But nowadays much of the media is in it purely for the profit, not for reporting the actual news. I've looked around the internet to see how various news programs get rated for accuracy, and the PBS Newshour consistently gets good ratings. They offer POV's from both sides (actually letting both sides talk, not just put them out there to point at and say "See, we present both sides too!", and then either berate them or don't let them talk), don't report on things that aren't facts yet (see: "Headlines...You might die tonight if you don't watch our "news" program!!!!!!!!"), and often delve much deeper on the topic then CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and most other entertainment shows ('cause that's what they really are).
    I find that if I really want to know about a topic, I have to read a whole bunch of different things. Even the info that the best news networks get can be tainted. Politicians NEED the media and the media needs them. I often have to try to imagine myself in the position of people that our policies affect negatively in order to get it. I have to consider our historical propensity for hysteria. I must also consider the "money."

    Nowadays, you actually need to read/watch/hear stuff and think "where is coming from and who benefits?" If you make finding facts/truth complex...Well, it makes it harder to find and a lot of people won't/don't have the time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •