Posted on 05/26/2015 8:00:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
Progressivism pays very well.
Any post-political office pension should be 100% means tested—with both income and asset caps.
And, really, since most constituents don’t have such pensions, isn’t inappropriate for elected or bureaucratic officials on any level to have them as well?
If an at-risk 401k is good enough for us, it is good enough for them.
“... Harry Truman’s financial struggles,...”
Oh BOO HOO!!
If the man wasn’t smart enough to SAVE any of the money he EARNED as President all those years, he certainly could have gotten a decent JOB to support hisself.
Cry me a RIVER, please.
Who are the asstards that hire the Clintoon criminal grifters for speeches anyway? Are there companies out there that are actually able to survive being run by such far leftist loons who would hire criminal grifters such as this? How does that work? Everything the Clintoon criminal grifters say is absolute pure garbage, so how does that help these companies survive in the real world? This is like hiring Sante and Kenneth Kimes to speak at your company, what could POSSIBLY be advantageous about that? Or are they giving lessons on how to scam the public? Is that it?
Hear, Hear! Let them go back to being ordinary citizens. Lose the Secret Service for life also.
The income test is cute, but it simply is putting Fabreeze over the sewer stench of embezzlement.
Do away with political pensions. There is no justification whatsoever for elected politicians to ride on the backs of their constituents for the remainder of their lives. None.
Do some research on the history of Presidential and Congressional pensions and see how far we have fallen.
if the Clintons were not in a quid pro quo speech scam, no one would want to hear anything they have to say, let alone pay them a dime for their lies
But... but... the Clintons “care” for the middle class and will “topple” the eeeveel 1%.
Good point-—they should give up their taxpayer funded salary for life and in return they can their federal taxes waived on their income investments.
They won’t lead by example however. The bigger morons and dupes are the ones who pay them such bloated fees for speaking.
George H. W. Bush took the money-grubbing to new heights: Within four years of leaving the White House, reported The Wall Street Journal in 1997, he had "earned millions of dollars speaking publicly for about 40 companies." His son has followed suit, amassing a fortune of his own in speaking fees and royalties.
So does conservatism.
All politicians should pay their own way after leaving office then maybe some wouldn’t stay so long to get the after office perks. And they should contribute towards any pensions, and help pay for their health insurance while in office.
We will be discussing the Clintons and more on a radio program tonight:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3293557/posts
Feel free to call in with questions and comments!
The speeches are simply a way to funnel money to the Clintons, to buy influence with others that are in power.
Or better yet, get absolutely nothing. Their party can pay for the moving expense out of the White House as well as security. They certainly aren't short on funds if they can come up with billions to promote Romney and Hillary. At what point do we return politicians to a status of equal citizens? I can't imagine that day ever happening so long as they walk away with a lifetime umbilical cord to the public treasury.
An allotment should be made for security as it is directly related to the job they held. I don’t are if they earn their own money or not or if I agree with them. There is a security requirement needed to protect them from domestic and foreign crazies specifically because of their time serving the country as President. It should be limited to home protection and basic travel protection. If the Obama’s jetset as they have in office, they should get the same amount as George Bush who spends most of his time at home in Dallas. As far as annual income, I don’t know....if congress gets one, why wouldn’t the President? We know damn well the congress isn’t going to vote theirs away, and it is much more expensive than a few living presidents.
On January 10, 2013, President Barack Obama signed legislation reinstating lifetime Secret Service protection for himself, George W. Bush, and all subsequent presidents.
Richard Nixon relinquished his Secret Service protection in 1985, the only president to do so.
Secret service protection is probably unavoidable considering all the whack-jobs loose in this country. That's a public cost we must pay for allowing them to run loose.
All of us know that social security will be means tested before long. It would be best to start with defined public employee pensions first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.