Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
121
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

121 Views
Message 11 of 27

@mickstuder wrote:



I'm not yet effected by either program but again I don't think you have to be a Participant to be concerned about the inability of our elected Officials to act & to do their jobs

 


Then perhaps since you are not a participant in either program you should quit worrying about acronyms since those of us affected are aware of what they stand fo.

 

I have been a participant in the SBP for decades and have no concerns about the annuity my wife would receive when I'm gone.  Neither is she.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
121
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
110
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

110 Views
Message 12 of 27

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:


I think I was very clear about the point I was making

 

If like you - a person who is personally involved in the System - Acronyms are probably understood

 

I think it's a little Elitist to write several paragraphs about a Complex issue and only use the Acronyms

 


Of course those of us directly affected has an interest in the topic and the acronyms.  Besides using them saves having to write the name of the program out each time.  I believe that Gail had an explanation as to their meanings. 

 

How are you affected by either program?

 

 

 

 


If Gail had written out the name of the Program or the Department at least once - well then everyone including me could probably follow along - unfortunately - Gail is so very well versed in so many different areas and she is always willing to try to add to the discussion with factual insight but I find her exclusive use of Acronyms offensive - I've tried to follow her posts in other Communities and I just can't because she abbreviates so much what I'm sure is Second Nature to her but unfamiliar to many others

 

I'm not yet effected by either program but again I don't think you have to be a Participant to be concerned about the inability of our elected Officials to act & to do their jobs

 

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
110
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
103
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

103 Views
Message 13 of 27

@jimc91 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

Quit sending the same professional politicians to DC...

 

 

 


I'm trying - but Americans think they are effectively participating in their Government by electing the same people over and over again because they recognise their last name

 

A Majority obvioulsy have No Idea their Congress People - Do Nothing - except make sure - their constituents remember their names

 

There is No Other Reasonable Explanation for why when Polled

 

80+ % of Americans think Congress is not doing their Jobs

 

Then they turn around and re-elect 90% of the Incumbents

 

For No Other Reason Than Because they remember their last names & have bought into the Democrat & Republican Co-sonsored Collusion Theory

 

That it's the other Guys fault - nothing gets done

 

 

 

 


@mickstuder and that is one of the many reasons I voted for Donald Trump!  

 

I also voted for Rick Scott to replace Bill Nelson as my Senator from Florida.  

 

If we keep sending the same people back to the Senate and the House this is as good as it gets! Look at Bill Nelson's record over the past 14 years, he has done NOTHING but collect a check.  It's time to upset the ENTIRE apple cart and get rid of all the dead wood.  Of which there is plenty!

 

IMO of course...

 

 


I agree - Bill Nelson was a Place Holder but Rick Scott is in the Pocket of the NRA & by extension probably the Russians

 

I don't beleive in making Changes just for Changes Sake

 

The Whole point is to get the best person for the job

 

Scott Votes with Trump 85% of the time - I doubt Florida is 85% Trump

 

There are usually 2 Sides to every Candidate

 

The Campaign Side & the In Office Side

 

If I thought for a Minute Trump would do any of the things he Promised - in the manner and for the Benefit of the people he claimed he wanted to help

 

I probalby would have Voted for him - but he had a Long History of being a Con Man - A Liar & A Cheat - A Legitimate Draft Dodger

 

Like his Drain the Swamp Mantra - He's Enlarged the Swamp and Stocked it with more Swamp Creatures then any Administration in History

 

the Tax Break he promised the Middle Class was a Joke

 

The one Crisis he's had to face - Immigration - has been a Complete Debacle

 

Now you've got him not only taking the Side of Brutal Murderous Dictators over our own Government - he's telling everyone that Conspiracy with a Foreign Adversary to win a Election is OK

 

How Can Any Patriotic American Support this kind of Treachery

 

At some point - Love of Country has got to win out over Party Politics

 

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
103
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
109
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

109 Views
Message 14 of 27

@mickstuder wrote:


I think I was very clear about the point I was making

 

If like you - a person who is personally involved in the System - Acronyms are probably understood

 

I think it's a little Elitist to write several paragraphs about a Complex issue and only use the Acronyms

 


Of course those of us directly affected has an interest in the topic and the acronyms.  Besides using them saves having to write the name of the program out each time.  I believe that Gail had an explanation as to their meanings. 

 

How are you affected by either program?

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
109
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
107
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

107 Views
Message 15 of 27

@mickstuder wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

Quit sending the same professional politicians to DC...

 

 

 


I'm trying - but Americans think they are effectively participating in their Government by electing the same people over and over again because they recognise their last name

 

A Majority obvioulsy have No Idea their Congress People - Do Nothing - except make sure - their constituents remember their names

 

There is No Other Reasonable Explanation for why when Polled

 

80+ % of Americans think Congress is not doing their Jobs

 

Then they turn around and re-elect 90% of the Incumbents

 

For No Other Reason Than Because they remember their last names & have bought into the Democrat & Republican Co-sonsored Collusion Theory

 

That it's the other Guys fault - nothing gets done

 

 

 

 


@mickstuder and that is one of the many reasons I voted for Donald Trump!  

 

I also voted for Rick Scott to replace Bill Nelson as my Senator from Florida.  

 

If we keep sending the same people back to the Senate and the House this is as good as it gets! Look at Bill Nelson's record over the past 14 years, he has done NOTHING but collect a check.  It's time to upset the ENTIRE apple cart and get rid of all the dead wood.  Of which there is plenty!

 

IMO of course...

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
107
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
107
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

107 Views
Message 16 of 27

@GailL1 wrote:

@mickstuder 

You might be a "Political (Politics) Junkie -

To me, it is more important to be a "Legislative Junkie" -  find the legislative actions that are good, regardless of the party affilliation of who initiates them or even supports them and try to work for passage.

 

That is the reason why I support Representative John Larson's (D-CT-1) - H.R.860 - Social Security 2100 Act.  IMO, it is a good piece of legislation and covers everything that needs to be fixed and in a fair way.


What's the Point - if like - the Miltary Widows Tax Elimination Act - it has Strong Bi-partisan Support and for 6 years GOP Speaker of the House Ryan Wouldn't Allow any Action on it

 

Thats Why The Politics Is Important - Voters Need To Know Who To Blame & Why

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
107
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
105
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

105 Views
Message 17 of 27

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:


I cannot respond intelligently to a Post where every other collection of 3 letters or more is a Acronym

 

 


If you can't respond intelligently, perhaps you are not that familiar with these plans (or terms); then why are you posting about them.  Both the DIC and the SBP covers different situations as Gail posted. 

 

As a military retiree I am participating in the SBP to provide for my wife.  Additionally I paid premiums for a period of time until fully paid up.  It is considered an annuity for her which insures she will be collecting a percentage monthly.  That will guarantee a part of my income when I'm not around.

 

The DIC comes from a separate source as Gail posted.


I think I was very clear about the point I was making

 

If like you - a person who is personally involved in the System - Acronyms are probably understood

 

I think it's a little Elitist to write several paragraphs about a Complex issue and only use the Acronyms

 

The Brief I posted is a wonderful example of the Authors understanding that Not Everyone is a Expert on the Subject matter

 

"However, if they had previously voluntarily enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Survivors Benefits Plan (SBP)"

 

But Kudo's To You - Sir Galahad

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
105
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
108
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

108 Views
Message 18 of 27

@mickstuder wrote:


I cannot respond intelligently to a Post where every other collection of 3 letters or more is a Acronym

 

 


If you can't respond intelligently, perhaps you are not that familiar with these plans (or terms); then why are you posting about them.  Both the DIC and the SBP covers different situations as Gail posted. 

 

As a military retiree I am participating in the SBP to provide for my wife.  Additionally I paid premiums for a period of time until fully paid up.  It is considered an annuity for her which insures she will be collecting a percentage monthly.  That will guarantee a part of my income when I'm not around.

 

The DIC comes from a separate source as Gail posted.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
108
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
121
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

121 Views
Message 19 of 27

@mickstuder 

You might be a "Political (Politics) Junkie -

To me, it is more important to be a "Legislative Junkie" -  find the legislative actions that are good, regardless of the party affilliation of who initiates them or even supports them and try to work for passage.

 

That is the reason why I support Representative John Larson's (D-CT-1) - H.R.860 - Social Security 2100 Act.  IMO, it is a good piece of legislation and covers everything that needs to be fixed and in a fair way.

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
121
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
118
Views

Re: Congressional Incumbents Reject Military Widows

118 Views
Message 20 of 27

@GailL1 wrote:

OH, mickstuder - Those people in Congress really aren't any more intelligent than me or you.  Most of them do not get into the nitty-gritty of why a particular thing is done because they don't dig into the details.  They "sell" their legislation to others, sometimes they do "horsetrading", i.e. you support mine and I will support yours.

 

The same is true of legislation that gets rid of the Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset. Every year it raises its head because some Congressperson puts it back in; it gets several hundred cosponsors, sometimes even bipartisan support but it is studpid to eliminate these provisions.   I have debated it fully many, many times on the Social Security Board.  These provisions are fair because these people DID NOT pay into Social Security most of their working career; thus their benefits are adjusted for this fact.  Many states don't want to do the SS (employer) match so they create a retirement program for their own workers.  They are getting that rather than a full SS benefit even if they worked some under a SS job.  The reduction is eliminated IF they work 30 years under a SS job in ADDITION to their non-SS government job.

 

For a Congressperson to really do their job, they need to get into the fine details of any legislation - the how, the why and then make an educated call for it or not.  If they do that, they might be able to rework the program or benefit to help people understand it better - like my suggestion that they cover the (2) facets of DIC under separate categories rather than just one.

 

This isn't about Party or Administration - it is about intelligence and making a call that is educated because they understand it and how it works.

 

 

 

 


It is about Party - both of them - Congress is no longer a Legislative Body - it's a Political Body - No One Benefits in this kind of a System except the Incumbent Politicians

 

I could go on for a hour about how 80% of Americans are in Favor of all kinds of Legislation that never sees any Debate or a Vote because of the Politics of Fund Raising & Lobbying against it

 

I'm a Political Junkie - I watch a lot of Politics on TV and I read a lot of Politics Online

 

I've heard the Actual Congressman Blabber on about Legislation they haven't even read - the Congressional Staffs are the only ones doing what little work is being done - it's to bad these rotten Congressional Leaders like Pelosi & McConnell tie the Pay Increases of their Staffs in with their own

 

Elected Officials in Congress should have their pay retroactively reduced & the difference given to their Staffs

 

Horse Trading - yeah but whomever ends up with the Horse you can bet the Average American Citizen Who Works for a Living - Will Ever Get a Ride - but they'll 4Sure be taken for a ride

 

Just this week I've heard representatives & senators from both sides blubbering about the Mueller Report - the next Question is - have you read it - well - not all of it

 

Vote Out Every Incumbent After 3 terms in the House & 1 Term in the Senate Automatically - 6 years is enough for any of these Bozos

 

 

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
118
Views