Obama wants a bigger retirement

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Cost of living increases and inflation. These benefits have been increased periodically for the last 40+ years. The reason it's newsworthy is because Obama is the one doing it, and this is an election year. He's not the first President to increase the benefit percentage. It's the same reason why Senators and Representatives also vote for pension as well as salary increases and make appropriations for that as well.

The cost of living thing doesn't matter much to me. What I'm saying is we need a valid reason. So if you factor in the increased costs of living and find they can't maintain their lifestyle okay.

If they can maintain their lifestyle just fine, should they be given more money? See because my parents worked the same jobs for a long time without getting raises, despite rising costs of life. We still lived fine. If we can do it then I don't see why people should be given even more money unless it's proven it's desperately needed.

I would want a valid reason. I'd want the numbers to be crunched to show there is NO possible way they could survive on what they are getting.

Also, I want to add I don't say "He's not the first president to do it" to qualify that it's right or wrong or that it's only an issue because it's Obama, but ______ did it as well. I'm saying it because it's a fiscal reality. As time goes on our money doesn't go as far, and pension benefits cover a lot of unforeseen expenses. It's not just about a cushy life. The descendant of a president could use the benefit to cover the costs of cancer treatments, etc., and wipe out their funds.

Originally posted by Surtur
The cost of living thing doesn't matter much to me. What I'm saying is we need a valid reason. So if you factor in the increased costs of living and find they can't maintain their lifestyle okay.

If they can maintain their lifestyle just fine, should they be given more money? See because my parents worked the same jobs for a long time without getting raises, despite rising costs of life. We still lived fine. If we can do it then I don't see why people should be given even more money unless it's proven it's desperately needed.

I would want a valid reason. I'd want the numbers to be crunched to show there is NO possible way they could survive on what they are getting.

There needs to be a valid reason for a person's pension to be passed to their family members?

*edit

Oh, you mean the increase. Well, for my job in the financial services industry we get an annual 2.8% "COLA" bump (Cost of living adjustment) on top of our merit increase. I'm just an accountant, however. The President of the United States is a different ballgame, and they are only employed for 8 years. However, like military service, their benefits are for life, and pensions and retirement benefits for Vets can be increased as well due to COLA. I'm not in the government but I'm assuming that's the general rule in play.

I don't doubt he's not the first and I don't doubt it happens periodically. What I'm saying is though we need to actually put time and effort into figuring out if they should get more. If they are just going "well it's been a few years, time for mo money" then no that's kind of bullshit.

Also in the past this country might of been better off when it comes to our money situation and our economy. Just like inflation fluctuates, so too does our economy. If we didn't begin to to take a good long hard look at if they truly needed more money in the past..that needs to change.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
There needs to be a valid reason for a person's pension to be passed to their family members?

No, a valid reason to give them even more money. Especially if these people are friggin rich. Which they ALL ARE. It's just weird to see rich people whine about inflation and the cost of living. I am not saying anyone is whining for this, but unless there has been a huge change it shouldn't be something we need to think about. Not now, not with the state of our country. Allowing the rich to maintain their riches should be way at the bottom of the list.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Also, I want to add I don't say "He's not the first president to do it" to qualify that it's right or wrong or that it's only an issue because it's Obama, but ______ did it as well. I'm saying it because it's a fiscal reality. As time goes on our money doesn't go as far, and pension benefits cover a lot of unforeseen expenses. It's not just about a cushy life. The descendant of a president could use the benefit to cover the costs of cancer treatments, etc., and wipe out their funds.

Yup

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't doubt he's not the first and I don't doubt it happens periodically. What I'm saying is though we need to actually put time and effort into figuring out if they should get more. If they are just going "well it's been a few years, time for mo money" then no that's kind of bullshit.

Also in the past this country might of been better off when it comes to our money situation and our economy. Just like inflation fluctuates, so too does our economy. If we didn't begin to to take a good long hard look at if they truly needed more money in the past..that needs to change.

No, a valid reason to give them even more money. Especially if these people are friggin rich. Which they ALL ARE. It's just weird to see rich people whine about inflation and the cost of living. I am not saying anyone is whining for this, but unless there has been a huge change it shouldn't be something we need to think about. Not now, not with the state of our country. Allowing the rich to maintain their riches should be way at the bottom of the list.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't grasp that part in my initial response. My mistake.

Also again you want to talk about cancer treatment and stuff. How do these people worth millions of dollars not already have health insurance for themselves and their families?

Even with health insurance some treatments are insanely expensive and the costs add up quick. And we're talking about children inheriting the benefits from a deceased parent. It would be the survivor's who would be using the funds to provide all of their insurance coverages, etc. Adult children aren't on their parent's health care plans.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Even with health insurance some treatments are insanely expensive and the costs add up quick. And we're talking about children inheriting the benefits from a deceased parent. It would be the survivor's who would be using the funds to provide all of their insurance coverages, etc. Adult children aren't on their parent's health care plans.

I get this, but I'm pretty sure Carters children have jobs of their own and most likely health insurance. The ones I found on wiki either have jobs that would provide it or married people who have jobs that would provide it.

Just how many generations of the Carter family should we be looking out for? If anyone beyond the children of the presidents get it(like grandchildren) well where do you draw the line. If the grandchildren deserve money why not the great grand children? Why not all his nieces and nephews and *their* families?

I think you can agree the Bushes and Clintons aren't even worth discussing.

But here is an idea: instead of just giving them overall more money why not just give them health insurance if they ever need it? That is at least life and death. Having a fancy home or fancy car..are not. I have no problem with "the presidents kid is sick and they can't afford treatment, lets help him out".

I think POTUS Benefits are different than Military Benefits, so I'm not sure how many generations that would extend. I think it's just spouse and children. So basically it's for as long as, say, Chelsea Clinton or Ronald Reagan Jr. lives, or Obama's kids. It doesn't get passed to the children's children. For the Obama's it'd just be Sasha and Malia after Michelle passed, assuming they outlive their parents to inherit the benefit.

*edit

And they don't just inherit health benefits because they inherit their father's pension. We're not just giving them money, we''re giving them the money their father earned via his service and would have received had he survived.

Except to me that is silly. I could understand if the president died young, but Jimmy Carter is 91 years old. He's been getting money like this since 1980. We've been paying him for his service for over 35 years.

Now suddenly we have to give them the money he'd of earned if he lived to be 100? or 110?

Just like I would understand if a cop is killed on the job his family gets money. But if the cop retires and dies at age 90..I think he's been given what he's owed.

It pays to be the Commander in Chief.

Yes, and pays should be in bold letters because holy f*ck does it pay. To your spouse, to your kids. Does the family pet get something too?

Since I think "Bo" deserves mad doe. But f*ck Sunny.

Actually, I've done some digging into this, and it's apparently not as costly as I'd initially thought. I found this PDF which breaks down the benefit:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34631.pdf

Basically, as things stand now, the President receives an annual pension of $208k until death. Upon death the First Lady is not entitled to the entirety of that pension, but receives a $20k/yr Survivors Benefit for life which is transferable to the President's surviving children. With Obama's proposed increase that annual pension would increase from $208k to $245k/yr, and the Survivors benefit would increase from $20k/yr to $23.6k/yr.

But that's nearly 40 grand of money that could be spent elsewhere. Is it truly needed? Actually not even 40 grand, it's nearly 40 k per president.

So Clintons, Carter, Bush, Obama. So 40 k times 4. Something like 160 grand.

Yeah, Obama's basically adding anywhere from $100k-300k annually to the budget with this increase, but given the age of Jimmy Carter and Bush Sr, it's likely to be a short term increase. Clinton, Dubya, and Obama himself will likely account for an additional $120k/yr for the next decade or two. Honestly, that's not a big amount of money. That's the equivalent of three $19/hr salaries being added to the budget. It's a COLA.

It's not a big amount of money in the grand scheme of things this is true. But the question should be..do they *need* this increase?

I just think we need to redo how we do pensions in general. If you look at my topic about pensions...there are some professors and shit getting a quarter of a million bucks, half a million bucks. I mean college professors and stuff. These people aren't exactly putting their lives on the line.

It's not an increase for Obama. It's the budget that will have 5 former presidents to support instead of 4 next year. Framing this as if Obama is getting a raise, is nonsense, he's just rightly planning that expenditure for former presidents will increase, if there are more former presidents.

This is true, in reality it's not just the Big O getting mo money.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not an increase for Obama. It's the budget that will have 5 former presidents to support instead of 4 next year. Framing this as if Obama is getting a raise, is nonsense, he's just rightly planning that expenditure for former presidents will increase, if there are more former presidents.

Nice spin but it won't work. He is getting a pay raise.