cheap ghd ghdq | 2011/09/09

buy ghd cheap ghd ghd ghd hair ghd hair straightener ghd hair straighteners ghd hair straighteners australia ghd limited ghd styler ghd suppliers hair straightener hair straighteners hair straighteners ghd new ghd http://www.ghdsaustralianonline.net

Oakley Sunglasses | 2011/09/07

Great

Monclerbranson-outlet&lvoutlets-sales | 2011/09/04

?

Canadagoose.ca | 2011/09/04

Most jackets at

http://www.ghdsaustraliaonline.net | 2011/08/29

Where to buy cheap ghd straightener? Our ghd hair straightener are the youth, fashion and personalization options! Super surprise waiting for you! http://www.ghdsaustraliaonline.net

cheap ghd | 2011/07/29

The new package also includes the Pink GHD attractive and shiny smooth rounded a new barrel to improve curling and design, the vehicle of international tension and the strengthening of cables and a new sleep mode which turns off after 30 minutes of play, for the comfort and adaptability pink GHD is the automatic shutdown. GHD IV Styler sparse hair - Beauty Fashion Brand. This article from http://www.ghdsinaustralian.com thank you.

GHD Hair Straightener Australia | 2011/07/23

Most of sexuality with caution and now I understand that your hair safe while straightening the hair so that it can not generate the ghd can damage the hair. GHD heats up your locks and direct construction of individual wool, if a refresher with the other pseudo loops. You also want a great offer and finally less expensive editions, what you learn advanced while in the store. You will receive a special product of GHD Hair Australia , it is true that you are buying research. They also your coat for the crowd to unite as a body with specific powers GHD Hair Straightener . In today's market is one of the most popular brands in the GHD Hair stylists are among the most famous hairdressers in the world is used. Celebrities are also a big fan of rectifiers GHD Straightener . http://www.ghdsaleaustraliancheap.com

? | 2011/04/08

?

Dorothy J Kinser | 2010/03/22

I totally agree with Trish's statement. I have paid into Teacher Retirement of Texas and Social Security. My husband has also paid into Social Security. All we ask are the benifits of SS as a wife and surviving spouse. We worked and PAID into both plans, why should we be denied benifits?

Seriously | 2010/03/02

To Cathy Gerry...If the Teachers Retirement Fund experiences a sh ort fa ll, (like the ones in CA, TX and MN) where do you think the administrators of the funds will turn to make up the gap to ensure that its beneficiaries still receive their benefits?

Seriously | 2010/03/02

To Cathy Gerry...Where does your paycheck come from if not from the taxpayers? Nice try...

Seriously | 2010/03/02

To CanUREAD...If you've read my below posts, I fully support a provision that would give you back 100% of the money you paid into the social security system. I even believe that you should be able to get some interest for the time the money was in the system.

Cathy Gerry | 2010/03/02

The taxpayers do NOT fund our retirement!!! We pay 11% of our paycheck into a teacher's retirement fund. It is ALL our own money---no tax payers', as in Social Security. Please at least know the facts before you condemn us!

CanURead | 2010/03/02

38 years a teacher in 2 states - 1 collects SS and 1 does not. I am outraged by the system & by many posts here. My spouse and I both paid into the system and deserve the benefits.

Seriously | 2010/02/28

Actully, what I would really like to know from Patrick Walsh is wheather or not he actually paid $100,000 into the system and if not why he feels the taxpayers owed him an additional $100,000.

Seriously | 2010/02/28

You people act as if you get no benefit at all. From what I understand you are still getting a fairly generous pension benefit funded by the taxpayers. If you want to reduce that benefit and combine those taxpayer benefits into one combined SS benefit instead of a pension and a smaller SS benefit be my guest. The bottom line is that you get a benefit...To the person who has been "penalized" over $100,000 I'd like to know what your pension benefit is like. I bet it'd easily make a person working in the private sector jeleous even if that person gets an SS benefit.

Judy C | 2010/02/25

As an educator who has paid very little into Social Security I do not feel entitled to anything to which my spouse has not paid. However, my spouse HAS paid into a retirement system that returns contributions to the surviving spouse...unless that surviving spouse is a teacher. While working, the money contributed by my spouse came from our JOINT finances...yet I'm to receive a lesser amount than a surviving spouse who works in the private sector? I just don't quite understand why.

Patrick Walsh | 2010/02/25

I am a Californian and began working in high school and accumulating Social Security credits in the 1950's - I am a US Army veteran and taught for 34 years in California public schools - I made my 40 quarters before the OffsetLaw was enacted - then upon retirement I find that I receive $134 per month instead of the minimum benefit - by my estimation I have been penalized over $100,000 since retirement in 1997 - they changed the rules on me after the system taold me what I was working toward

trish | 2010/02/24

People need to know exactly how this law works. We are not trying to double-dip - we have paid into SS and the teacher retirement system and our spouses have paid into SS expecting a survivor benefit should he pass before me. With this law, I will not draw any survivor benefits. My husband draws both the retirement from his job and his SS. I will be denied the benefits of SS that I have paid into. Some of you sound like we want something given to us, we just want the same access that everyone else gets. Teachers that haven't qualified for SS don't expect to collect on it.

Seriously | 2010/02/24

To MTG and Geraldine The reason that these provisions exist is because the pension benefits that public employees will receive are far more generous than what their SS benefit would have been anyway. To: for Seriously I would believe it to be fair to ask for a provision that requires that an SS benefit be paid to people that fall under these 2 provisions that is equal to the amount of money they paid into the program, as they should be entitled to at least that much. Having some interest paid on top of that amount is also debatable, however I do not believe that people already getting one retirement paycheck on the taxpayers dime should get another disproportionate paycheck from the taxpayers. We should be mindful that SS is already close to being bankrupted as it is even with these provisions excluding people from receiving the benefit. Why should we be encouraging more strain on the system now?

for Seriously | 2010/02/23

The people complaining aren't the people who never pay into Social Security - they are the people who did pay into the system and have enough credits to qualify, but don't anymore. Too many of our teachers, firefighters, and police officers have to work second jobs and we are required to pay into Social Security - just like anyone else, if we are required to pay in, why are we not allowed to take money out - you can earn survivors benefits even if you have never worked, but because I am a teacher - I am not entitled to my husband's benefits if he passes before me - then no one should be entitled to survivors benefits. If we are not entitled to benefits we should have the opportunity to "opt out" and not have to pay into SS in the first place.

geraldine | 2010/02/23

I am saddened & outraged by these stories after such hard work & SS contributions during teaching attainment credentials not being applied. Congress must correct this. Thank you.

mtg | 2010/02/23

I paid into Social Security for many years before I started teaching. It is my understanding that I will not receive the full benefits due to me from that work (from what I have heard, I will only qualify for about 20% of the benefit) and those many years of contributions simply because later in life I chose to teach instead of a job that allows contribution to Social Security (which is not allowed where I live). Why should I have to lose those benefits?

Seriously | 2010/02/23

Furthermore the website itself states that this law affects people who "DON'T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY". Why should they feel entitled to a benefit pool that they do not pay into? People need to be more honest and objective on this topic.

Seriously | 2010/02/23

Can someone tell me why this is considered unfair? It seems to me that these laws simply help prevent people from double dipping on the taxpayer dime as it is the taxpayers that foot the bill for both government workers salaries and Social Security Benefits. You people need to learn how to read objectively and remove your personal biases.

BILL | 2010/02/20

After 4 tries, I give up on commenting.

Toni Hall | 2010/02/19

...by Steven Greenhut...it will show you how pensions are bankrupting this country...

Toni Hall | 2010/02/19

"Plunder"

Toni Hall | 2010/02/19

Read...

Toni Hall | 2010/02/19

I love NEA

Bob Betts | 2010/02/19

Why haven't these laws been challenged under the 4th amendent re. just compensation for government confiscation of personal property?Aren't wage and retirement funds personal property?

Esley Dean Morrow | 2010/02/19

America is freedom,with,or without profanity.

Mainer | 2010/02/19

Hey, NEA, I'm with Diana W.! Your "profanity" filter is broken. I have tried to comment three times, and have had each one rejected. Now I'm angry at you, too!

Mainer | 2010/02/19

I have twice tried to leave comments, but have been rejected due to "profanity." Hmmm, I did say "Congress" ;>)

Nancy Rosenzweig | 2010/02/19

It amazes me how legislators make sure that their pensions are safe, the State takes the 7.5% off the top of my check but is unable to make their payments to ensure that when I retire, I will have the pension I am entitled to tap into.

Urmi | 2010/02/18

This is the most unfair law I have heard of. Congress needs to do something about it.

Diana Waggoner | 2010/02/18

I just left a comment. It was rejected because profanity was detected. I do not use profanity. Unless you consider that "This law needs to be repealed" is profanity.