"Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Vendaval -> "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/18/2009 2:22:46 PM)

The latest information on same-sex partner benefits for Federal workers.

"Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners"

updated 6:55 p.m. EDT, Wed June 17, 2009

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama signed an executive order granting some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees Wednesday, calling it "a historic step" but promising more action to come.

"We've got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally, to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms and to bring about that more perfect union," Obama said.

The signing followed sharp criticism of the president over a Justice Department motion filed last week in support of the Defense of Marriage Act -- which effectively bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions. Obama said he still wants to repeal the act.

"I believe it's discriminatory. I think it interferes with state's rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it," he said.

The memorandum he signed Wednesday means same-sex partners of civil service employees can be added to the long-term care program, employees can use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and children and same-sex partners of Foreign Service employees will be included in medical evacuations and housing allocations, according to the White House.

But it does not grant full health-care coverage, which would require an act of Congress, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/obama.same.sex.benefits/index.html



Asherdelampyr -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/18/2009 2:25:07 PM)

Sounds like a good start, lets hope it continues



Vendaval -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/18/2009 3:33:36 PM)

My thoughts exactly.



servantforuse -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/18/2009 5:37:42 PM)

Any other changes have to be voted on by both houses of Congress. It won't pass anytime soon.



awmslave -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 1:39:34 AM)

As a single (partly paying for the benefits for couples) I am opposed to benefits for same or opposite sex partners. It makes no sense to me why singles (who are majority of adults) pay for other people partners. Nobody even asks from me. The same with children: why are childless supporting other people children?



Vendaval -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 4:37:10 AM)

You could well ask why are taxes used for road and highways, since not all people own cars; or for schools and hospitals, since not all people have offspring or need to have hospital level care.



tazzygirl -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 6:44:33 AM)

because you do benefit from the education of other people's children... you even benefit from the health of those who live in your community.



awmslave -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 11:00:48 AM)

quote:

because you do benefit from the education of other people's children... you even benefit from the health of those who live in your community.

Why to dilute the point? If I do not pay does not mean children would be uneducated: their parents will pay for children education. The same for other things: partners, spouses etc.. pay for their needs themselves. How  for example home-less benefit from the subsidies home-owners get?



tazzygirl -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 11:44:50 AM)

maybe im too bored.. maybe im too sleepy... but your post isnt making sense to me.

eh... its friday



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 11:53:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

quote:

because you do benefit from the education of other people's children... you even benefit from the health of those who live in your community.

Why to dilute the point? If I do not pay does not mean children would be uneducated: their parents will pay for children education. The same for other things: partners, spouses etc.. pay for their needs themselves. How  for example home-less benefit from the subsidies home-owners get?



If you truly believe in a world where every human being is completely self-sufficient, I respectfully suggest you buy an axe, a rifle, and a box of matches and head for the mountains instead of posting on an internet partially funded by my tax dollars and created by people who were partially educated with my tax dollars. The cost of living in a civilized society is that individuals pay out of their own pocket for services that are considered essential to the common good. If this concept goes so completely against your principles, why not have the courage of your convictions and reject those aspects of it that benefit you, as well as those you find inconvenient?



awmslave -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 11:54:21 AM)

quote:

maybe im too bored.. maybe im too sleepy... but your post isnt making sense to me.

eh... its friday


No problems. It just has to do with differences in political views. As a libertarian I oppose questionable social engineering where certain groups are in favored status (couples, homeowners, ethnic groups... ).



tazzygirl -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 12:12:14 PM)

so unless you are among the "favored" its questionable



awmslave -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 1:50:23 PM)

quote:

so unless you are among the "favored" its questionable

No, "favored" should also question the system; it could be immoral for some.
quote:

If you truly believe in a world where every human being is completely self-sufficient, I respectfully suggest you buy an axe, a rifle, and a box of matches and head for the mountains instead of posting on an internet partially funded by my tax dollars and created by people who were partially educated with my tax dollars. The cost of living in a civilized society is that individuals pay out of their own pocket for services that are considered essential to the common good. If this concept goes so completely against your principles, why not have the courage of your convictions and reject those aspects of it that benefit you, as well as those you find inconvenient?


This is again criticism  that (without any base) assumes I have certain views. I am talking only about certain things (like supporting couples at the expense of singles) without questioning the rationale. I am not against using tax dollars for things clearly considered essential to the common good.

For example, if you would conduct a survey among working singles asking the following question: Do you support the system where 20% of your pay and 30% of your health insurance payments goes to support you coworkers spouses and children?
Or ask from renters and homeless; do you support the tax benefits to homeowners knowing that otherwise you would pay 20% less taxes?
I made up the numbers, but they can be calculated with good precision.
What would be the response? I may have more supporters than you think. I bet even for the majority.



tazzygirl -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 1:57:39 PM)

when you ask those renters, remind them they have little to no responsibility for repairs or taxes.. they are also the ones who pay, not renters, for the schools, libraries, hospitals, and any other kind of levy the community can get passed against property taxes....when you ask the singles about health care. remind them they have little to no responsibility for their own health care, while the parents have an enormous amount towards their children... you can let your own health go.. they cant the kids, and, while we are at that, childhood illnesses are on the rise, some we havent seen in decades... lets let their health care go.. sure... then you and i can both contract things we havent had to worry about in years.  i dont have a car, but i have no doubt part of what i pay in taxes is spent on road repair.  whats the use of complaining?  its for the common good of everyone.

you can make a survey for anything... and skew the results in your favor, depending on what information you give to leave out.



awmslave -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 2:28:06 PM)

I sense your anger. Renters actually pay for repairs and property taxes: it is included in the rent payment. Perfect road repair tax in my world would be appropriate gasoline and diesel fuel tax. I do not want to expand the topic to everything. I read from your response you are in favor of the current system where singles support with their labor lifestyle of couples and their children. 



tazzygirl -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 3:03:24 PM)

then you sensed wrong.  no anger.  just understanding.  so you want to pay for only those things you use directly.  did you, by chance, have a private education?



awmslave -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 3:38:46 PM)

I had public elementary education.  This belongs to the services that I consider essential to the common good (you understood wrongly that I support paying taxes only for services I use directly). Regarding the couples lifestyle; in most cases they are able to support themselves and their children without subsidies. Or, if not, just have less children (good for environment). In essence, I would end marriage as state institution. It was necessary historically but has lost its importance. I would set up special tax for support of the poor instead.



tazzygirl -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 4:09:59 PM)

take a look around.  the institution of marriage is on a sharp decline.  and with that decline, and the acceptance of such a decline, unwed motherhood has become the norm.  as a result, our taxes are paying for the aid these mothers get (at least in the US) along with the insurance, food stamps.. ect.

yeah, lets do that.



tazzygirl -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 4:41:25 PM)

I have this last point to make, then im done with this thread.  Couples pay more for insurance than single people do, families even more (them kids you consider a luxury are costly).  Im not sure what you think people pay, but i think you need to look into it a bit more.

when you start limiting some benefits, others will demand other benefits be limited as well.  reminds me of a movie, Logan's Run...



awmslave -> RE: "Obama OKs some benefits for employees' same-sex partners" (6/19/2009 5:02:02 PM)

I doubt couples pay more per person. If you are correct where are the benefits? If my wife stays home would my workplace health insurance payments be double? Regarding the health care I would recommend for US single payer government run system that would eliminate employer need for participation and cover everybody. Just now I am listening discussion about Obama plan that is trying to please everybody (esp. health care industry) but the cost numbers do not add up. Why do they come out with this?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0859375