• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

imaplanner said:
In my last couple posts I specifically have been trying to leave the blame out of it. Obviously you and I place the blame on the shitdown differently. I was just trying to get you to understand some basic public space management issues and obviously you are not interested in even thinking about it. You don't seem to be willing or able to think about park management outside of a partisan political framework.
Click to expand...

Well then help me understand this. Where is the funding to pay the security guards coming from? Where was the money for the maintenance person coming from.

Once again, has the Senate and the President approved the funding for the Parks and Medical Research? I ask because the House of Representatives has.

btrage said:
If the property is closed (which is what happens during a government shutdown), I am assuming a maintenance person is considered a non-essential employee and not allowed to be present. Whereas, the guard is essential to keep people out. I am saying this as it seems to be a rationale understanding of the situation. Again, I may not like it. But as a knowledgeable person, I understand it.

The Senate does not want a piecemeal budget because it would allow the House GOP to cherry-pick politically palatable federal spending while ignoring the problems of the larger government funding issues. The House GOP wants to do it piecemeal so the public perceives them as having their best interest in mind.

I would assume someone as astute as you would understand this political maneuvering. Or do you just choose to believe all of the political talking points going around on social media?
Click to expand...

And I am saying that if it costs more to close it, then why? I also notice the terminology of "not allowed to be present"... sounds like a union thing. I was not allowed to move a table because it was not in my job description. I was written up because I did it anyways because I needed to get working.
 
michaelskis said:
Well then help me understand this. Where is the funding to pay the security guards coming from? Where was the money for the maintenance person coming from.

Once again, has the Senate and the President approved the funding for the Parks and Medical Research? I ask because the House of Representatives has.



And I am saying that if it costs more to close it, then why? I also notice the terminology of "not allowed to be present"... sounds like a union thing. I was not allowed to move a table because it was not in my job description. I was written up because I did it anyways because I needed to get working.
Click to expand...

Because the federal government shut down, that's why. If a city government shut down, do you think they would still send maintenance people into the parks? Rhetorical question. They would not. I'm so very sorry my terminology sounds like a "union thing". Seems to me like you see and read everything through a prism of right-wing politics.

In reality, I'm the furthest thing from a union supporter there is and I do not cozy up to liberal politics. I support right-to-work legislation, so let's stay focused here and not try to shift the discussion.
 
michaelskis said:
Well then help me understand this. Where is the funding to pay the security guards coming from? Where was the money for the maintenance person coming from.

Once again, has the Senate and the President approved the funding for the Parks and Medical Research? I ask because the House of Representatives has.



And I am saying that if it costs more to close it, then why? I also notice the terminology of "not allowed to be present"... sounds like a union thing. I was not allowed to move a table because it was not in my job description. I was written up because I did it anyways because I needed to get working.
Click to expand...

Two things. First, it doesn't cost more to close it. You consistently repeat this nonsense that with no funding we are spending more than with funding. The fact that you somehow accept that as logical really troubles me.

Second, the park is shutdown. It is against the law for someone to come in and maintain it. The only people who are authorized by the law is security personel. The ones your friends are calling scum and thugs simply for doing their job as required by law and who are doing this job right now without pay.

But then again, Obama and the democrats hate America and blah blah blah amiright?
 
michaelskis said:
I am still waiting for an answer regarding why the Senate is choosing to keep the parks closed, refusing to fund Medical Research, and the operations in DC.
Click to expand...

They haven't. They passed a clean CR. It funded all that. The R's in the house haven't brought it up. Remember that? Or is that somehow different?
 
Hink said:
They haven't. They passed a clean CR. It funded all that. The R's in the house haven't brought it up. Remember that? Or is that somehow different?
Click to expand...

That is different. Was there a bill to fund the National Park Service that was passed by the House of Representatives? Yes. Did the Senate even take action on it? No.
Was there a bill to fund Medical Research that was passed by the House of Representatives? Yes. Did the Senate ever take action on it? No.

Both would be funded if the Senate took action on it. The ball was rolling and Harry Reid decided to play politics.
 
michaelskis said:
That is different. Was there a bill to fund the National Park Service that was passed by the House of Representatives? Yes. Did the Senate even take action on it? No.
Was there a bill to fund Medical Research that was passed by the House of Representatives? Yes. Did the Senate ever take action on it? No.

Both would be funded if the Senate took action on it. The ball was rolling and Harry Reid decided to play politics.
Click to expand...

FFS, why will you not get it through your head that the Speaker is playing politics as well. If a clean CR would have been brought to the floor of the House all indications are that it would pass. The Speaker is playing games passing these piecemeal resolutions on what gives them the best talking points. If John Bohener gave a damn about the government shutdown he could have ended this last week. :-@
 
imaplanner said:
I don't know exactly what staff positions may be union, but the NPS does have a union that I think includes other agences as well. My guess is rangers and maintenance are mostly union members.
Click to expand...

I've spent a lot of time around rangers and facilities staff and I've never heard any talk of unions. A park I work with recently fired a tradesman and the union thing never came up (terminations are handled by a review board if a complaint is filed). I'm not in a union, so I could be oblivious to it, I guess.
 
chupacabra said:
I've spent a lot of time around rangers and facilities staff and I've never heard any talk of unions. A park I work with recently fired a tradesman and the union thing never came up (terminations are handled by a review board if a complaint is filed). I'm not in a union, so I could be oblivious to it, I guess.
Click to expand...

The only thing I known for sure is that some employees are unionized in the NPS. Couldn't tell you which ones. As for talking about it, I can tell you that my coworkers and I are unionized and I don't believe we have ever discussed anything related to the union. Our union is pretty worthless as far as anything. I think there is a wide range on unions and how helpful/effective/thuggish they are.
 
Last edited:
In five years I've never heard or read anything about unions. I'd never even thought about it until I heard some NPS union thugs roughed up all those WWII vets last week. I'll ask around when the shutdown ends. I'm kind of curious now.
 
michaelskis said:
That is different. Was there a bill to fund the National Park Service that was passed by the House of Representatives? Yes. Did the Senate even take action on it? No.
Was there a bill to fund Medical Research that was passed by the House of Representatives? Yes. Did the Senate ever take action on it? No.

Both would be funded if the Senate took action on it. The ball was rolling and Harry Reid decided to play politics.
Click to expand...

How is it different? Please explain, I am at a loss. Both would fund the programs you are worried about if the other side would just stop "playing politics". The main difference is that a clean CR would fund them all... not just specific pieces that the Rupublicans want. But that is ignoring the fact that a clean CR would still fund everything.

Please explain your rationale.
 
Hink said:
How is it different? Please explain, I am at a loss. Both would fund the programs you are worried about if the other side would just stop "playing politics". The main difference is that a clean CR would fund them all... not just specific pieces that the Rupublicans want. But that is ignoring the fact that a clean CR would still fund everything.

Please explain your rationale.
Click to expand...

He will not explain his rationale because he doesn't have one, or is unable to explain it.

M'skis, I like you bro, but you really do just regurgitate right-wing propaganda. You ask questions in this thread. People answer your questions. Then you shift and ask different questions. People answer those questions. Then you ask the original questions again, and it's one big circle. The majority of the people here are not trying to convince you of anything. But when your questions get answered you dismiss them as if there is no rationale behind the answers, then ask the same questions again.

So my question to you is, Why do you post in this thread? I'm just curious since you dismiss as nonsense 99% of what people say in response to your questions. If you are that entrenched in your politics, then why post in this thread at all, unless you are simply trying to get your rocks off? I ask, because I truly am curious. I like that you post in this thread, because I love a good political debate. But your posting pattern makes me question your true intentions.
 
Regarding unions for federal employees: My best friend is in one and when I dealt with various agencies when I was in the Marine Corps we often dealt with unions and union employees. The union representation at that level always seemed to be a very different beast than what you would find with the UAW, AFSCME, Teamsters, or teacher unions and about the only discernible advantage of the union was that they guaranteed that their members received comp time when they were entitled to it and were able to take their personal days. They didn't seem to have much (if any) bargaining power for wages or nearly as many protections and hindrances towards terminating an employee as you would find with other unions. My friend who is currently in one of the federal employee unions says that assessment is still basically true these days.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/10/opinion/cupp-cruz-ryan-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Good article on the Republican divide. It is interesting when Paul Ryan is the moderate conservative and is acting like the grown up.

The Los Angeles Times headline isn't accurate. Instead of reading "Rep. Paul Ryan Fails to Close Republican Divide" it should read "Team Cruz Rips Republicans Apart. Again." If he keeps it up, he'll lose people like me who are with him on the policy, but quickly losing patience for his tactics.
Click to expand...
 
btrage said:
He will not explain his rationale because he doesn't have one, or is unable to explain it.

M'skis, I like you bro, but you really do just regurgitate right-wing propaganda. You ask questions in this thread. People answer your questions. Then you shift and ask different questions. People answer those questions. Then you ask the original questions again, and it's one big circle. The majority of the people here are not trying to convince you of anything. But when your questions get answered you dismiss them as if there is no rationale behind the answers, then ask the same questions again.

So my question to you is, Why do you post in this thread? I'm just curious since you dismiss as nonsense 99% of what people say in response to your questions. If you are that entrenched in your politics, then why post in this thread at all, unless you are simply trying to get your rocks off? I ask, because I truly am curious. I like that you post in this thread, because I love a good political debate. But your posting pattern makes me question your true intentions.
Click to expand...

I have often thought the same thing. It's either trolling or affirming is own beliefs by all the negative comments. Some people also just like to fight.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
I have often thought the same thing. It's either trolling or affirming is own beliefs by all the negative comments. Some people also just like to fight.
Click to expand...

I said some mean and innappropriate things to the guy cause I was convinced he was trolling and willfully stating misinformation. I now think he really believes what he says and that the thought process he engages in here is authentic. I expect this from some peeps and even some of my own family members but it really threw me for a loop that an educated planner could engage in such irrational analysis and refusal to even entertain information that contradicts a preconcieved narrative. Now it just makes me sad.
 
Hink said:
How is it different? Please explain, I am at a loss. Both would fund the programs you are worried about if the other side would just stop "playing politics". The main difference is that a clean CR would fund them all... not just specific pieces that the Rupublicans want. But that is ignoring the fact that a clean CR would still fund everything.

Please explain your rationale.
Click to expand...

Yes, a clean CR would fund everything. The Republicans in the House of Representatives don't want to fund everything, namely Obamacare. They want to fund everything but Obamacare. (Which I still think that they are willing to fund too much...)

The Senate has indicated that they will fund nothing, unless Obamacare gets funded.

btrage said:
He will not explain his rationale because he doesn't have one, or is unable to explain it.

M'skis, I like you bro, but you really do just regurgitate right-wing propaganda. You ask questions in this thread. People answer your questions. Then you shift and ask different questions. People answer those questions. Then you ask the original questions again, and it's one big circle. The majority of the people here are not trying to convince you of anything. But when your questions get answered you dismiss them as if there is no rationale behind the answers, then ask the same questions again.

So my question to you is, Why do you post in this thread? I'm just curious since you dismiss as nonsense 99% of what people say in response to your questions. If you are that entrenched in your politics, then why post in this thread at all, unless you are simply trying to get your rocks off? I ask, because I truly am curious. I like that you post in this thread, because I love a good political debate. But your posting pattern makes me question your true intentions.
Click to expand...

I post in here because some of what other people post gets me thinking about my position and ideas on things. As was noted before, I was at one point in my life very right wing, republicans can't do wrong, lets bomb the crap out of any country that looks at us the wrong way extremest conservative.

Now, I see the error in my ways and that we have no business being in most of the places outside the US that we are in, I don't think that the government (R's or D's) have the answer for 80% of the problems that we face in society today, and I fully believe that Obamacare will devastate the medical industry, the quality of care we get, and the cost of health care in the US.

I hope that even if people disagree with me 100%, they will at least take the time to really look at what is going on in the world, the problems that the government can and cannot fix, and the realization that just because it is the way it is, does not make it right.

Watching DOD or Imaplanner get all emotional and wigged out is just a bonus.



Edit, I would have replied sooner, but I have a massive PC meeting to attend next week and the packets were almost 200 pages each and needed to focus my attention on them.
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
Yes, a clean CR would fund everything. The Republicans in the House of Representatives don't want to fund everything, namely Obamacare. They want to fund everything but Obamacare. (Which I still think that they are willing to fund too much...)

The Senate has indicated that they will fund nothing, unless Obamacare gets funded.
Click to expand...

The Affordable Care Act is not reliant on any of this bullshit to be funded. It's happening, and the teabaggers can stomp their feet and pout all the live long day and that won't change. The left, and rightly so, refuses to gut the bill. That... is why Boner won't allow a vote on a clean CR that he knows will pass.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/30/government-shutdownwonthaltaffordablecareact.html

Al Jazeera knows more than you...
 
Last edited:
Mastiff said:
The Affordable Care Act is not reliant on any of this bullshit to be funded. It's happening, and the teabaggers can stomp their feet and pout all the live long day and that won't change. The left, and rightly so, refuses to gut the bill. That... is why Boner won't allow a vote on a clean CR that he knows will pass.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/30/government-shutdownwonthaltaffordablecareact.html

Al Jazeera knows more than you...
Click to expand...

The ACA website might be one of the few websites up and running. Shame it does not work as the president promised it would.

As for voting, is that why Harry Reid will not let the senate vote on the bills to fund DC, the NPS, and Medical Reserch or why he would not let anyone but him make any amendments to any of the first 3 CR bills passed cy the house.

The Senate has the power to fund medical research, the Parks and DC, IF Harry Reid stops playing politics and starts to care more about the American people and less about his ego.
 
michaelskis said:
Yes, a clean CR would fund everything. The Republicans in the House of Representatives don't want to fund everything, namely Obamacare. They want to fund everything but Obamacare. (Which I still think that they are willing to fund too much...)

The Senate has indicated that they will fund nothing, unless Obamacare gets funded.



I post in here because some of what other people post gets me thinking about my position and ideas on things. As was noted before, I was at one point in my life very right wing, republicans can't do wrong, lets bomb the crap out of any country that looks at us the wrong way extremest conservative.

Now, I see the error in my ways and that we have no business being in most of the places outside the US that we are in, I don't think that the government (R's or D's) have the answer for 80% of the problems that we face in society today, and I fully believe that Obamacare will devastate the medical industry, the quality of care we get, and the cost of health care in the US.

I hope that even if people disagree with me 100%, they will at least take the time to really look at what is going on in the world, the problems that the government can and cannot fix, and the realization that just because it is the way it is, does not make it right.

Watching DOD or Imaplanner get all emotional and wigged out is just a bonus.



Edit, I would have replied sooner, but I have a massive PC meeting to attend next week and the packets were almost 200 pages each and needed to focus my attention on them.
Click to expand...

Your still "right wing can do no wrong"

Lets see, if 89% of government is funded, and you haven't bitched about that, then you 80% figure above is already wrong.

Add to that, your sudden overwhelming desire to fund the next 10%, means your lying about the rest.

What is it that the Dems and gop can't help with again? Right, more non-specifics.

Then more trolling. Got it.

You don't even believe the own crap that comes out of your mouth or fingers.



The Dems need to put their own issues into the mix. Demand that ALL tax subsidies to business are rescinded as part of the shutdown deal. Put a 1% tax on every share of stock that is traded on Wall Street. Place income and compensation controls on ALL CEO's nationwide. For every onerous request by the GOP an equal onerous request. They need to quit reacting to the GOP and go on offense. Its basic tactics for any conflict situation, ALWAYS counterattack! I don't understand this about the Democratic Party. You meet like with like. Smash the other guy in the mouth and kick him in the balls and then say lets negotiate. It is the only thing the GOP understands.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Your still "right wing can do no wrong"

Lets see, if 89% of government is funded, and you haven't bitched about that, then you 80% figure above is already wrong.

Add to that, your sudden overwhelming desire to fund the next 10%, means your lying about the rest.

What is it that the Dems and gop can't help with again? Right, more non-specifics.

Then more trolling. Got it.

You don't even believe the own crap that comes out of your mouth or fingers.



The Dems need to put their own issues into the mix. Demand that ALL tax subsidies to business are rescinded as part of the shutdown deal. Put a 1% tax on every share of stock that is traded on Wall Street. Place income and compensation controls on ALL CEO's nationwide. For every onerous request by the GOP an equal onerous request. They need to quit reacting to the GOP and go on offense. Its basic tactics for any conflict situation, ALWAYS counterattack! I don't understand this about the Democratic Party. You meet like with like. Smash the other guy in the mouth and kick him in the balls and then say lets negotiate. It is the only thing the GOP understands.
Click to expand...

How'd he get banned?
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Your still "right wing can do no wrong"

Lets see, if 89% of government is funded, and you haven't bitched about that, then you 80% figure above is already wrong.

Add to that, your sudden overwhelming desire to fund the next 10%, means your lying about the rest.

What is it that the Dems and gop can't help with again? Right, more non-specifics.

Then more trolling. Got it.

You don't even believe the own crap that comes out of your mouth or fingers.



The Dems need to put their own issues into the mix. Demand that ALL tax subsidies to business are rescinded as part of the shutdown deal. Put a 1% tax on every share of stock that is traded on Wall Street. Place income and compensation controls on ALL CEO's nationwide. For every onerous request by the GOP an equal onerous request. They need to quit reacting to the GOP and go on offense. Its basic tactics for any conflict situation, ALWAYS counterattack! I don't understand this about the Democratic Party. You meet like with like. Smash the other guy in the mouth and kick him in the balls and then say lets negotiate. It is the only thing the GOP understands.
Click to expand...

The 80% might be low, but it is no secret that I don't think the federal government should be involved in things that the constitution does not expressly say they should be involved in. Those are even further explained in the federalist papers.

As for the subsidies being rescinded, I agree. Why are we giving money to private companies like that?
 
Classic approach by kidnappers (the House of Reps). Take everyone hostage, then release a few for good PR and a break here or there.
You look like a good kidnapper by releasing a couple kids (medical research grants), an old person or two (defense contracts), but always holding onto someone like the bank president (ACA which isn't really part of the budget). Yep. this is great politics :r:

Here's the long and short of it: The ACA was put into law, it was challenged 32+ times in court and repeated said it was legal. A presidential candidate was elected twice running on this big item and the contenders were defeated running against the item. You can split hairs as many times as you want but this is the crux of the matter. You tried many different ways to kill it, still you didn't get want you wanted so now you kidnap the govt. and hold programs hostage.




Go ahead and reply. Twist and contort meanings / or whatever. Answer some rhetoric question with a non-realistic "what if" scenario. The dead horse still needs to be beaten so it will turn into an equine zombie.
 
Planit said:
Classic approach by kidnappers (the House of Reps). Take everyone hostage, then release a few for good PR and a break here or there.
You look like a good kidnapper by releasing a couple kids (medical research grants), an old person or two (defense contracts), but always holding onto someone like the bank president (ACA which isn't really part of the budget). Yep. this is great politics :r:

Here's the long and short of it: The ACA was put into law, it was challenged 32+ times in court and repeated said it was legal. A presidential candidate was elected twice running on this big item and the contenders were defeated running against the item. You can split hairs as many times as you want but this is the crux of the matter. You tried many different ways to kill it, still you didn't get want you wanted so now you kidnap the govt. and hold programs hostage.

Go ahead and reply. Twist and contort meanings / or whatever. Answer some rhetoric question with a non-realistic "what if" scenario. The dead horse still needs to be beaten so it will turn into an equine zombie.
Click to expand...

This is what it boils down to. So much effort has been exhausted by a relative minority to drop the bill, including gerrymandering of districts, that it is ridiculous. I think what is upsetting is that some of the people promoting this fiasco truly believe that the shutdown, as well as the debt ceiling lapse, will have little to no negative consequences as well. 8-!:r:
 
The ACA has been voted on 40 plus times to be defunded and it has failed each and everytime. It has been challenged in court and the SCOTUS, and has been found to be Constitutional. Instead of using the legislative procedure to amend the law the House would rather plug their ears and scream "la la, I can't hear you" and shutdown the government. Now four days out it remains to be seen if the House will sign off on any compromise to avoid default. It seems that the "job creators" in the House would rather drive this nation's economy off a cliff in order to score political points. It is beyond disgusting and far more offensive to me than any perceived impeachable offenses the right-wing fringe claims the President has committed. :-@

Also apparently after nearly 6 years people still think the President is a Quran-worshipping Muslim. I swear the alternative reality that a sizable minority in this country live in is maddening. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/13/at-tea-party-like-rally-obama-told-to-put-the-quran-down/?iref=allsearch
 
rcgplanner said:
Also apparently after nearly 6 years people still think the President is a Quran-worshipping Muslim. I swear the alternative reality that a sizable minority in this country live in is maddening. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/13/at-tea-party-like-rally-obama-told-to-put-the-quran-down/?iref=allsearch
Click to expand...

Watching the videos of this weekends conservative protests, with leaders of the conservative movement, tearing down barricades, yelling at cops and rangers, calling president obama a muslim, demanding he step down because of his supposed islamic faith and hatred of white people and America, it is absolutely undeniable that so much of this anger on the right is rooted in a vicious combination of ignorance and racism. It might be a minority of the right, but its going to take the whole party down.
 
imaplanner said:
Watching the videos of this weekends conservative protests, with leaders of the conservative movement, tearing down barricades, yelling at cops and rangers, calling president obama a muslim, demanding he step down because of his supposed islamic faith and hatred of white people and America, it is absolutely undeniable that so much of this anger on the right is rooted in a vicious combination of ignorance and racism. It might be a minority of the right, but its going to take the whole party down.
Click to expand...

I was having this discussion with a friend this weekend. It is a damn shame that the lunaitic fringe of the right is going to make the Republican party irrelevant. I may lean left poltically but I think the Republican party has some good ideas that continually get drowned out by the tea party and other extreme views. It is odd that a party that is known for such party discipline is unable to control the effect of the tea party. The more confusing thing is how this extreme rhetoric is creeping into the mainstream views of the Republican party. I used to see myself being able to vote for some Republican candidates but it seems all of the moderates have been pushed out of the party or at least forced to sit down and shut up.
 
imaplanner said:
Watching the videos of this weekends conservative protests, with leaders of the conservative movement, tearing down barricades, yelling at cops and rangers, calling president obama a muslim, demanding he step down because of his supposed islamic faith and hatred of white people and America, it is absolutely undeniable that so much of this anger on the right is rooted in a vicious combination of ignorance and racism. It might be a minority of the right, but its going to take the whole party down.
Click to expand...

I agree that some of the behaviors this weekend were in appropriate, and I doing think that Obama is a Muslim... Nor would I care if he was. I witnessed a rally that was the opposite from what you experienced. One why had a banner reading "Obama's biggest fear is the shutdown will prove that the Government is not necessary!" I wanted to snap a picture but we were on our way to the grocery store with the kids.

Regardless of how all this unfolds, it will be interesting to see how the country reacts to this months to years down the road. I think if anything, it will widen the political divide and make people like the government even less.
 
imaplanner said:
Watching the videos of this weekends minorities protests, with leaders of the minority movement, tearing down barricades, yelling at cops and rangers, calling Governor Perry a racist, demanding he step down because of his supposed fundamentalism and hatred of black people and America, it is absolutely undeniable that so much of this anger in the race is rooted in a vicious combination of ignorance and racism.
Click to expand...



Reread this quote from ima with the edits I made and think about the reactions and the news stories would have been printed...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Affirmative Action, what is your take on it?

Today the US Supreme court is going to hear arguments regarding affirmative action and how the University of Michigan is no longer taking race into a consideration when potential students apply.

NPR LINK (Used NPR to appease you FOX News Haters ;))

I have mentioned it before and I will mention it again, when you use the color of once skin as a factor in a decision, it is racism. I believe that UofM and all other schools should factor in anything beyond academic, athletic, or civic standards. They should not care about economic status, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic background, or other similar profiling categories.


What are your thoughts on Affirmative Action? Should it continue or should people be judged on factors not related to their skin color?
 
What is everyone's thoughts on the special subsidies offered to Government Officials and their staff as part of Obamacare? The repeal of that provision and a delay of one year for the individual mandate were part of the final bill that the House sent to the Senate before the shutdown. LINK I guess the Senate did not want to get rid of their sweetheart deal.

Interestingly, President Obama changed the rules himself to institute a one year delay for employer mandates... without Congressional approval. (LINK)
 
michaelskis said:
What is everyone's thoughts on the special subsidies offered to Government Officials and their staff as part of Obamacare? The repeal of that provision and a delay of one year for the individual mandate were part of the final bill that the House sent to the Senate before the shutdown. LINK I guess the Senate did not want to get rid of their sweetheart deal.

Interestingly, President Obama changed the rules himself to institute a one year delay for employer mandates... without Congressional approval. (LINK)
Click to expand...

It's not a special subsidy. When the ACA was passed there was an amendment to the bill that required Congress and its staffers to obtain their insurance from the exchanges. Insurance is no longer being made available through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. In short, this means that they will no longer have employer provided health insurance. The "special subsidy" misnomer that is being trotted out by the tin foil hat brigade is anything but. It is actually the portion of the premium that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would have picked up.

Just like most of us who have employer related insurance, we don't pay 100% of the total cost of the premium. Many of our employers pick up 50% or more of the premium cost and we pay the difference. Personally I pay $55 every two weeks for my insurance premium, my employer pays $135 every two weeks for their share. It's this portion that will be provided to Congress and its staff to offset the health insurance premium costs.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/no-special-subsidy-for-congress/
 
kjel said:
It's not a special subsidy. When the ACA was passed there was an amendment to the bill that required Congress and its staffers to obtain their insurance from the exchanges. Insurance is no longer being made available through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. In short, this means that they will no longer have employer provided health insurance. The "special subsidy" misnomer that is being trotted out by the tin foil hat brigade is anything but. It is actually the portion of the premium that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would have picked up.

Just like most of us who have employer related insurance, we don't pay 100% of the total cost of the premium. Many of our employers pick up 50% or more of the premium cost and we pay the difference. Personally I pay $55 every two weeks for my insurance premium, my employer pays $135 every two weeks for their share. It's this portion that will be provided to Congress and its staff to offset the health insurance premium costs.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/no-special-subsidy-for-congress/
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Republican John Boehner who was the idiot changed the rules to allow for these 'subsidies'. (LINK) Each of the federal employees will be getting the Platinum Plan with 100% covered by tax dollars. Sounds like a sweetheart deal to me.



I see that the Affirmative Action question has been put into here as well. I figured that it was more legal than political... but oh well.
 
michaelskis said:
What is everyone's thoughts on the special subsidies offered to Government Officials and their staff as part of Obamacare? The repeal of that provision and a delay of one year for the individual mandate were part of the final bill that the House sent to the Senate before the shutdown. LINK I guess the Senate did not want to get rid of their sweetheart deal.

Interestingly, President Obama changed the rules himself to institute a one year delay for employer mandates... without Congressional approval. (LINK)
Click to expand...

Another day, another carve-out for special interests under Obamacare. Now it is the unions, which will join about 2000 businesses in getting an exemption from the requirements of the "law". If Obamacare is going to be so great then why do all administration's cronies want nothing to do with it?
 
michaelskis said:
Interestingly, Republican John Boehner who was the idiot changed the rules to allow for these 'subsidies'. (LINK) Each of the federal employees will be getting the Platinum Plan with 100% covered by tax dollars. Sounds like a sweetheart deal to me.



I see that the Affirmative Action question has been put into here as well. I figured that it was more legal than political... but oh well.
Click to expand...

Public sector insurance is generally known to be better than what's offered in the private sector. There's no mystery in that.

Where the ordinary person gets the shaft, especially if they pay a substantial portion of their health care premium, is that the "subsidies" are not available if you have an employment sponsored plan.
 
hilldweller said:
Another day, another carve-out for special interests under Obamacare. Now it is the unions, which will join about 2000 businesses in getting an exemption from the requirements of the "law". If Obamacare is going to be so great then why do all administration's cronies want nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...

As far as I know the unions were not exempted. They asked and were rejected. That does not appear to have stopped people from claiming the unions are getting special treatment. So could you maybe explain where you are getting this from?


And kjel- regarding the employer subsidies for congress and congressional staff, mskis asked the same question with the same accusations a few weeks ago. We explained it to him but he's back at it. Straight up trolling.
 
imaplanner said:
And kjel- regarding the employer subsidies for congress and congressional staff, mskis asked the same question with the same accusations a few weeks ago. We explained it to him but he's back at it. Straight up trolling.
Click to expand...

Nope, just pointing out that the 3rd bill would have required that EVERYONE be put on the same playing field and delay the individual mandate to match the time frame as the Presidential adjusted employer mandate... But Harry Reid decided to shut the Federal Government down instead. You just choose to avoid reality that the House of Representatives tried repeatedly to prevent and end this shutdown, but the Democrat lead Senate decided to shut down the Federal Government and the reports of people being told to make the shutdown as difficult as possible for the people.


As for the Union thing... it might have come from here. LINK... which amazes me that the WH thinks that it can pick and choose time frames and who gets what.
 
michaelskis said:
Nope, just pointing out that the 3rd bill would have required that EVERYONE be put on the same playing field and delay the individual mandate to match the time frame as the Presidential adjusted employer mandate... But Harry Reid decided to shut the Federal Government down instead. You just choose to avoid reality that the House of Representatives tried repeatedly to prevent and end this shutdown, but the Democrat lead Senate decided to shut down the Federal Government and the reports of people being told to make the shutdown as difficult as possible for the people.

.
Click to expand...

WOW - I'm done here. I can't stand to see that poor dead horse beaten anymore.
 
I am sure that there will be people in here that will get all flipped out that I am positing this and will dispute everything said... but I am going to do it anyways. (I am thinkful a friend sent this to me... here is the link from Poor Richards News that was posted with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsVqOe07cdY
 
Planit said:
Just one more whack - please explain this:

http://www.usatoday.com/media/cinematic/video/2984407/

Why did the House change the rules just before the shutdown? So the Republican House could take the govt. hostage...

Peace Out. Drops mic
Click to expand...

First of all, it is wrong that they did that. Secondly, sounds exactly like Harry Reid in the Senate when he used rule changes to prevent anyone from putting any amendments into the 1, 2, or 3rd CR bills that were passed by the house... unless he put them in. Heck, Reid will not even let the Senate vote on the individual funding bills that the House passed because he knows that a simple majority is needed.
 
I don't know if I agree with this guy's idea on how to fix the system, but I agree with him 100% regarding what is the problem and what has been the problem quite some time. I applaud him for standing up for what is right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E
 
This thread lately typifies what is wrong with our country's politics. It's a real shame that the ignorant minority have a voice in this thread and in the halls of Congress.
 
Back
Top