[SeMissourian.com] Overcast ~ 38°F  
River stage: 15.11 ft. Rising
Thursday, Dec. 25, 2014
Post reply Read replies (76) More threads Create thread

Role of Federal Government
Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:43 AM:

As I am getting older, I am leaning more and more libertarian. I would like to see the Republicans move back toward a limited government role.

Some of what the federal government should provide:

1)I think FEMA should be independent of Homeland security and their should be a line item for national disasters. If Anything, I think they should be rolled into the department of defense. People can knock the beurocracy of the military all they want, but you have to admit they can act under distress and pressure.

2)Limit Foodstamp program. We have electronic means now. Cut how much is distributed, and eliminate junk food.

3)Introduce a plan to slowly privatize social security. Roth IRAs and 401k shows us people will investest/save if a carrot is dangled. Consult debt specialist to develop a curriculum guide for HS and Colleges so people understand debt and investments instead of hoping the government bails them out...



Replies

"If Anything, I think they should be rolled into the department of defense. People can knock the beurocracy of the military all they want, but you have to admit they can act under distress and pressure."

That's not a very libertarian position, since libertarians should oppose the deployment of federal troops (which FEMA would be if they were rolled into the DOD) on U.S. soil. That is the role of the National Guard, under the auspices of the governors.

I have no problem with them being under the Department of Homeland Security, if we have to have a Department of Homeland Security (I'm not convinced we do). To me, it doesn't matter so much who their parent agency is, as all that means is to whom the checques are written. They could just as easily be under the Department of Transportation (as the Coast Guard used to be), and still get the job done.

"Limit Foodstamp program. We have electronic means now. Cut how much is distributed, and eliminate junk food."

That was supposed to be the goal of the various reforms, including the shift to EBT cards.

"Introduce a plan to slowly privatize social security. Roth IRAs and 401k shows us people will investest/save if a carrot is dangled."

That's not unlike President Bush's proposal in 2005, which the Democrats defeated as a 'risky scheme'. Their proposed solution: do nothing. Then they cut the payroll tax that funds it, exacerbating the problem President Bush warned us about.

"Consult debt specialist to develop a curriculum guide for HS and Colleges so people understand debt and investments instead of hoping the government bails them out..."

We used to call that 'home economics'. However, I think asking the colleges to cut their throats by teaching students not to take out the loans that feed their coffers (and jack tuition higher) is a bit unrealistic.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:53 AM

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 10:53 AM

__________________

I am not a complete libertarian. I just lean that way more lately.

I want a limited role of government, but understand that some is needed. I had cousins that lived in Joplin and understand the nature of how things can change in an instant and the need for structured assistance.

The problem with the national guard is that disasters (like hurricanes) ignore state boarders.

______________________________

My home economics class in HS was really lacking.

And I think you bring up a good point about colleges cutting their own throats...I think this is an example of where the federal government can step in in a limited role.

__________________

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 11:00 AM

As always , the Government creates it's own importance .

A newly created Dept. for every crisis or public affairs , or the expanding Government control of the public .

This is no ones fault except the public who allows this to continue to happen ...

-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 11:23 AM

I am not advocating the creation of any new government. I am advocating to slim it down.

FEMA already exists.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 12:10 PM

Yes . Could it be nullified by the private citizens ?

People have grown to count on FEMA more then their regular insurance .

There are over 2 acres of FEMA built temporary trailers build after Katrina for the victims .

Why weren't these trailers moved to the Northeast when the first warnings of Sandy hit the air ways ?

They sit where they remain , either forgot or useless .

-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 12:16 PM

Becasue when FEMA was moved under the department of homeland security, it was poorly administered.

And that is a good point. I think they can develop a mobile temporary housing fleet.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 12:26 PM

"The problem with the national guard is that disasters (like hurricanes) ignore state boarders [sic]."

Yet, each state has its own National Guard, and has the ability to request aid either from other states if their own is overwhelmed, of from the federal government if needed.

The problem is, the availability of federal assistance has resulted in many states turning there first instead of lifting themselves by their own bootstraps.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 1:37 PM

"Why weren't these trailers moved to the Northeast when the first warnings of Sandy hit the air ways ?"

As I recall, they've been adjudged to be unhealthy due to toxic fumes emitted by the construction materials.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 1:39 PM

Using the State National Guard for natural disasters has many problems. The biggest of which is that their membership would come from the area being hit.

How many National Guards personal work as police officers, firefighters, nurses, EMTs and other vital occupations for their day jobs? The can only be in one place at one time, so either you have a short-handed National Guard response or you are pulling emergency resources out of communities where they are needed and making the situation worse.

Even those National Guards members who do not work in a vital job are going to be distracted from performing their duty when their own family & friends are in the disaster area. People who don't know whether their children are safe and sound often are not going to be in a clear enough mental state to help others.

It makes much more sense to send in extra help from states that avoided the disaster altogether. Their units will be complete and they will be able to focus on the necessary tasks at hand.

-- Posted by Nil on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:03 PM

If the sequestration and tax increases occur on January 1 it will cost me at least an additional $4,000 in taxes next year.

I would pay that to see the social programs get cut by 1/2 Trillion. I hope no one backs off. We'll see the Greece riots in 1 year instead of 10 years. Announced today - 1 in 5 Americans is on MediCAID - over 70 million americans.

I don't want to pay more taxes for Solyndra and campaign payback by Obama but would spend that much just to see 1/2 the people on welfare and medicaid with "Obamaphones" get their due.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:22 PM

I haven't thought of a better one yet - no time. I was thinking of a picture of the Titanic sinking... or maybe the riots in Greece from the austerity cuts, or maybe Obama in his Acorn suit. Still searching...

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:17 PM

If the sequestration and tax increases occur on January 1 it will cost me at least an additional $4,000 in taxes next year.

I would pay that to see the social programs get cut by 1/2 Trillion. I hope no one backs off. We'll see the Greece riots in 1 year instead of 10 years. Announced today - 1 in 5 Americans is on MediCAID - over 70 million americans.

I don't want to pay more taxes for Solyndra and campaign payback by Obama but would spend that much just to see 1/2 the people on welfare and medicaid with "Obamaphones" get their due.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 2:22 PM

So Obama is at fault for Reaganphnoes.

I would vote to drop medicate for anyone over the age of 18.

Unless you drop out of school. Then lower it to 16.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:25 PM

On another thread- Obamaphones have more than doubled from $722 Million in 2008 to $1.6 Billion in less than 4 years under Obama. And the rules have been relaxed so you can have a private phone and still get an "Obamaphone".

Now, your thoughts on sequestration and tax increases on January 1st, 2013?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:32 PM

On another thread- Obamaphones have more than doubled from $722 Million in 2008 to $1.6 Billion in less than 4 years under Obama. And the rules have been relaxed so you can have a private phone and still get an "Obamaphone".

Now, your thoughts on sequestration and tax increases on January 1st, 2013?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:32 PM

Actually, the rules have been tightened.

And just becasue I am not ignorant as to how the Reaganphones got into the market does not mean I support it.

I beleive in hodling people accountable more than I do moving blaim to make myself feel better.

I blame Obama for not ending the program.

It is wasteful spending.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:56 PM

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:32 P

And also, why don't people blaim the cell companies for manipulating the law and taking advantage of the poor people?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:58 PM

Dug all of us should go get a phone or get some of that as they put it "Free Obama Money". Rational Thought could you explain how the cell phone companies are manipulating the so called poor people I believe the middle class working and small business people are the ones being taken advantage of by carrying the poor and the rich that is who you should feel sorry for.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:25 PM

Dug all of us should go get a phone or get some of that as they put it "Free Obama Money". Rational Thought could you explain how the cell phone companies are manipulating the so called poor people I believe the middle class working and small business people are the ones being taken advantage of by carrying the poor and the rich that is who you should feel sorry for.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:25 P

Sure.

The cell phone got permission to use this fund.

At that point, they simply signed up as many people as they could. They didn't verify who needed them, just simply mass marketed them to sign up for the phones. Then stuck Uncle Same with the bill to sort it out.

So yeah, minipulating a whole class of people to milk money out of uncle sam.

But yet, we whine about the poor dude who thinks he is simply getting free phones, but the cell phone companies were raking in millions.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:33 PM

I am not ignorant as to how the Reaganphones got into the market does not mean I support it.

I beleive in hodling people accountable more than I do moving blaim to make myself feel better. I blame Obama for not ending the program. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 3:56 PM

I wouldn't say you are ignorant. I would ask you to read these next two lines and explain:

"I beleive in hodling people accountable more than I do moving blaim to make myself feel better. I blame Obama for not ending the program."

You don't believe in blaming yet you blame? I'm confused...

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:34 PM

You don't believe in blaming yet you blame? I'm confused...

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:34 PM

I can see how that is confusing. I will clarify.

Many conservatives are incorrectly blaiming the creation of the cell phones on Obama. Many conservatives don't really care if they are right. They would rather think Obama created them instead of admitting their own officials might have a dirty hand in them. So I don't blame Obama for the phones hitting the market....

With that said, I like Truman and his "buck stops here approach"

I don't blame Obama for the orinial creation of the phones....I blame him for doing nothing to stop it.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:45 PM

I never said Obama created it. Who did say - explicitly - that Obama created it? Where? Facts please.

I DID say that under Obama the cost more than doubled. If you're troubled by that, sorry. It's a fact and I can't help you with that.

When did anyone, anywhere say Obama created the cell phone program? I'll await your response. I've seen numerous posts that say he didn't create it. Did you just imagine this?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:49 PM

"And also, why don't people blaim the cell companies for manipulating the law and taking advantage of the poor people?"

I do. But, it is a federally-administered programme supported by federally-imposed taxes. Ergo, the federal government has the ultimate responsibility for oversight thereof. The buck stops there, not at the desk of some telecom's CEO.

The change to cell phones did not change the eligibility requirements, which are set the government. It is the government's responsibility to see that those signing up are qualified.

As noted earlier, participation in the programme began to skyrocket after 2009. If the FCC expressed concerns about it or attempted to correct it before certain Republican Congressmen began to make an issue of it I do not know. I only know that the response of the Obama administration, as has been their response on other issues, was to blame President Bush. You've participated in that, even casting it all the way back to Ronaldus Maximus.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:53 PM

I never said Obama created it. Who did say - explicitly - that Obama created it? Where? Facts please.

I DID say that under Obama the cost more than doubled. If you're troubled by that, sorry. It's a fact and I can't help you with that.

When did anyone, anywhere say Obama created the cell phone program? I'll await your response. I've seen numerous posts that say he didn't create it. Did you just imagine this?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:49 PM

Maybe I did.

So which part is Obama's fault then?

Because as the cost grew, changes were made last year to stop decrease it and lower the fraud and waste.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:14 PM

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:53 PM

Actually, none of that is accurate.

I don't blame bush. I really don't blame reagan for it getting to the point its at. He could not have forseen the explosive growth of wireless communication. I do blame Obama for not stopping it. I am simply not happy with slowing the spending on it.

I never completly blamed reagan for it, just simply showing the origns of the program and how both parties, when mixed with corporate greed, have driven costs. This is also a microcosm of our healthcare system as well. I simply pointed out that it was a Reagan Program that started it.

Like I have been saying all along. Lets not bury our heads in the sand and point our finger at Obama, lets do the research, find out how it started and fix it.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:21 PM

I looked at the cell phone explosion as a high PR money grab using convience .

They are in their 5th generation and will be in their 6th before a person can use all of the functions of their 5th .

One day soon , computers and TV's will be obsolete , every thing , c-phones , will be on one device .

TV's and computers will be a dime a dozen ...

-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:17 PM

I am not sure I agree with that.

I want a huge screen for my TV, but I want a small phone. I don't see a compromize there.

While I do see seemless transitions between the two, I still see a need for multiple devices.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:23 PM

Lets increase those food stamps some more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLmAYQtFI...!

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:34 PM

Gotta go.

Good discussions today.

Have a great weekend everybody.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:47 PM

Reaganphones? Did I miss something? Who the heck knew what cell phones were in the early 80's. They were around I'm sure but only a few had them.

Posted this comment elsewhere but bears repeating..

Worst thing you can hear after a disaster such as Katrina and Sandy is " I'm from FEMA and I'm here to help".

-- Posted by dab1969 on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 5:56 PM

dab1969, Seens not that long ago we had 13-15" rain and my property had water on it higher than ever. Indeed some folks in my area did suffer flood damage to houses etc. My house was not affected but my garage/shop had about a foot of water in it and I had a lot of stuff sitting on the floor.

The FEMA guy showed up wanting to sigh me up and I guess I was rude to him [kinda ran him off] and regret that. Just something demeaning to me to have some wet behind the ears gubment kid telling me I needed his help.

My neighbor signed on and got a pretty good check for stuff that got wet, dried out and still worked fine. The swimming pool pump was fine and the garden tiller that got it's feet wet worked ok too.

Yeah, my weed eater and chain saw and a few other things took a little cleaning and oiling but knowing I ain't a mooch..priceless!

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 12:41 AM

"Actually, none of that is accurate."

It's all accurate. Show me otherwise.

The programme did not give away free cell phones for 24 years. Then it did, and participation skyrocketed. That can't be disputed. Mr. Obama was president when it skyrocketed. That also cannot be disputed. The programme has, since 1996, been funded by the Universal Sercive Charge, which the government claims to be a 'fee' imposed on telecom providers but, if you're like me, it is applied to my bill and paid they consumer. Some telecom companies may 'eat the cost' and not pass it directly to their customers, but I don't know who they are.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 7:52 AM

Since making telephones available is seen as important to the gerneral welfare of the poor and the ability to recieve TV reception was deemed a government responsibility, what's next?

GPS service should be installed at government expense on all privately owned cars to properly guide folks on welfare or with children participating in school lunch programs, food banks, etc to insure they are able to get to the voting precinct. Government calls to the free cell phones could alert people of where to get gasoline required to get to the polls with sample ballots and Forward instructions included.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 12:10 PM

Wheels, One was saying now she wouldn't be a second class citizen with Obama's win. I say she is still a no class in a class of classless.

My young friend when explaining her first voting experience said she left a lot of stuff blank because the ballot didn't indicate if it was a vote for a republican. [Judges and amendments I suppose] She sure didn't want to vote for anything republican, that was covered in high school.

She's still one of my favorite youngsters though as she is smarter and more respectful than the average teenager and I have high hopes of her learning to think for herself.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 1:27 PM

Wheels, We know real life face to face conversations are different from these forums in that we are generally more forgiving when folks display ignorance.

All I try to do is drop in little tid-bits that may peak an interest in tuning in to the world we live in just a little bit. And that is asking a lot these days when younger folks like my friend are too busy texting to hear what I'm saying to them.

I think I did impress upon her that the car her mom arranged for her to make payments on was going to cost more than the payments.

She told me she figured up how many days she needed to work to to not only make the payment but have gas insurance etc.

I don't think she took me seriously when I told he she ought to see the banker and see if she could sell the car at a $3,000 loss and get a $5,000 loan for a $2,000 car that could be paid for in 24 months instead of 6 years. :)

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 11:22 PM

Interesting comment from our pastor this morning. The Catholic church has decided to

a) refuse to pay for insurance coverage for abortion medicine and contraception

b) refuse to pay the massive penalties that Obama has decided to levy on the church if they don't pay for the abortion/contraception medicine and procedures

c) refuse to shut down hospitals, schools and other church operations

d) have priests, bishops, clergy - whomever - go to jail before giving. We'll see where this ends up.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Nov 11, 2012, at 12:05 PM

That's great as Catholics don't use contraception as proven by the decline in the number of children they produce. The Catholic Church is on the decline as well as followers step away (and fewer children produced). Related - probably not. Keep your head in the sand, because the angry old white men have it under control and the nuns have no idea what they are talking about.

Peace be with you and your spirit.

-- Posted by Username1 on Sun, Nov 11, 2012, at 12:24 PM

I'm at peace. You still disparage white men and that is racist. You need to look in the mirror. Only a far-left liberal believes that only white-men can be racist.

It's telling that priests who are willing to go to jail for their beliefs is summarized in your eyes as angry white men. Again, more racism. Another sign that the so-called "educated" can take a 1st amendment right - to freedom OF religion - and play the race card.

You can't imagine what religious belief and faith is. And yet you speak of "spirit"?

You see, despite your hate I don't hate women and disparage them - old, white, whatever. You seem incapable of the same. It's your problem, not mine. But very telling.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Nov 11, 2012, at 12:30 PM

Make that a feminist racist Catholic. wink!

Hey dug, when I look in the mirror, I see a white woman. I've never said only "white-men can" be racist - that's another one of YOUR assumptions. But I WILL call them as I seem them. And I think it's telling that nuns are willing to take on the white men of the Catholic Church. I guess they have no religious belief, faith or "spirit".

It seem you can't accept facts, unless they are your own.

-- Posted by Username1 on Sun, Nov 11, 2012, at 1:29 PM

It seem you can't accept facts, unless they are your own. -- Posted by username1 on Sun, Nov 11, 2012, at 1:29 PM

It seems you can't accept religion - even when it's not yours. The exact same approach the communists and nazis took.

The catholic church in no way, shape or form affects you unless you choose to practice the faith. if you practice the faith, you must conform to the faith's beliefs. Kinda sucks doesn't it?

Neither the Catholic church or any white man has ever kept you from getting an abortion or using birth control. Ahhh... but that's not enough for a totalitarian like yourself. You've got to force those who don't agree with you to believe. This debate is about forcing a religion to pay for YOUR beliefs. And your response, again, is racist / sexist?

Go read your comments. Unbelievable.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Nov 11, 2012, at 9:13 PM

A very limited number of nuns have taken on the Church. There have always been liberal orders of both Priests and Nuns. Membership in the liberal orders is falling faster than is the membership in the more conservative ones.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/d...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinio...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 8:19 AM

"Interesting comment from our pastor this morning. The Catholic church has decided to

"a) refuse to pay for insurance coverage for abortion medicine and contraception

"b) refuse to pay the massive penalties that Obama has decided to levy on the church if they don't pay for the abortion/contraception medicine and procedures

"c) refuse to shut down hospitals, schools and other church operations

"d) have priests, bishops, clergy - whomever - go to jail before giving. We'll see where this ends up."

I've not heard that yet, but that is the appropriate response.

We honour martyrs and saints because there are so few of them. We give medals to bravery because it is rare. I am glad to see the Church standing up for what is right. That is the thing that established Jesus as a leader, and the Church as a major religion.

To go along with the 'morality of the day' requires no courage of conviction. The need for people to stand up is ever-present.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 9:22 AM

"...I am glad to see the Church standing up for what is right."

I would define the Church's decision as another solution searching vainly for a problem.

Medical insurance paid for by employers is and has always been part of the employees total compensation. What the individual employees do with there salaries is really none of the Church's business. But there is a simpler solution.

For example if the employee's health insurance premium is, say $200 per month, why should not the Church, increase the employees pay by $200 and stop paying for insurance entirely. The employee could then go to the State Insurance Exchange and get a better deal on his or her own.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 9:42 AM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 9:42 AM

I thought you were dead. :-)

=============================

What the individual employees do with there salaries is really none of the Church's business. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 9:42 AM

And what the Church wants to offer in insurance - copays, deductibles, coverages (health/dental/vision) was not the governments business until Obama. As for "stop paying for insurance entirely" - isn't that illegal under Obamcare with large penalties?

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 9:48 AM

"I would define the Church's decision as another solution searching vainly for a problem."

Of course you would.

"Medical insurance paid for by employers is and has always been part of the employees total compensation. What the individual employees do with there salaries is really none of the Church's business. But there is a simpler solution."

But, it's not the employee's salary. It's a benefit provided by the company. Traditionally, the company gets to decide how much and in what manner it provides benefits, which are different from salary.

What a person does with their money is their business. What they do with mine is my business.

"For example if the employee's health insurance premium is, say $200 per month, why should not the Church, increase the employees pay by $200 and stop paying for insurance entirely. The employee could then go to the State Insurance Exchange and get a better deal on his or her own."

Why should they do that? They can continue to provide health coverage that does not pay for contraception and abortion. Many Catholic institutions are self-insured rather than purchasing health insurance from an outside source, making that possible. Some that are not self-insured dropped prescription coverage from their plans, eliminating the problem.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 10:26 AM

"It's a benefit provided by the company."

But it is directly tied to the employee, were there no employee, that benefit would not be paid.

It is like vacation pay and holiday pay, benefits that are part of the total compensation package.

---------------------------

"Some that are not self-insured dropped prescription coverage from their plans, eliminating the problem."

If that is their solution, and they willingly reduce their employees pay, that's their business and the Church is clearly free to treat employees however it wants to.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 11:15 AM

"But it is directly tied to the employee, were there no employee, that benefit would not be paid."

So? The same can be said of heat and lighting. They are provided for the safety and convenience of the employee. Were there no employees, there would be no need to heat and light the employees' workspace. The does not make the cost of heating and lighting a part of the employees' total comensation package.

"It is like vacation pay and holiday pay, benefits that are part of the total compensation package."

Note the word 'pay' in both of those benefits. They are part of the salary that is paid. In essence they are pro-rated compensation. They are also taxed as part of the employees' compensation. Health benefits are not. They are cost to the company, and are part of the overall operating expenses.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 11:34 AM

"If that is their solution, and they willingly reduce their employees pay, that's their business and the Church is clearly free to treat employees however it wants to."

It does not 'reduce the employees' pay', because the benefit is not a part of the pay package. They can reduce the benefit, which many employers do routinely as the cost of providing those benefits rises. In this case, the cost is moral rather than financial, but it is an increased cost which they are unwiling to shoulder.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 11:37 AM

"Under Common's plan as I see it... the government would have another $200 to collect taxes on."

That is correct. It is not currently taxed as income, since it is not income. But, if the employer pays it so they may purchase insurance on their own, then the government will want its share of this new income source.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 11:38 AM

"...the cost of heating and lighting a part of the employees' total comensation package."

That's correct, indirect/overhaed costs (such as heat, light, rent, vehicles, etc.)are not part of an employees direct compensation, but they are part of the billing rate of what a company charges clients for an employees labor. Health benefits are directly related to the individual employee. That they are not taxed is an added benefit, not a reason to exclude them form the total compensation package.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 11:45 AM

"That they are not taxed is an added benefit, not a reason to exclude them form the total compensation package."

They are a cost of hiring employees, which is not the same as being a part of the compensation package. Such benefits are routinely re-evaluated and adjusted in nature based on their cost to the company.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 11:52 AM

"Frustrated by the GOP's growing use of filibusters, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a Senate vote in the new year to limit their use."

The Democrats pitched a fit when Republicans threatened to change the rule on filibusters during Republican control. It is hypocricy on the part of both sides to take opposing positions now that the shoe is on the left foot. The Democrat were staunch defenders of the filibuster when they were the minority, now they've apparently 'grown in office' and believe such obstruction to be wrong.

The so-called 'Gang of 14' spared the Democrats from being denied that power when they were in office.

I wouldn't worry too much, though. The Democrats couldn't accomplish much even when they held a much larger majority. Nor can they pass a budget, which requires only a simple majority and cannot be filibustered.

If the Democrats were serious about ending obstruction, they'd get rid of Harry Reid.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 11:57 AM

On the one hand, Republicans are excoriated for failing to compromise and work with the majority Democrats 'for the good of the country'.

On the other hand, Democrats refuse to allow Republicans to offer amendments to legislation or even to bring budget legislaion from the House up for a vote.

Makes sense to me!

-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 12:49 PM


Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account , enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Want to comment?

In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.